Re: Predetermination: God's controlling will?

From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Date: Sun Jul 13 2003 - 11:53:30 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: Predetermination: God's controlling will?"

    Glenn Morton wrote:

    > I am, of course, on dangerous ground disagreeing with a philosopher about
    > logic, but I would suggest that there may not be an infinite number of
    > equally good theories for any given set of facts. I absolutely agree that
    > there are an infinite number of theories which can explain the data, most of
    > which are trivial semi-clones of each other. YECs logically are correct
    > that the world may very well have been created with an appearance of age
    > 6006 years ago. That is theory 1. But then there are others who say it was
    > miraculously created 6007 years ago, etc etc etc. All of those fit the
    > facts. Are they equally as good as the modern scientific theory? No. If
    > they were, why would we fight them? They are on a purely LOGICAL basis
    > equally good. But on an empirical basis, they stink. You can't do
    > predictions in a universe designed by the YECs.
    >

    If you claim that the light from stars greater than 6006 years ago
    cannot be distinguished from the light of stars 6005 years ago and there
    is no way to distinguish this fact except by a book (and your particular
    interpretation of the dates in that book), perhaps this could be made
    "consistent". And of course the radioactive decay produces should
    be in exactly the correct proportions + decay that follows current
    rates over a period of 6006 yrs. So perhaps the claim itself could
    in principle be made logically consistent.

    But scientific explanations require some way to discriminate
    this information independent of a book, an assertion from
    an authority on cosmology, or any other scientist for that
    matter. Moreover, it can be discovered (in
    principle) by a sweeper woman in Thailand who has no
    formal scientific education or credentials whatsoever.

    I suppose if I claim
    that my philosophy starts with a book (and my personal
    interpretation of that book of course), that we cannot test this
    except to believe that book (and my personal interpretation thereof),
    then I suppose there might be some way to make this "consistent".
    But it is definitely importing something extra-scientific into the
    picture.

    by Grace alone we proceed,
    Wayne

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jul 13 2003 - 11:54:30 EDT