Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Nope: as regards evolution there are your personal misguided beliefs and then there is the reality of evolution and these are not the same thing, where the TofE provides the best current explanation, and where this explanation requires no 'divine guidance': your personal opinion is, therefore, plain wrong.

The fundamental problem you have is that you start by simplistically presuming 'God', which isn't even meaningfully defined never mind being meaningfully evidenced, and in doing so you then resort to denying established naturalistic explanations in favour of your favourite fallacies: in your case arguments from personal incredulity and ignorance.

The naturalistic explanation presumes that intelligently driven interactions with this universe do not exist.

But can you not see that the formation of this presumption in your mind is the result of intelligently driven interactions with your brain cells?

[Shaker]

The naturalistic explanation presumes that intelligently driven interactions with this universe do not exist.

Wrong. The naturalistic explanation presumes that intelligently-driven interactions with the universe do exist because they too are caused by naturalistic entities of matter-energy such as human beings. The naturalistic explanation ignores the so-called supernatural because it has no explanatory power, no methodology.

[torridon]

If the conscious awareness and free will of human beings can aim arrows and bullets to produce desired results, then our creator could also aim the radiation particles to produce the desired mutations.

So you have an alternate theory of everything in which things only appear to be natural but under the surface God is secretly running the show.

So this God creates a cosmos such that life evolves and speciation occurs but it is not qute going according to divine plan so he has to constantly interfere with it by precision aiming charges particles from deep space such that they alter the course of life.

Which kind of begs numerous questions : 

Why didn't he get it right in the first place ?

Why use seemingly natural processes at all if he is going to have to use his god magic to steer things in the end anyway ?

Why be secretive about the whole business, apparently only expressing his powers using 'quantum events' or charged particles from deep space so that noone can discern that these events are not entirely natural ?

If he uses this mechanism to bring about beneficial mutations why has he not also ridded our genomes of all the bad stuff, the thousands of heritable conditions still present in the human genome ?

Apart from whch, your scenario is insufficient - such mutations would have occurred naturally anyway, it is the selecting nature of the environment which determines whether mutations are conserved; so you would have to expand your rationale to say that God intervened in the environmental niches, altering the balance points and population dynamics and predator/prey relationships such that his divinely inspired mutations propogated through the population.

All of which leaves us wondering why this God is 1/ so secretive, and 2/ why didn't he just create things as he wanted them in the first place. 

[Alan Burns]

The naturalistic explanation presumes that intelligently-driven interactions with the universe do exist because they too are caused by naturalistic entities of matter-energy such as human beings.

And it all boils down to what ultimately causes an intelligently driven interaction from a human being.  Can conscious intelligent interaction really play any part in a deterministically driven universe?

[Gordon]

The naturalistic explanation presumes that intelligently driven interactions with this universe do not exist.

Don't be daft, Alan: ever heard of humans?

But can you not see that the formation of this presumption in your mind is the result of intelligently driven interactions with your brain cells?

You are over-egging pudding again, Alan, with another of your frantic but empty examples of theobabble using your favourite words and phrases.

[Gordon]

And it all boils down to what ultimately causes an intelligently driven interaction from a human being.  Can conscious intelligent interaction really play any part in a deterministically driven universe?

More fallacious nonsense, Alan: this time you're begging the question by presuming a 'cause' since you really want the answer to be 'God' (no matter what the question).

[Alan Burns]

All of which leaves us wondering why this God is 1/ so secretive, and 2/ why didn't he just create things as he wanted them in the first place.

I do not have the mind of God, but I do know He exists because He brought me into existence.  I can only speculate on what my perception of reality is, but I know there is a much bigger picture of reality which I can't see.  No doubt all will become clear when we reach our true spiritual home, but until then I simply put my trust in the One who created me.

[Nearly Sane]

I do not have the mind of God, but I do know He exists because He brought me into existence.  I can only speculate on what my perception of reality is, but I know there is a much bigger picture of reality which I can't see.  No doubt all will become clear when we reach our true spiritual home, but until then I simply put my trust in the One who created me.

'We're off to see the wizard, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz
We hear he is a whiz of a wiz, if ever a wiz there was
If ever, oh ever a wiz there was, The Wizard of Oz is one because
Because, because, because, because, because
Because of the wonderful things he does'

[Alan Burns]

More fallacious nonsense, Alan: this time you're begging the question by presuming a 'cause' since you really want the answer to be 'God' (no matter what the question).

The bible indicates that we were made in God's image.  So our power to cause events to happen in this universe is presumably from God who Himself has the power to cause events to happen.

[torridon]

I do not have the mind of God, but I do know He exists because He brought me into existence. 

