Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster wrote:
It's a pretty clear illustration to me of the transferrence of the greek concept of philosphical perfection as described above when contrasted and compared with the hebraic mindset and tradition which did not carry and elevate these when it speaks of "goodness". Perfection in that context is not Platonic and Aristotilean. It's part of the elements introduced especially through Aquinas that has had such great impact in this and many other arenas. The actual framework of approach carried baggage and adds things or changes emphasis to arrive at things that often were in my opinion never intended or understood by Christ, the Apostles and the early church.

We've had this conversation before. If you are this anti-philosophy, then I suggest you stop talking about the Trinity, or three persons in one being, because that is completely and 100% based on Greek philosophy. You may object that the Bible calls Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit all God, but none of that equals the Trinity. It is only when you apply philosophy you get to the formal doctrine. Further, if you are going to reject Greek philosophy, then stop applying the law of non-contradiction or reason it all. You can't have it both ways, Bart.

Grossly overstated Jac. The Trinity didn't suddenly appear in the 3rd or 4th century. It was a restatement of what the majority of the church already believed and put forth from its earliest days. It was not the gift of anyone or anything outside the gospel message and scriptures themselves. I do happen to think that the loss of perichoresis in the west was due more to events in the 3rd and 4th century that had to do with the introduction of other elements that we've spoken of. The use of all or nothing structures like what you've indicated above are typical of some of the dualistic structures added after the time of Christ and the early Church, but your attempt to define things in that matter do not require me or others to accept the premises upon which they rest.

I'm not anti-philosophy. It has value in places. I'm anti the attempt to strip mystery from the Godhead and person(s) of God by means not employed or intended in the original writings or in the early church. I appreciate Augustine and Thomistic theology as far as it goes. I don't accept it as a suitable replacement for or an addition to the gospel message itself particularly when I see the fruits that some of it has given rise to. You no doubt disagree with me, but I see this as very pertinent and relevant to the discussion at hand because I believe many elements of YEC find their primogenesis in this realm and the results are not in my estimation particularly desirable. Ironically, I think some of the elements Augustine warned against in one of the quotes of my signature have been brought to full fruition in that regard by the attempt to isolate scripture from realm of natural reality.

(edited and elements added 3.1.2010 1:12 am est)

dayage wrote: God called the different days GOOD, because He was changing the initial conditions of the earth from formless, void and dark to having light, having form (land masses) and being filled with life. That is all that was meant. Anything else is just reading into the text what is not there. Also, look at day two. It is not called good, because none of the initial conditions were changed.

That's so cool I never knew that! That's all I wanted to say.

dayage wrote:look at day two. It is not called good, because none of the initial conditions were changed.

This could be a rebuke to the astrological cults of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Also, man is not called good. What are we to make of this? It could be a firm rebuke and a warning to those who worshipped false idols.

DannyM,

Man was created on day six. Day six is the last day of filling earth with life. Man is included when God wraps everything up with the phrase

God saw all that He had made, and behlod it was VERY GOOD.

So, yes the creation of man is called good.

Why would it be a rebuke to astrological cults? They deal with the stars. etc. Day two is talking about the open air between the clouds above and the oceans below, where the birds fly (Gen. 1:6-8, 20, 26, 28). It is not talking about the universe. Also, the cloud layer does not clear to make the light sources visible until day four.

dayage wrote:
Man was created on day six. Day six is the last day of filling earth with life. Man is included when God wraps everything up with the phrase

God saw all that He had made, and behlod it was VERY GOOD.

So, yes the creation of man is called good..

No it is not. Man is not called good at all- God's proclaims the creation very good. Man is not yet good. If you want to bind God's proclamation of creation in with man on his own then that is your choice. But God certainly DOES NOT call man good.

dayage wrote:Why would it be a rebuke to astrological cults? They deal with the stars. etc. Day two is talking about the open air between the clouds above and the oceans below, where the birds fly (Gen. 1:6-8, 20, 26, 28). It is not talking about the universe. Also, the cloud layer does not clear to make the light sources visible until day four.

Why? Because the astrological cults were misguided. Just look at Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God..." Right away we have "God." A single God. I'm just thinking out loud here, and we clearly see that the sky and man are NOT called good. We also see the sun, moon and stars created on day 4, after the plants. Why is this? Light was created on day 1. Didn't God get the job right first time?

