Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was mildly interesting. Her point(s) rely on belief in an interventionist God. Admittedly, most believers have that sort of God in mind but certainly not all of us do.
Her points address an interventionist god; they don't constitute an endorsement of one.
A non-interventionist god would not be a "guiding hand" in evolution, only one who directly or indirectly set the process in motion and perhaps has prescience of its outcomes. But since he is non-interventionist, I don't think outcomes would even interest him and in terms of his impact on creation it is the same as no god at all.
Her points address an interventionist god; they don't constitute an endorsement of one.
A non-interventionist god would not be a "guiding hand" in evolution, only one who directly or indirectly set the process in motion and perhaps has prescience of its outcomes. But since he is non-interventionist, I don't think outcomes would even interest him and in terms of his impact on creation it is the same as no god at all.
I disagree. I think God (I REALLY dislike that word but....) is capable of learning, of experiencing wonder, of being surprised - of evolving.
I can't decided if this thread is worth my time. It's like this woman is making up some kind of god and then saying it can't exit, because of how she views evolution.
I disagree. I think God (I REALLY dislike that word but....) is capable of learning, of experiencing wonder, of being surprised - of evolving.
What word do you really like then? I can understand you not liking the word and all the freight that goes with it, because a god is generally thought to be without areas of ignorance or any lack within itself that requires a growth process.
I can't decided if this thread is worth my time. It's like this woman is making up some kind of god and then saying it can't exit, because of how she views evolution.
Does that not constitute a "Straw-Man" argument?
She is not making up a god, she is addressing the interventionist, personal, creator-god as generally conceptualized -- and the logical incompatibility of that with evolution.
How is your god different from the one she is talking about?
If you are a True Fundamentalist then she is basically explaining why you must reject / deny evolution, so you should be cool with that. I have yet to meet a fundamentalist who doesn't reject theistic evolution, albeit for rather different primary reasons such as incompatibility with a literal reading of Genesis.
What word do you really like then? I can understand you not liking the word and all the freight that goes with it, because a god is generally thought to be without areas of ignorance or any lack within itself that requires a growth process.
She is not making up a god, she is addressing the interventionist, personal, creator-god as generally conceptualized -- and the logical incompatibility of that with evolution.
How is your god different from the one she is talking about?
If you are a True Fundamentalist then she is basically explaining why you must reject / deny evolution, so you should be cool with that. I have yet to meet a fundamentalist who doesn't reject theistic evolution, albeit for rather different primary reasons such as incompatibility with a literal reading of Genesis.
Why do you assume I am a fundie?
Why do you believe a personal God, who is involved with creation is compelled to micromanage the process of evolution? God is not compelled, but can chose to either leave it be, step into the process at certain points or guide it completely. God is not a mindless robot.
And for your reading pleasure:
I have come to understand that the first part of the book of Genesis as basically saying that God created everything. It should be noted that Genesis was written for the Hebrew mindset. We (westerners) are of the Greek mindset. By Greek, I mean we follow the Greek way of thinking and looking at the world. We want precise answers, facts, figures order of occurrence and dates, etc.
The Hebrew mindset is primarily interested in concepts, with facts and figures being secondary. What mattered to the Hebrews is that God created the Universe. The order and time of the events were not important to the Hebrew mind.
As I see it you run into problems applying Greek thinking to a Hebrew document.That is why the creation story does not make sense to the scientific mind.
Of course we always must bear in mind that God is not limited to obey the laws of nature. So, if God wanted to create the universe in six, 24 hour days He could.
Last edited by Mr5150; 08-05-2014 at 11:25 AM..
08-05-2014, 11:19 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Great article, another point that could be made is - at what point did 'mankind' get a soul that could be held accountable and 'fellowship' with God? Did homo Erectus or Neanderthal have this 'soul'?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
