Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action

Re:

"Humans exercise free will in spacetime. However, God is outside spacetime."

I often hear this assertion. But this is a very specific and consequential presumption/declaration which seems basically philosophical. It cannot be verified, and is disputed. It provides a convenient plausibility explanation, as you have used it. But there is no certainty that we can extrapolate from a space/time existence of ours any such thing about the one who brought that space/time entity into existence. Indeed, it is not our experience that something may be brought into existence which is so totally unlike the one who creates it. It's imaginative, and even tempting, but is it right? What meaningfulness would there be in creating a space/time entity if there were nothing in/of the Creator to identify or interact with that entity in that characteristic? Moreover, it does not jibe with the Hebrew notion of creation, which does not proceed from "nothing".

Is there some strong justification for this presumption other than its explanatory convenience? Just wondering.

JimA [Friend of ASA]

Alexanian, Moorad wrote:

>Humans exercise free will in spacetime. However, God is outside
>spacetime. God's view of the whole of spacetime is like that in a
>Minkowski diagram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram )
>where the whole of existence is laid down in front of God. The whole of
>reality is like a Now for God since He is not embedded in spacetime.
>
>Moorad
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>Behalf Of Christine Smith
>Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 2:08 PM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action
>
>Hi all,
>
>I must say, I'm enjoying this thread thoroughly. Ted's
>and John's answers in particular I found to be quite
>insightful and eloquent :)
>
>Terry--a question to you...you write here that: "From
>God's point of view nothing is random, it's all
>decreed and ordained. (And that goes also for the free
>choices of free agents!)" We're coming from different
>theological backgrounds/frameworks here, so maybe you
>can help me understand--I just don't follow how this
>can be a logical conclusion--if God decrees that
>something will be a certain way--say, a (sinful)
>choice I make, then how can I be truly "free" in any
>sense of the word, and how can God not be the author
>of evil? Doesn't it make more sense, logically and
>theologically, to understand that though God is
>all-knowing and all-powerful, He is also
>self-limiting, and that He has chosen to limit His
>powers by intentionally creating a universe that
>contains elements of randomness and free will which He
>interacts with, rather than "predicts" or "decrees" as
>it were?
>
>Thanks everyone for good food for thought!
>In Christ,
>Christine (ASA member)
>
>
>--- "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Randy,
>>
>>I think you have understood him correctly.
>>
>>Personally, I think the only way out of this
>>"problem" is to have God
>>involved in some way in every single thing (even the
>>most minute and
>>the most fleeting) that happens. The Reformed
>>theologians (and others)
>>have called this concurrence and it is a
>>sub-category of the doctrine
>>of Providence.
>>
>>Westminster Confession of Faith:
>>
>>III, 1
>>God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and
>>holy counsel of his
>>own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever
>>comes to pass:
>>yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,
>>nor is violence
>>offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the
>>liberty or
>>contingency of second causes taken away, but rather
>>established.
>>
>>IV, 2
>>Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and
>>decree of God, the
>>first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and
>>infallibly; yet,
>>by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall
>>out, according to the
>>nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely,
>>or contingently.
>>
>>Random events are in the category of contingency.
>>Thus, according to
>>this historic Presbyterian and Reformed way of
>>understanding
>>scripture, even chance events are ordained by God.
>>
>>Logan Gage is mistaken to think that there is no
>>difference between
>>physical and metaphysical randomness. God "orders"
>>some of his
>>"decree" to "fall out" by chance events. Such events
>>look entirely
>>like chance events to us the human observer, even
>>though they are
>>completely ordered by God. Even Calvin talks about
>>the ill-fortune
>>(bad luck) of the fellow killed in the forest when a
>>branch fell on
>>him while passing by. But, no doubt, for Calvin it
>>was part of God's
>>plan and decree. I suppose it's semantics of sorts.
>>I'm happy to call
>>things that look like random events in terms of
>>statistical analysis,
>>random, even though I know that from God's
>>perspective and purpose
>>they are not at all random. From God's point of view
>>nothing is
>>random, it's all decreed and ordained. (And that
>>goes also for the
>>free choices of free agents!)
>>
>>Some discussion of all this applied to process
>>theology, open theism,
>>and intelligent design can be found in my paper
>>"Give Me Some of That
>>Old-Time Theology: A Reflection on Charles Hodge's
>>Discussion of
>>Concursus in Light of Recent Discussions of Divine
>>Action in Nature"
>>found on-line at
>>http://www.asa3.org/gray/GrayASA2003OnHodge.html
>>
>>TG
>>
>>On Feb 14, 2008, at 8:16 PM, Randy Isaac wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Jack Haas just drew my attention to Logan Gage's
>>>
>>>
>>response to my
>>
>>
>>>letter in the Jan 2008 issue of CT. I would
>>>
>>>
>>greatly appreciate your
>>
>>
>>>views on the last two paragraphs of his article.
>>>
>>>
>>We have touched on
>>
>>
>>>randomness several times in this forum and I
>>>
>>>
>>believe it continues to
>>
>>
>>>be one of the fundamental questions. Logan seems
>>>
>>>
>>to believe that if
>>
>>
>>>there is divine guidance there will necessarily be
>>>
>>>
>>evidence of non-
>>
>>
>>>randomness. Or have I misunderstood him?
>>>
>>>Randy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>________________
>>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 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.
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe, send a message to 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 Feb 15 16:36:14 2008