Re: Randomness

From: Dr. Blake Nelson (
Date: Thu May 30 2002 - 11:32:32 EDT

  • Next message: J Burgeson: "Re: Frustrations (was Re: Randomness)"

    Just in brief reply to your points, which are
    well-taken, I think we may be talking a bit at crossed
    purposes. This probably also ties into Terry's point
    in his e-mail. I think we can all agree that in
    principle, God is omnipotent. However, once choosing
    to do something (if we can use such language about
    God), He has limited Himself in some way by His
    choice. Kenotic theology is certainly one way of
    discussing this self-limitation in recent years. I
    don't think kenotic theology is in anyway heretical
    and deals with the issue of the hiddenness of God
    which has been a theological issue for millenia.

    Unless I missed something, I don't think anyone
    proposed any sort of dualism. But once God gives some
    freewill to His creation, that creates limits on God's
    power, if God chooses to continue to let that freewill
    operate. God thus creates things/people that are able
    to act independently of, but dependent upon, God.
    This is not dualism. But it is also not God in
    control of _everything_ or freewill is illusory --
    just like Dennett, Dawkins, and Wegner have so
    ferventy and in Wegner's case recently argued in books
    that it is. It is not to say that God does not
    ultimately undergird everything or that things could
    have been different or that He could change His mind
    (however we may conceive of that).

    Of course, the question of freewill is both a
    theological and scientific question that is open to
    considerable discussion without hitting the wall of


    Do You Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 30 2002 - 11:35:38 EDT