Mac, that's great. Good for you!

But please realise that creating an either/or scenario simply has no substance if you're discussing with intelligent theologically informed Christians.

In my worldview God is responsible for everything including science itself. He does not merely exist in the parts of our understanding that science has not yet touched. The idea that he does is a myth perpetuated by the likes of the ill informed Richard Dawkins and, sadly, some fundamentalist Christians.

as evolution at best is a myth this is a waste of time.

Trav,

This does nothing to set you apart from creationists (or represent what Dawkins thinks, for that matter).

<<In my worldview God is responsible for everything including science itself. He does not merely exist in the parts of our understanding that science has not yet touched.>>

I don’t know of any creationists who would disagree with the suggestion that God “is responsible for everything including science itself”. Nor do I know of any creationists who think that God is hiding “in the parts of our understanding that science has not yet touched”. God hide’s everywhere. That’s the theology.

If, however, you mean to suggest that it’s just as clear that God is responsible for the ‘knows’ as it is that he is responsible for the ‘unknowns’, then I’d be fascinated to hear how you identify this unnecessary additional layer of explanation.

All that aside, though, your second sentence doesn’t even follow from the first, because those who believe that unknowns suggest the existence of a god don’t then necessarily conclude that that god is only responsible for those unknowns.

Sorry AJ I'm not sure I understand your point.

My response was aimed at mac's idea that there is some kind of split between "what God does" and "what medicine does". Eg: "You row your boat...I'll use medicine. "Etc. There is no such split in Christian thinking. God created everything including medicine. This is Sunday School 101. To a Christian God is at work in all things including the Doctor's prescriptions.

If anyone wants to argue with Christians they should first understand what Christians believe and what Orthodox Christianity teaches.

Trav,

Thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately, though, it doesn’t explain your suggestion that that’s what some fundies may believe or the non sequitur that your post clumsily attributed to their way of thinking - which is more what I was addressing.

<<My response was aimed at mac's idea that there is some kind of split between "what God does" and "what medicine does" … There is no such split in Christian thinking. God created everything including medicine. This is Sunday School 101. To a Christian God is at work in all things including the Doctor's prescriptions.>>

I understand this, though it does get rather messy when you bring the all-important free will into the mix. How, after all, can we really have free will if God is doing everything through us and everything that is done is his will? It’s interesting, too, how quickly this bit of Christian thinking is dumped when something bad happens.

<<If anyone wants to argue with Christians they should first understand what Christians believe and what Orthodox Christianity teaches.>>

Check and check.

I totally agree. Fortunately, in general, atheists are way ahead of Christians in the latter department there: http://tinyurl.com/mm2veb6

Trav,

I wasn't actually suggesting a split between 'what God does' and science, but that there's no evidence of any God anywhere to do anything at all, and that belief isn't a "way of knowing", it's just, belief.

I understand your belief that God is responsible for everything, including science and our intellects, which are divine gifts, however, on that premise, how do you reconcile the problem of theodicy? Is evil and suffering in the world a gift from God? The doctrine of free will is not a defence.