created by God

In the ‘What is the point of living?’ topic, FineLine says:
we are all here because God has created us and put us here.

I understand of course that that is what many of you here believe, but it does raise the question of when it is believed that God did the creating of us, so I hope there can be some discussion on this. Maybe it has been done before, in which case, perhaps someone will be kind enough to point me in that direction. Thank you.
«134

Comments

  • There is a creation and evolution thread in Dead Horses.

    For me, it was simply 'in the beginning...'
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    but it does raise the question of when it is believed that God did the creating of us
    Well, nine months before I was born, my parents were in a little cabin in the Ötztal in Austria …

  • Raptor Eye wrote: »
    There is a creation and evolution thread in Dead Horses.

    For me, it was simply 'in the beginning...'
    thank you - and for your pm with link. I will read there.

  • SusanDorisSusanDoris Shipmate
    edited February 8
    Okay, I have looked at dH topic but it seems to be more about evolution itself than the belief about people being created by God.
    Would hosts here advise please?

    P.S. Just realised it was an e-mail notification, not a pm - sorry!
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    I'm not sure what question you are asking, SD? I would have also thought this was the Dead Horse topic. Yes, I believe God created me, and all of us. I don't believe it was a literal six day creation. I don't believe evolution is incompatible with belief in God. Is that the sort of thing you are asking? That may also belong in the DH thread. Maybe @Barnabas62 can clarify, as he hosts both Purg and DH.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    The entire space-time continuum is created, so the answer to 'when was anything created' is some variant upon 'everything all at once' or 'right now' or 'not in time' or 'eternally'.
  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    edited February 8
    Last Saturday we were at the very spot where Number One Son was "created". The Park Ranger on the gate asked "Is this the first time you have come here?" So Dear Partner regaled him with the Whole Story!
  • Galilit wrote: »
    Last Saturday we were at the very spot where Number One Son was "created". The guard on the gate asked "Is this the first time you have come here?" So Dear Partner regaled him with the Whole Story!

    Trying not to imagine this story happening at Damascus Gate. Because that would be disgusting.

    Hilarious, but disgusting.
  • fineline wrote: »
    I'm not sure what question you are asking, SD?
    I was not being too specific, but since we, the human species, emerged in one way or another from an ancestor ape (as did other apes), I would be interested to know when and how it is believed god created us in particular.
    Do you (you -general) believe there was for instance, a point in the branching of the human species where God became involved? Actually, it is quite difficult to phrase the question without it sounding somewhat clumsy.

    Yes, I will be interested to see further hostly advice.
  • @Galilit, :notworthy:
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Do you (you -general) believe there was for instance, a point in the branching of the human species where God became involved?
    Following on @fineline, I believe that God created the universe (or however expansive you want to get), and all that is in it, including but certainly not limited to us. I also do not think scientific theories or understandings, including evolution, are inconsistent with belief in God as creator.

    As for whether there was a point in the evolution of the human species at which God got involved, that seems to me to be an odd way of thinking about it. I think God has always been involved and continues to be involved in the act and process of creation.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    @Galilit, :notworthy:
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    Do you (you -general) believe there was for instance, a point in the branching of the human species where God became involved?
    Following on @fineline, I believe that God created the universe (or however expansive you want to get), and all that is in it, including but certainly not limited to us. I also do not think scientific theories or understandings, including evolution, are inconsistent with belief in God as creator.
    thank you. On the subject of scientific theories not being inconsistent with belief, As you will be aware, I do not agree with that, since scientific and religious beliefs do not overlap anywhere, but for those who believe that God was/is involved, then I acknowledge that this is not a problem.
    As for whether there was a point in the evolution of the human species at which God got involved, that seems to me to be an odd way of thinking about it. I think God has always been involved and continues to be involved in the act and process of creation.
    Yes, it may well be an odd way of thinking about it! However, over the years I have noticed that those who believe that God has always been involved do tend to avoid the when and how questions - as of course they are entitled to do.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited February 8
    There are only beginnings from eternity. There was no beginning of beginnings. Creation is, was eternally begun, from eternity; has always been beginning. Like the Son and His begetting.

