Board index ‹ Jesus

[Book Mitten]

> Ironically, my examination of the evidence and quest for truth points me right toward a relationship with God. I always find it interesting that two people can look at the same data and information and draw completely different conclusions

We will have overlapping knowledge, but it isn't the same. My experience and belief has different circumstances to yourself. That doesn't mean we can't have common conclusions on some things.

> Relationship with God is where we find our true purpose and significance in life; (3) We were made for relationship with God. It's the only way to be truly whole.

What is that true purpose and significance? Regarding the idea that we were made for a relationship with God, could you expand on this? What makes you think non religions people can't live wholesome lives?

[jimwalton]

> What is that true purpose and significance?

My purpose is to be grounded in a relationship with my Creator (my identity and proper perspective in life) and to be all that God meant me to be (in personality, values, and behavior).

My significance is found in the dignity afforded to me by being a particular creation of God (all humans created in His image) and therefore to have intrinsic value. It's what makes things like murder, rape, racism, and supremacism wrong, and identity politics misguided.

> Regarding the idea that we were made for a relationship with God, could you expand on this?

I think it's pretty clear from our orientation as human beings that we were meant for relationship. We often find that we are driven to relationships, even intimacy, and that we find meaning in life and value in close relationships with others.

It's one thing to seek relationship with other human beings, but most of humanity also experiences a hunger for something more, seemingly inherently aware that there is more to this life than living and dying. We as humans seem to long for something spiritual, transcendent, and ultimately meaningful. It was Augustine (4th century) who observed that humans have a God-shaped hole in them that only God can fill.

> What makes you think non religions people can't live wholesome lives?

Oh, they can, and many do, but there's a difference between living a wholesome life and finding ourselves, meaning, significance, and our purpose in God.

[Book Mitten]

> God is continually making himself known in nature. Nature shows order, regularity, complexity, balance, purpose, and beauty. It shows power and even many elements that seem as if they were designed. There are many aspects of our natural world that point to the existence of a divine supernatural Creator.

There are also many that don't. Order may exist in some domains, but in many cases that's something that has evolved over time. Slavery had to be fought against for years for example.

[jimwalton]

> There are also many that don't.

This is correct, but there are so many that even atheist physicists and philosophers have commented that it's close to miraculous.

Paul Davies: "The fact that these relations are necessary for our existence is one of the most fascinating discoveries of modern science."

Simon Conway Morris: “The genetic code found in nature displays 'eerie perfection' and 'startling evidence of optimization.' ”

Even Richard Dawkins admits, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. ... We live on a planet where we are surrounded by perhaps ten million species, each one of which independently displays a powerful illusion of apparent design."

Alvin Plantinga comments: "It is said that none of these coincidences ought to be seen as requiring explanation; after all, no matter how things had been, it would have been exceeding improbable that they be that particular way. Appropriately taken, this point is perhaps right; but how is it relevant? Each time I deal I get four aces and one wild card; you get suspicious; I try to allay your suspicions by pointing out that my getting these cards each time I deal is no less probable than any other equally specific distribution over the relevant number of deals. Would that explanation play in Dodge City?"

> Slavery had to be fought against for years for example.

How did the discussion veer from the regularity and order of the universe to the fight against slavery? We're talking about the cosmos having many attributes consistent with a purposeful and intelligent source.

[Book Mitten]

> Paul Davies: "The fact that these relations are necessary for our existence is one of the most fascinating discoveries of modern science."

> Simon Conway Morris: “The genetic code found in nature displays 'eerie perfection' and 'startling evidence of optimization.' ”

The genetic code evolved other time through ages of trial and error in response to its environment. The "display" of perfection is the outcome of certain genetic elements triumphing and surviving. The whole thing about conditions being necessary for our existence seems to detract from God's omnipotence. Surely if he is omnipotent he can design something however he wants? He wouldn't need certain necessary conditions, except perhaps logical necessities such as non contradiction, but those are necessary in any universe, including those without the appearance of design.

Ever heard of the puddle analogy by Douglas Adams? It's another analogy that expresses similar ideas better than I do.

