Creation using Evolution

[siegi91]

25 minutes ago, brujaq said:

Physical law is consistent and reliable , but God can and does intervene to overide physical law at our request or according to his will

Sure

[one.opinion]

9 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

So, I hope you forgive me.

No problem at all! I can understand the hesitation, as I’ve considered my faith at times before in my life.

[siegi91]

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

No problem at all! I can understand the hesitation, as I’ve considered my faith at times before in my life.

I envy you. Maybe. I really have mixed feelings about that.

You guys look happy to have so many brothers and sisters sharing the same faith. I am sure that causes confidence and fellowship. I am impressed really. Even if you disagree by several orders of magnitude for what concerns creation timings and other things, you still seem to agree on the same basic premise. I never experienced anything of the sort, in my academic career.

siegi

 

 

 

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, siegi91 said:

Even if you disagree by several orders of magnitude for what concerns creation timings and other things

Hahaha I like the way you put that. Yes, I disagree with a lot of opinions and I probably enjoy arguing too much! But you are right, I disagree with a lot of people on these issues (including my mother!) but find a deeper connection in shared faith.

[siegi91]

Just now, one.opinion said:

Hahaha I like the way you put that. Yes, I disagree with a lot of opinions and I probably enjoy arguing too much! But you are right, I disagree with a lot of people on these issues (including my mother!) but find a deeper connection in shared faith.

Cool

 

[RockyMidnight]

1 hour ago, brujaq said:

Well there is revelation of the past and prophesy of the future but I agree I'm now, for the time being 

Hi Brujaq! Who knows prophesy and Revelation? Only God and those He chooses to share it with. God is eternal and has no need for nor dependence on time. He does however create the appearance of time for us, otherwise we could not experience faith ( Substance of things hoped for, evidence of what is not seen). As for the natural and supernatural (prefer to avoid using the latter). Who established the laws of nature, the "natural"? Again, only God, so in that sense there is no natural, and only His invisible attributes (better definition of supernatural agreed?).

Despite the "fact" that we experience reality as a progressive series of events, one leading seamlessly into another, the only time we have any experience is right now. In the "spotlight" moment in this universe or rather, in the ever present focus of God's will.

Cheers Brujaq!!! 

Edited July 31, 2018 by RockyMidnight

[RockyMidnight]

58 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

You know? I am a determinist, mainly for scientific reasons. And I am a determinist even under the premise of QM. All viable laws of physics are deterministic and reversible. They might differ on the configuration space on which things happen, but they are all like that.  This is so important, that new laws are first checked so that they pass the deterministic test.

So, nobody made that choice. My volition does not pop up out of nothing. It is determined by the physical state of my brain and the state of the inputs my brain receives. I mean, think about it. Do you think that any of your decisions begin to exist without a cause? Kalam might have a problem with that

Physical information is constant. So, if I decide to kick a ball, my decision was pre-determined, since the final state of that ball was not subject to indetermination. That final state was set billions of years before my birth.

Having said that, I think we can still make sense of free will.

Don't we use probability theory to study things like roulette and dice? Roulette and dice are not random. They look random because we ignore all the fine details that lead them to a result.So, if probability is effective for fundamentally not-random processes, then freedom of will and moral accountability might be a valid approximation for something that is not free at all.

 siegi

 

Hi Siegi91! Deterministic. This means you believe things happen outside your will? That's what the definition I got online is.

If the "final state" was established millions of years before you were born and is pre-determined then you are telling me that at every level of reality, again from the quantum to the macro, that all it's components (particles, atomic and molecular structure, compounds, and all the structures they comprise organic and inorganic, and all the ways they interact with each other and with energy, including all the conceptions of cognizant minds whether considered real or imagined is in fact predetermined. Yes? No?

I don't see why probability should be an exception to this then. 

Do we agree on this?

Cheers Siegi91

[siegi91]

16 minutes ago, RockyMidnight said:

Hi Siegi91! Deterministic. This means you believe things happen outside your will? That's what the definition I got online is.

If the "final state" was established millions of years before you were born and is pre-determined then you are telling me that at every level of reality, again from the quantum to the macro, that all it's components (particles, atomic and molecular structure, compounds, and all the structures they comprise organic and inorganic, and all the ways they interact with each other and with energy, including all the conceptions of cognizant minds whether considered real or imagined is in fact predetermined. Yes? No?

I don't see why probability should be an exception to this then. 

Do we agree on this?

Cheers Siegi91

Yes. There is no way to introduce new information, novelty or surprise in the system.

However, not outside my will. That is not possible. For my will obeys to the same deterministic rules and is, therefore, determined.

But I do not believe all this. I know it.

 siegi

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by siegi91

[RockyMidnight]

17 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

Yes. There is no way to introduce new information, novelty or surprise in the system.

However, not outside my will. That is not possible. For my will obeys to the same deterministic rules and is, therefore, determined.

But I do not believe all this. I know it.

 siegi

 

Hi Siegi91. If determinism was active from the beginning, what then is its cause? 

Cheers!!! 

[Guest shiloh357]

9 hours ago, siegi91 said:

 

Don't we use probability theory to study things like roulette and dice? Roulette and dice are not random. They look random because we ignore all the fine details that lead them to a result.So, if probability is effective for fundamentally not-random processes, then freedom of will and moral accountability might be a valid approximation for something that is not free at all.

 siegi

 

But that kind of "determinism" removes the need for moral accountability, or any objective standard of right and wrong.  My decisions were not really mine.  They were already determined.  I am only doing what was determined I would do.