Re: >Re: >RE: What does ID mean?
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Sat, 02 May 1998 10:46:10 -0500 (EST)
At 07:16 PM 5/1/98 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
>At 01:06 PM 5/1/98 -0500, Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>>The point I am making is that God is not bound to the laws that we use to
>>describe nature.
>
>But Moorad, God is also not bound to do exactly the opposite of what our
>science indicates either. It would seem deceptive for the universe to
>appear as if our laws worked and then ultimately we find they have nothing
>to do with the actual operation of it. If the claim were made that it is
>our fault for misunderstanding things, it would seem that under this
>assumption our observational data is worthless for determining truth. If
>it is worthless for determining truth, how can we ascertain the
>truthfulness or lack there of for the Scripture which we also evaluate via
>our sense data. Undermining observational data, undermines the ability to
>determine truth not only about the physical world, but also of te spiritual.
>glenn
Dear Glenn,
To your first question, Why not? If God is not bound to do exactly opposite
of what our present laws indicate, then what do you mean by God's
sovereignty? Whatever God does is not like us changing our minds. We always
say that the laws we find are only approximate but will approach a sort of
limiting laws as time progresses. That is a very big assumption. Nobody
really knows.
Take care,
Moorad