That's just circular thinking. In effect you are saying 'I believe, why, because I believe so'. Some of us want no part in such lazy thinking; some of us don't bury unanswered questions under the catch-alls 'faith', or 'mysteries of God'. Some of us will continue to call out contradictory logic and call it 'wrong' as it rightly deserves.

[Gordon]

I do not have the mind of God, but I do know He exists because He brought me into existence.

You don't 'know', Alan, you believe.

  I can only speculate on what my perception of reality is, but I know there is a much bigger picture of reality which I can't see.

Me too, although I'm prepared to accept 'don't know' whereas you seemingly prefer faux certainty.

No doubt all will become clear when we reach our true spiritual home, but until then I simply put my trust in the One who created me.

More fallacious assertions, Alan: you do love your theobabble!

[Shaker]

I do not have the mind of God

Having the mind of Alan Burns would be sufficient.

but I do know He exists because He brought me into existence.

Explain the flight of fancy that gets you from your existence to your totally illegitimate use of the word knowledge in relation to the existence of God.

I can only speculate on what my perception of reality is

We all speculate on that very thing all the time.

but I know there is a much bigger picture of reality which I can't see.

So does any scientist. The salient difference between them and you is that they actively want to find out about it, and are never content with lame, sterile, useless, endeavour-halting, thought-terminating cliches such as "Something I don't understand did something I also don't understand by means I can't explain."

[Gordon]

The bible indicates that we were made in God's image.

Argument from authority.

So our power to cause events to happen in this universe is presumably from God who Himself has the power to cause events to happen.

More fallacious theobabble.

[Shaker]

Me too, although I'm prepared to accept 'don't know' whereas you seemingly prefer faux certainty.

I'm no psychologist but I do have long and wide experience of all kinds of people and it's clear to me that a truly desperate craving for certainty is at work underneath or at the back of Alan's beliefs. I've seen it before; maybe many of us have at one time or another. It seems to be typical of religion rather than philosophy, say, where unanswerable questions and open-ended inquiry are, if not actively liked or enjoyed, accepted as part of the endeavour. (Hence the phrase: "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered; religion is answers that may never be questioned").

[Rhiannon]

I do not have the mind of God, but I do know He exists because He brought me into existence.  I can only speculate on what my perception of reality is, but I know there is a much bigger picture of reality which I can't see.  No doubt all will become clear when we reach our true spiritual home, but until then I simply put my trust in the One who created me.

No, Alan, that's exactly what you don't do. Instead you frantically rummage around in science looking for proof to back up your beliefs. That's not trust, or faith, it's desperation. Just like your 'God made the pretty flowers for me' is a panic-stricken flight from facing up to what life really is, in all its harshness and all its glory.

[Rhiannon]

I'm no psychologist but I do have long and wide experience of all kinds of people and it's clear to me that a truly desperate craving for certainty is at work underneath or at the back of Alan's beliefs. I've seen it before; maybe many of us have at one time or another. It seems to be typical of religion rather than philosophy, say, where unanswerable questions and open-ended inquiry are, if not actively liked or enjoyed, accepted as part of the endeavour. (Hence the phrase: "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered; religion is answers that may never be questioned").

Yes, the problem with Alan's desire to approach his faith as a child is that he isn't one. What to do? Accept that God might not be as your forebears imagined millennia ago, or as you dreamed of when growing up? Look at new ways of understanding and experiencing? Accept there is no certainty?

Or stick your fingers in your ears and go la la la in the hope all the doubts and contradictions and discomfort will go away?

[wigginhall]

No, Alan, that's exactly what you don't do. Instead you frantically rummage around in science looking for proof to back up your beliefs. That's not trust, or faith, it's desperation. Just like your 'God made the pretty flowers for me' is a panic-stricken flight from facing up to what life really is, in all its harshness and all its glory.

Very good point.  I think 'frantically rummaging around in science' describes it perfectly.   It's odd how selective it is, as well.   Consciousness and evolution seem to be the current flavours for creationists.   I don't know why they don't do it with gravity - since this is poorly understood, maybe God is pulling everything downwards?  I suppose this just sounds daft.  But it all sounds daft.

[Shaker]

Very good point.  I think 'frantically rummaging around in science' describes it perfectly.   It's odd how selective it is, as well.   Consciousness and evolution seem to be the current flavours for creationists.   I don't know why they don't do it with gravity - since this is poorly understood, maybe God is pulling everything downwards?  I suppose this just sounds daft.  But it all sounds daft.

Ah, but gravity means physics and stuff, and that's hard.

Evolution is all about monkeys. Much easier.