Kurieuo wrote:Yes, knowing full aware of the passages you have in mind. Be careful not to compare apples with oranges.

And also . . .

Danny wrote:Sorry, yes, to be the enemy of Jesus you would have to be evil.

Then I submit to both of you1 Cor 15:25-27

• For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.

And in case you are going to argue that death isn't Jesus' enemy, but rather man's, I'd remind you of two things:

1. Jesus is a man, so what is the enemy of us is the enemy of Him, too.
2. The verse explictly says "his enemies," and then goes on to talk about death.

Thus, I take death to be evil.

Gman wrote:Ok, so physical death is evil? How so?

Philosophically, because it is a privation. Theologically, because it is Jesus' enemy. Humanly, because it is unnatural. Or let's forget animal death for a minute, do you actually think that Adam and Eve would have died if they didn't eat of the forbidden fruit? On the assumption you'll rightly reject that idea, then you have to agree that physical death is unnatural for humans. If, then, you agree that physical death is evil in humans (being unnatural), on what basis do you assert it is natural in the rest of the animal kingdom, both of which are called nephesh by God? Put differently, why is the death of all nepheshim natural except in the case of one particular one (man)?

Of course He had to physically die.. But he didn't spiritually die. Did he?

Yes. Again, I'll emphasize, I've come to not make quite the firm distinction most people do on that, but yes, he died spiritually as well, I think.

I don't believe that they think that death was evil, the problem here is that they (or Darwin) couldn't rationalize how a loving God could allow death and suffering into the world. This same rationalization is also applied to the YEC'rs. They too cannot rationalize how a loving God could allow death and suffering into the world.

But there are other reasons why God would allow it... You follow?

I follow. I'm trying to get at a deeper question that I think you are missing that is very instructive for both of us. So le tme just ask you:

What is it about death and the nature of God that both YECs and atheists see as incompatible?

Grossly overstated Jac. The Trinity didn't suddenly appear in the 3rd or 4th century. It was a restatement of what the majority of the church already believed and put forth from its earliest days. It was not the gift of anyone or anything outside the gospel message and scriptures themselves. I do happen to think that the loss of perichoresis in the west was due more to events in the 3rd and 4th century that had to do with the introduction of other elements that we've spoken of. The use of all or nothing structures like what you've indicated above are typical of some of the dualistic structures added after the time of Christ and the early Church, but your attempt to define things in that matter do not require me or others to accept the premises upon which they rest.

I'm not anti-philosophy. It has value in places. I'm anti the attempt to strip mystery from the Godhead and person(s) of God by means not employed or intended in the original writings or in the early church. I appreciate Augustine and Thomistic theology as far as it goes. I don't accept it as a suitable replacement for or an addition to the gospel message itself particularly when I see the fruits that some of it has given rise to. You no doubt disagree with me, but I see this as very pertinent and relevant to the discussion at hand because I believe many elements of YEC find their primogenesis in this realm and the results are not in my estimation particularly desirable. Ironically, I think some of the elements Augustine warned against in one of the quotes of my signature have been brought to full fruition in that regard by the attempt to isolate scripture from realm of natural reality.

(edited and elements added 3.1.2010 1:12 am est)

Now this is a rather strong claim. Tell me, what, pray tell, in classical theology (the proper name for the Thomism you seem to be attacking here) is a "replacement for" or an "addition to" the Gospel? Now, I'm not going to assume anything, but I notice you go on and say that "many elements of YEC find their primogenesis in this realm." What do you mean by "this realm," because "this" seems to point back to "Augustine and Thomistic theology as far as it goes," which you seem to think presents itself "as a suitable replacement for or an addition to the gospel message itself." Are you now telling me that you think YEC is to be regarded as a replacement for or an addition to the Gospel, because, if so, how are you not saying that YEC is blantanly a false gospel? I suppose if you really believe that, I understand your refusal to condemn Deem's remarks that the appearance-of-age view "ought not be tolerated within the Church" and that such a God is not the God of the Bible.

Further, despite your assertion that I "grossly overstated" my objection, I see nothing but a denial in your response. You offered nothing to counter my argument. Where, exactly, do you disagree with me? If I can't appeal to philosophy to explain why death is evil, then what am I to appeal to? Further, why can I not appeal to philosophy here, but I can in, say, the Trinity? There is no difference. Either we can rightly appeal to reason to explain what God has revealed or we cannot. You can't pick and choose where you want to apply it and where you don't. That's just special pleading.

