Re: A request

Paul Arveson (
Mon, 13 May 96 09:32:45 EDT

In message <> "Joel W. Cannon" writes:
> 1. How would (or how might) the world look different if there was a
> creator?

The problem with this question is that in itself it is too vague. The bare word
creator carries no content. Based on further assumptions, one may end up with a
Hindu creator, a Jewish creator, an impersonal creator, an evil creator, or even
a creator who is not divine.

> 2. Is this a fair question (i.e. is it fair to ask someone who says
> the world we see is evidence contrary to a creator to be able to say
> how it might have been different)?
> My assumption is that if they are sure that if what they see argues
> against a creator they should be able to sketch an alternative
> that would be evidence for a creator. My guess is that the most
> popular responses will be stunned silence, and "I don't know, but it
> wouldn't be like this." You may need to give them some time to think
> about this.
Because it is so bare of content, it will certainly give people pause. But that
is probably because they are trying to figure out what you mean, where you are
coming from. Gone are the days when we can assume that any words like
"religion" and "God" and "spirituality" and "creator" and even "salvation" mean
anything like they do in Christianity. So yes, I think it is an unfair

Now if you were to ask, "How would the world look different if the God of the
Bible exists?" then you have added a lot of content. In fact, then it becomes
(if I may say so) TOO specific. The question then reduces to how Genesis is
interpreted. That is an ongoing debate, and has not finished.
Maybe it will never be done. But until then, the question is still going to be
somewhat vague.

However, I think this is the way God wants it to be.

Paul Arveson, Research Physicist
(301) 227-3831 (W) (301) 227-1914 (FAX) (301) 816-9459 (H)
Code 724, NSWC, Bethesda, MD 20084
"Practice thoughtful kindness, and helpful acts of beauty."