I'm a Theistic Naturalist

[ericc]

I have not denied that God can perform miracles. Miracles are things that happen as a response to human activity or prayers. I’m talking about how the physical world functions as a process.

I am confused. So for Peter to raise Tabitha from the dead in Acts 9:40, is that miracle permissible in your naturalistic world? After all, all miracles are performed by God. He may choose to act though human agents. And if God choose to perform miracles why do you deny Him his active involvement in universe-making? You permit God to perform earthly miracles but deny his involvement in world-shaping?

Elsewhere you said

While i do believe in miracles i don’t believe that biological evolution at any time involved a miraculous cause. It happened naturally. I believe in abiogenesis.

However, Genesis did not say that God did the Big Bang and let it be. In each of the 6 days HE created something. Not the Big Bang or laws of physics. It would be an untruth for someone to create an explosion and when certain results came out of it in a random or unintended or naturalistic way claim credit for the creation of the by-products (which happened to be the world we live in and the life in it.) God claims he created:

Light
Heaven
Earth
Vegetation
2 great lights (sun, moon, stars)
Living creatures
Man

The difference between God making it and laws of physics making it is that of INTENT. Through divine intent , the world exist. Laws of physics do not have intent inherent in itself. The difference between God making it and laws of physics making it is capability. Laws of physics in itself posses no knowledge or data or any mechanism to create anything. Laws of physics can not create life, design life. The missing item is the Agent who can do it. There is not enough probability resources (13.5 billion years) to create life randomly or naturally. The odds are not there. You may be calling God a liar by virtue of claiming credit for something which he didn’t do.

So far no one has ever claimed how laws of physics are able to start life unaided with 13.5 billion years of time to play with. By the time the earth has cooled down enough , another few billion years has gone by (estimated to be about 4 billion years of cooling down). So you have 9 billion years to work with. Not enough probability resources to do anything significant. I am just surprised how you are so convinced natural processes can evolved life with no sources of data and capability/tools/resources to create it.

At the end, God claims HE created it. Refute it. God didn’t finish his job with a Big Bang. He continued to mold it, nurtured it. Created angels and us with souls. How do you figure souls in the naturalistic world? Laws of physics? Every human born comes with it. Even today.

 

[IWantGod]

You permit God to perform earthly miracles but deny his involvement in world-shaping?

Because God created a natural world that has taken billions of years to form. There is no point in taking billions of years if in the end God has no choice but to be a watchmaker.

However, Genesis did not say that God did the Big Bang and let it be. In each of the 6 days HE created something. Not the Big Bang or laws of physics. It would be an untruth for someone to create an explosion and when certain results came out of it in a random or unintended or naturalistic way claim credit for the creation of the by-products (which happened to be the world we live in and the life in it.) God claims he created:

I have no reason to think that genesis 7 days is anything more than an allegory. Its not a science book.

The universe including the galaxies and the planets within it have taken a vast amount of time to form

Light
Heaven
Earth
Vegetation
2 great lights (sun, moon, stars)
Living creatures
Man

What science has revealed forces me to reject your interpretation of scripture.

The difference between God making it and laws of physics making it is that of INTENT.

I am not saying that the universe is self-caused in an ontological sense. God causes the universe to exist. But there are also secondary causes which clearly exist. The universe forms according to the “nature” and laws that has been given to it by its creator.

This is what science has revealed

There is not enough probability resources (13.5 billion years) to create life randomly or naturally. The odds are not there.

An indefinite number of universes would do the trick.

You may be calling God a liar by virtue of claiming credit for something which he didn’t do.

Animals give birth to animals all the time. Is God a liar?

So far no one has ever claimed how laws of physics are able to start life unaided with 13.5 billion years of time to play with.

It makes no sense to create a natural world evolving for billions of years - that’s billions of years of chance events and natural causes - only to decide that designing some aspect of it is necessary. Why not just create a universe with everything including life all at once in the same instant instead of waiting billions of years or seven days.

It makes no sense. A naturally forming universe with no design makes more sense.

