Re: God acting in creation #4

Date: Tue Dec 11 2001 - 09:44:01 EST

  • Next message: "Re: criticising scientific naturalism"

    In a message dated 12/7/01 9:32:45 AM, writes:

    << Bob -
            You are saying that at certain epochs natural processes receive
    capabilities that they didn't have before. If this happens at time t1 then
    will be things happening for t > t1 that couldn't be explained in terms of
    of nature that obtained for t < t1. Suppose, e.g., that the world starts out
    with simple force-free Newtonian particles. They'll all move in straight
    except for collisions, & there will be no bound (i.e., more complex) systems.
    Suppose then that at t = t1 God turns on an attractive inverse-square force so
    that bound systems become possible. Something new has been added to the
    world -
    something that allows the development of more complex systems & thus
    roughly with your idea of developmental stages. But the new phenomenon of
    gravitationally bound systems can't be explained in terms of the laws that
    obtained for t < t1.
            The laws of nature were not "set aside" at t = t1 but they were
    permanently at that time, & changed in a way that couldn't be predicted on the
    basis of the previous laws. (The new force could be more complicated than
    r^-2.) I won't insist on the term "miracle" for such an event
    but it seems to have some of the characteristics of traditional
    miracles. & I don't think that that's changed by saying that God planned this
    change at t = 0.>>


    I am not able to comment on your example from astrophysics. But you said
    that the laws of nature were changed permanently. If I asked you in what
    way they were changed, I might not be able to understand your answer. But
    let me try. How was t < t1 changed by things happening for t > t1?

    Let me ask a related question: In what way would the laws of nature, that
    were in effect before life appeared in the prebiotic world, have been
    changed when God added the novel formational capacity for matter to form the
    first living cell? Both you and Howard claim that in my position entails a
    change of prior laws of nature in effect before life began by the addition of
    new formational capacities to creation. What laws, how changed, and to

    If we reserve the term miracle for events that temporarily supervened the
    laws of nature, but made no permanent changes in or additions to them; were
    employed primarily, if not exclusively, in human affairs; and more
    specifically in redemptive history and for redemptive purposes, then it
    seems possible to distinguish them from additions to creatures' formational
    capacities that derived their characteristics from the original act of
    creation of the universe.

    You wrote, <<characteristics of traditional interventionist miracles>>.
    What do you see as characteristics of traditional interventionist miracles?



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 11 2001 - 09:45:16 EST