created by God
SusanDoris
Shipmate
in Dead Horses
In the ‘What is the point of living?’ topic, FineLine says:
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.
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.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
For me, it was simply 'in the beginning...'
Would hosts here advise please?
P.S. Just realised it was an e-mail notification, not a pm - sorry!
Trying not to imagine this story happening at Damascus Gate. Because that would be disgusting.
Hilarious, but disgusting.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I just told you how I answer the "when" question: At all points in the process. Constantly. Always.
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.
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. 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.
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.
which has quite a few links to related articles on this fascinating field.
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.
Don't we all. But that's dispositional and nothing to do with science. It is significant that religiosity diminishes with educational attainment.
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.
* as in God creating us for X or Y purpose 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What does he claim?
Why are you asking me?