--------------------------------------

Bottom line: why is death evil? Because it is contrary to the nature of God, who is life itself. Nothing could be more contrary to His nature, for it is the denial of His very essence.

DannyM,

Yes, I see the "very good" to include man. God says it as He raps up the sixth day. The phrases good and very good have to do with changing the earth from what it was. Since man was part of the filling he would have been included.

Why? Because the astrological cults were misguided. Just look at Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God..." Right away we have "God." A single God. I'm just thinking out loud here, and we clearly see that the sky and man are NOT called good. We also see the sun, moon and stars created on day 4, after the plants. Why is this? Light was created on day 1. Didn't God get the job right first time?

Again, day two can not be directed at astrological cults, because the stars were not visible. Now, the mention on day four that God was the one who made the lights can be seen that way.

Light was not created on day one. God commands haya "let/allow to be." God does this in His creation command only two more times, day two and four. If you look at Job 38:4-9 you will see that stars were there before the earth and the darkness was because of thick cloudy atmosphere. So, on day one God caused a change in the atmosphere to allow light. On day two He cause another change in the atmosphere to divide the fog/steam (waters touching waters). Then on day 4 He uses this command again to cause the clouds from day two (waters above) to clear so that the individual lights can be seen. The sun, moon and star HAD BEEN MADE "in the beginning." Genesis 1:1 has a merism "the heavens and the earth" meaning the whole universe.

The days do not start until verse 3 "And God said." That is the way every day started.

The whole frame of reference is found in verse two. The Spirit is moving over the surface of the waters. Earthbound point of view. God did it the way He felt like doing it.

Physical death is an enemy to man, because it was not what God wanted for man. That is why the Tree of Life ways in the garden, so that man could live forever. But, after man sinned he had to be removed from this tree or be locked into a spiritually dead state. Likewise, now death locks us in whatever spiritual state we are in, lost or saved.

dayage wrote:Physical death is an enemy to man, because it was not what God wanted for man. That is why the Tree of Life ways in the garden, so that man could live forever. But, after man sinned he had to be removed from this tree or be locked into a spiritually dead state. Likewise, now death locks us in whatever spiritual state we are in, lost or saved.

1 Cor 15:25-27 says it is Jesus' enemy. Your argument is with Scripture. But even using your own logic:

1. Physical death is the enemy of man
2. Jesus is a man
3. Therefore, physical death is Jesus' enemy

Thus

1. That which is Jesus' enemy is evil
2. Physical death is Jesus' enemy
3. Therefore, physical death is evil.

No kidding Jac, but it is still dealing with human death not animals. The destruction of death is connected with the final resurrection and judgment of man (I Cor. 15:51-58; Rev. 20:13-15).

1. Physical death is the enemy of man
2. Jesus is a man
3. Therefore, physical death is Jesus' enemy

Thus

1. That which is Jesus' enemy is evil
2. Physical death is Jesus' enemy
3. Therefore, physical death is evil.

Your logic would only demonstrate that physical death of humans was evil, but I would be careful about the use of evil since God brought it about by removing Adam from the Tree of Life (Gen. 3:22-24). The death of the godly is precious to God (Ps. 116:15).

So you agree the physical death of humans is evil. I'll wait for others to comment before I take this any further.

Jac3510 wrote:Jesus is a man, so what is the enemy of us is the enemy of Him, too.

Yet Jesus is fully God, so I think that would alter the equation somehow. I can see that death might be an enemy to Jesus because it affects those created in His image. But I don't see how death can be an enemy to God, directly speaking of course, it just doesn't make sense to me. Can God die?

Jac3510 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Yes, knowing full aware of the passages you have in mind. Be careful not to compare apples with oranges.

And also . . .

Danny wrote:Sorry, yes, to be the enemy of Jesus you would have to be evil.

Then I submit to both of you1 Cor 15:25-27

• For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.

And in case you are going to argue that death isn't Jesus' enemy, but rather man's, I'd remind you of two things:

1. Jesus is a man, so what is the enemy of us is the enemy of Him, too.
2. The verse explictly says "his enemies," and then goes on to talk about death.

