On Fri, 26 May 1995 11:38:25 -0400 you wrote:
>I wrote:
>"GM>If I make a robot which mixes the wheat flour, eggs, milk, and
>>whatever in a bowl, places the dough in a pan, puts the pan in the
>>oven, turns the temperature to the proper setting, removes the bread
>>at the proper time and then slices it and bags it, if it does all
>>that, who made the bread - me or the robot? If you walk into the
>>room just after I finish programming the robot and watch it make the
>>bread, can you conclude that I had nothing to do with the
>>manufacture of the bread?"
>
>Stephen Replied:
>
>SJ>This is a Deistic concept of God-it is not the Theistic God
>>depicted in the Bible. I don't believe that nature is as autonomous
>>as this "robot". God does work through natural process, but it is
><always God working through them, not them working on their own without
>>God:"
>
>You use Deism in a funny way. My Dictionary defines Deism as:
>
>"1.The belief that God exists and created the world but thereafter assumed no
>control over it or the lives of people.
>2. In philosophy, the belief that reason is sufficient to prove the existence
>of God, with the consequent rejection of revelation and authority."
I do not disagree with the above. But like anything there are shades
of deism. One definition of Deism I have read (but cannot locate) is
the picture of God as Clockmaker, creating the universe like a giant
clockwork mechanism, winding it up, and thereafter not intervening in
its workings.
Your "robot" seemed to belong to that general category. Therefore, I
stand by what I said, "This is a Deistic concept of God-it is not the
Theistic God depicted in the Bible."
>If you are going to charge someone with deism please at least understand what
>it means. I do not think that anyone who believes in the resurrection of
>Jesus Christ can be a deist. I certainly believe that God raised Jesus from
>the Dead as the scriptures indicate.
No one is saying you are a "deist" Glenn. I just said that your
"robot" picture is "a Deistic concept of God".
>I also do not fall into the second definition. I believe that the Bible
>is God's revelation to man and I submit freely to His and its authority. I
>also do not believe that reason is sufficient to prove God's existence.
No one is questioning you personally Glenn.
>Does your dictionary have a different meaning for deism? Is it deistic to
>believe that God set up the laws of gravity to govern the motion of physical
>bodies in the universe? If it isn't deistic to believe that the laws of
>atomic physics govern the strength of the steel girder in our modern
>buildings, then why is it suddenly considered deistic to believe that God
>might work over time in creating life.
Actually, I don't believe that "God set up the laws of gravity to
govern the motion of physical bodies in the universe". I believe these
"laws" are just the outworking of God's moment by moment upholding of
His creation, as scripture depicts it:
Col 1:17 "He is before all things, and in him all things hold
together."
Heb 1:3 "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact
representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful
word."
The idea of the universe as a mechanism is a concept foreign to the
Bible. I presume it only arose after the Industrial Reveolution?
>I wrote:
>GM>Now my question is why is it important for God to create by fiat
>>rather than by designing the entire system - robots, subrobots and
>>all?
>
>Stephen replied
>
>SJ>Because that is the Biblical, Theistic picture.
>
>So why did God command the LAND to bring forth life? Why didn't God command
>life to come forth? There is a difference between these two concepts. I
>would respectfully submit that the issue of God's creation instantaneously,
>while widespread, is not entirely certain from the Biblical account. In the
>former case, God used a process (something other than Himself) to create
>life. In the latter case, God directly creates. The Bible clearly says that
>God said "Let the land produce living creatures" Gen 1:24
As I said to Bill:
I grant that one of the themes of Genesis 1 is God delegating
authority to His creation in certain areas: eg. sun and moon to
"govern the day and the night" (Gn 1:18), man to "rule over...over all
the earth" (Gn 1:26), etc. However, there is no statement in
scripture (that I know of) that says God has delegated the task of
running His creation's inner workings to the creation itself. The
picture is of God being very much a "hands on" Governor.
>I wrote:
>
>GM>With all due respect to Macbeth, and other well known lawyers,
>>science is not a courtroom nor do the rules of the courtroom apply in
>>anyway to the methodology of science. In science, the winner is the
>>person who advocates the successful theory!!!
>
>Stephen replied:
>
>SJ>"Yes. And is not the "successful theory" the one that can stand up to
>>crictical analysis"
>
>and
>
>SJ>"Well, we all do have our various creationist models, but the sucess or
>>failure of these alternatives has nothing to do with whether Darwinism
>>is itself correct."