By the time the earth has cooled down enough , another few billion years has gone by (estimated to be about 4 billion years of cooling down). So you have 9 billion years to work with. Not enough probability resources to do anything significant. I am just surprised how you are so convinced natural processes can evolved life with no sources of data and capability/tools/resources to create it.

It happened by chance.

 

[ericc]

Because God created a natural world that has taken billions of years to form. There is no point in taking billions of years if in the end God has no choice but to be a watchmaker.

Whether there is a point or not is not determinable by you. Whether God decide to perform a miracle or not is his decision and not based upon whether there is a point to you or not. Don’t tell God how to create his universe.

I have no reason to think that genesis 7 days is anything more than an allegory. Its not a science book.

It is not a science book. But it is a claim of “who did it”. 1) Either God did it and he claims he did it or 2) God didn’t do it but claims he did it. So stake your position.

The universe including the galaxies and the planets within it have taken a vast amount of time to form

So what is the point? Vast only to certain people. To God, he is outside of time and thus is a non-issue for him.

What science has revealed forces me to reject your interpretation of scripture.

That may make you a scientist but that does not make you an expert in interpreting scriptures.

I am not saying that the universe is self-caused in an ontological sense. God causes the universe to exist. But there are also secondary causes which clearly exist. The universe forms according to the “nature” and laws that has been given to it by its creator.

This is what science has revealed

God created the universe with a set of laws which the material world operates in. However, no where did he constrain himself to the operation of these physical laws. You have made an assumption that God is bound by his creation. Since you accept miracles, you already acknowledged that God can and perform miracles of his own choosing. Scriptures is peppered with God’s intervention in the natural world. You do accept scriptures to be the word of God don’t you?

An indefinite number of universes would do the trick.

Totally a non-observable scientific whatif scenario-conjuring. Clutching at straws.

Animals give birth to animals all the time. Is God a liar?

What point are you trying to make? Are you attempting to rebut something I said? Because I fail to see the connection between birthing of live animals and calling God a liar.

It makes no sense to create a natural world evolving for billions of years - that’s billions of years of chance events and natural causes - only to decide that designing some aspect of it is necessary. Why not just create a universe with everything including life all at once in the same instant instead of waiting billions of years or seven days.

It makes no sense. A naturally forming universe with no design makes more sense.

We are not debating whether it makes sense or not. Personal senses are conditioned by your experience and education and environment. There are many people who wished God would create a world sensible to them. Of course sensible being what is apt for them. (Un)fortunately no one is telling God how to create his world. A Supreme Being has what it takes. No one else comes close. So proclaiming whether something make sense or not is subject to your current level of understanding. Tomorrow, you may change your mind, again.

It happened by chance.

That is not very enlightening. This word has been abused. Even when there is virtually no chance of chance operating in this short time frame of a few billion years, does it make sense to hold on to this unlikely explanation? This is “chance of the gaps” version. Scientists have done numerous computations and in the face of the odds against an event from happening, they understand they have no chance of defending it in a peer review. If you are a man of science, you would move on to the next hypothesis with a better explanatory power. Chance is a terrible thing to explain to a scientific panel. Proving chance is the culprit is another exercise. Desperation knows no bounds.

You maintained silence over the soul question. Is soul creation under the purview of the laws of physics or nature? Do human beings have souls or not? This is an important question so I hope you will attempt to answer it. It would be educational to many here to know how laws of physics or nature can explain creation of souls.

 

[inocente]

We have infinite digits so becoming more precise is never enough.

An effect so weak that it can never be measured isn’t of interest.

 

[inocente]

However, Genesis did not say that God did the Big Bang and let it be. In each of the 6 days HE created something. Not the Big Bang or laws of physics. It would be an untruth for someone to create an explosion and when certain results came out of it in a random or unintended or naturalistic way claim credit for the creation of the by-products (which happened to be the world we live in and the life in it.) God claims he created:

Light

Some say the original meaning is spiritual light, not photons.

