The Greater Miracle

Hi Percy I don't think that you can dismiss that argument that easily. Firstly, rather than using the term God which is too limiting for this discussion, we should use a term like a creative intelligence. We see natural forces at work around us but do we ever observe a natural force that is capable of creating the first cell? To believe that the first cell came into existence by some chemical accident requires in my view a great deal more faith than the idea that there is a creative intelligence behind its existence, and this is after realizing the degree of fine tuning required to have a universe with a planet that can actually support life in the first place.However, we have to believe even more than that. We also have to believe that through a completely undesigned and unguided evolutionary process sentient beings have evolved from that initial cell. I can't muster up that much faith to believe all of that. (I guess I can be called a Theistic Evolutionist in that I accept evolutionary theory, but only because it is accepted by the vast majority of biologists and not because I can accept or reject it based on my own knowledge.) Once one comes to the conclusion that there is an intelligence behind this world, and this universe's existence, then we have already accepted the fact that there was at least one so-called miracle. If this intelligence is capable of creating all that we see then maybe other much simpler miracles, such as a resurrection, don't seem quite so unlikely.Also it would seem to me that if there is an intelligence responsible for our creation it seems likely that this intelligence will more likely than not have an ongoing interest in what is happening with his creation.

Not at all. Let's say that science can come up with an explanation for the existence of the first cell. Let's say that science can even reproduce by experiment the creation of a cell. That still does not explain "why" it happened. For that matter; why is there something instead of nothing?Just as in the case of evolution, where there is sufficient evidence to explain a process of what happened, it has nothing to say as to "why" it happened. I believe that the evolutionary process was at the very least designed to happen in the manner that it did. (I also believe it was guided but that isn't the point.) Just as in the watch example. If science can explain how abiogenesis happened then great, but it still doesn't explain why it happened.To say that abiogenesis and/or evolution happened without any external influence is just as much a matter of faith as to say that it was.

There always has to be a why. Let's go back to abiogenesis then. The first cell had to come about for some reason. The naturalist explanation denotes the reason as being, (as near as I understand it), that it happened by chance. (This is still true even if they can come up with a scientific explanation of "how" chemicals came together to form the first cell.) That is an answer as to "why" it happened, but as it can't be tested scientifically it is a philosophical or theological conclusion, just as is the conclusion that it happened because of a creative intelligence.It is my contention that the latter makes more sense of this world than the former. You hold the opposite view. Both are a matter of faith as neither of us can prove that we are right.

That is your assertion, and it is relevant. How is that statement scientific? Show me the proof.

To break it out Percy makes this statement.

quote:

---

it's just matter and energy obeying laws that control everything that happens. This is true of everything on the planet today, and it was true billions of years ago.

---

I want to see the proof that it is just matter and energy that control everything on the planet.You say:

quote:

---

The evidence is in spectra from galaxies ten billion light years away. Though red shifted, they are identical to spectra seen in the lab. That is most parsimoniously explained if the physics, and, therefore, chemistry then is the same as it is now. Electrons captured and released photons then as they do now. Water formed then as it does now. Amino acids formed then as they do now.

---

There is nothing there to disagree with, but how does that prove that there is no initiating or guiding force behind all of those processes. You simply take on faith that there is nothing else.

quote:

---

As you assert, it is unreasonable to assume life emerged of a piece. But the reasoned assumption then turns to life having begun simply; not life having been created by the most complex being possible.

​

Proto-life would likely have been a humble affair: no marching bands or horns triumphant. Just a common bit of chemistry. Some bit of chemistry that effected its environment it a way that increased the likelihood that it would happen again before being rent. Whole cells were a few hundred million baby steps down the road.

---

I agree that life may have begun simply, but I don't accept that it a more reasoned assumption is that life happened only by chance and without creative intelligence. In either case both of us are making assumptions and both of us have faith in our strictly non-scientific conclusions.

You believe that all of creation came about strictly through a materialistic process. You agree that you can't prove it so you have to take it on faith that you are correct. I can go through the same old points about the fine tuning of the universe, the complexity of life of all kinds, the fact that we have emotions, the fact that we can be altruistic etc. but you've heard it all before and you reject that as sufficient evidence. That's fine but I find that evidence sufficient to maintain that it is more reasonable to assume an intelligent creator than it is to assume a strict materialism. I kinda imagine you're going to disagree.

