A question for my theistic evolutionist friends

[grmorton]

IMO
The idea that God knows the future is a precept oversimplified to the point of being dangerous. Events do not proceed in an undeviating line from the beginning of time til its end. There are many possible futures, and God knows them all. In the ordinary course, he does not intervene. He knows what is inevitable, and he knows when it becomes inevitable - a given event may be ineluctable from the time of creation, or it may be locked scant nano-seconds before it occurs. God knows all that is and all that can be, but he does not know what will be until it will be (at which point it becomes "is"). Even this concept is oversimplified, but it approaches the realities adequately.

It is said that God's will is irresistible, and I agree that it is so, but again, the precept is oversimplified. His will is wholly resistible unless he chooses to impose it. God wills that all be saved - and many are lost. That fact adequately demonstrates the point.
Again IMO.

Interesting concept. Let me ask you, how many worlds out there are there in which Jesus died of measles at 4 years old and never fulfilled his role? That certainly is a possible future when tallied at the beginning of the universe. Traditional multiverse views would say there are more in which Jesus died of natural causes than those in which he died on the cross.

Thus, I don't think I can accept your view of multiple futures, as I understand what you said.

[Adrift]

Interesting concept. Let me ask you, how many worlds out there are there in which Jesus died of measles at 4 years old and never fulfilled his role? That certainly is a possible future when tallied at the beginning of the universe. Traditional multiverse views would say there are more in which Jesus died of natural causes than those in which he died on the cross.

Thus, I don't think I can accept your view of multiple futures, as I understand what you said.

Note that tabibito mentioned possible futures, and not actual futures. I can't be certain, but it sounds like tobibito is referring to the molinist approach to God's foreknowledge. This is the approach to understanding God's foreknowledge I myself lean towards.

Dr. William Lane Craig briefly breaks it down in the following short video if you're interested.

Edited: replaced with an even shorter video.

[tabibito]

Interesting concept. Let me ask you, how many worlds out there are there in which Jesus died of measles at 4 years old and never fulfilled his role? That certainly is a possible future when tallied at the beginning of the universe. Traditional multiverse views would say there are more in which Jesus died of natural causes than those in which he died on the cross.

Thus, I don't think I can accept your view of multiple futures, as I understand what you said.

Malleable future would necessarily imply a a multiverse only if the future already exists.

[tabibito]

Note that tabibito mentioned possible futures, and not actual futures. I can't be certain, but it sounds like tobibito is referring to the molinist approach to God's foreknowledge. This is the approach to understanding God's foreknowledge I myself lean towards.

Dr. William Lane Craig briefly breaks it down in the following short video if you're interested.

Edited: replaced with an even shorter video.

There are differences in the concepts, but I think that either will more nearly approach the truth than the "God knows everything, therefore everything is predetermined" idea. I'll have to investigate this Molinism thing a bit before I could make any real comments, but it seems that the concepts assign to God too much of a hands on approach for my liking.

[grmorton]

Malleable future would necessarily imply a a multiverse only if the future already exists.

Even if the future doesn't exist, the possible worlds imply a vanishingly small probability for any one future path actually being taken.

I build fluid flow models for oil fields. There are an almost infinite possible distributions of sand, permeability and porosity in a field. Thus, one can consider all these, possible outcomes. There is only one true description of the oil field, but we don't know which one it is. The odds of it being exactly like we use to model the flow is vanishingly small.

this would apply to a malleable future. It would be vanishingly small probabilities that God would be able to plan the lamb that was slain into the foundation of the universe. So, how do you overcome this statistical problem with future paths?

I just got a new computer and don't have speakers on it yet, I will have to listen to Molinism tomorrow

[Adrift]

There are differences in the concepts, but I think that either will more nearly approach the truth than the "God knows everything, therefore everything is predetermined" idea. I'll have to investigate this Molinism thing a bit before I could make any real comments, but it seems that the concepts assign to God too much of a hands on approach for my liking.

Ok, well this article is a pretty good breakdown to help you in your investigation.

http://www.theopedia.com/molinism

[Adrift]

I just got a new computer and don't have speakers on it yet, I will have to listen to Molinism tomorrow

Understood. The article I linked above gives a good overview with links for further reading.

[grmorton]

Ok, well this article is a pretty good breakdown to help you in your investigation.

http://www.theopedia.com/molinism

[tabibito]

Even if the future doesn't exist, the possible worlds imply a vanishingly small probability for any one future path actually being taken.

I build fluid flow models for oil fields. There are an almost infinite possible distributions of sand, permeability and porosity in a field. Thus, one can consider all these, possible outcomes. There is only one true description of the oil field, but we don't know which one it is. The odds of it being exactly like we use to model the flow is vanishingly small.

this would apply to a malleable future. It would be vanishingly small probabilities that God would be able to plan the lamb that was slain into the foundation of the universe. So, how do you overcome this statistical problem with future paths?

