I'm a Theistic Naturalist

[STT]

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.

There is a lots of research going on in this area. This TEDvideo could be constructive.

 

[IWantGod]

St John Paul II wrote about faith and science: “Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”

In other words science frees us from the erroneous view that the world was created in seven days.

 

[ericc]

There is a lots of research going on in this area. This TEDvideo could be constructive.

It is not. Firstly, he is not talking about carbon-based life forms. He is proposing exotic evolvable non-carbon based cells. Our discussion is life on earth which are all carbon-based. You haven’t made any progress to explain how carbon -life on earth began and already you are moving the goal posts to non-carbon based life forms which do not exist. We are talking real science, not science fiction. There were a lot of “ifs” in the talk.

Secondly, crystals of non-carbon elements are not life and not demonstrated to be alive. If we do not know what non-carbon life is, how do you recognize one? Inorganic chemical cells were bandied around. But they are not living cells. Chucking lots of inorganic molecules into inorganic cells does not make them come alive. And you still need agents to chuck such stuff into those containers which were previously made by another intelligent agent. You can’t ignore these realities. Nature can not do all these by itself. You need intelligent agents.

Even if one day, someone managed to create artificial life, all it means is that you still need an intelligent agent to create it. 13.5 billion years ago, the only intelligent being around was God.

Thirdly, all these experiments conducted at the lab are all directed by human intelligence. The chemicals that were used, the artificial environment these experiments were conducted in , require intelligence and unnatural conditions. No random forces of nature contains intelligence to code anything. Period. No agents are present to act on the code as well.

Ultimately, they all fail, because, a pile of iron ore left on the ground can not become an automobile, even if left to random natural forces for eternity.

You really need to bring yourself down to reality and not be seduced by all these science fiction conjectures. Logic requires a basic understanding of reality that information to code life does not exist by itself. There must be an intelligent source and there must be an agent to act on the information to create stuff. Unless you can refute these as necessary realities, you will continue to grab at straws.

 

[tonyrey]

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

Did Christ’s decision to let Himself be crucified happen naturally?

Did your conclusion “If it’s possible for something to happen naturally, no-matter how improbable, why bring God into the equation?” happen naturally?

 

[IWantGod]

Did Christ’s decision to let Himself be crucified happen naturally?

Did your conclusion “If it’s possible for something to happen naturally, no-matter how improbable, why bring God into the equation?” happen naturally?

This is just a red herring. Just because God interacts with people on a personal level, doesn’t mean he is a mechanic or that intelligent design is a reasonable or tenable position. I believe he created a naturally evolving universe because he intended it to evolve naturally and all the evidence points to that. The evidence does not point to a seven day creation event and neither does the evidence suggest that God intervenes in the evolution of biological organisms.

 

[STT]

It is not. Firstly, he is not talking about carbon-based life forms. He is proposing exotic evolvable non-carbon based cells. Our discussion is life on earth which are all carbon-based. You haven’t made any progress to explain how carbon -life on earth began and already you are moving the goal posts to non-carbon based life forms which do not exist. We are talking real science, not science fiction. There were a lot of “ifs” in the talk.

Secondly, crystals of non-carbon elements are not life and not demonstrated to be alive. If we do not know what non-carbon life is, how do you recognize one? Inorganic chemical cells were bandied around. But they are not living cells. Chucking lots of inorganic molecules into inorganic cells does not make them come alive. And you still need agents to chuck such stuff into those containers which were previously made by another intelligent agent. You can’t ignore these realities. Nature can not do all these by itself. You need intelligent agents.

Even if one day, someone managed to create artificial life, all it means is that you still need an intelligent agent to create it. 13.5 billion years ago, the only intelligent being around was God.

Thirdly, all these experiments conducted at the lab are all directed by human intelligence. The chemicals that were used, the artificial environment these experiments were conducted in , require intelligence and unnatural conditions. No random forces of nature contains intelligence to code anything. Period. No agents are present to act on the code as well.

Ultimately, they all fail, because, a pile of iron ore left on the ground can not become an automobile, even if left to random natural forces for eternity.

You really need to bring yourself down to reality and not be seduced by all these science fiction conjectures. Logic requires a basic understanding of reality that information to code life does not exist by itself. There must be an intelligent source and there must be an agent to act on the information to create stuff. Unless you can refute these as necessary realities, you will continue to grab at straws.

Let assume that everything that you said is correct. Why then God didn’t design and create human at an instant? Instead He chose this strange way of creation?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m a Theistic Naturalist.

I believe that God created natural processes with the intention that physical reality should naturally evolve without interference from an outside cause.

The reason i have come to this conclusion is because it makes no sense that God would create physical processes if physical processes were not the tool by which he intended to create things. It makes better sense of our experiences to think that the world has naturally evolved.

This means that i reject intelligent design and accept the blind watch maker concept.

Jimmy Akin just wrote a piece which may be helpful:

A God of More Than the Gaps
catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/a-god-of-more-than-the-gaps