    Does God need to begin each universe? Materially ex nihilo? Think them up? Speak them on? "Let there be light"?

    That's simplest if He is. And makes Him decisive. Which I doubt.

    Or do they begin spontaneously from an infinite entropy capacity field which God Oms?

    If He is, then He is the ground of being. But He doesn't act beyond that apart from in and around incarnation 'by the Spirit' whose other workings are even more ineffable. Incarnation is the only evidence of divine intervention.

    Creation is autonomous. Free within the independent laws of physics. I suspect that the 17 odd dimensionless constants are absolutely fixed within that. They have to be what they are.

    God's transcendent removed otherness can only be ameliorated by His sufficient immanence in which He acts, creates in virtually no experienced way.

    His creating is not our creating.


  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    On the subject of scientific theories not being inconsistent with belief, As you will be aware, I do not agree with that . . .
    So I have heard . . . . :wink:
    . . . since scientific and religious beliefs do not overlap anywhere, but for those who believe that God was/is involved, then I acknowledge that this is not a problem.
    I don't see that as a problem at all, although I would probably say that I believe they do overlap, or at least compliment one another. But I readily acknowledge that not all would agree.
    Yes, it may well be an odd way of thinking about it! However, over the years I have noticed that those who believe that God has always been involved do tend to avoid the when and how questions - as of course they are entitled to do.
    I just told you how I answer the "when" question: At all points in the process. Constantly. Always.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    There is no rational overlap at all apart from if stuff has to have a purposeful ground of being. And it doesn't. Nothing about stuff requires God.
  • Who said anything about God being “required”?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    In that case there is no rational warrant. No overlap with science.
  • Perhaps it's relevant exactly what is meant by "overlap."
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Perhaps it's relevant exactly what is meant by "overlap."
    From my point of view, I think the simplest description would be that the scientific method requires one to start with an observation which can be independently observed and verified. In religious beliefs, that cannot be done, so there is no common area.

  • If that's what's meant by "overlap," then I agree there is none.

    FWIW, that's not what I understood "overlap" to mean. I read it as overlap in the sense of both science and religion trying to understand the world, albeit with very different methods and in very different ways, but ways that I would submit can be complimentary.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Again, nothing in science complements religion. Science encompasses religion as evolved group behaviour. And nothing in religion complements science. God may actualize, realize science, maths, logic if His not existing meant nothing else could. Without Him or anything they are still axiomatic. And at best God is contingent: He exists but doesn't have to.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited February 9
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Again, nothing in science complements religion.
    I know many scientists who would disagree with you.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Again, nothing in science complements religion.
    I know many scientists who would disagree with you.
    Likewise.


  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    If that's what's meant by "overlap," then I agree there is none.

    FWIW, that's not what I understood "overlap" to mean. I read it as overlap in the sense of both science and religion trying to understand the world, albeit with very different methods and in very different ways, but ways that I would submit can be complimentary.
    I can se what you mean by both trying to understand the world, but I would say that science starts with a question and works towards a conclusion, and religions tend to start with a conclusion.
    Can you give an example perhaps of how you see them as complementary? The other difficulty is that religions do not have an objective method for investigation.
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Again, nothing in science complements religion.
    I know many scientists who would disagree with you.
    I have found over the years that, when this comment is made, it turns out that the scientists involved are more likely to be in the psychology, psychiatric, etc fields, rather than in the physical sciences. I think it is possibly easier for them to suspend their disbelief there? What do you think?
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    I have found over the years that, when this comment is made, it turns out that the scientists involved are more likely to be in the psychology, psychiatric, etc fields, rather than in the physical sciences. I think it is possibly easier for them to suspend their disbelief there? What do you think?

    I think you talk guff.

    One example: David Wilkinson Astrophysicist and theologian.

    He's absolutely not the only one.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    One example does not contradict a "more likely", which is what SD said.