*So far no one has ever claimed how laws of physics are able to start life unaided with 13.5 billion years of time to play with. By the time the earth has cooled down enough , another few billion years has gone by (estimated to be about 4 billion years of cooling down). So you have 9 billion years to work with. Not enough probability resources to do anything significant. I am just surprised how you are so convinced natural processes can evolved life with no sources of data and capability/tools/resources to create it. *

I wouldn’t put any faith in estimates produced by intelligent design fans. Whenever I’ve asked them about the level of uncertainty in their estimates, they’ve either gone very quiet or they’ve blustered, as the uncertainty is so large that their estimates are meaningless .

 

[STT]

An effect so weak that it can never be measured isn’t of interest.

It is if your system chaotic.

 

[ericc]

Some say the original meaning is spiritual light, not photons.
.

And I guess Night is dark matter?(Gen 1:5) Let’s just stick with day /night. We don’t have to do gymnastics here

I wouldn’t put any faith in estimates produced by intelligent design fans. Whenever I’ve asked them about the level of uncertainty in their estimates, they’ve either gone very quiet or they’ve blustered, as the uncertainty is so large that their estimates are meaningless

All the numbers however imprecise still lead to the conclusion that Mr Chance doing all those funky stuff i.e. life creation, reproduction, differentiation, specialization, DNA/RNA etc within 9 billion years of existence unaided is implausible. Mr Science need to utilize the scientific method to come up with the possible explanatory processes to explain how laws of physics/nature could get so much done in so little time, with no agents, data, (name removed by moderator)uts, knowledge etc. The challenge for them is identifying “how it is done” and how to do it in 9 billion years. Everyone is eagerly waiting for this breakthrough so that they can hold their heads/banner high.

Science eventually need to accept it is powerless to offer explanations outside of its realm i.e. immaterial realm.

It is increasingly rare for scientists to stick to the chance explanation. They tend to move to the “one day we will figure it out” explanation. At least that is more intellectual honest although I don’t see tremendous resources committed for this kind of research. And therefore, answers will not be coming anytime soon.

 

[inocente]

inocente;14267711:

I wouldn’t put any faith in estimates produced by intelligent design fans. Whenever I’ve asked them about the level of uncertainty in their estimates, they’ve either gone very quiet or they’ve blustered, as the uncertainty is so large that their estimates are meaningless .

All the numbers however imprecise still lead to the conclusion that Mr Chance doing all those funky stuff i.e. life creation, reproduction, differentiation, specialization, DNA/RNA etc within 9 billion years of existence unaided is implausible. Mr Science need to utilize the scientific method to come up with the possible explanatory processes to explain how laws of physics/nature could get so much done in so little time, with no agents, data, (name removed by moderator)uts, knowledge etc. The challenge for them is identifying “how it is done” and how to do it in 9 billion years. Everyone is eagerly waiting for this breakthrough so that they can hold their heads/banner high.

Imho intelligent design fans who’ve not even calculated estimates, but only have their opinions, are no challenge for the life sciences, where a number of Catholic scientists do know all the detail, and who can make the calculations, don’t find anything implausible.

 

[IWantGod]

And I guess Night is dark matter?(Gen 1:5) Let’s just stick with day /night. We don’t have to do gymnastics here

All the numbers however imprecise still lead to the conclusion that Mr Chance doing all those funky stuff i.e. life creation, reproduction, differentiation, specialization, DNA/RNA etc within 9 billion years of existence unaided is implausible. Mr Science need to utilize the scientific method to come up with the possible explanatory processes to explain how laws of physics/nature could get so much done in so little time, with no agents, data, (name removed by moderator)uts, knowledge etc. The challenge for them is identifying “how it is done” and how to do it in 9 billion years. Everyone is eagerly waiting for this breakthrough so that they can hold their heads/banner high.

Science eventually need to accept it is powerless to offer explanations outside of its realm i.e. immaterial realm.

It is increasingly rare for scientists to stick to the chance explanation. They tend to move to the “one day we will figure it out” explanation. At least that is more intellectual honest although I don’t see tremendous resources committed for this kind of research. And therefore, answers will not be coming anytime soon.

The universe evolved naturally, which involves chance. That’s what God wanted. Why do you have a problem with that?

 

[ericc]

The universe evolved naturally, which involves chance. That’s what God wanted. Why do you have a problem with that?