In addition, there is this argument from Richard Carrier that says that the universe actually appears fine tuned for black holes:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fmjhixghjCE

Also, a Christian could say in response to a universe that didn't appear designed that it was a result of the fall, and that this world is imperfect, compared to heaven. The argument can go both ways.

> How did the discussion veer from the regularity and order of the universe to the fight against slavery? We're talking about the cosmos having many attributes consistent with a purposeful and intelligent source.

I'm saying that the existence of slavery is an element that contradicts the appearance of providence.

[jimwalton]

> The genetic code evolved other time through ages of trial and error in response to its environment. The "display" of perfection is the outcome of certain genetic elements triumphing and surviving.

Indeed it did. This doesn't speak to your case. So what? What you absolutely cannot guarantee to me is that there was no spiritual mechanism (God) involved in its development and progress.

> The whole thing about conditions being necessary for our existence seems to detract from God's omnipotence.

Not at all. In the Bible God almost always uses processes, and often natural ones. Because God uses conditions, as well as cause and effect, doesn't detract a bit from God's omnipotence. He doesn't have to create everything *ex nihilo* to be omnipotent.

> Surely if he is omnipotent he can design something however he wants?

Presumably, and for the most part, yet if God uses mathematics as a base, cause and effect as a mechanism, and progress as a strategy, then He will create and oversee the development within those constraints.

> He wouldn't need certain necessary conditions, except perhaps logical necessities such as non contradiction, but those are necessary in any universe, including those without the appearance of design.

He wouldn't necessarily need them, but there's no problem with Him conforming to them. The fact that God chose to create using process, trial and error, cause and effect, and natural development doesn't place Him out of the picture.

> Richard Carrier

I watched the video. As usual, I think Carrier is terribly misguided. That 99.999% of the universe is not life-sustaining shows how miraculous (at least unique, as far as we know) this planet of life is. And that 99.999% of the universe is designed to make black holes and not "designed for us" may or may not be true. Carrier has stepped out of science and into philosophy when he speaks of motive and purpose. (1) The Bible never says the universe was designed for us; (2) That we are here and alive, contrary to every expectation of the universe, must be wrestled with. His conclusion that we are "an accidental byproduct" is one philosophical opinion; the other side of the coin is that we are a miraculous handiwork and not a byproduct at all.

And then his dip into Paul, young-earth creationism, evolution, brains, and souls are just straw men and quite unfair renderings and serious misinterpretations of the Christian position.

> Also, a Christian could say in response to a universe that didn't appear designed that it was a result of the fall, and that this world is imperfect, compared to heaven. The argument can go both ways.

There's nothing in Christian theology to claim that there was any change to the natural order as the result of sin. God's cursing of the ground in Gn. 3 doesn't indicate that God put a hex on the soil or changed its character by magical means. Instead, it's a description of the idea that people have now been relegated to a less-ordered realm. In the garden food had been provided for them; now the ground will not show the same favor of God's special provision.

Neither in Romans 8 is there indication that the natural order was changed by sin. When Adam sinned, he stepped out of harmony with God's purposes, and therefore also out of harmony with the rest of His creation. All creation groans, not because it suffered damage but instead because it is no longer in harmonious relationship with us. We changed; it did not.

> I'm saying that the existence of slavery is an element that contradicts the appearance of providence.

Providence is not the discussion at hand. Neither is slavery. This whole line of thinking just seems like a red herring to me based on what we're talking about. Slavery is a completely different discussion. We're talking about whether Jesus is God, and recently we're talking about purpose in life, a relationship with God, and how God reveals Himself in the natural world, and it seems WAY off the side to say, "Oh, yeah, well what about SLAVERY???"

[Scape211]

The genetic code evolved other time through ages of trial and error in response to its environment. The "display" of perfection is the outcome of certain genetic elements triumphing and surviving. The whole thing about conditions being necessary for our existence seems to detract from God's omnipotence. Surely if he is omnipotent he can design something however he wants? He wouldn't need certain necessary conditions, except perhaps logical necessities such as non contradiction, but those are necessary in any universe, including those without the appearance of design.