I accept your point about proof, but I wonder how many times that I've read on this forum that there is so much evidence for evolution that it is no longer a theory.As for there being no evidence for the seen and unseen forces I disagree. The fact that we, this world, and this universe exists is evidence. We come to different conclusions about the evidence but it is still evidence. If an alien were to examine a car, (without being able to observe us), he would be able to discern something about us through our creation, (if he concluded that it wasn't likely to exist by strictly materialistic forces).Is the evidence for a creative intelligence conclusive? No. Is the evidence for a completely materialistic creation conclusive? No. We just come to our own conclusions about "what is truth".I'm Christian but that doesn't mean that other religions are all wrong. I remember reading the first third of the "Book of Buddha" and being struck by how closely the first Buddha's teachings were to that of Christ. Sure there are differences but the major difference centers on the person of Jesus, and who He was. Let's just say that I believe that Christianity is more right than the others, realizing that what I believe Christianity to be is quite different from what many other Christians believe. Fundamentalist Christians would call me liberal and followers of the "Jesus Seminar" group would consider me conservative.

Well as I've stated before, I think it takes far more faith to think that all of creation exists by chance but we disagree. Simple as that.Interesting description of the world. I have no scientific background but I love reading about it through the likes of Greene, Hawking etc. What I read tells me that all matter that exists is made up of particles that are likely without dimension and that don't take on their function until they are measured or observed. I've read scientists that claim that time is an illusion and likely so is space. Apparently visible matter makes up roughly 5% of the universe. What is dark matter or dark ? For that matter what is energy period? This world is what we perceive it to be with our 5 senses.I recently read a book called "Quantum Enigma" by physicists which postulates that fundamental to everything is consciousness.We are quite happy to have scientists talk about other dimensions but if theologians talk of God's dimension it is quickly dismissed. It seems to me that the more we learn the more aware we become of how much we don't know.

I can't argue with the logic based on what we know based on materialistic knowledge. However when we say that the creator has to exist BEFORE creation and ask what existed BEFORE the creator we are assuming that time as we know it is the only way to experience change.Here is a quote from Julian Barbour. Barbour's web site

quote:

---

Closely related to this work is my study of time. Mach remarked It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive through the changes of things. Thus, time as such does not exist but only change. Much of my research has been devoted to the implications of this insight. I have shown how, alongside the relativity of motion, the notion of time as change can be built into the foundations of dynamics. In fact, this idea is contained in a hidden form within general relativity. Its potential consequences for the yet to be found quantum mechanics of the universe are profound. The quantum universe is likely to be static. Motion and the apparent passage of time may be nothing but very well founded illusions.

---

All of the sicence that I have read indicates that mathamatically time is symmetrical and yet we only experience it is one direction. Time is one of the things that we don't understand well at all. So when you say that God had to exist BEFORE creation and something had to exist BEFORE the creator you are making an argument based on time as we perceive it, which is likely a false understanding of what time really is.

Logically you make a good point in that when I talk about a creator I have no evidence to show that he/she/it didn't have to exist by chance. Your last statement in this quote does word it better. You Brits do have a way with the language. (Maybe it isn't called English for nothing. I'm not suggesting that intelligence and complexity exists without a universe. Personally my understanding would be more along the lines of a creator that exists alongside us in another dimension or universe. In a thread a couple of years ago cavediver described the universe as a projection,(sort of like Plato's cave), which would be somewhat consistent with that though certainly not the point that cavediver was making. I just read an interesting book by Gerald Shroeder of the university of Jerusalem that postulates that at their most fundamental, all particles are simply bits of "information". I don't mean any of this to be taken in a pantheistic sense. This argument though discounts the idea that any knowledge exists that isn't scientific. You can't test philosophical and/or theological evidence in a lab or a particle accelerator, but that doesn't mean that we can't discern valid truths that can't be tested scientifically. I love my wife. Can we verify that in a lab? No. People can draw their own conclusions about whether I do or not on non-scientific grounds. Of course I would agree that philosophical answers will never be as definitive as scientific ones. It is my contention that the pre-science common sense, intuitive notion that there is an agency behind the universe, was and isn't, a mistake. I don't see that science has in any way changed that point of view. I believe that we can learn about the creator through science, theology and philosophy.Loved the image and I would agree that what the brain perceives is not always the way things actually are. We are only considering a deist god at this point and yes my beliefs do go beyond that, but this is the logical place to start any discussion of a deity. If you don't agree that there is a likelihood of an intelligent creator then there isn't much point in going any further. I'm doing the best I can.