    Some numbers may help -

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181219115525.htm and https://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html are some starting points. I think the latter does bear out SD's "more likely" comment somewhat.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited February 9
    There's a Graun article here https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/mar/04/myth-scientists-religion-hating-atheists
    which has quite a few links to related articles on this fascinating field.
  • I thought she was saying that scientists who wang on about there being no conflict between science and religion tend not to be from the hard sciences.

    I think that's untrue. There are absolutely people from the hard sciences who loudly wang about religion. Possibly more than from psychology.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    I thought she was saying that scientists who wang on about there being no conflict between science and religion tend not to be from the hard sciences.

    I think that's untrue. There are absolutely people from the hard sciences who loudly wang about religion. Possibly more than from psychology.

    That's what the authors of the study in one of the links thought, but it was the softer sciences with higher levels of belief. Perhaps a few physicists who are believers are more vocal about it because of popular perception that they're all atheists?
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited February 9
    KarlLB wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    I thought she was saying that scientists who wang on about there being no conflict between science and religion tend not to be from the hard sciences.

    I think that's untrue. There are absolutely people from the hard sciences who loudly wang about religion. Possibly more than from psychology.

    That's what the authors of the study in one of the links thought, but it was the softer sciences with higher levels of belief. Perhaps a few physicists who are believers are more vocal about it because of popular perception that they're all atheists?

    Or perhaps believing physicists have less of a problem with tying the two ideas together than Susan asserts.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I'm not sure they do, any more than one ties together playing Chess and brewing beer. I'm personally drawn to Gould's non-overlapping magesteria idea.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Again, nothing in science complements religion.
    I know many scientists who would disagree with you.

    Don't we all. But that's dispositional and nothing to do with science. It is significant that religiosity diminishes with educational attainment.
  • The above posts all look very interesting, but it is 09:15 and I am just off for a walk, so will read and respond as soon as I get back.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited February 9
    The collapse to the core in the UK is to a higher educational level. All that demonstrates is that we use all our resources to defend our ever shrinking team to the best of our cognitive bias.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    I have found over the years that, when this comment is made, it turns out that the scientists involved are more likely to be in the psychology, psychiatric, etc fields, rather than in the physical sciences. I think it is possibly easier for them to suspend their disbelief there? What do you think?

    I think you talk guff.

    One example: David Wilkinson Astrophysicist and theologian.

    He's absolutely not the only one.
    I have looked him up and see that he appears to be far more of a Methodist minister and theologian than physicist. I shall investigate further to find out how he fits his faith beliefs into his life and how much of his work is in the field of astro-physics/.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    One example does not contradict a "more likely", which is what SD said.

    Some numbers may help -

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181219115525.htm and https://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html are some starting points. I think the latter does bear out SD's "more likely" comment somewhat.
    Stephen Hawking's wife is quite a devout believer I think but from what I have read, it seems they simply agreed to differ when they got back together after his second marriage ended in divorce.

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    There's a Graun article here https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/mar/04/myth-scientists-religion-hating-atheists
    which has quite a few links to related articles on this fascinating field.
    I think it is a pity the writer uses the word 'hating' so often. A rational person does not 'hate'; it is a destructive emotion, destructive to the person doing the hating and, it would take quite a lot of evidence to convince me that there is much of it about among rational scientists.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    I have found over the years that, when this comment is made, it turns out that the scientists involved are more likely to be in the psychology, psychiatric, etc fields, rather than in the physical sciences. I think it is possibly easier for them to suspend their disbelief there? What do you think?

    I think you talk guff.

    One example: David Wilkinson Astrophysicist and theologian.

    He's absolutely not the only one.
    I have looked him up and see that he appears to be far more of a Methodist minister and theologian than physicist. I shall investigate further to find out how he fits his faith beliefs into his life and how much of his work is in the field of astro-physics/.

    Sigh. He's a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society. They clearly think he is a pretty decent astronomer.

    And, lest it need saying, the Vatican has many good astronomers.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    I thought she was saying that scientists who wang on about there being no conflict between science and religion tend not to be from the hard sciences.
    Yes, and I think statistically this is probably so. However, in this topic, I was wondering how members here fit the belief that God created us*, knowing as they do that there is so much scientific info available, i.e. about the formation of the universe.
    * as in God creating us for X or Y purpose
    I think that's untrue. There are absolutely people from the hard sciences who loudly wang about religion. Possibly more than from psychology.
    I wonder then, why do you think they would go on about it so much?! If they are so confident that their religious beliefs are entirely rational, they should simply state convincingly why.

