> From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> To: hvantill@novagate.com
> Subject: Re: What does the creation lack?
> Date: Fri, Oct 26, 2001, 11:43 PM
>
> As I considered Howard and Peter's views, which look different, I
> wondered just how different they are in their outworking. A part of the
> problem seems to be our view of nature, which usually seems to become
> Nature, which runs on its own. This is obviously deism or worse. But it
> results in Howard being accused of being a deist. However, his "fully
> gifted nature" is under the constant care of Providence, so that it is
> all within the will of the Almighty. Everything works, and works out, as
> God intends.
>
> Peter argues that the possibilities are so varied that God has to direct
> matters so that the world as we know it will result. This emphasizes
> "special occurrences" rather than constant care, but seems pretty close
> to a twin of Howard's view. It strikes me that what we have is more a
> matter of emphasis than of actual difference. Both hold that the world is
> as it is because God so wills it and makes it so.
>
> Am I missing something?
> Dave
If these "special occurrences" (not accessible to scientific
investigation) occur sufficiently frequently (as I believe they do), we
are pretty close to a "constant care". Add the thought that all
"natural" events (accessible to scientific investigation) are just as
much God's doing (providence), we certainly have constant care of
providence in all visible and invisible domains.
My difference to Howard's view is the timing of God's introducing
information. He believes it all occurred at the big bang, but I hold
this as preposterously unlikely, given what we know of cosmology and
biology. From theology, we know about providence, but what is its
possible "mechanism" in scientific language?
Peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 08 2001 - 15:33:08 EST