How do you know what God wanted? I have a problem when people think they know what God wants, market it as such but really is just a cover to market their imperfect, partial, inadequately researched personal views.

Yes, the universe evolved naturally but God did not limit his creation to his further involvement. God involved himself 3000 years or so when he told Moses to get out of Egypt. He involved himself when he came to live among us 2000 years ago, He involved himself when he said he will be with us till the end of time. It appears that your naturalistic world does not allow space for His involvement. Every human birth comes with an immaterial soul which nature has no answer and which I have asked you twice for your (name removed by moderator)uts. Consider this as 3rd time asking. Do you have a soul? Did laws of physics created it? Do you have a problem answering it? If you concede that the immaterial world does operate in the material natural world, you are in tune with Church teaching. Church is not anti-science but understands that God’s work is revealed in the natural world. If you understand that the human being is a fusion of material and immaterial , why do you have such great difficulty in recognizing that the universe only represents the face of the material world only and that there is another immaterial spiritual world out there which does not operate under laws of nature. Unwillingness to put down a wrongly conceived idea does not bode well for a man of science.

If you are truly interested in presenting your convictions, then be prepared to answer challenges and questions. You are the OP. You stated various claims. Please do defend them instead of avoiding difficult questions. And I do ask simple questions.

 

[IWantGod]

How do you know what God wanted? I have a problem when people think they know what God wants, market it as such but really is just a cover to market their imperfect, partial, inadequately researched personal views.

Yes, the universe evolved naturally but God did not limit his creation to his further involvement…

It makes the best sense of the scientific data that God created a naturally evolving universe. I have not argued the idea that God does not get involved on a personal level. I simply disagree with the idea of God being a mechanic that comes along every now and then to make tweaks to his design. There is no point in creating a universe that acts according to its nature if you are going to interfere with its natural process. It don’t make sense. I believe i have a rational God that does things for rational reasons.

 

[cfauster]

Relevant to this discussion might be the following two Catholic resources:

inters.org/laws-of-nature (scroll down to VI. Towards a Theology of Natural Laws)

and

Chance, By Design

 

[ericc]

It makes the best sense of the scientific data that God created a naturally evolving universe. I have not argued the idea that God does not get involved on a personal level. I simply disagree with the idea of God being a mechanic that comes along every now and then to make tweaks to his design. There is no point in creating a universe that acts according to its nature if you are going to interfere with its natural process. It don’t make sense. I believe i have a rational God that does things for rational reasons.

I think you still haven’t got it. God created the Big Bang. And the Big Bang does what it is suppose to do. Create cosmos/matter. And God molded this matter which you can read in Genesis. Light/earth/water/etc. There is no intrinsic information/technology in non-life matter that can start life. No natural process can do that. No laws of physics can do that. And God did his thing to put life into a lifeless world. If you disagree that God is required to create life, you can refute my stand. Plants, animals, human beings. Scientists delving deeply into the mysteries of the DNA can not explain how DNA ever got started, where did this chemically coded information come into being. The solar system is 4.5 billion years old. There are no natural processes within that time frame that can get life to a roaring start unaided. Even with more time, I failed to see how science can perform this miracle of life creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows that Darwinian evolution didn’t work as hypothesized. New species, new body parts arising suddenly. Where did that new information come from, who provided the blueprint of those parts, and how does nature know how to assemble those parts from the blueprint. If you have done your research, you should by now know the impossibility of clueless nature doing all that by itself unaided. Repeating the mantra that nature did it all by itself is not very helpful if annoying without backing your statement with some sort of evidence.

That is the rational part of God. He created matter. He created life. Both done in a systematic way in the right sequence. You don’t know how to create the universe. You offer no proof to show that world creation must be a single stage job. Genesis say it is multistage. 6 days of creation and not 1 day of creation. The author of Genesis could just as easily wrote that God created the world in 1 day and no one would be any wiser. But he didn’t. He wrote that God created matter first then life. And for humans, he did a special that day. He gave us a soul. And that soul creation continues to this day. You avoided answering the soul creation process again. This is a fatal flaw in your theory because your natural world have no capability to create souls and this is happening all the time. And the scientific process does not look kindly on theories that has no explanatory power.