  • It's impossible to win this argument, isn't it.

    You imply that those who say that there isn't a major problem aren't hard scientists. I show that this isn't the case, with an example - but you dispute his credentials. I then underline his acceptance by his astronomical colleagues and then you make some other comment on why he's bothered.

    It's almost like you have the answer that you want and are determined to explain or wave away information to the contrary.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    I have found over the years that, when this comment is made, it turns out that the scientists involved are more likely to be in the psychology, psychiatric, etc fields, rather than in the physical sciences. I think it is possibly easier for them to suspend their disbelief there? What do you think?
    I think that the scientists I know and to whom I was referring—anecdotal evidence to be sure—are all in the physical sciences who teach at large research universities or who work in similar research settings.

    I also think your comment on “suspending disbelief” is telling, and yet again conveys your opinion that believers just don’t know any better or can’t admit the truth, as you see it, to themselves. I thought perhaps the question in the OP had been asked with an open mind. I guess not.

    I think I’ll bow out.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    The wood for the rhetorical trees is that there is no warrant in science for God. The beliefs of scientists is absolutely irrelevant, of socio-biological interest only. Like grief, shame and other intense egotistical states, weightless, truly worthless. All is vanity. Including this.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    It's impossible to win this argument, isn't it.

    You imply that those who say that there isn't a major problem aren't hard scientists. I show that this isn't the case, with an example - but you dispute his credentials. I then underline his acceptance by his astronomical colleagues and then you make some other comment on why he's bothered.

    It's almost like you have the answer that you want and are determined to explain or wave away information to the contrary.
    No, you're right in your first comment here - no complete agreement possible, but I find that the interest is in the points raised.
    I would find it most interesting to have a conversation with David Wilkinson in order to hear how he puts forward, or perhaps even justifies, his belief in something requiring 100% faith, but, as the NSS are often pointing out, what we need is a properly secular society, not one where faith beliefs are banned or anything like that.

    in the second sentence you think I imply that such a person as DW is not a 'hard' scientist. No, that is not what I imply.His qualifications are there and, as you say, are valued. What I would like to know is how the argument that, I assume, goes on in their heads about who, what and where is the god they believe in in the universe they study. Perhaps the question comes up, but then they put it aside, or ignore it.
  • SusanDoris wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    It's impossible to win this argument, isn't it.

    You imply that those who say that there isn't a major problem aren't hard scientists. I show that this isn't the case, with an example - but you dispute his credentials. I then underline his acceptance by his astronomical colleagues and then you make some other comment on why he's bothered.

    It's almost like you have the answer that you want and are determined to explain or wave away information to the contrary.
    No, you're right in your first comment here - no complete agreement possible, but I find that the interest is in the points raised.
    I would find it most interesting to have a conversation with David Wilkinson in order to hear how he puts forward, or perhaps even justifies, his belief in something requiring 100% faith, but, as the NSS are often pointing out, what we need is a properly secular society, not one where faith beliefs are banned or anything like that.

    in the second sentence you think I imply that such a person as DW is not a 'hard' scientist. No, that is not what I imply.His qualifications are there and, as you say, are valued. What I would like to know is how the argument that, I assume, goes on in their heads about who, what and where is the god they believe in in the universe they study. Perhaps the question comes up, but then they put it aside, or ignore it.

    Maybe read one of his books on the subject.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    I have found over the years that, when this comment is made, it turns out that the scientists involved are more likely to be in the psychology, psychiatric, etc fields, rather than in the physical sciences. I think it is possibly easier for them to suspend their disbelief there? What do you think?
    I think that the scientists I know and to whom I was referring—anecdotal evidence to be sure—are all in the physical sciences who teach at large research universities or who work in similar research settings.

