tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4204011677631536099.post4145009786805942397..comments2019-09-26T09:15:54.665-05:00Comments on Faith for Thinkers: Random ThoughtsPhil Walahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15230006376963251153noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4204011677631536099.post-58748943066305180612011-12-22T09:54:23.429-06:002011-12-22T09:54:23.429-06:00I believe it was Francis Schaeffer who said there ...I believe it was Francis Schaeffer who said there are 3 choices for the cause of the universe: 1) Nothing, 2) Impersonal cause or 3) Personal cause. The best explanation is a personal cause because nothing can't create anything and neither can an impersonal cause. Impersonal scientific laws are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions. The best explanation is a personal cause because you need agency to really create something. God is the agency or the uncaused cause of everything including all the laws of science, matter, energy, etc. If God is indeed this prime reality, then He can choose how frequently he interacts with His creation. Miracles are the events in which God supersedes natural and scientific laws. Unfortunately we often confuse divine providence with miracles. Certain effects are definitely miracles: the virgin birth, Jesus resurrection and creation itself. Rare natural events, like the fog at Normandy during the Allied invasion, that appear to have come by direct intervention from God should be referred to as divine providence rather than a miracle. <br /><br />A good book to read is "God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?" by John Lennox, an Oxford Mathematics instructor.<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertaker-Has-Science-Buried/dp/0745953719/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324568518&sr=1-1jgklopfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05789926223347351208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4204011677631536099.post-80166021474335047442011-09-17T13:54:00.730-05:002011-09-17T13:54:00.730-05:00No, Deb, I haven't come up with a better way t...No, Deb, I haven't come up with a better way to describe what I'm saying other than using the parent-child relationship as an analogy. I'm just aware that some people assume "hands off" means "distant and uninterested", so they sometimes need additional help to understand the distinction. <br /><br />I've run into those who call Francis Collins a Deist because he says the laws of nature don't need divine intervention to continue operating -- even though in <i>Language of God</i> he specifically describes Deism as the first belief system he explored and <i>rejected</i>. So I've found it best to address that objection up front by describing the concept in terms of what it is <i>not</i> in addition to what it <i>is</i>.Phil Walahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15230006376963251153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4204011677631536099.post-63770500335122975442011-09-15T15:22:32.236-05:002011-09-15T15:22:32.236-05:00Just reading old posts and noticed your comment to...Just reading old posts and noticed your comment to me. No, I'm not a Deist. I think God is very personal and present, both transcendent and immanent. Do you have a simple way of describing what you're saying that doesn't smack of Deism?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4204011677631536099.post-5833515277436768862010-05-29T09:24:20.589-05:002010-05-29T09:24:20.589-05:00Josiah, I agree that claims to the existence and i...Josiah, I agree that claims to the existence and identity of God can’t be proved by logical or scientific methods, and disagree with the militant creationists who insist they <i>can</i> be proved. And I also agree with you that claims to the existence and identity of God can’t be falsified, and disagree with the militant atheists who insist they <i>can</i> be falsified.<br /><br />I even agree with you that much of what I write about is speculation. But far from being a worthless pursuit, as you seem to imply, I find speculation to be a stimulating and improving to the mind, whether it’s about life on other planets, multiple universes, time travel, or the existence and nature of God. Lots of really, really smart people enjoy these kinds of discussions (see <a href="http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx" rel="nofollow"> veritas.org</a> for a small sample).<br /><br />And that’s my point. I find nothing in the Bible to preclude me from scientific speculation, and nothing in science to preclude me from speculating about God. But beyond that, I keep finding ways in which my speculations about science and my speculations about God synergistically build on one another. So I share some of my speculations because writing them down helps me sort out my own thoughts, and getting feedback from others, such as yourself, hopefully helps each of us on our own journey in search of truth.Phil Walahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15230006376963251153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4204011677631536099.post-22701762322631324272010-05-28T21:03:55.488-05:002010-05-28T21:03:55.488-05:00Isn't this just a non-falsifiable idea that le...Isn't this just a non-falsifiable idea that let's you pretend that your invisible friend can have some influence on reality? If you can't show that a god exists, much less prove that it is the specific god of a specific religion with specific abilities and attributes, then why even bother speculating that it might be playing a computer game with randomly generated content?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18114539016317702262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4204011677631536099.post-11390192904716586802010-05-28T20:14:37.059-05:002010-05-28T20:14:37.059-05:00Thanks for your comments, Deb. "Putting the ...Thanks for your comments, Deb. "Putting the universe into motion" is a phrase I avoid using, because it sounds too much like Deism, which is often described as belief in a God that "put the universe in motion and then walked away". Just to be clear, this is NOT a Deistic view of God. <br /><br />On the contrary, it is a view that pictures God as a loving parent — one who purposely chooses not to <i>control</i> His children, but who anxiously stands by waiting for us to invite Him to be <i>involved</i>. <br /><br />I see that as the purpose of prayer. We aren't telling God anything He doesn't already know, but we <i>are</i> giving Him permission to be involved.Phil Walahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15230006376963251153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4204011677631536099.post-17728703640047654232010-05-28T18:42:15.163-05:002010-05-28T18:42:15.163-05:00I absolutely agree! God put this universe into mot...I absolutely agree! God put this universe into motion, but I don't believe that he governs everything that happens. Granted, He could, but what kind of life is that? For me, the struggle is in learning to hear God's voice in the midst of whatever is happening in my life, without becoming so reductionistic in my thinking as to assume that everything I experience can be traced back to a decision that God has made concerning me. That seems a bit narcissistic to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4204011677631536099.post-10435281517458278602010-05-28T16:26:43.086-05:002010-05-28T16:26:43.086-05:00so, you continue to cause me to be stretched in my...so, you continue to cause me to be stretched in my thinking and perspective. you probably knoe I am not "there yet" with you but it seems I may be on the journey somewhere... still trying to understand the why's and a little less concerned with the how's. keep writing, mt friend, keep writing.<br /><br />Brad WickersheimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com