Plain Old Bill
New Member
I've been reading an interesting book by Lee Strobel called "The Case for a Creator".It's very interesting.Lee names and talks to some pretty heavy duty scientists who say there must be a Creator.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Originally posted by Johnv:
Let's assume that every single aspect of the created universe can be explained through natural means. That still doesn't mean the universe can be accounted for without a creator.
When did we start adopting the false notion that natural explanations are devoid of God or His handiwork? Last time I checked, God created nature.
If it is eternal it does. Eternal means that matter and energy are perpetual and have no need of a creator.Originally posted by Johnv:
Let's assume that every single aspect of the created universe can be explained through natural means. That still doesn't mean the universe can be accounted for without a creator.
When did we start adopting the false notion that natural explanations are devoid of God or His handiwork? Last time I checked, God created nature.
Agreed. And scripture provides at least part of the dividing line between the two.Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
![]()
God is the originator of both the natural and the supernatural.
It sounds like you are suggesting that natural and supernatural explanations are in conflict with each other when both are originated by God.Originally posted by Scott J:
BTW, I didn't adopt that notion. Nor did I adopt the notion that if there is a remotely possible natural explanation it must be favored over the supernatural explanation given in God's Word.
What is the dividing line between the two and where does scripture divide them? I would say natural and supernatural are both God's creation. The natural is God's creation that humans believe we understand and the supernatural is God's creation that we do not understand as of yet or may never understand.Originally posted by Scott J:
Agreed. And scripture provides at least part of the dividing line between the two.
It sounds like you are suggesting that natural and supernatural explanations are in conflict with each other when both are originated by God.</font>[/QUOTE] Nope.Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
BTW, I didn't adopt that notion. Nor did I adopt the notion that if there is a remotely possible natural explanation it must be favored over the supernatural explanation given in God's Word.
Nope.And it sounds like you are suggesting that the Bible only describes the supernatural and not the natural.
Yes. And when it says that morning and evening to define a day of creation... that is by necessity action that is not natural but rather supernatural.I believe that the natural and supernatural are not in conflict with each other because both are from God and that Genesis describes both the natural and the supernatural.
What is the dividing line between the two and where does scripture divide them? I would say natural and supernatural are both God's creation.</font>[/QUOTE] In the definitions of the words divinely chosen to recount the events of creation.</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Agreed. And scripture provides at least part of the dividing line between the two.
Human understanding is not a valid gauge.The natural is God's creation that humans believe we understand and the supernatural is God's creation that we do not understand as of yet or may never understand.
And the natural is what God declared that He did within the constraints of natural law or at least human understanding of it. There are many things in natural law that we would consider supernatural because we do not understand it as being natural law as of yet.Originally posted by Scott J:
The supernatural is what God declared that He did beyond the constraints of natural law.
Why can't God create both naturally (in ways we currently understand) and supernaturally (in ways we currently do not understand)? Why is this sharp delineation made between the natural and the supernatural and restricting God only to use one and not the other in His supernatural act of creation?Originally posted by Scott J:
The work performed in the first six days cannot be accounted for by natural processes...
And the natural is what God declared that He did within the constraints of natural law or at least human understanding of it. There are many things in natural law that we would consider supernatural because we do not understand it as being natural law as of yet. </font>[/QUOTE]Speaking things into existence doesn't qualify as one of those things.Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
The supernatural is what God declared that He did beyond the constraints of natural law.
This is a very interesting statment and it made me think. I am not sure what to think of it.Originally posted by Paul33:
Jonathan Edwards believed that God was perpetually creating every moment of the universe by his will. Without God willing it into existence second by second, the universe wouldn't exist.
But adaptation is not creation. How can you equate the two?Originally posted by David Ekstrom:
Marcia, I don't think we want to say that God has stopped creating. Then you have a kind of Deism. You may have pointed out just another problem for those who take the Six Days literally. We know the world is still adapting. All mankind are descendents of Noah, yet the various races have markedly different features. Adaptation is all around us; even the most ardent Creation Scientists agree.