Re: [asa] Random and design

When I use expressions like God's having "better things to do" I'm well
aware--as the reader should be also--that I'm going to extremes in the
direction of anthropomorphism; nevertheless, the point I was making is
worth heeding IMO. Why "saddle God unnecessarily with such drudgery"
[caution: extreme anthropomorphism] when there are plausible
alternatives (see my reply to Siemens)? And why should anyone assume
what God knows or doesn't know? There's no scriptural support for the
idea that God knows in advance how every particle since the big bang is
going to behave.

Sorry if my liberal use of anthropomorphism offends you.

But do you believe that we were made in God's image? Obviously humans
are very limited versions of God's image, but being made in his image
means to me that God is not totally unlike ourselves. If we can respond
to and interact with him, which we do, and if his Spirit lives in us,
which it does, we can't be that different from him in important
respects.

God "effortlessly" is omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite,
eternal, all-wise, all-good, etc.

I consider these to be largely philosophical assumptions not supported
by Scripture. (See my reply to Opderbeck.) I don't want to argue this,
but you clearly disagree; so if you make an issue of it, I'll try to
respond.

Don

   ----- Original Message -----=20
   From: Terry M. Gray<mailto:grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>=20
   To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>=20
   Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 9:32 AM
   Subject: Re: [asa] Random and design

   Oops. Meant this for the whole group.

   On Nov 22, 2006, at 2:34 AM, Don Winterstein wrote:

>
> I don't see it that way. I understand that you are contending =20
> that, in order for God to foreknow his people, he must foreknow in =20
> full detail all events that lead to his people, including the QM =20
> 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 =20
> would hope that God would have better things to do with his =20
> cognitive apparatus--whatever it is--than store all this info.
>

   I'm always amazed in these discussions with lines like the last
two =20
   sentences in the paragraph above. First, it should give you a =20
   headache if you try to think like God. Of course, you can't do it--
or =

   else you would be God. Your last sentence suggests that you think =20
   that God is something like you and that he thinks and acts like
you. =20
   At best, your God is too small. At worst, you are making God after
=20
   your own image or at least after the image of very smart people
that =20
   you know.

   God "effortlessly" is omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresent,
infinite, =

   eternal, all-wise, all-good, etc. Only mild apologies to those who
=20
   object to the "Greek" thinking here. I'm convinced that the Hebrew
=20
   scriptures teach each of these concepts without necessarily using
the =

   theological words.

   If God is omniscient, etc., then ideas like "cognitive apparatus"
and =

   "better things to do" just don't make sense.

   TG

   ________________
   Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
   Computer Support Scientist
   Chemistry Department
   Colorado State University
   Fort Collins, CO 80523
   (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801

   To unsubscribe, send a message to =
majordomo@calvin.edu<mailto:majordomo@calvin.edu> with
   "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 24 13:26:01 2006