RE: Where the information comes from.

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Mon, 6 Sep 1999 16:08:37 -0700

SJ: This is just theistic naturalism, ie. theism controlled by naturalistic
categories of thought. On this type of reasoning, one could rule out any
miraculous intervention by God on the basis that God has already set up
naturalistic processes that look like they could do the job, so why would
God go to all the trouble to act supernaturally?

God of course could easily use natural forces as is quite obvious. Why he would occasionally use supernatural forces is something He can of course freely choose. One does not negate the other.

SJ: Followed consistently (as it is by radical theologians like Tillich and
Bultmann, and the so-called `Jesus School'), applying Loren's canons to the
Bible, one would end up with a fully naturalistic Christianity, which would
be useless for supernatural salvation.

False logic.

SJ: There are two question-begging fallacies in Loren's post above. First, it has
not been shown that naturalistic processes *could* do the job. Second, it is
not any "trouble" for God, which ever way He created.

Could God not create the natural forces which could do it?

SJ: It is perfectly reasonable to assume that God has created the universe to be
self-sustaining, without it being self-originating. If life was an automatic
process which happened whenever the conditions were right, then life
would be popping up everywhere, every time conditions were right.

Of course the likelyhood of this might be quite small but you are quite right. Which is why NASA is searching for extraterrestrial life using SETI.

SJ: If God did not want life to be popping up everywhere, for example if His goal was
to have life originate on only one planet, and culminate in only one creature
in His image, then He would have to be continually intervening everywhere
to stop life originating, or killing it off after it had originated.

Of course, why would God did not want life to 'pop up everywhere'??

SJ: In the case of origins, the right approach is to approach the data with a full-
blown "explanatory filter" that is open to the three logical possibilities of
causation: 1. law, 2. chance, and 3. intelligent design, and not to constrain
what is possible, just because it fits the convenience of modern scientific
materialist-naturalists!

Or the frustration of creation "scientists" who have failed to provide any scientific foundation to ID? Even Dembski failed, although he really tried.