No scientist can prove that the sun will definitely rise tomorrow. Our laws
describe more the regularity of the past than future actions. All
scientific laws are generalizations of historical (past) propositions. The
ability to make predications with the aid of our mathematical laws is a
mystery, which can only be solved if we know the unknowable, how God
interacts with nature? The sovereignty of God cannot be lost by any
pattern that man observes in nature. Thanks for your penetrating comments.
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: george murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
Cc: glenn.morton@btinternet.com <glenn.morton@btinternet.com>; 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: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 8:58 AM
Subject: 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 the laws of nature can always be superseded by God in a way that would be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 - 09:10:22 EDT