Re: T/D #1 (Theistic/Deistic definitions)

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Fri, 24 Oct 1997 14:02:26 -0500 (EST)

At 10:17 AM 10/24/97 -0600, Terry M. Gray wrote:
>Craig,
>
>Good communication is my point. This is why we need to say that Matter in
>Random Motion can be understood theistically or atheistically. In a
>Christian perspective MIRM is not autonomous of God will, plan, purpose,
>governance, sustenence, and concurrence. I will not speak of such a beast.
>Using your terminology, matter in random motion IS smoothly blended
>theistic action. It does no good in my mind to give away the store by
>recognizing something in their worldview that does not exist in our
>worldview. The bottom line is that we see God's action everywhere and
>unbelievers see it no where. But the creational realities that we both
>observe are the same!
>
>Not to drag us into a presuppositional vs. evidentialist apologetics
>debate, but even though "they think about the world without God", they
>really know that God exists because of the evidence in creation and the
>evidence within them. In my opinion, a Biblical apologetic starts with the
>assumption that the unbeliever really does know that God exists and that he
>is accountable to him (after all, he is without excuse), but he
>*suppresses* the truth. Now that's the message of Romans 1!
>
>TG

All the data in physics can be collected by detectors which interact with
the system observed via the basic interactions in nature (gravitational,
nuclear and weak/electromagnetic). We do not need humans to collect the
data--of course, humans are needed to set up the experiments. Therefore,
such mere experimental data, by the nature of the detectors, can never say
anything about God the Creator. However, the human mind does come into play
when it comes to making up a theory to explain the data. Also, the human
being is the "detector" of the spiritual realm and it is in this manner that
the issue of God being behind the Creation comes into the picture. I am sure
that what is true in physics typifies what is true in any other science---I
do not mean pseudo sciences like political science, social science, etc. It
is then obvious why in scientific theories there is no need of God as, I
believe, Descartes said. However, in the description of the totality of the
human experience, one cannot do without God the Creator. The Greeks (Plato
or Aristotle) told us to "know thyself" but did not give a prescription on
how to do that. I say that to know thyself you must not only know God but
also know His Son Jesus Christ.

Moorad