Design on a Dime

And I told you after your first post that you misunderstood.I don't want to go in circles.

Then maybe you should explain how I misunderstood.You asked:

quote:

---

Is God in any way part of the creation, guiding its progress? Message 1

---

I suggested that a God who builds a machine (designs a process) would be "greater" than a God who operates a machine. You brought up an artist who controls every aspect of the finished product. Who believes that about God?Edited by Ringo, : Splling.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Either God is transcendent. You are correct that few believe God micromanages the sex lives of ants or something, but one could still hold to a belief that all of nature is somehow connected and dependent on God in substance.

Would a freewheeling playwrite be a better analogy than an artist?One who defines the story, sets the scene and creates the characters but who ultimately lets the actors interpret those characters to the best of their ability and lets the story unfold within certai predefined parameters?All the worlds a stage........etc. etc.

Isn't that pretty much how we view the world normally? I wasn't suggesting that free will does not exist.I asked two questions. One was about how much planning went into the universe, which is somewhat important to those who do not believe humans are here by accident. You and Ringo have both given me variations on that question.The other question was whether or not God, in any way, = Universe, something which Buz for example overlaps in his theology, and which pantheism teaches. You really can't get a hold on it unless you stop seeng God as human, or superhuman, or just an invisible man.

Never occurred to me to think you were dispensing with freewill!!Was simply proposing that a playwrite writing for a set of ad-libbing and improvising actors was maybe a better anology than an artist painting a picture. Nothing more. OK but I am not sure how that fits in with what we 'know' about the universe. Namely that it had a beginning in the form of the Big Bang and that ultimately it will either collapse or stagnate into an entropic 'death'.
Or am I still confusing physical universe with the way you meant to use the word in the phrase ?In other words I don't think I get what you mean by ??

I believe the universe had a beginning, but I don't know that Buz does, and he probably doesn't make science the top priority.Either way, you can get into weird stuff, like a belief that the physical universe had a beginning, but that the underlying 'substance' of the universe is purely spirit, and has always existed. You are not so much confused how I meant universe, but how I mean God. The definition for pantheism may help.Oh, and stop pussy-footing around! I am not taking any of this personally, and they are not even specifically my beliefs. I do know I believe in free-will, so I would rule out scenerios which preclude it.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Well I do now see the context of what you meant but I am not sure that any of this (the definition) makes any real sense.
It strikes me that phrases like 'God is all and all is God' or 'God is the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be' are basically just superficially profound statements that don't really mean anything at all. Not even to the people that make them.They are the sort of thing that teenagers trying to sound impressively deep and meaningful might say after a few too many spliffs.Is the idea that God is an all pervading omni-consciousness without physical form? Again - What does that actually mean in practical terms? Is God really partaking in my decision as to whether to go to the gym this evening or sit at home and drink wine with Mrs Straggler? Does god experience my most intimate and embarressing moments? If so why? To what purpose? I may have been pussy footing a bit in general but I had genuinely not even considered the question of freewill until you said I had!! Playwrite seems to me to be a better anology for a god than an artist does. That is all.

I am not a pantheist, but it is a very prevalent belief in many cultures, and it has some merit. I don't know how conscious the God of pantheism is, but some may call it the Supreme Consciousness. It's a little different from an all-seeing God who actually cares what you and Mrs Straggler do. Remember, there are two Gods of Genesis, and the belief in a personal God is not IMO the only or main belief we should be dwelling on at this stage in human history.

