Re: Staged developmental creation.

From: Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@uncwil.edu)
Date: Wed Nov 07 2001 - 10:15:03 EST

  • Next message: Woodward Norm Civ WRALC/TIEDM: "RE: Applied evolution"

    Who or what preserves or sustains "the continuity of the creaturely
    cause/effect system?" Is the whole creation self-existing with no need of
    God but that of the origianl creator? I truluy believe that only God is
    self-existing and so God sustains the creation instant by instant and so the
    continuity cannot be understood apart from God. Moorad

     ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@novagate.com>
    To: "george murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; <RDehaan237@aol.com>
    Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 9:25 AM
    Subject: Re: Staged developmental creation.r

    > George wrote:
    >
    >
    > Speaking of "the continuity of the creaturely cause/effect system"
    > ignores the possibility we discussed in connection with Peter Ruest's
    > proposal, that God is active at the quantum level. For the problem with
    > understanding measurement & the apparent collapse of wave packets in QM is
    > just that the collapse seems to happen discontinuously & that standard
    > descriptions of QM don't provide a closed cause/effect system: They give
    no
    > reason why we find the photon along one arm of the interferometer rather
    > than the other.
    > Again, I have problems with the idea that God simply steps in &
    > collapses all the wave packets. But there does seem to be a lack of full
    > creaturely causation here.
    >
    >
    > 1. Re "the continuity of the creaturely cause/effect system": OK, perhaps
    > the term "continuity" must be qualified here to include quantum phenomena
    > (with all of their peculiarities) but to exclude coercive divine action
    that
    > would supersede the creaturely system.
    >
    > 2. Re "full creaturely causation": Looks like the creaturely system of
    > causation has some openness to contingency here. Another way to say it is
    > that there are numerous examples of creaturely processes for which the
    final
    > state of some event/process is underdetermined by all that can be
    specified
    > about the system's initial state. As I understand it, Peter's proposal
    > places God's decisive action (selecting one particular option) here.
    >
    > Question: Does this divine decision (Peter's proposal) supersede
    creaturely
    > action? Is it coercive or non-coercive?
    >
    > Howard
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 07 2001 - 10:15:29 EST