[continued from previous message]   
      
   > First of all, the basic mistake made by both IDers and RonO, is that   
   > they focus in on the *biological* evolution of the human body but the   
   > relationship with God is a *spiritual* one, not a biological one. The   
   > human body is important in Christian belief but only of secondary   
   > importance as a container for the Soul - that's why the body is often   
   > referred to as a "temple". How it developed biologically is   
   > interesting in its own right, just as the construction of a church or   
   > cathedral may be of architectural or cultural interest. Arguing about   
   > the development of DNA and cells and so on, however, is a bit like   
   > trying to argue that the value of Mass in a church or cathedral ios   
   > dependent on how much stone or marble was used in the construction.   
   > 'Tweaking'  of the human body (or that of any lifeform) has nothing to   
   > do with the relationship between our Soul and God and I see no need   
   > for God to take part in it.   
      
   So you are a dualist. I found dualism suspect as a youngster and as I   
   grew older it just became completely untenable to my worldview. So any   
   arguments using it is a non-starter.   
   >   
   > The second thing that has to be borne in mind is that Christian belief   
   > is based on the principle that full understanding of God is beyond   
   > human understanding; we can get glimpses of him but never fully   
   > understand him as he is wrapped in mystery and the deeper we study it,   
   > the deeper that mystery can become.  Frank Sheed summed tis up in his   
   > book 'Theology and Sanity':   
   >   
   > "Thus a Mystery is not to be thought of as simply darkness: it is a   
   > tiny circle of light surrounded by darkness. It is for us so to use   
   > our own powers and God's grace that the circle of light will grow. It   
   > means using the mind upon what reality may be made to tell us about   
   > God, and upon what God, through His Church, has told us about Himself;   
   > it means praying for more knowledge, and using the knowledge one gains   
   > to enrich one's prayer. Thus the circle of light grows; but it is   
   > always ringed round with darkness: for however our capacity may   
   > increase, it remains finite, and God remains infinite. Indeed the more   
   > the light grows, the more we realize what His Infinity means, what   
   > Immensity is. The theologian sees far more problems about the Blessed   
   > Trinity than the ordinary Catholic. But this is an ordinary   
   > accompaniment of knowledge. The man who knows nothing about a subject   
   > has no difficulties either, sees no problems, can ask no questions."   
      
   So God is a 'mystery beyond understanding' but some people occasionally   
   do get to understand bits and pieces? Just how does one determine that   
   they are correct about these bits and pieced?   
      
   >   
   > Science is like this too; every time a question is answered, it opens   
   > up new questions. Take abiogenesis, another example of a word for   
   > something we don't really understand. Around a hundred years or so   
   > ago, we knew virtually nothing about the origin of life; we now know a   
   > heck of a lot about it. We have figured out the ins and outs of the   
   > Big Bang and that it happened just under 14 billion years ago. We have   
   > figured out that the earth came along about 9 billion years later and   
   > bacteria, the first recognisable life forms, bacteria, came along   
   > about a billion years after that. We are still, however, trying to   
   > figure out how that bacteria came into being. At some points,   
   > scientists just have to say "We don't know" and that admission does   
   > not undermine or denigrate science; it certainly does not mean, as   
   > some IDers seem to think, that because we don't know *all* the   
   > answers, we don't know any of them so everything else can be thrown   
   > out! The same principle applies to religious belief and understanding   
   > - there are limits to our understanding and we should never be afraid   
   > to say "don't know". Again I see this as a shortcoming in ID and   
   > Creationism - whether it is science or religious belief, they regard   
   > "don't know" as some sort admission of failure.   
      
   I think your analogy fails. In science the the bits that move from   
   unknown to probably known is due to objective evidence. How does that   
   work in the religious sphere?   
   >   
   > Another aspect of that mystery is that as humans, we are constrained   
   > by human language in trying to describe something that is beyond   
   > human. That's why I think we should not get overly hung up on a word   
   > like "omniscient" or its partners "omnipresent" and "omnipotent". They   
   > are simply shorthand for the mystery where neither time nor place   
   > exist for God, everything is happening at once and all the time. It's   
   > a bit like scientists using "singularity" for just prior to the Big   
   > Bang; nobody can say exactly what the word means but everyone has a   
   > general idea of what it is trying to describe. The same also applies   
   > to the word "create"; it refers to everything having its source in God   
   > but we don't understand exactly how that happened. As Pope Francis   
   > declared, however, God was not "a magician, with a magic wand."   
      
   The "magician, with a magic wand." is fictitious. A real magician is a   
   trickster (greatly admired for their skills). The fictitious "magician,   
   with a magic wand" is preforming miracles, just like God.   
      
   >   
   > Again, the same principle applies to "miracle"; RonO and others try to   
   > make it out as a denial of science but it is a word used to describe   
   > something that science cannot explain so by definition, it cannot be a   
   > contradiction.  I've asked Ron to identify even one miracle that   
   > contradicts any specific science and needless to say, he hasn't been   
   > able to do so.   
      
   IMHO a true miracle is something that cannot *in principle* be explained   
   by science not just something that currently cannot be explained by science.   
      
   >   
   > In regard to miracles, it's worth pointing out that there are two   
   > broad categories of miracles - those that as a Christian I must   
   > believe and those that are optional for belief. The first category is   
   > primarily the things covered in the Gospel relating to Jesus,   
   > particularly the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection - both these are   
   > specified in the Nicene Creed and denial of them is a denial of basic   
   > tenets of Christianity. [1]   
   >   
   > The second 'optional' category is miracles that have happened to   
   > individuals outside the Gospels, things like miracles at Lourdes or   
   > used as part of the canonisation process [2]. In declaring these   
   > miracles, the Catholic Church does not definitively declare them to be   
   > supernatural; what they declare is that they are things that have been   
   > fully investigated by appropriate experts (typically medical as well   
   > as religious and often involving non-Catholics and all possible   
   > natural causes have been ruled out [3] so Catholics are free as   
   > individuals to treat these as supernatural but that belief is not   
   > obligatory.   
   >   
   > To sum up, God by definition is beyond natural forces or human   
   > language, so we are always going to be limited in trying to understand   
   > let alone explain him. That is where Faith ultimately comes into it   
   > and that, to me, is very much a personal experience. As someone once   
   > said, falling in love with God is like falling in love with another   
   > person, you can't really explain it but it just becomes part of your   
   > life.   
   >   
      
   okay, I am also a determinist with an allowance for continuous random   
   (quantum level) variations. So an instantaneous determination but   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)