RE: God's role

Vandergraaf, Chuck (vandergraaft@aecl.ca)
Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:51:25 -0400

Bert,

In answer to your question, "what is God's role in the natural universe," I
submit that God upholds the universe. Just as birds will not fall out of
the sky without the will of our heavenly Father, so will apples only fall as
long as God upholds the law of gravity. Without this, we would have chaos.
He keeps the electrons spinning. I do not believe that God created the world
and then simply watches it run (or not run).

Chuck Vandergraaf
Pinawa, MB
> ----------
> From: Massie[SMTP:mrlab@ix.netcom.com]
> Reply To: mrlab@ix.netcom.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 2:19 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: God's role
>
> Question:
>
> What is God's role in the natural universe?
>
> A physicist explains natural phenomena by appealing to some form of
> natural law. A good example is gavity. The apple falls because of
> gravity and gravity is evoted to explain the motion of the moon about
> the earth. In fact, gravity can even be quantitied by
>
> f = G mM/R/R.
>
> So there you have it but this is really not an explanation. The
> equation on this paper is not gravity but a shorthand so that we can
> make a calcualtion. What is gravity actually? I cannot touch it, see
> it, or tell you what it is. Perhaps I would wish to appeal to something
> more fundamental, that is, actually gravity has to do with the actions
> of "gravitrons." These are postilated to be tiny particles which when
> exchanged produce the so called gravitational force. What then are
> "gravitrons." What makes them work?
>
> You see that in the final analysis all that physics provides is a scheme
> to calculate phenomena but not a real explanation. Physics is really
> not an appeal to fundamental causes in spite of its posturing at the
> pyrimid of scientific explanation but really a scheme of predictions of
> natures action.
>
> Many believe that something has to be underneath all of these phenomena.
>
> Perhaps God is the best explanation even though a belief in Him does not
> easily dervive from this frustration of knowing the underlying mechanism
> for physical action.
>
> Bert Massie
>