Re: [asa] Random and design

If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and sovereign, I don't see why any of this
is such a big deal. Of course, omniscient doesn't mean knowing things that
don't exist or violate basic principles (such as the law of
non-contradiction) and therefore can't be known, omnipotent doesn't mean
being able to do things that are contradictory and nonsensical (like making
a rock too big for God to lift), and sovereign doesn't mean mechanically
dictatorial such that all freedom is excluded. But once you have a balanced
and historical understanding of God's attributes, there's no problem with
where God "stores all this info" or how He knows things that are
undetermined according to QM. Mr. Beaver famously said Aslan isn't a "tame"
lion; we could modernize it and say God isn't a computer with limited
bandwidth and memory.

On 11/22/06, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com> wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> I don't see it that way. I understand that you are contending that, in
> order for God to foreknow his people, he must foreknow in full detail all
> events that lead to his people, including the QM choices that every particle
> in the sequence makes, all the way from the big bang. That gives me a
> headache just thinking about it. I would hope that God would have better
> things to do with his cognitive apparatus--whatever it is--than store all
> this info.
>
> The model I like instead is that yes, God knows the outcome, but there's
> an infinitude of different ways of reaching it. I visualize God as one who
> gives a nudge here and there when the world starts taking routes that don't
> look promising, but otherwise he lets it ferment on its own without such
> interventions. (Let's not at this point get into what "on its own" might
> mean!)
>
> And yet--as I've stated here before--I credit God with doing a whole lot
> better job of running my life than I would have done on my own. That is,
> things have meshed extraordinarily well in many different ways despite
> rather than because of my best efforts. So I see him as intimately
> involved. At the same time I feel free as can be, apart from just a bit of
> pressure to do for him what I need to do.
>
> So I see God controlling things behind the scenes but not at all like a
> puppeteer. It's as if things just work themselves out on their own; but I
> give God the credit. This may be nonsense, but it's the most accurate
> description I can come up with. The older I get the more clearly I see his
> hand in my life, and this perception makes me believe he does more than a
> little behind-the-scenes nudging.
>
> In your terms I'm combining unpredictability with precise prediction: the
> process is not fully predicted, but the final outcome is. And this is
> possible because there's an infinitude of routes to an
> acceptable destination, i.e., a destination compatible with God's
> foreknowledge. (One possibility is that God knew us at the outset as
> spiritual beings but didn't know how our physical bodies would turn out. He
> let the world decide that.)
>
> The big difference between us is that I see God as one who continually
> interacts in ways that have creative significance while you see God as one
> who knows it all in detail at the outset and somehow has set it in motion to
> arrive at its known conclusion. Does this sound right?
>
> Don
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> *To:* dfwinterstein@msn.com
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Monday, November 20, 2006 10:25 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Random and design
>
>
> Don,
> The impossible problem is that God's knowledge must encompass the results
> of quantum indeterminism and human freedom of choice, neither of which is
> logically predictable. So all you have to do to validate your outlook is to
> combine unpredictability with precise prediction, or show that there is
> neither indeterminism nor freedom. Otherwise, p&~p is not only false but
> impossible in the strongest sense. This doesn't depend on some logical
> postulate.
> Dave
>
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 08:10:37 -0800 "Don Winterstein" <
> dfwinterstein@msn.com> writes:
>
> Dave,
>
> We've gone over this before. I still believe--similarly to George, I
> think--that God is eternal and not confined within our space-time but that
> he also experiences event sequence in a way that makes it possible for him
> to have real interactions with his world and with humans. George argues
> from Christ (as usual), while I argue from Christ as well as general human
> experience of God, including my own experiences (as usual). If we can't
> follow the logic, we're certainly no worse off in that respect than we are
> with QM.
>
> There are some issues on which I can't yield to logic even if it makes me
> look unreasonable. Logic, after all, is based on postulates, one or more of
> which could be incomplete or mistaken. And QM shows to a degree that the
> world does not always honor human logic. Our logical postulates come out of
> our experience, but our experience has been largely irrelevant when it comes
> to particles. What else might our experience be irrelevant to?
>
> Although I accept Paul's statement that God foreknew us, I'd be willing to
> entertain unconventional interpretations of the details. But I don't know
> what you take to be the "impossible problem."
>
> Don
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: D. F. Siemens, Jr.<mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> To: dfwinterstein@msn.com<mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com>
> Cc: mrb22667@kansas.net<mailto:mrb22667@kansas.net> ; asa@calvin.edu
> <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 10:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Random and design
>
>
> Don,
> This is correct if God is confined to time. But if God is eternal in the
> sense of being timeless, then the path an electron took-takes-will take
> will not need to be determined in a picosecond. It is simply known.
> George doesn't like this notion, for he insists the Father felt the
> death
> of the Son _when_ it happened. I contend that if this is the temporal
> situation with the unincarnate deity, then we have an impossible problem
> with human freedom as well as with indeterministic quanta. Paul had to
> be
> wrong when he declared that those God foreknew pre-creation he _has_
> glorified.
>
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:33:00 -0800 "Don Winterstein"
> <dfwinterstein@msn.com> writes:
> <snip>
>
> Fact is, if God can determine why an electron "decides" to go to one
> location on the interference pattern rather than to another, he must be
> able to read the electron's "mind" in maybe a picosecond. If the
> electron doesn't have a mind but just responds in knee-jerk fashion,
> ...well, it's all so hard to comprehend. We don't know how to think
> like
> particles. Nevertheless, it still seems reasonable to me that God would
> be able to extensively influence the development of the world by
> manipulating particles within their probability distributions, all
> without violating any physical law.
>
> But as for whether physicists now acknowledge hard limits--no one I've
> heard of. What they're likely to readily acknowledge is that the world
> is far stranger than our predecessors knew. And it is experiment, often
> suggested and illuminated by theory, that tells us this.
>
> Don
>
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blog:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html
MySpace (Music):  http://www.myspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.