RE: Seely's Views 2

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Fri Sep 03 2004 - 15:11:39 EDT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 1:44 PM

> God is perfect, so he fully understands the history of
> creation and the nature of the universe. Therefore, according
> to you, he not only can but must communicate that exact
> knowledge to man.

Sigh, here we go again. It gets right to the excellent point that Peter
Reust who wrote:

"As for Glenn, I know him from many earlier contributions of his, and so

I know he is certainly no longer guilty of the type of YEC absolutism
Don is charging him with. "

Did I say exact? Did I say we must have infinite communication on the
location of every particle in the universe? NO. come on David, quit
with the mischaracterizations. You and I have communicated privately on
this very issue and you said you would do better. All I am asking for
is that God tell us a real story. Not that God tell us every single
detail in modern scientific language. I can say that the roman empire
existed which is true but VERY incomplete. Is that too much to ask of
god?

 In what language will that be? How will the
> limited mind of a human being take that all in and remain
> human? Even our Lord had to empty himself to become human.

Quite frankly this begins to look like you are intentionally trying to
misunderstand since we have had this very conversation privately. Truth
does not require an infinitude of details and a philosopher of any merit
ought to be able to understand that, David. Even with my aborted
philosophical education I know the difference between truth and infinite
detail.

>
> On the other hand, why cannot the Almighty use what his
> creatures think they know at a given time to communicate his
> message that he is the creator and that the deities of the
> nations are bogus?

Show me exactly where it says that that is what God is doing? Like with
George Murphy's statement that Gen 1:1 is a theological statement, it
doesn't fit. Genesis 1:1 says what God did, not what the other deities
are. If this passage contains an ellipsis, it is a very big ellipsis to
fit in what you are suggesting.

 I don't know enough about Babylonian math
> to know how large a number they comprehended 2.6 or more
> millennia ago, but they probably would have found it
> impossible to understand 13.7x10^9 years, let alone the
> physics of nuclear synthesis during the first period after
> the Big Bang and its need to be supplemented by later
> synthesis of heavier nuclei in stars.

Dad gone it David. When are you going to actually pay attention to what
I keep saying. NO ONE IS ASKING FOR A NUCLEAR PHYSICS TEXT BOOK.

REPEAT: NO ONE IS ASKING FOR A NUCLEAR PHYSICS TEXT BOOK.

REPEAT:NO ONE IS ASKING FOR A NUCLEAR PHYSICS TEXT BOOK.

How many times are you going to intentionally ignore this important
point. Is this intentional?

>
> Next point, I was not talking about Goedel's Theorem, which
> proved that one cannot prove the consistency of the logic
> needed to prove number theory, or its extension by Church to
> the lower functional calculus. I'm talking about such things
> as the Pythagorean Theorem or 4+4=8, the simple levels of
> geometry and number theory. The lowest level is conditional,
> not absolute.
>
> Finally, as to grass, some of our brethren, especially, are
> colorblind. Others have more subtly modified visual pigments.
> Additionally, the use of reflectance spectrometers has shown
> that very different combinations of spectra can produce
> indistinguishable sensations. Vision is inherently
> subjective. How do you know that what you have learned to
> label 'green' is the same sensation that I have learned to
> label by the same noise? The best we can do it measure visual
> pigments and determine that they are the same or different
> among persons. Then we assume that the sensations produced
> are identical if the pigments are indistinguishable. This is
> part of the faith underlying all claims to knowledge, as you note.

If you paid any attention to the posts I make, which quite obviously you
don't, you would have seen in this morning's post a comment specifically
addressing this issue. But like everything else in my viewpoint you
totally ignore it. Why don't you look at
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200409/0016.html

If you truly cared about understanding you would cease caricaturing my
views. You seem to have no desire to actually understand or discuss
nuanced issues and feel more comfortable with set standard predefined
categories. Clearly all you can see is that if someone wants God to
tell the truth about earth history he must therefor want to have Moses
pass out nuclear texts. This is the tactic of a rhetoritician rather
than that of a true thinker. Rhetoriticians always try to paint their
opponent in the debate in the most extreme corner. Please stop that Mr.
Rhetorician.

 
Received on Fri Sep 3 15:29:22 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 03 2004 - 15:29:22 EDT