I don’ t think I can add anymore to this since your defense appears to rely on “it doesn’t make sense” or “no point” statements without explaining why your “sense” or “point” should be the preferred explanation.

 

[cfauster]

“The dynamism of physical and biological realities, the plan and/or randomness in the biological processes, the appearance of human beings, the phyletic unity of the human race: all these subjects imply consequences from a biblical and theological point of view. Difficulties may arise both from science and religious faith: from science, whenever it claims to answer all the questions existing on the origins and ultimate meaning of humankind and the universe; from religion, whenever it shows the same will to be all-embracing up to the point of describing how the universe formed and the living species appeared. Rendering absolute methods of knowledge which were relative, has caused misunderstandings and incomprehension, which have often characterized the relationship between science and faith in modern times, notably in the 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century We should not make science say what it “can not” say because it goes beyond the sphere of its knowledge, as well as we should not make the Bible say what it “does not want” to say, because it is not part of its religious message.”
…
“Moreover, in the debate about chance or finality, we must make a distinction between the finality of specific biological structures originated by phenomena of self-organization and coordination … and finalism as a global project on a large scale.”

My summary: scientific descriptions/explanations involving impersonal law and chance can be excellent science, without being equipped to comment on the metaphysical questions, and vice versa.

The above quotes are from inters.org/origin-nature-of-man

 

[STT]

… There is no intrinsic information/technology in non-life matter that can start life. No natural process can do that. No laws of physics can do that.…

That is possible. Unfortunately we cannot discuss evolution here but you can search it on his own that how life emerged from simple form of atoms.

 

[IWantGod]

I think you still haven’t got it. God created the Big Bang.

Well actually there may be many universes, and our universe may have evolved out of another universe. I think it would make more sense to say that God created physical reality rather than the bigbang.

And the Big Bang does what it is suppose to do. Create cosmos/matter. And God molded this matter which you can read in Genesis.

We are talking about God, not a human being. Human-beings design, mould, and create things in sequences because they exist in time, and thats why creation is presented or symbolized in that manner in genesis. Why does God, an all powerful timeless being, need a bigbang to create matter just so he can mould it? Why does this molding take place in a sequence over billions of years? Why wouldn’t he just create a complete universe all in one instant if the plan is not to have it evolve naturally? Your point of view doesn’t make sense of the data. Your point view paints a picture of God doing things that are either arbitrary or unnecessary not to mention limiting on God’s power. Better to think that natural evolution is the means by which God has chosen to create. I think thats how a timeless being would create.

Light/earth/water/etc. There is no intrinsic information/technology in non-life matter that can start life.

I don’t see why God cannot create a universe that evolves naturally. Regardless of how it happens it is by God’s power.

 

[ericc]

That is possible. Unfortunately we cannot discuss evolution here but you can search it on his own that how life emerged from simple form of atoms.

No current hypothesis has anything solid to offer other than musings. Scientific musings is not science. Science is evidence-base with explanatory power. Just because I am pro God doesn’t mean I am anti-science. I am not. I just don’t like to see science being misidentified and credited wrongly.

 

[ericc]

Well actually there may be many universes, and our universe may have evolved out of another universe. I think it would make more sense to say that God created physical reality rather than the bigbang.

Actually nil. You offer no evidence of multi-universes. And you know it is impossible to observe other universes if any from your own universe. So let us not waste time on this fruitless direction.

We are talking about God, not a human being. Human-beings design, mould, and create things in sequences because they exist in time, and thats why creation is presented or symbolized in that manner in genesis. Why does God, an all powerful timeless being, need a bigbang to create matter just so he can mould it? Why does this molding take place in a sequence over billions of years? Why wouldn’t he just create a complete universe all in one instant if the plan is not to have it evolve naturally? Your point of view doesn’t make sense of the data. Your point view paints a picture of God doing things that are either arbitrary or unnecessary not to mention limiting on God’s power. Better to think that natural evolution is the means by which God has chosen to create. I think thats how a timeless being would create.

