I agree.
>Using your terminology, matter in random motion IS smoothly blended
>theistic action.
I assume that you're stating what you think; this isn't my view.
But I guess if I see a falling leaf and water-into-wine as distinctly
different in character (as in my other TD#1 post), and you don't, we'll be
expected to differ on how to interpret what's happening in nature.
It wouldn't bother my theology a bit if God is "deist" with respect to
falling leaves, if he is "theist" with respect to things that matter in my
life, and in the lives of others. {of course, "deist" with sustenance}
>It does no good in my mind to give away the store by
>recognizing something in their worldview that does not exist in our
>worldview.
....... snip ........
>apologetics is never well-served by adopting frameworks that are at odds
>with the Biblical perspective for the sake of communication. Granted
>communication is very important, but it must never move away from truth.
These are the types of question I'm struggling with in the "naturalism
or materialism" posts. For some reason, though, I'm bothered more by using
"naturalism" to describe "nature without God", and you don't like using
"random" (or unguided, or...) to describe anything that occurs in nature.
This will require some thinking to sort out, and I've gotta go now.
Maybe over the weekend, one or more of us will figure it out. Or maybe not.
In any case, I hope you (Terry, and the rest of you) have a great weekend.
Craig