Hi Doug,

It's a huge subject and one that I generally avoid because it is complex and highly dependent on personal interpretation and one with writings supporting many views.

But I did want to reply to the pov that "God is not necessarily capricious but disinterested and uninvolved."...

My personal inclination is that HE exists and that HE is interested and involved. I think it is the estimation/attribution of the degree of involvement that causes strife among believers. This is one of the silliest reasons that I can think of for people(s) to war with each other, hate each other, fear each other, etc.

I am satisfied that it is truly impossible to know for sure. I must also admit that I feel negatively when I hear anyone claim that they know for sure.
Please note that I am *not* saying that you have come across that way here.

Cheers,

Jim N


>Hi Jim,
>
>Great question...
>
>From some of the other philosophical povs this is the position they take. That is, god is not necessarily capricious but disinterested and uninvolved. From the Historic Christian (HC - a phrase I've swiped from Francis Schaffer) pov this would not be so. I suppose that the underlying questions or reasons that folks would want to think along lines like this would turn on the notion of the "fairness" of God. This position (the one you mention) suggests a rationale for the suffering in this world. God made everything and kind of just walked away, to perhaps return at some unspecified point in time to see what happened.
>
>From the HC pov there is pain and suffering in this world as a direct result of man's rejection of God. Man's greed really is the culprit imo. One country want the land in another. One man want's the business of another enough to hurt them. One woman wants another wonman's husband. SOmeone wants to feed their drug habit at the expanse of the property of others. I could go on all day with this but the eseential notion is that man can not blame God for what man has done.
>
>From the HC pov this couldn't be so as God in omniscient or all-knowing. That is, He can learn nothing. In this case He would know exactly what would happen. In this case you could certainly make the argument that He would know what would happen to your amoeba and so forth. However, that would then not remove the notion that He was God nor would it change our relationship to Him from what I can see. It would reinforce the notion of the perfection of His knowledge and the imperfection of ours. If that was the position you took it would still not IMO give you enough 'ammo' to prove evolution as the problems inherent internally to the concept of evolution would stillexist. There still is no evidence of a ca-og (cat-dog <g>) - ie. no inter species evidence. It doesn't explain any of the geological problems that exist or any of the issues of how life can spontaneously spring from non-life nor how that new life was able to spring up in two compatible 'somethings' whre they could mate or how
>a single 'something' knew how to transmit knowledge about itself and create a whole new copy, etc...
>
>I think you asked an excellent philosophical question Jim. I don't know how much it has to do with the mechanics of the notion of evolution though.
>
>Best,
>
>DD
>
>
>>Hi Doug,
>>
>>This is getting way way beyond me, but I thought I'd ask. . .
>>
>>What if the BIG GUY IN THE SKY said to himself 'I've made the heavens, I've made the earth, I've made the water, I've made the land, I've made the air, I've made the fire. Now I think I'll make me an amoeba, sit back, and watch what happens'?
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Jim N
>>
SNIP (biggie)