Evolution/Intelligent Design -- what it means about God

[jay santos]

This is a thought I've been chewing on for a while.

Let's assume God exists, but let's not assume anything else.

We know he created the universe, the Earth, and man, etc, but that's all we know about him with certainty.

How did God create things? He did it in a way that his influence on it is completely imperceptible.

What does this tell us about God?

[ERCougar]

This is a thought I've been chewing on for a while.

Let's assume God exists, but let's not assume anything else.

We know he created the universe, the Earth, and man, etc, but that's all we know about him with certainty.

How did God create things? He did it in a way that his influence on it is completely imperceptible.

What does this tell us about God?

He likes to try to trick his kids?
He values faith over absolute knowledge?

Or are you getting after "left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing" idea?

[jay santos]

He likes to try to trick his kids?
He values faith over absolute knowledge?

Or are you getting after "left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing" idea?

I don't really know what I'm getting at. I just think there's something in there that might help us understand God.

[Indy Coug]

This is a thought I've been chewing on for a while.

Let's assume God exists, but let's not assume anything else.

We know he created the universe, the Earth, and man, etc, but that's all we know about him with certainty.

How did God create things? He did it in a way that his influence on it is completely imperceptible.

What does this tell us about God?

I think the first step is defining "create".

[jay santos]

I don't really know what I'm getting at. I just think there's something in there that might help us understand God.

If I have something I'm getting at, it's this.

There seems to be a disconnect between the way God seems to be deliberately elusive during the creation process and the way God interacts with some prophets and religious leaders in the history of the various world religions which is very direct and intimate.

[UtahDan]

Jay, in your hypothetical is God choosing to be imperceptible or is that the only option available to Him? That would be very important for me to know in formulating what it might say about his personality, motives, objectives, etc.

[Donuthole]

Let's assume God exists, but let's not assume anything else.

Ok, i'm with you so far.

We know he created the universe, the Earth, and man, etc,

Hmm, you just lost me. I thought we weren't assuming anything other than the fact that he exists.

[jay santos]

OK, right.

More assumptions.

1. He exists.
2. He has power to do things the way he wants.
3. He created us.

[woot]

I think from a believing standpoint, it's a good idea to assume that god really values faith and doesn't want to make his existence obvious. That's where I was at for much of my believing life, and I don't really see any way around it.

[lambdacoug]

OK, right.

More assumptions.

1. He exists.
2. He has power to do things the way he wants.
3. He created us.

Given these assumptions, he left in a number of bugs in our software. He already rebooted the species once, but his patches weren't sufficient.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

The God I believe in isn't so much Gob the magician as he is the man behind the curtain. Clearly, he can't make something out of nothing. What makes him God, isn't so much that he supersedes law as much as complete adherence to law. I think that the LDS are the only ones that declare that God could actually cease to be God. Creating something out of nothing would clearly violate the laws of matter.

So instead, he's a God of direction. He sets things in order and then watches them play out. The term "organize" is used deliberately in relation to the "creation" process. SO the general church membership is okay with this "organization" when it comes to land, water, and space. But the same membership takes serious offense when it comes to the slightest suggestion that we, possibly "weren't" from the beginning. As if the idea that God needed intermediaries from matter unorganized to His likeness is some reflection of His love, or the lack thereof.

But I think it's just the opposite. How much does God love us? Enough to invest billions of years into our development. Billions of years, complete with an incredible history of "bycatch" so that we could have an environment that allows us to sit around and bitch at each other about which hand one should use to take the sacrament with.

[beefytee]

The God I believe in isn't so much Gob the magician as he is the man behind the curtain. Clearly, he can't make something out of nothing. What makes him God, isn't so much that he supersedes law as much as complete adherence to law. I think that the LDS are the only ones that declare that God could actually cease to be God. Creating something out of nothing would clearly violate the laws of matter.

So instead, he's a God of direction. He sets things in order and then watches them play out. The term "organize" is used deliberately in relation to the "creation" process. SO the general church membership is okay with this "organization" when it comes to land, water, and space. But the same membership takes serious offense when it comes to the slightest suggestion that we, possibly "weren't" from the beginning. As if the idea that God needed intermediaries from matter unorganized to His likeness is some reflection of His love, or the lack thereof.

But I think it's just the opposite. How much does God love us? Enough to invest billions of years into our development. Billions of years, complete with an incredible history of "bycatch" so that we could have an environment that allows us to sit around and bitch at each other about which hand one should use to take the sacrament with.

This is very similar to my view. I'm surprised how pervasive the magician image is in the church. Other religions try to mystify God, so I can understand the idea of a magician appealing to them since to them these things are incomprehensible. The Mormon church has humanized God (for lack of a better term), yet some peoples want to make understanding His ways unachievable even though we are supposed to be learning them.

[jay santos]

The God I believe in isn't so much Gob the magician as he is the man behind the curtain. Clearly, he can't make something out of nothing. What makes him God, isn't so much that he supersedes law as much as complete adherence to law. I think that the LDS are the only ones that declare that God could actually cease to be God. Creating something out of nothing would clearly violate the laws of matter.

So instead, he's a God of direction. He sets things in order and then watches them play out. The term "organize" is used deliberately in relation to the "creation" process. SO the general church membership is okay with this "organization" when it comes to land, water, and space. But the same membership takes serious offense when it comes to the slightest suggestion that we, possibly "weren't" from the beginning. As if the idea that God needed intermediaries from matter unorganized to His likeness is some reflection of His love, or the lack thereof.

But I think it's just the opposite. How much does God love us? Enough to invest billions of years into our development. Billions of years, complete with an incredible history of "bycatch" so that we could have an environment that allows us to sit around and bitch at each other about which hand one should use to take the sacrament with.

How is this clear to you?

Also, where do you see the term "organize" being deliberately used?

[lambdacoug]

How is this clear to you?

Also, where do you see the term "organize" being deliberately used?

Its all over the place in the temple ceremony. I'd include the particular lines I'm thinking of, but that would likely not be received well.

[woot]

How is this clear to you?

Also, where do you see the term "organize" being deliberately used?

While it's possible in theory that god can do this but just chooses to make sure nobody ever finds out about it, it seems like a more accurate view of god might be gleaned if the premise is accepted that god doesn't break the laws of physics and generally doesn't interrupt the natural flow of things. A god based on stories of ancient miracles and whatnot is more popular, but it might be an interesting thought experiment to think about god in the context of the reality we know.