I just got a new computer and don't have speakers on it yet, I will have to listen to Molinism tomorrow

I will repeat and stress: the model I have proposed is oversimplified, just not as oversimplified as other models.
Your oil is wholly subject to the "laws of nature", and assuming you know how it will respond to the combination of those laws, you can predict with precision what the oil will do. Assuming that is, that you can also predict whether or not some random tornado (or whatever) will affect the oil, and how. Give that oil free will, however, and the power, however limited, to act on that free will, and things become somewhat unpredictable. Knowing the extent of the oil's ability with precision, you will know what is possible and need to plan for every possible contingency.
We know that God planned the advent of the messiah from the time the universe was created. Given the progression of history, the Bible details only that plan which was relevant. The Bible doesn't mention other plans - they are irrelevant. What plan might have been put into effect had the first Adam not sinned? There would have been no need for a second Adam, and no need for the Bible to mention the plan for a Messiah: perhaps no need for any Bible at all.

[grmorton]

I will repeat and stress: the model I have proposed is oversimplified, just not as oversimplified as other models.
Your oil is wholly subject to the "laws of nature", and assuming you know how it will respond to the combination of those laws, you can predict with precision what the oil will do.

I am always amazed at the faith people have in models. No, we can't predict with certainty what the oil will do. We have built models that fit the facts we had but which failed t predict the performance of the well. We are using the known laws of physics but as I said, we don't know the actual state of the reservoir. We don't know where barriers and baffles are away from our six inch borehole. the probability that we will get it correct, even with known laws of physics is really really improbable.

Assuming that is, that you can also predict whether or not some random tornado (or whatever) will affect the oil, and how.

Tornadoes have nothing to do with oil.

Give that oil free will, however, and the power, however limited, to act on that free will, and things become somewhat unpredictable. Knowing the extent of the oil's ability with precision, you will know what is possible and need to plan for every possible contingency.

Absolutely agree that the oil is unpredictable. But I am not God, and I can't look at the reservoir. If I could, I could build a pretty good fit to the situation.

We know that God planned the advent of the messiah from the time the universe was created. Given the progression of history, the Bible details only that plan which was relevant. The Bible doesn't mention other plans - they are irrelevant. What plan might have been put into effect had the first Adam not sinned? There would have been no need for a second Adam, and no need for the Bible to mention the plan for a Messiah: perhaps no need for any Bible at all.

Ah, so if the world had worked out differently, sacrificing babies to Molech might actually have worked. Very interesting.

[tabibito]

I am always amazed at the faith people have in models. No, we can't predict with certainty what the oil will do. We have built models that fit the facts we had but which failed t predict the performance of the well. We are using the known laws of physics but as I said, we don't know the actual state of the reservoir. We don't know where barriers and baffles are away from our six inch borehole. the probability that we will get it correct, even with known laws of physics is really really improbable.

Was it too much to expect that you would understand
. "Your oil is wholly subject to the "laws of nature", and assuming you know how it will
. respond to the combination of those laws, you can predict with precision what the oil will do."
to mean that you would be in possession of all relevant details down to the last decimal?

Tornadoes have nothing to do with oil.

A sudden gouge or debris dumped in the wrong place conceivably might affect (for example) flow rate - unlikely but not impossible.

Absolutely agree that the oil is unpredictable. But I am not God, and I can't look at the reservoir. If I could, I could build a pretty good fit to the situation.

In short, modelling would improve in proportion with data. Oil has no free will though - so unless it is subject to outside influences, it will be predictable within the limits of available knowledge. If it had free will, prediction would be impossible (to man).

Ah, so if the world had worked out differently, sacrificing babies to Molech might actually have worked. Very interesting.

I consider the fact that the Biblical record shows Egyptian magicians could replicate Moses' staff turning into a snake and the production of frogs, to be something of a cause to avoid scoffing at the concept. I would also expect that, should the possibility have existed, God would have intervened to prevent such a world from developing. While he only rarely acts independently in the world, he does do it.

[Cerebrum123]

You clearly don't understand the analogy I used earlier. If you bioengineer a plague that would kill millions, and go ahead and release it, you are morally responsible for what it does. You are also legally responsible for what it does. But you don't actively insert the virus into each and every victim.
It seems to me that you are making the logical argument,
god sets Satan in motion
therefore God causes individual acts of evil.
That is a nonsequitur

I really shouldn't be doing this, but because I've been so badly misrepresented after doing my best to make sure I'm not doing that, and making myself clear I had to come back.

No, it's not a non-sequitur in this case. By attributing Satan's evil to God, you are removing the free will component. This is the component that shows God is not to be held responsible for the evil acts of others. He knows better, he has been given adequate knowledge, and yet he still chose to disobey the Creator of the universe. That's on him, not on God. The same would apply to people, since he appears to have the same level of free will that we do. That you aren't seeing where your views lead does not make those problems go away.
While I don't fully agree with tabibito, I think he is far closer to the mark about this subject than you.

lol, since I believe that God could call this universe good as in the best logically possible world, means that I have just committed a horrendous act of evil. I think we have little to discuss. Hold your beliefs tight, and don't let your children go into geology.