Seriously, it's peculiar state of affairs when the mechanisms of evolution are known and understood down to the molecular level yet evolution attracts all the bone-headed flak that it does, whereas gravity, whose effects we can see all the time but is largely a mystery still (is it mediated by the graviton? If so, where is it?) gets a free pass.

To me the reason for the difference in approach is obvious. Gravity doesn't go to the very core of what a human being is and what it means to be a human being. Evolution does. Gravity has nothing to say about where we as a species of animal came from. Evolution does. Crucially for a certain mindset, gravity doesn't have the power to poke, prod, disturb or even - most dangerous of all - overturn cherished ideas of human exceptionalism, the specialness and distinctiveness of humans as the special creation of God. Evolution does and always has, and that's the root of the opposition to it. Creationists don't care about and don't go after general relativity or quantum theory or anything that doesn't impinge directly on their self-image. It's not important - it's all abstract, airy-fairy sciencey stuff. It's only when you start passing comment on egotistical matters that some people start taking it very personally indeed.

[Khatru]

We know that the forces of gravity cause the motions of the planets, but there could be several causes for mutations in DNA reproduction.  There is speculation that some mutations are caused by heavy particles of radiation.  Perhaps these particles were aimed with a precision needed to produce the required mutations.

So what are you saying?

That humans were magicked into existence?

[BeRational]

So what are you saying?

That humans were magicked into existence?

Is gravity a force?

[Shaker]

So what are you saying?

That humans were magicked into existence?

When you boil it down to the bones isn't that exactly what traditional theism entails? Even theistic evolution only kicks the supernatural fudge factor back a step.

[torridon]

We know that the forces of gravity cause the motions of the planets, but there could be several causes for mutations in DNA reproduction.  There is speculation that some mutations are caused by heavy particles of radiation.  Perhaps these particles were aimed with a precision needed to produce the required mutations.

So what are you saying?

That humans were magicked into existence?

No, silly, Alan is demonstrating what a good shot God is; he can hit a single DNA molecule with a charged particle from 1 trillion light years away and He never ever misses.  And that's how humans came about.  Praise the Lord.  Them bad mutations must be due to the Devil interfering with the trajectory.  Or maybe it is them gravitational wave thingies.

[jjohnjil]

Abiogenesis could not occur in this hostile environment without intelligently guided intervention.
The gradual development of life is entirely dependent on billions of beneficial mutations being generated by inherently destructive random forces, which would not occur without intelligently guided intervention.
The existence of human free will aptly demonstrates that intelligently guided intervention does occur and this universe is not entirely deterministic.
Conscious awareness in humans defies any materialistic description.
We are all living miracles.

Alan

I too have difficulty trying to imagine how a collection of atoms could have possibly assembled into a cell that eventually split and split again into a living, reproducing organism.  How it then could possibly, through random mutations, have evolved into something so amazingly complex as a human being.  Surely some greater power had to be responsible.

The problem then is, if it needed divine intervention for any simple living organism to come into existence from absolutely nothing, what far greater divine intervention was needed to produce that complex mixture of intelligence, power and compassion that we call God?

And then we are faced with imagining any even greater supplier of divine intervention that produced that one! And so on.

Unlike you, I cannot accept that even the tiniest change - a bunch of atoms forming a reproducing cell - is impossible without help, but never query how God just appeared. 

[Alan Burns]

Alan

I too have difficulty trying to imagine how a collection of atoms could have possibly assembled into a cell that eventually split and split again into a living, reproducing organism.  How it then could possibly, through random mutations, have evolved into something so amazingly complex as a human being.  Surely some greater power had to be responsible.

The problem then is, if it needed divine intervention for any simple living organism to come into existence from absolutely nothing, what far greater divine intervention was needed to produce that complex mixture of intelligence, power and compassion that we call God?

And then we are faced with imagining any even greater supplier of divine intervention that produced that one! And so on.

Unlike you, I cannot accept that even the tiniest change - a bunch of atoms forming a reproducing cell - is impossible without help, but never query how God just appeared.

The problem is that we can only imagine God in the terms of our own limited perception, hence the concept of "who created God?".  When Moses queried who God was, the response was "I am who am".  I interpret this as meaning "God is that which exists".  Our human imagination can't comprehend anything coming into existence out of nothing.  But neither can it comprehend how anything could have always existed.  The words infinity and eternity have meaning, but we do not have the capacity with our physical senses to imagine the reality of these concepts.  God has made Himself known to us in the most tangible way by becoming one of us in the human form of Jesus.  The true reality of God is totally beyond our comprehension, but most humans will understand that something must have brought this universe into existence.

[Nearly Sane]

God sings.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F8TRoMSG-5I