Little Evidence =Evidence?

[David Sklansky]

We can nip that in the bud right now. I never meant that word to connote anything bad. Change it to involvement.

And the only reason I say he doesn't get involved is because that's what the evidence shows. Sklanskyanity does not claim he couldn't get involved if he wanted to. However both you and BluffThis say that non involvement makes no sense and you are both incorrect about that. It's perfectly reasonable. At least until you die.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

And the only reason I say he doesn't get involved is because that's what the evidence shows.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. Interference has bad connotations. But as to involvement, it may not seem reasonable to you but it's true. Repeating:

17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

His involvement is necessary for even the bare existence of any part of His creation.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
We can nip that in the bud right now. I never meant that word to connote anything bad. Change it to involvement.

And the only reason I say he doesn't get involved is because that's what the evidence shows. Sklanskyanity does not claim he couldn't get involved if he wanted to. However both you and BluffThis say that non involvement makes no sense and you are both incorrect about that. It's perfectly reasonable. At least until you die.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe God is involved without breaking natural laws.

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

"Maybe God is involved without breaking natural laws."

Including the laws of probability?

[txag007]

"You really need to differentiate between a First Cause God and the god of specific religions when talking about this subject."

Why? If it matters to you, I'm a Christian. I'm still, however, asking about the liklihood that the universe was created by chance.

[txag007]

Now. That's. Funny.

[txag007]

There may not be as much conflict here as it appears:

NR-
"17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

DS-
"And the only reason I say he doesn't get involved is because that's what the evidence shows."

The evidence shows that the physical aspects of God's awesome creation is self-sustaining. (gravity, etc.) When the Bible says that "in Him all things hold together", it could simply mean that He created the system by which the universe operates. There are many, many variables that have to be exactly right in order to sustain life on Earth. God set those variables in play.

That doesn't mean, however, that God is not involved in the everday happenings of this world. The Bible says very clearly that He knows the exact number of hairs on your head. It also says He answers prayers, and to pray without ceasing.

So the physical evidence doesn't mean that a) there is no God and b) that God isn't involved.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

When the Bible says that "in Him all things hold together", it could simply mean that He created the system by which the universe operates.


[/ QUOTE ]

And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power

29"Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.

28And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

28for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'

10In whose hand is the life of every living thing,
And the breath of all mankind?

11also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,

[NotReady]

Here is an interesting piece on Newton. One quote from it is:
[ QUOTE ]

Davis writes that Newton rejected both the clockwork metaphor and the idea of a cold mechanical universe upon which it is based, and that Newton's view of God did not include the 'rational' restrictions that Descartes and Leibniz placed on God.

[/ QUOTE ]