Well, this universe is not "good" at this point in time. It's in bondage to decay, and under the rule of "the god of this age". That is not in any way shape or form "good". You are calling evil good, and good evil.

Romans 8:18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

2 Corinthians 4:4 [Full Chapter]
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

A world that is fallen in the ways ours is is not good. It's full of disease, bloodshed, demonic activity, and of course, the "last enemy" which is death.

All the other stuff you wrote reminds me of when Carl Froede called me son of Satan. Problem is you seem to think that salvation is dependant upon anti-evolutionary beliefs

I do not think that at all, and I have specifically on this site said many times that YEC is not essential to salvation. I do think that OEC and TE cause many more problems than they think they "solve". Most TE's I've encountered(with the exception of a few here on TWeb), have absolutely no regard for what the Bible says. You've discussed a similar problem yourself in this thread.
I am pointing out that you specifically are calling good evil, and evil good. I think you really, really need to take a step back and look at what you are really saying, because it's some very wrong stuff. I did not call you Satan. Your very dangerous theology has me quite worried though. Believe it or not, if I didn't care about you I would not be pointing this stuff out.
Making Biblical interpretation subjective is equivalent to saying that truth is subjective, because God's word is truth. Saying that the evolutionary process is good(a process built on something God says is evil, and our enemy), and saying that God is responsible for committing evil acts is calling evil good, and good evil. Saying that God is directly responsible for the acts of Satan is to say that Satan has no free will, and since it's pretty clear that he has at least as much free will as we do, that we don't have any either by logical extension.

2 Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

1 Corinthians 15:25-27New International Version (NIV)

25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

[Crackerjack]

My question is, where do Adam and Eve fit in your belief that God used evolution to create?

I see Adam and Eve as allegorical representation of early humanity. I'm also open to the view that they represent the early Israel.

Do they fit at all? If not, why?

They don't fit if they are to be understood as progenitors of the entire humanity. Contemporary humans, according to genetics, come from a population of no less than 10,000 members. Some suggest a historical Adam and Eve can be reconciled with genetics if they are understood as first human in theological sense, not in the biological sense. This could go through, but I don't subscribe to that view.

[shunyadragon]

I really shouldn't be doing this, but because I've been so badly misrepresented after doing my best to make sure I'm not doing that, and making myself clear I had to come back.

No, it's not a non-sequitur in this case. By attributing Satan's evil to God, you are removing the free will component. This is the component that shows God is not to be held responsible for the evil acts of others. He knows better, he has been given adequate knowledge, and yet he still chose to disobey the Creator of the universe. That's on him, not on God. The same would apply to people, since he appears to have the same level of free will that we do. That you aren't seeing where your views lead does not make those problems go away.
While I don't fully agree with tabibito, I think he is far closer to the mark about this subject than you.

Saying God is not responsible for evil, is saying that God is not in control of God's own Creation. The bottom line is IF god is an omnipotent, omnipresent All Powerful God, than he is responsible for everything in God's Creation. The concept of the Fall and Original Sin remains highly problematic as far as scape goating Adam and Eve as responsible for all the Pain, death, suffering and sins of ALL humanity. This traditional Christian belief is indeed the Achilles Heel of Doctrine and Dogma at the foundation of their belief.

Actually equally problematic for many if not most Christians is the YEC/OEC belief in Creation.

Living in the past does not cut it for the future which is now.

[grmorton]

Was it too much to expect that you would understand

yes it was, Tabibito. No one understands what the other person is saying on TW. it is the absolute law here that no one can understand anyone else.

. "Your oil is wholly subject to the "laws of nature", and assuming you know how it will
. respond to the combination of those laws, you can predict with precision what the oil will do."
to mean that you would be in possession of all relevant details down to the last decimal?

A sudden gouge or debris dumped in the wrong place conceivably might affect (for example) flow rate - unlikely but not impossible.

I actually thought we agreed on that. Silly me, the Law of TW requires that I not understand anything. lol

In short, modelling would improve in proportion with data. Oil has no free will though - so unless it is subject to outside influences, it will be predictable within the limits of available knowledge. If it had free will, prediction would be impossible (to man).

here we utterly disagree. You seem to be under the impression that oil flow is linear. It isn't. It is highly non-linear and thus is fundamentally unpredictable past the Lyapunov time. Even if we had perfect knowledge, we could not precisely predict the oil that would come out of the ground. It doesn't work like you think.

I consider the fact that the Biblical record shows Egyptian magicians could replicate Moses' staff turning into a snake and the production of frogs, to be something of a cause to avoid scoffing at the concept. I would also expect that, should the possibility have existed, God would have intervened to prevent such a world from developing. While he only rarely acts independently in the world, he does do it.

Here is where your view piles assumption upon assumption. You assume you know what God would do in other worlds, when before you said they were irrelevant and thus not mentioned. Seems to me that this assumes you have a level of knowledge of what God would do in alternative universes which you could not possibly possess. This approach to theological theory building makes you rather than God the Architect.