Re: asa-digest V1 #1308
John W. Burgeson (johnburgeson@juno.com)
Sat, 14 Aug 1999 11:17:47 -0600
George wrote:
---------------
I've noted previously that PC is observationally indistinguishable from
TE if
one makes the creative interventions small enough. In fact, one can
construct a model of PC in which God does everything directly but acts in
a continuous fashion so that it _looks_ as if natural processes are doing
everything. I.e., it really comes down to a distinction between
Barbour's "monarchical" theology of divine action & his "Neo-Thomist"
plus "kenotic" ones. I.e., it is a theological distinction. But that
doesn't mean that making the distinction is a waste of time &
self-defeating, for one approach seems to me much more coherent with
God's character as revealed in Christ than the other.
I'm speaking here of relatively sophisticated versions of PC, not
naive ones which insist that God had to "leave his fingerprints all over
the evidence" &c.
-------------
So noted. I suspect that PC is (in practice) observationally
indistinguishable from TE even if the creative interventions are quite
large.
The wine at Cana is certainly a PC intervention. I need cite only one to
make the case that all is not TE.
Burgy
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.