Re: Meaning of "fine-tuning"

From: george murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Tue Oct 24 2000 - 09:00:56 EDT

  • Next message: Moorad Alexanian: "Re: Meaning of "fine-tuning""

    Moorad Alexanian wrote:

    > The laws of gravity do not move planets. The laws of gravity cannot create
    > neither motion nor planets. The Newtonian gravitational law mimics the
    > actions of God.

            I don't know if you mean it this way but this sounds like Leibniz'
    "pre-established harmony", with God setting things up so that what God is really
    doing in the world always happens to be what would be predicted with the law of
    gravitation but has no intrinsic connection with it. I think this is far too
    weak a concept of divine action for it gives natural processes no real role. It
    is far better to say that God cooperates with natural processes and limits his
    actions to those which are in accord with
    the rational laws which describe those processes - always bearing in mind that
    God is the one who brings into being & preserves those processes & laws & the
    things which they describe.

    > It is the created and sustained being, man, that devices the
    > laws that describe the created and sustained regularity of nature.

            But what we "devise" is an approximation to a real mathematical pattern
    in the world which
    exists independently of our efforts at understanding it.

    > I suppose
    > the laws of nature can always be superseded by God in a way that would be
    > contrary to our notions and conception of nature. But in either case God
    > must be there otherwise there in nothingness. Moorad
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: glenn morton <glenn.morton@btinternet.com>
    > To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>; Howard J. Van Till
    > <hvantill@novagate.com>; RDehaan237@aol.com <RDehaan237@aol.com>;
    > hayworth@uic.edu <hayworth@uic.edu>; asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
    > Date: Monday, October 23, 2000 4:30 PM
    > Subject: RE: Meaning of "fine-tuning"
    >
    > >>
    > >> The view of Van Till always smelled to me like deism and I still feel
    > that
    > >> way. The biblical statement that God sustains the creation means
    > >> that in a
    > >> sense God creates the universe every instant of time. That is to say, God
    > >> cannot "go away" since if He did that, then the creation would go off in
    > a
    > >> puff. The universe derives its being from God and is not self-existing.
    > >> Moorad
    > >
    > >Moorad, The problem with your statement is that NO christian who believes
    > in
    > >the resurrection can possibly be a deist and I know Howard believes in the
    > >resurrection. Is it deistic to believe that God uses the laws of gravity
    > to
    > >move the planets? Or in order to avoid the deism charge do we have to have
    > >God invisibly push the planets with his finger (always according to
    > Newton's
    > >or Einstein's precepts) so that he can be there to cause their movement? I
    > >would hope that God could create a universe that had some abilities to do
    > >things on its own as that would reflect the product of a capable creator.
    > >
    > >glenn
    > >
    > >see http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
    > >for lots of creation/evolution information
    > >>
    > >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 24 2000 - 08:58:30 EDT