When God created the Big Bang , he created time. His actions on the universe hence became temporal. Hence in, for example, Genesis 15:13, he told Abram that his descendants will be oppressed for 400 years. God waited. Does God Almighty need to wait? Or is this wait required until other things are in place in the physical world? And a few thousand years later, God intervened to give us Jesus in earthly form. Roughly around 3-6 BC, in a place called Bethlehem, God became Man. God waited in time and space to get his Divine Plan in action. You can not deny that God’s actions in the universe is subject to time and location. God is outside time, but his universe is not. God can choose to be in time. From an infant Jesus grew to adulthood.

On your other questions on why God choose to create his world the way he did, that is his prerogative isn’t it? Whether it makes “sense” or “point” for you isn’t the issue on hand. My POV merely mirrors what he told us. I invent no new stuff. 6 stages of creation I have been told, and I have no basis to tell God that makes no sense or whether he need more or less time or not or whether he is prohibited from intervening subsequently. Obviously you have no benchmark for this “sense” and therefore you have no basis to dispense right and wrong judgements on universe creation. You have no knowledge of God’s Divine Plan either.

This discussion is also not about whether it makes sense to you or not. Your sense of appropriateness is dependent on your personal circumstances. I try to minimize personal biases if I can spot them and try to rely on available information that has been vetted through the centuries and by people who I deem to be competent and trustworthy.

I don’t see why God cannot create a universe that evolves naturally. Regardless of how it happens it is by God’s power.

Again you rely on your POV and not evidence. The evidence that we have is :

1. God created a world that operates in accordance to his design. We still don’t know much about his creation e.g. dark energy. So let us not impose our view how God’s world should be behaving.
2. He intervened from time to time and in daily souls creation. Examples were given of his involvement. Abraham, Moses, Jesus, miracles done in time and space etc.

You offer none. Deism is not what happened.

I think with this I shall end my participation in this topic. We have other topics to deal with I observed. And I haven’t forgotten your non-answer on the soul bit.

 

[IWantGod]

Actually nil. You offer no evidence of multi-universes. And you know it is impossible to observe other universes if any from your own universe. So let us not waste time on this fruitless direction.

I don’t need to offer evidence. Its a possibility that if were actually true would render your hypothesis erroneous just like when the theory of evolution rendered intelligent design erroneous. You feel the need to say that God created the bigbang. I say that we only need to say that God created physical reality.

On your other questions on why God choose to create his world the way he did, that is his prerogative isn’t it?

I am asking reasonable questions for which you have no reasonable answers. Simply saying its God’s prerogative simply amounts to you ignoring the issues that arise from your interpretation of creation.

This discussion is also not about whether it makes sense to you or not.

I would argue that this discussion is about what makes rational sense and you are essentially arguing that it doesn’t matter if your interpretation makes rational sense as-long as its consistent with what you think is true of your faith.

Well i would like to think i have a rational belief, and being a rational being i like to make rational sense of things. I don’t just take things at face value and pretend that its reasonable.

Your sense of appropriateness is dependent on your personal circumstances. I try to minimize personal biases if I can spot them and try to rely on available information that has been vetted through the centuries and by people who I deem to be competent and trustworthy.

Your arguments are full of bias. I’m only arguing what is consistent with the scientific evidence.

Again you rely on your POV and not evidence. The evidence that we have is :

1. God created a world that operates in accordance to his design. We still don’t know much about his creation e.g. dark energy. So let us not impose our view how God’s world should be behaving.
2. He intervened from time to time and in daily souls creation. Examples were given of his involvement. Abraham, Moses, Jesus, miracles done in time and space etc.

You offer none. Deism is not what happened.

I think with this I shall end my participation in this topic. We have other topics to deal with I observed. And I haven’t forgotten your non-answer on the soul bit.

This is a complete straw-man of my position. God’s personal involvement with his creation is not the same thing as God being a mechanic. You are saying that a naturally evolving universe is not good enough and requires God to make tweaks to his design.

You have provided us no real reason to think that your position represents actual reality

 

[IWantGod]

If its possible for something to happen naturally, no-matter how improbable, why bring God into the equation?