When biologists look at genetic code they see 2 main factors within; complexity and order. There is a reason even they tend to lean towards some extra 'fine-tuning' to the dna code beyond evolution. By way of example, look at these 3 lines:

nehya53nslbyw1`jejns7eopslanm46/J

TIME AND TIDE WAIT FOR NO MAN

ABABABABABABABABABABAB

The first shows complexity, but no clear order. The third has clear order, but is repetitive. Only the second sequence provides both complexity and order. Why? Because its created around the functional requirements of the english language. We dont just arrange symbols we use vocabulary, syntax, grammar, etc. to create our language. Biologists see the same properties in our dna and many find it to be a form of 'digital' genetic code. Bill Gates even said “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” How then can we just write off dna as being completely relient on evolution when the intricate level of complexity and order exists?

God didnt design the world to be static, but to change and grow within the conditions he set. Think of a dynamic video game where the coder developed a world with properties, rules and conditions but the gameplay, story, and world is non-linear; different each time you play it. Many games are developed this way today and if done right, they are the better games long term. Does this mean the game wasnt designed? Of course it was. But the world in which it was created was given space to change, grow, and evolve. This to me shows more elegant and complex design and one that would make sense. I always feel as though evolution makes sense and that complexity can grow from simplicity. However the beginning had to have a cause and it had to be one with purpose to allow the level of complexity we see.

[Book Mitten]

> And then [Carrier's] dip into Paul, young-earth creationism, evolution, brains, and souls are just straw men and quite unfair renderings and serious misinterpretations of the Christian position.

Sure, there's several things that Carrier says that I don't agree with. His Christ Myth theory in particular. Mainly what I'm referencing is his point about black holes.

> We're talking about whether Jesus is God, and recently we're talking about purpose in life, a relationship with God, and how God reveals Himself in the natural world, and it seems WAY off the side to say, "Oh, yeah, well what about SLAVERY???"

To put it another way, why doesn't God reveal himself by preventing atrocity?

> All creation groans, not because it suffered damage but instead because it is no longer in harmonious relationship with us. We changed; it did not.

What I'm getting at is that we are part of creation. How far does fine tuning go? Does it go as far as our decisions being part of the fine tuning of the universe that miraculously supports us?

> His conclusion that we are "an accidental byproduct" is one philosophical opinion; the other side of the coin is that we are a miraculous handiwork and not a byproduct at all.

I would say neither is necessarily correct. We are part of the universe. We shape it. And likewise it shapes us. So in that sense we are not a byproduct. But the "miraculous handiwork" is us. It's us adapting to environments (or indeed dying in the process of attempting to do so, in the same way certain species go extinct after surviving a while).

> And that 99.999% of the universe is designed to make black holes and not "designed for us" may or may not be true.

The same goes for your theory about Jesus. It may or may not be true. Apologies but I'm not sure what your point is here.

> Indeed it did. This doesn't speak to your case. So what? What you absolutely cannot guarantee to me is that there was no spiritual mechanism (God) involved in its development and progress.

I'm not attempting to do so. You have the burden of proof regarding such a case as far as I'm concerned. I don't see why I should try to prove a negative, especially since your God (arguably) supposedly goes out of his way to show himself, according to scripture.
There's more to discuss here. But I'll leave you with this for now. We can always revisit aforementioned topics later.

[jimwalton]

> Mainly what I'm referencing is his point about black holes.

Yeah, I responded to that.

> To put it another way, why doesn't God reveal himself by preventing atrocity?

This is the "problem" of evil and suffering in the world. to do it justice, it's a lengthy answer and not a sound bite. It would be best to start another thread or to dedicate one whole series of posts to this to be fair. We'd have to leave this discussion behind. Just being honest, not evasive. We can have this conversation if you want.

> What I'm getting at is that we are part of creation. How far does fine tuning go? Does it go as far as our decisions being part of the fine tuning of the universe that miraculously supports us?

Yes, we are part of creation (in one aspect, we are created things just like everything else) and yet we are distinct (in another aspect altogether, we are vastly different from everything else).

> How far does fine tuning go?