Thus, I take death to be evil.

And we know that in the day Adam ate the fruit that he died for that was what God promised. Adam and Eve were cast out of the earthly paradise God created, and they both lost the spiritual relationship they had with God. Romans 5:12 also has it that death entered the world through sin...

Now I'm happy for all these verses to apply to physical death (except Genesis where Adam and Eve didn't die a physical death in the very day they ate the fruit), as long as they are restricted to their context of humanity. Certainly human death only entered after the fall, and if it were possible for the fall to not happen and it did not happen, then I'm sure humanity would have been sustained by God. So this poses no problem to the Day-Age position which only necessitates animal/non-human death existed prior to the fall.

On the other hand, it might pose a problem as you say to a larger truth statement that human physical death is not necessarily evil. However, what is more evil - that our physical body be destroyed, or that our spiritual body be destroyed? One allows us to interact within our physical world, the other allows us to interact with God. We are told not to fear physical death, but to fear God who can destroy both our body and soul (Matt 10:28). Thus, spiritual death is the far greater enemy between us and God, however Jesus' work allows us to be spiritually "born again" which somewhat reinstates our relationship to be more fully experienced after we physically die.

It is also obvious Paul did not see physical death necessarily as a bad thing: "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain... Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body." (Phil 1:21-24)

dayage wrote:
Yes, I see the "very good" to include man. God says it as He raps up the sixth day. The phrases good and very good have to do with changing the earth from what it was. Since man was part of the filling he would have been included.

Hey Dayage, of course you can see it that way if that's how you see it. But consider this. During the 6th day of creation, God calls the creation of animals "good." God does not do this with man. He creates man, then goes on to discuss with man some of his dietary needs. He then goes on to discuss these dietary needs for animals. "And it was so." Genesis 1:31 "God saw all that He had made, and it was very good..." God saw ALL that He had made, and it was very good. God, for whatever reason, does NOT comment on man's creation on its own; man does not get called "good." Of course, man COULD be included in God's summing up of His creation, but there is no doubt that man is excluded from comment after his creation.

dayage wrote:Again, day two can not be directed at astrological cults, because the stars were not visible. Now, the mention on day four that God was the one who made the lights can be seen that way.

I maintain that this could indeed be a rejection of belief in the cosmic gods. The sun is being demoted here and it COULD be a firm rebuke to those who worshipped the skies and cosmic deities.

dayage wrote:Light was not created on day one. God commands haya "let/allow to be." God does this in His creation command only two more times, day two and four. If you look at Job 38:4-9 you will see that stars were there before the earth and the darkness was because of thick cloudy atmosphere. So, on day one God caused a change in the atmosphere to allow light. On day two He cause another change in the atmosphere to divide the fog/steam (waters touching waters). Then on day 4 He uses this command again to cause the clouds from day two (waters above) to clear so that the individual lights can be seen. The sun, moon and star HAD BEEN MADE "in the beginning." Genesis 1:1 has a merism "the heavens and the earth" meaning the whole universe.

Looking at Job 38:4-9 , it does not say the stars were there "before the earth." It merely mentions the "morning stars" after God laid the earth's foundation. Edit: We don't have morning until Genesis 1:5.

Jac3510 wrote:

Gman wrote:Ok, so physical death is evil? How so?

Philosophically, because it is a privation. Theologically, because it is Jesus' enemy.

You mean 1 Corinthians 15:26? It does not support the view that all death (in nature) is the result of sin.

Jac3510 wrote:Humanly, because it is unnatural.

How so? We all die don't we?

Jac3510 wrote:Or let's forget animal death for a minute, do you actually think that Adam and Eve would have died if they didn't eat of the forbidden fruit? On the assumption you'll rightly reject that idea, then you have to agree that physical death is unnatural for humans.

And what of the other tree? Eternal life was only available to them through the supernatural “tree of life” in the Garden of Eden, Genesis 3:22. That is why they were forced out of the garden. Why would there be a tree of life in the garden if they would have lived forever anyway?

Jac3510 wrote:If, then, you agree that physical death is evil in humans (being unnatural), on what basis do you assert it is natural in the rest of the animal kingdom, both of which are called nephesh by God? Put differently, why is the death of all nepheshim natural except in the case of one particular one (man)?

I don't agree that physical death in humans is evil..