From: cates_db@hotmail.com
On 2025-03-20 11:25 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 17:14:14 -0500, DB Cates
> wrote:
>
>> On 2025-03-19 6:39 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 22:30:41 -0500, DB Cates
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-03-18 12:16 p.m., Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 09:26:24 -0500, DB Cates
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2025-03-18 3:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 16:31:30 -0500, DB Cates
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-17 8:31 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 08:42:49 -0500, RonO
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [giant snip]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for that. I had to stop snipping replies to Ron because if
>>>>>>> you snip anything at all, he claims you were running from his
>>>>>>> arguments and reposts the same stuff so you end up with a post 2 or 3
>>>>>>> times longer than it needs to be :(
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> QUOTE:
>>>>>>>>>> We believe that God acts purposefully in creation, just as he does
in
>>>>>>>>>> our lives, and that he continues to actively uphold and sustain
creation.
>>>>>>>>>> END QUOTE:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And again, nothing there about God tweaking life the way Behe claims.
>>>>>>>>> [another giant snip]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Out of curiosity, what do you think the phrase "he continues to
actively
>>>>>>>> uphold and sustain creation." mean? I mean, in particular "continues"
>>>>>>>> and "actively".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see this as a background thing, not a direct process. I have 5
>>>>>>> grown-up children, all with children of their own. I continue to
>>>>>>> actively uphold and sustain them in whatever way they need but I do
>>>>>>> not *interfere* in their lives. If, for example, they make decisions
>>>>>>> that I don't agree with, I *might* offer an opinion if I think it will
>>>>>>> be welcome but the decision is entirely theirs and I fully accept and
>>>>>>> support whatever they do decide. The help and support I (and my wife)
>>>>>>> give them is on request, not pushed on them, though they know it is
>>>>>>> available when needed, and is given unconditionally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's why I think the analogy of God as father is a particularly apt
>>>>>>> one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm having difficulty reconciling that view with a purported omniscient
>>>>>> entity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm struggling to grasp what difficulty you have, can you elaborate?
>>>>>
>>>> IMHO, asked for tweaking is still tweaking and an omniscient tweaker is
>>>> likely doing miracles.
>>>
>>> Maybe it's a language thing but I can't understand how you see giving
>>> help on request as tweaking.
>>>
>>> My daughter messages me and says one of their kids has a dental
>>> appointment and it's awkward for she or her husband to get off work
>>> that day, can I take their kid to the appointment; is that tweaking or
>>> interfering?
>>>
>>> My son comes to me because he has some work to do on his house; he can
>>> get a grant for it but he has to complete the work first, can I help
>>> him out with a temporary loan, I do that, he gets the grant and repays
>>> me; have I interfered in or tweaked his life?
>>>
>>> My daughter comes to me and says she has been offered a new job but is
>>> not sure whether or not to take it and would like my advice, which I
>>> give, making clear that it has to be her decision; is that is that
>>> tweaking or interfering?
>>>
>>> An important point relating to this is that all miracles or examples
>>> of divine interference that I know of are related to *individuals* not
>>> an entire species. I've asked Ron to give a specific example of a
>>> miracle that he regards as tweaking but I won't hold my breath waiting
>>> for it.
>>
>> Could you expand on how these hypotheticals analogize to an omniscient
>> being as the 'father figure'. I don't see it.
>
Similar apologies. I've started a reply in my head many times but they
always led to long, convoluted arguments with digressions and other
sidebars that indicated that it would go on for pages. So I quit. So
instead I will just make a few quick comments with little exposition.
>
> Apologies for a somewhat elongated response to this but there isn't a
> simple answer. For that reason, I'm generally hesitant of getting too
> deeply into this kind of stuff in a Usenet post along with my general
> experience that the people who least understand religious belief and
> theology are those most likely to dismiss any attempt to rationalise
> it - not applying that to you specifically, just my general
> experience. That also of course applies to evolution, those who
> question it most are often those who understand it least.
I admit I have little understanding of formal religious belief and
Theology but I do not dismiss attempts to rationalize such beliefs out
of hand. Rather I have found all such attempts that I have come across
to be utterly unconvincing.
Religious
> belief is in its own way, as complex and wide-ranging as evolution and
> trying to explain it to someone who has never studied it is a bit like
> trying to explain the roles of natural selection and genetic drift to
> someone who doesn't have a basic understanding of genetics.
The lack of any concrete evidence means I cannot take the comparison to
the theory of evolution seriously.
>
> Anyway, with that proviso in place, I will try to cover some of the
> key aspects of what you are asking about.
>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