The more I hear here at EvC and the more books I read on the nature of the universe etc. The more I think that there is at least an arguable case for some sort of deism.At the moment I would even go so far as to describe myself as a middling to strong atheist with weak deistic tendancies. (Yikes!)However I do find the idea of a personal God completely unbelievable and I don't get the 'all pervading consciousness' concept at all.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I'm not sure if I should be giving my answers. If you want, I won't post anymore here, I don't want to disrupt what you want to discuss. But, well, you did say "any" persuasion. I'm certainly not Catholic, Islamic, Hindu or any of the other popular persuasions. But I certainly do have beliefs about creation that include a deity that I know some people would describe as "God".But, if you find my input (beliefs) not going in the direction you want this thread, then I won't bother the discussion here. Instantaneous, I would guess at. What are they agreeing on now? 14.5 billion years ago or so? I see no reason to disagree with the experts on this issue. Creation is finished. There are some very strange phenomena that are not totally explained by people observing them. I generally attribute this to inaccurate observations. However, for those that are accurate, if they indeed exist, I would say it's evidence that something more is at work. Perhaps that something more is another level of the predictable natural world we have yet to understand. Perhaps that something more is another level of the unpredictable natural world we have yet to understand (like aliens or an alternate dimension of existance or something). Perhaps that something is some sort of supernatural being. Whatever it is, it's no longer "creation". I don't know. I'm leaning towards "none", since research by experts seems to be indicating that none was required. I know that just because no intelligence is required doesn't necessarily mean any was present. But whether or not the creation of this universe was intelligent has no bearing on my supernatural beliefs, and I find the "none" answer to be more aesthetic. Even if it was created by a God, I don't know how one could know the answer to this question without "knowing the mind" of that God, though. From what I've learned:1. None of it, on the macroscopic level. That is, anything you can see with your eyes, even with the help of a 100x microscope.
Also, we can have "unknown outcomes" without "chance" as long as we have intelligence. Prey escaping a predator may go left around an obstacle or right. The outcome is unknown. But the path is specifically chosen by the prey's intelligence, and is not random.2. At least some of it, on the microscopic level. That is, anything smaller than the level of atoms and molecules. I don't know, but I don't think God had anything to do with creating specimens. I don't think God was required for our current variety of specimens to become what they are today, so I don't see why God would need to. And if I was God, I don't think I'd waste my energies doing things that don't require those energies. I'm not sure. I don't think so. And I don't think God's required. But there is that small area of unknown supernaturalism. Ghost stories, UFO's, unexplained phenomena. Can it all be simply people with mis-understood observations and over-active imaginations? I don't know. I suppose it could. I don't think so. I think that there is definitely something there. I don't know whether or not that "something" is natural or supernatural, though. I don't even have enough information to make a guess.

Hi Stile,My keyboard has been sailing in and out of port, so I couldn't respond right away.You and Straggler are making me smile. I don't mind your input at all, but good food for thought, but I suppose not directly relevent to Christianity. Yes, but there are several ways in which one could see that.For a non-evo creationist, creation lasted some period of days. The actual 'creatures' were formed instantaneously in tradition, and the 'event' was more a collection of events which occured 'in the beginning', but in 'real' time.I have never totally believed in the 'real' time part, but I could easily believe that all of creation occured instantaneously, and
only appears to stretch out into billions of years in our time. Miracles? Paranormal events? Anything specific in mind? I am surprised so far to find two pretty hard core atheists willing to believe in something more, but maybe you have more of a problem with traditional religions? Hah, well obviously things do happen as a result of intelligence. Global warming? I think I should have asked whether a persn has a belief that all natural mechanisms were designed.I am not convinced that they are, they must just exist, like math. In that one way, I feel that my religion makes me intellectually dishonest. I don't believe in ghosts 'haunting', although I believe in apparitions, because I don't see why they need be here, in the context of my belief. Ghosts should be neatly packed in Purgatory. There are many unexplained things which I write off just because they don't coincide with what I believe.

