Re: [asa] God as Cause

George,
I understand that you were not being simplistic, but I note that the
terminology can be misleading. But then it all can be. We can't simply
place ideas we have into the mind of another, with a walling off of ideas
already there that would conflict. Indeed, when we look into all the gaps
in our attempts to communicate, it's a wonder that we can.
Dave

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:04:51 -0500 "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
writes:
Dave et al -

What I meant by a "causal network" is something like the following -
unless formatting botches this up completely.

A - F
  \
     G
  / \
B - - \
       \ \
          \ H
       /
C - -
  \
      I
        \
           K
  / /
D - J
  \

etc., etc. in all 4 directions. I.e., A is the cause of F (or really,
the only cause shown) A & B are jointly the causes of G, which acts with
B (more directly) & C to cause H etc. The idea could be shown better
with more sophisticated graphics (or by hand!). Lines could cross other
lines since they don't represent something like nerves, whose
intersection would cause problems. The point is just that each "event"
(which I mean more in the sense in of process theologians than of
relativity theory - with no commitment to process theology) is caused by
a variable number of other events & in turn can contribute to a variable
number of other events.

& we do normally assume that time goes from left to right in the diagram.
 But I don't want to be too dogmatics about that, both because of the
possibilities of time travel suggested by some speculations in physics
and the ideas of some theologians about God acting from the future.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: D. F. Siemens, Jr.
To: gmurphy@raex.com
Cc: wgreen82004@yahoo.com ; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] God as Cause

George,
I understand your point, but I see a problem beyond traditional language.
I see a network looking like:
A-B-C
| | |
C-D-E
| | |
F-G-H
with the direction of t indeterminate, whereas the causal situation is
closer to:
A\
B- E t-->
C/
This is grossly oversimplified, but looks more like the "cause of E" of
common usage, even though we should be thinking in terms of the extended
sequences of causal activity bearing on any effect we're trying to
explain. But perhaps the better question is which representation distorts
matters least.

Now my question is how distorted my attempts at illustration will be. If
they don't make sense, guess what they should look like.
Dave

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:03:34 -0500 "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
writes:
Dave -

For the reasons you give in your 2d paragraph, I try to use the term
"causal network" rather than "causal chain."

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: D. F. Siemens, Jr.
To: wgreen82004@yahoo.com
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] God as Cause

I think part of the problem is the ambiguity of "cause." There is the
cause-effect chain, in which each effect is the cause of the next effect.
This is the area of secondary causes, all that science can investigate.
There is the first cause, which cannot be in a chain, for it strictly
initiates matters and, within theism, depends solely on the freedom of
the First Cause. Then, to dive into a controversial area, there is the
matter of causation based on human free will. Like it or not, there is a
kind of break when a stimulus/cause produces a human reaction. But this
is interpreted as simply a set of causes too complex for immediate
analysis by those devoted to metaphysical naturalism.

I have used "causal chain" because it is the usual locution. However,
causality involves a multiple array of processes or states or whatever (a
further area of dispute). For example, one may say that flipping a switch
will cause that bulb to glow. This may be considered the precipitating
step. But there are a host of tacit assumptions about causes involved:
that it's the right switch, that the bulb hasn't burnt out, that the
fuses or breakers are connecting, that the generator is working, that the
distribution system is functional, etc., etc. This is so complex that I
hold that seldom if ever do we present the total causal nexus for a
phenomenon.
Dave

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:01:37 -0800 (PST) Bill Green
<wgreen82004@yahoo.com> writes:
Thanks for all of your input, floks, but I remain confused about the
issue.

In what sense is God the cause of all natural processes?

Is there a causal link between God and natural processes?

Thanks,

Bill Green

Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 12 16:31:38 2007