Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can Christians Believe That God Is Immanant In The Natural World?
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 84 of 88 (414058)
08-02-2007 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by anastasia
08-01-2007 10:29 AM


Re: Dreamers
various things i read this week in genesis describe living things as having the breath of god in them (and not just humans). this along with the idea that 'all nature sings the glory of god' is perhaps what you are discussing. the idea is that god put himself into his work. but i don't think it's necessary for miraculous immediacy in creation for god to have been intimately involved in it's fruition. as i discussed in my analysis of genesis, there's some portions of the text which discuss god as being very real and very present and very intimate, one who forms and works with his own very real hands. but formation is a process. this is the wonder of how science is completely separate from philosophy. the big bang could be a very accurate definition for how the universe began. but it's a definition completely separated from any idea of will. it's not that a will is unneccessary or impossible, it's just that it's not part of looking at the mechanisms.
the point is, i guess that a discussion of immanence really shouldn't be part of the discussion of the foundations of the universe and life. it's a separate issue. (even though jar will say that science is a sufficient why.. i disagree.)
but. rube goldberg is a better god than a conjurer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by anastasia, posted 08-01-2007 10:29 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by anastasia, posted 08-02-2007 4:37 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 86 of 88 (414087)
08-02-2007 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by anastasia
08-02-2007 4:37 PM


no. but the biggest problem behind the evc debate is that the assumption in the creationist camp (and among some evolutionists) is that the entire purpose of evolution is to disprove god.
then the discussion becomes this deathgrip between metaphysics and cold research. they're simply not comparable at all and to propose the argument is foolhardy.
the problem is that the argument shouldn't be made, but it is every day, right here. it's not you. your concept of the expression of god within nature, whether theologically flawed or not, is the heart of the issue. if nature happened through mechanism, that takes the magic out of it for so many. for me, it adds to the magic.
also, i look forward to having you.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by anastasia, posted 08-02-2007 4:37 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by anastasia, posted 08-02-2007 4:55 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 88 of 88 (414090)
08-02-2007 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by anastasia
08-02-2007 4:55 PM


whichever.
god is a complicated mistress.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by anastasia, posted 08-02-2007 4:55 PM anastasia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024