>
>A successful theory is defined as a theory which can make successful
>predictions about future discoveries. For instance, If I have a theory that
>the Babylonians actually conquered all of China, such a theory would predict
>that I should be able to find lots of cuniform tablets in China or that the
>language of China is related to or has absorbed words from the Babylonians.
> With the known habit of leaving illigitimate offspring that all armies have,
>I should be able to find biochemical similarities between the modern Iraqi's
>and some groups of Chinese. Failing to find any of these predictions, my
>theory must be considered erroneous. The successful theory is the theory
>which explains the most phenomenon and makes the most successful predictions.
No doubt!
>If Christianity is to influence modern science, they must first explain
>the flood. Creation is trivial because I can say "God did it" and nothing
>more can be discussed. You can't prove that statement wrong; I can't prove
>it correct. With the flood, there are physical consequences to whatever
>model you propose. In discussing creation, it boils down to a philosophical
>argument about whether God was involved (the atheist says no) and if he was
>involved, how, (the standard view has said God created by fiat, TE's say by
>process.) Evolution may be wrong but I haven't seen a view put forth from
>the Christians which explains more data than Evolution.
Disagree. While we should not put unnecessary obstacles in
scientists' way (eg. by insisting in a global Flood), we do not need
to solve every problem of science and faith before we can
witness to scientists. Scientists must become Christians the same way
all sinners do. By repenting (lit. changing their mind-set). Ramm
says:
" Christianity is a religion and not a science. In science the
principle of inter-subjectivity or objectivity prevails. What is true
for one scientist must be true for all. But this is not true in
religion, for if the pure in heart see God, then the impure do not,
and what is true for the pure is not true for the impure. God draws
near to those who draw near to Him, and He is a rewarder of them who
diligently seek Him. He is not known to those who do not draw close
to Him or to those who refuse to seek Him. What is true for some is
emphatically not true for all.
In the Gospels a very wealthy young man refused to make the motions of
faith. He was intrigued by Jesus Christ, but when the issue became
sharply one of Christ or his possessions, the tug of his possessions
was the stronger, and sorrowfully he left Jesus Christ. He wanted
religion without the motions of faith. It is not a rash presumption
to believe that many scientists and educated men wish for peace of
mind, relief from a guilty conscience, hope for the life to come, and
the blessedness of faith in God. But they find themselves caught
between their science and their religious hopes, unable to move.
Being possessed of great intellectual riches which manage to come
first in their sentiments, they leave Jesus Christ. Just as Jesus
refused to pursue the rich young man and make other terms, so today we
cannot lessen or cheapen or alter the terms of the gospel for our men
of science. There is no other Saviour than Jesus Christ, and there is
no other means of having Him than by the motions of repentance and
faith. Therefore, if a scientist comes to God he must come in the
same way as any other person comes to God. He must make the
appropriate spiritual motions. He must repent; he must confess his
sin to God; he must believe in Jesus Christ with all his heart."
(Ramm B. "The Christian View of Science and Scripture", 1955,
Paternoster, London, p245).
>I wrote:
>GM>But we not only debunk evolution, we have christians who debunk
>>everything that geology and astronomy say. I would respectfully
>>submit that debunking is doing nothing but turning Christians into
>>Luddites! Where the luddites were against modern technology, 20th
>>century evangelicals are against most of observational science! We
>>are always debunking the latest scientific discovery.
>
>Stephen replied:
>
>>This is a generalisation and an extreme stereotype."
>
>Not in this country. And I am not saying that everybody who disbelieves
>evolution is a Luddite, but look around this country at how science is
>treated by various church groups and ministers. Look at how scientists are
>described.
You are not in your "country" when you are on the Internet Glenn.
Believe it or not, the USA is not the whole world! <g> Besides, I
doubt if your stereotype is even true of the USA.
If fundamentalists have overreacted against science, the blame I
believe is at least equally shared by the scientific establishment,
who have used their privileged, taxpayer funded position to advance
their own materialistic/atheistic agenda and attack Christianity.
Glenn, there is a spiritual war going on. On one side is "the
dragon...the beast and..the false prophet" (Rev 16:13). On the other
are the saints - which include YECs! (Rev 13:7). Perhaps we need to
ponder again these things?
>"Stephen Jones wrote:
>
>"But Darwinism *is* pure materialism."
>
>Only if the adherent is a materialist. No one who believes in the
>resurrection can be a pure materialist!!!!!!!
Yes. And neither can the be a pure Darwinist! <g>
1Jn 4:1-3 "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the
spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets
have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the
Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has
come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not
acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the
antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in
the world."
God bless.
Stephen