Just because I don't believe in the Christian God, doesn't mean I don't believe in any God. I have no problem with tradition, I only have a problem with specific religions.That is, if a religion says "We believe in a God that created the world 6000 years ago", and it can be proven that the world has been around a lot longer than 6000 years... then I have a problem with that specific and do not belive such a God exists.Given the number of different specific Gods different people "whole-heartedly" believe in... I'm forced to think that they're all wrong. That is, there very well may be "a God", but I doubt very much that anyone on this earth has ever had any actual insight as to understanding that God. In any way. Both, and nothing specific in mind, no. I've never personally had any experience that would be classified as "unexplainable". But many people have. Most of those people are just fooled by the abilities of our bodies and nature, I think, anyway. But there are so many, so many different unexplained stories from so many different people. It makes me wonder if there isn't something actually behind it.Now, again, I have a problem with specifics. If someone says "there are noises in my house, it's my uncle's ghost haunting me". I wouldn't believe it was their uncle's ghost, and I'd even doubt that it's a "ghost" at all. But, the observation of something unexplainable remains. And the 3 categories of explanations remain:1. Something natural, and repeatable, that we don't yet understand.
(like a new scientific theory or something yet uncovered by human intelligence, or even simply something we do already know about and just didn't think that was the cause of the oise)2. Something natural, and non-repeatable, that we don't yet know exists.
(like aliens, or maybe a new species here on earth even that we don't know anything about, or maybe even another dimension or something)3. Something supernatural.
(like a God)Again, this God would have no specifics. Other than being behind these phenomena we have no explanations for. If we find an explanation for the experience, than the God obviously wasn't required. However, it may very well be that the God is required, and is behind these things. We also cannot assume that such a God is automatically behind every other thing we don't fully understand. I fully admit that this definition of God is rather puny and non-all-powerful as compared to the generally accepted definition. But, well, any God that may exist most certainly is not held to our mere definition of their existance Just to point out... this "possibility for the existance of God" isn't really why I believe in the possibility of a God. It's just an option for explaining such unexplained situations. When I do think about believing in a God, it always comes down to "because I want a God to exist". I haven't yet heard of any more-convincing arguement. This world has proven to me that I don't always get what I want. But that does not remove my desire, nor the possibility. And one thing this world has proven to me... is the power of hope. And the power of hope remains regardless of that hope being factually realized. As far as I can tell, there is no requirement for any of the natural mechanisms to be designed. To me, they appear to act as they must act. That is, they must all act according to the ways everything in this universe acts... according to the "laws of nature" we have been discovering. This is a good place to note that these "laws of nature" are only our human constructs of our human observations. That is, we describe nature, nature is under no contract to bow to anything we come up with.But within our descriptions of nature, if we observe that such-and-such a thing always happens. And we have absolutely no evidence that it's ever been any other way. It's dishonest of us to assume that it may have been different just because we want it to be so. I don't believe in ghosts either. I think "ghosts" are people's imaginations attempting to explain something that we don't understand. Now, the problem is figuring out if that "something" actually exists or not in the first place, and then figuring out what (if anything) it actually is.Personally, I do believe there is a "something", but I have no idea what it is. Too many stories of people-with-super-human-strength-in-times-of-extreme-stress and too many stories of people-surviving-somehow-in-conditions-where-they-shouldn't for me to believe otherwise.I fully admit that it's simply a belief. And if anyone can explain it all, I'll stop beliving. It's just... I havn't heard of any convincing explanation yet. No, not really relevant to Christianity. I'll keep posting answers to any question you or anyone else directly asks me, but I'll try to keep my thoughts from derailing the main focus of your topic.I think I just wanted to show that although I may hotly defend the possibility of an existance without God, I do not state that this is adamantaly such an existance. I just don't see any requirement for a God. That has no bearing on any God's actual existance, nor my beliefs in the matter. I do consider myself atheist though. It's socially simpler to say "I'm an atheist" than to explain this long-winded post when they amount to the same thing in most people's eyes anyway

No, not at all. I started out as an evolutionist and rejected notions about God. If I did it before, I could hypothetically do it again. Again, no. Its just that often times that science is tentative. We go on what we know or what we think we know. A simple illustration would be that it was a fact that the earth was flat. Why? Because it conformed to observation.Obviously that wasn't a fact, but it was certainly posited as one. History is replete with these instances.In defense of the Bible, there are many instances in reverse. Such as, but not limited to, say, prophecy concerning Israel. Many theologians had come to the inevitable conclusion that when the Bible said it would reinstate Israel, that it must have been metaphorical.Well, it wasn't. But can we fault them for it? No. They made a reasonable deduction based on simple observation. Nothing inherently wrong with that. But the Bible seems to continually be supportive of a more literal translation.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

And yet, if you ever bothered to find out what the theory of evolution was, you have gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal this fact from us.