I have no problem with any of that, but I would say that theologians
were talking about other dimensions, (though not by using that term), long before science was.In the end, we all live according to some code of behaviour. An agnostic or atheist would presumably base it on what he himself believes to be right or wrong, (as influenced as well by the culture), whereas someone who adheres to a religious faith will use that specific religion to be the foundation of how he believes he should behave. (Sorry to keep being gender specific - it's just easier.) In the end we all, on faith, believe we have come to the correct conclusion. I stand by my statement. We have a intuitive sense to find out the truth of things. Science is part of that, as is philosophy and theology.I'm suggesting that in the end there is an ultimate truth. That ultimate truth must mean that science, philosophy and theology have to be 100% compatible. That can become a "god of the gaps" way of looking at things but science in general tells us different things about our world than does either philosophy and theology. I have no issues with any branch of science. The two writers that have had the greatest impact on my life have both been Brits. The first was CS Lewis and more recently it has been NT Wright. (The Bishop of Durham.) I recently attended a series of talks by John Polkinghorne, (another Brit) who of course is both a renowned physicist and theologian. In the end I guess those of in the colonies know to whom we have to look for wisdom and knowledge.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

How do you prove a negative. If I were to say to you that because we don't know what energy is so it must be God you would accuse me of going the "god of the gaps" route and you'd be right. We don't have any idea of what the limits of science are.What is energy? What is gravity? There are a few things to be resolved yet. Sure science will learn more and more about those things but it still comes back to first cause. As Modulus puts it, I still contend that it takes more faith to believe that the universe exists without an intentional agent causally responsible for this state of affairs than it does to believe in the opposite. See my post to Modulus. I have no problem with any branch of science but I do contend that science can't resolve all of the issues. Science for instance can't resolve issues surrounding miracles. Science will say that when someone dies, and that other than for cases of resuscitation, they stay dead. Christianity claims that Jesus was resurrected. This would be an unrepeatable event that occurred 2000 years ago. Science can say nothing about it. Yes I'm a Christian and I believe that there are no contradictions between science and my faith. As a matter of fact I see science as fundamentally a theological pursuit. I'm not completely clear on what you would consider that contradicts science. Does the resurrection contradict science. I would say no in that if it is true it is an unrepeatable event and not accessible to scientific investigation. I also don't believe that the concept of an intelligent creator is contradictory to science. In this case, if there is an intelligent creator science can only work at discovering how he/she/it created such as in the case of evolution.The simple answer to your question though is again yes. I keep going back to the basic question of whether or not there is a intelligent creator. If we decide, as I have, that such an entity does exist then I have accepted the fact that there had to be at least one miracle to have brought something into existence at the beginning of time. Once I have accepted that it makes the possibility of other miracles seem less miraculous and even likely.Science is the study of the natural. A miracle is a supernatural event and not accessible to scientific study, so science cannot resolve anything in favour of such a belief.

I know nothing of Bodhidharma. The Egyptian examples were all considered to be gods and not earthly beings. Resurrection mythologies were something else altogether.The same holds true for the rest and in fact Dumuzi-Tammuz was later translated by the Greeks into the word "Adonis.As for the resurrection of all at the end of time I'm not far from that. I believe that at the end of time there will be a renewal of all creation in which we will have resurrected bodies. Other than Paul the early Christian writers were hardly the rich and powerful. They also tell a story that is very different than what a first century Jew would have written. No shining light around a resurrected Jesus etc. Many first century Jews believed that there would be a resurrection at the end of time for all of them. They didn't believe that one individual would be resurrected in the middle of time. They would have considered that a Messiah, (who was the "Anointed One" but wholly man) might have come back as vision or something similar, but not in a resurrected body.
AS far as Nicea was concerned, they didn't write the stories they just put them together and wrote a creed to summarize them.The other resurrection stories were myths of unseen gods. I'll go with the Christian story.

Street lights are set up with a light detector. When it gets dark the street lights come on. Did these light come on on their own or were humans required for it to happen/I believe that God created and as a result without God nothing would happen. However once things were in place I frankly don't know how much God intervenes within His creation. I believe in the free will of all his conscious creatures so I would imagine that whether or not I skip lunch is a decision made on my own.

I was trying to point out that it isn't that simple. If God hadn't created nothing would happen.Once creation is functioning then I would agree that things happen on their own. How much? I don't know.