    I also think your comment on “suspending disbelief” is telling, and yet again conveys your opinion that believers just don’t know any better or can’t admit the truth, as you see it, ]
    to themselves. I thought perhaps the question in the OP had been asked with an open mind.
    Yes, it really was asked with an open mind, and most definitely not with a win/lose thought. However, if I just sat on the fence and posted woolly replies, I don't think that would help - and you'd wonder what was wrong with me! :smiley:
    I guess not.

    I think I’ll bow out.
    I do hope you don't.

  • If you say that science is observational and empirical, then there seems to be no overlap between science and theism. There might be with religion, since some religions are not theistic (e.g., advaita).

    On the other hand, science isn't only observational. It also uses guesswork, for example, but then the guesses are tested. It speculates, and so on.

    No, I can't find an overlap. It doesn't matter, does it? Humans have different faculties. If I believe that Thor causes thunder, that is quite satisfying.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    @Nick Tamen I see no evidence that SusanDoris has a closed mind. Closed to what? Arguing about what proportion of scientists on the spectrum of soft-hard 'believe' is a false dichotomy. Americans seem to believe more than NW Europeans for entirely cultural reasons. The church couldn't keep up with migration.
  • SusanDorisSusanDoris Shipmate
    edited February 9
    If you say that science is observational and empirical, then there seems to be no overlap between science and theism. There might be with religion, since some religions are not theistic (e.g., advaita).
    Yes, good point of course. Must look that one up.
    On the other hand, science isn't only observational. It also uses guesswork, for example, but then the guesses are tested. It speculates, and so on.
    Yes, and may well come up with some promising ideas for future progress but in the meantime, until the testing is possible, remains a speculation.
    No, I can't find an overlap. It doesn't matter, does it? Humans have different faculties. If I believe that Thor causes thunder, that is quite satisfying.
    Hmmmm, only up to the point where you hear about personal incredulity I think!

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    It's impossible to win this argument, isn't it.

    You imply that those who say that there isn't a major problem aren't hard scientists. I show that this isn't the case, with an example - but you dispute his credentials. I then underline his acceptance by his astronomical colleagues and then you make some other comment on why he's bothered.

    It's almost like you have the answer that you want and are determined to explain or wave away information to the contrary.
    No, you're right in your first comment here - no complete agreement possible, but I find that the interest is in the points raised.
    I would find it most interesting to have a conversation with David Wilkinson in order to hear how he puts forward, or perhaps even justifies, his belief in something requiring 100% faith, but, as the NSS are often pointing out, what we need is a properly secular society, not one where faith beliefs are banned or anything like that.

    in the second sentence you think I imply that such a person as DW is not a 'hard' scientist. No, that is not what I imply.His qualifications are there and, as you say, are valued. What I would like to know is how the argument that, I assume, goes on in their heads about who, what and where is the god they believe in in the universe they study. Perhaps the question comes up, but then they put it aside, or ignore it.

    Maybe read one of his books on the subject.

    What does he claim?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    With believers like me who needs disbelievers, eh?
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    It's impossible to win this argument, isn't it.

    You imply that those who say that there isn't a major problem aren't hard scientists. I show that this isn't the case, with an example - but you dispute his credentials. I then underline his acceptance by his astronomical colleagues and then you make some other comment on why he's bothered.

    It's almost like you have the answer that you want and are determined to explain or wave away information to the contrary.
    No, you're right in your first comment here - no complete agreement possible, but I find that the interest is in the points raised.
    I would find it most interesting to have a conversation with David Wilkinson in order to hear how he puts forward, or perhaps even justifies, his belief in something requiring 100% faith, but, as the NSS are often pointing out, what we need is a properly secular society, not one where faith beliefs are banned or anything like that.

    in the second sentence you think I imply that such a person as DW is not a 'hard' scientist. No, that is not what I imply.His qualifications are there and, as you say, are valued. What I would like to know is how the argument that, I assume, goes on in their heads about who, what and where is the god they believe in in the universe they study. Perhaps the question comes up, but then they put it aside, or ignore it.

    Maybe read one of his books on the subject.

    What does he claim?

    Why are you asking me?
Sign In or Register to comment.