If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

Yes, a lot of people do believe that this is how God operates, but my question would be whether such doctrine can be reasonably extracted from the Bible. Certainly the Bible contains passages easily interpreted to be contrary.For example, the Bible states the following in Isaiah 55:11, which I take as in direct contradiction to the 'God must constantly pay attention doctrine':"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."It appears to me that if God ordained that hemoglobin would bind to oxygen and release carbon dioxide in the lungs under certain conditions, that such a thing would continue to happen until God said otherwise. For such a transfer not to happen in the right conditions would be to have God's word return void.Somehow people who believe this doctrine must be believe that rather than saying, "let energy distort space-time and allow said distorted space time to affect motion of matter and energy through space", God must dictate, instant by instant, the motion of bodies and energy in order to keep the Earth in its orbit. I find the latter position unfathomable and unnecessary theologically. No matter how much or little God intervene's in man's daily life, it is unnecessary to believe God's word requires constant reinforcement of the type Bertot insists on.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No. It is God's will that you have choices.

There is at least a little equivocation regarding the word "will" in your response. I do not believe that God directs that everything goes as he wants or that everyone does as he preferes. So disobedience to God does not constitute anything particularly powerful or our part or weak on God's part.

There is at least a little equivocation regarding the word "will" in your response. I do not believe that God directs that everything goes as he wants or that everyone does as he preferes. So disobedience to God does not constitute anything particularly powerful or our part or weak on God's part.

Whoa...You aren't going to be able to convince anyone that you've solved the irresistible force vs immovable object conundrum just by saying so. If you think you've got this sorted out, then show the chain of logic that makes some of those things that people thought were contradictory into something reasonable.In short I'm asking you to do the following:Start with your initial premises1. God Exists
2. God operates independent of our universe.And show that ‘a god having total control’ and us having ‘Free will’ is not inherently contradictory.

I think it could be a useful exercise to postulate that the laws of physics are invariant in form in any reference frames and to discuss the consequences of such a postulate even without collecting evidence that the postulate is true. Would you suggest that such a procedure is unscientific?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Einstein spent nearly a decade "modeling" before he was able to get something he could compare with reality. Einstein's assumption about invariance was a bit of a leap of faith. It made sense, but that is no guarantee of scientific success.

Is there a reason to get my buy in before you present your argument?

What I asked about was your contention that free will and God directing every detail were not contradictory. I don't need proof or argument that God exists given that I accept that without proof. So perhaps I don't need the ten pager.

In other words, God relinquished total control. He is not controlling every detail because doing so does not allow for free will.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Is this idea actually supported by the text of the Bible? I see a lot of people make up stuff about what God does or would do when their only basis is what they themselves would do if they were omnipotent. That kind of silly speculation is practiced by both believers and non believers.Sure, God is powerful enough to constantly control the path of the earth around the sun instant by instant. But God is also powerful enough to speak gravity into existence with one word that does not return to him void. So which path did he take and why should we believe your answer?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What you are being surprised about is an essential part of the scientific method. Part of the process for verifying a hypothesis is obtaining evidence that disproves the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is based on your hypothesis being wrong.If your investigation into the null hypothesis is not robust, you'll get called on that by your peers, because you've likely made a mistake.

Generally speaking, this does not work. You cannot verify the premises are true just because the conclusion is true. The premises might well be irrelevant. For example I may have two apples. But the premises that you gave me one, and JRTJr01 gave me the other are still false.

All of those numbers are wrong. You cited the atomic number rather than the atomic weight.Not that such things are important for the discussion, but it sure looks silly to pretend to be technical and then to get things wrong.

Nicely said CS. I agree that JR's entire line of argument is hogwash.

quote:

---

Thousands, even hundres, of years ago ‘most people’ thought the Sun revolved around the Earth; that did not mean it was true, factual or correct.

​

I would say that evidence must be based on objective truth.

---

The above statement is an argument going nowhere. Evidence is simply facts that, when interpreted correctly, make one proposition more likely to be true than another competing proposition. It is an true that if I plot the altitude and azimuth of the sun and stars on a graph, that the points will show a path across the sky for each object. There is nothing objectively or subjectively false about that. The error is in the interpretation. That problem is that the particular fact does not discriminate between a spinning earth and a stationary earth in which the entire universe rotates around the earth. It is for that reason that the fact is not evidence and that conclusions based on that fact can be wrong. Exactly. The "everything" would not include, for example your fork and knife if you left them on the plate. Your mom would not be expecting it to include food stuff that would require you to scrape at, or pick up your plate and lick, and she would not include that pat of butter you did not eat either.Plus your food is plenty full of hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. No idea where that nonsense is going.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.