Humans beings are tremendously refined machines of miraculous capability. When I see what athletes, musicians, and surgeons can do (just to name a few), it's absolutely jaw dropping how "tuned" the human body is. When we talk about fine tuning, however, as in a conversation like ours, we are talking about the constants of the cosmos, not about the human body.

> I would say neither is necessarily correct.

I don't expect you to agree with me here, but it's good to discuss it. The perspective I take is obviously a conclusion based on philosophy and theology, as is yours.

> It's us adapting to environments

I agree with your biological conclusions, but I see more than that. The mutations, adaptations, and selections of biological evolution, by my perspective, reach far beyond probability and logic, and even biology. That we are the result of trillions of beneficial mutations, selections and adaptations is beyond what chance could reasonably bring about, in my view. Again, I don't expect you to agree. I can see how you believe what you do, and I consider my conclusion to be justifiable as well.

> You have the burden of proof regarding such a case as far as I'm concerned

In a court of law, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. In a debate, however, the burden of proof lies with anyone making a claim, both in the affirmative and the negative. I have to be ready to substantiate any claim I make, and you have to do the same.

As far as my proof, I think that there are several factors in the system that lead us to a mechanism beyond the system.

• Nothing self generates. Anything that begins to exist has a causative mechanism outside itself. The universe began to exist. At the time, we are told, it was a dimensionless singularity where none of the forces of nature were at work. Therefore it has a causative mechanism outside itself, one that is timeless, eternal, powerful, purposeful, and intelligent.
• It is my perspective that the fine tuning we see in the universe goes beyond a reasonable expectation of what the physical forces at work could reasonably provide. Our universe is fine-tuned for life (microwave background radiation, fundamental constants, speed of light, ratio of protons to neutrons, strong nuclear force, gravitational force, the properties of the carbon atom, expansion rate of universe). Given theism, such fine tuning is not at all improbable; given atheism, it is.
• The exact nature and sequences of physical, chemical, and biological actions needed to produce life on the planet are simply beyond imagination. the probabilities are so staggeringly low they could be considered to be impossible.

These any other evidences lead me to infer an intelligent, powerful, timeless, personal, and intelligent mechanism at work, viz., God, to have produced what we see.

Now, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your position (not that God doesn't exist [no one can prove a negative], but that natural explanations are more weighty and sensible than the spiritual explanation I have offered, though I'll admit I was quite brief).

[Book Mitten]

> Mainly what I'm referencing is his point about black holes.

Yeah, I responded to that.

I responded to your response on that as well.

> This is the "problem" of evil and suffering in the world. to do it justice, it's a lengthy answer and not a sound bite. It would be best to start another thread or to dedicate one whole series of posts to this to be fair. We'd have to leave this discussion behind. Just being honest, not evasive. We can have this conversation if you want.

I have another thread dedicated to this. I could post a link if you want. Or we could just discuss one particular issue from here. The same could be said about the fine tuning debate.

> Nothing self generates. Anything that begins to exist has a causative mechanism outside itself. The universe began to exist. At the time, we are told, it was a dimensionless singularity where none of the forces of nature were at work. .

Depends what you mean by "begins to exist". The B theory of time would suggest that the universe only "Begins to exist" in the same way a yardstick does at the first inch.

> Therefore it has a causative mechanism outside itself, one that is timeless, eternal, powerful, purposeful, and intelligent

Again depends what you mean by intelligence. Some ancient philosophies envisioned "God" as more pantheistic and abstract; an intelligence defined as "logos" or something similar.

> The mutations, adaptations, and selections of biological evolution, by my perspective, reach far beyond probability and logic, and even biology. That we are the result of trillions of beneficial mutations, selections and adaptations is beyond what chance could reasonably bring about, in my view.

How could something reach beyond logic? I thought even God couldn't do what was logically impossible. I'm also not saying that "chance" necessarily brought it about. The mutations and adaptions responded to their environment and certain situations. They weren't "chance" in the sense that you mean ("unintelligent", if I understand you correctly). This doesn't have to mean a God created them. It just means that the genetic adaptions, just like our own conscious actions are adaptions, are fine tuning themselves in order to keep themselves alive.