RE: Seely's Views 2

From: Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Sat Sep 04 2004 - 10:51:38 EDT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 8:26 AM

> > Then why does it say God DID something rather than that God IS
> > someone?
>
> No especially modern theology is called for: ~1600 years ago
> Augustine said "The world was not made in time but with
> time." (/Non est mundus factus in tempore, sed cum
> tempore/.) If Gen.1:1 is a statement about God's initial
> creative act then it was not something that took place in the
> time of our world because that time did not exist. & if
> Gen.1:1 is - in Westermann's phrase - "a heading that takes
> in everything in the narrative in one single sentence" then
> it is perfectly consistent to say that it's true in the same
> (non-historical) sense that the rest of the account is.

I don't actually recall speaking of the need for time in my discussion
here nor do I see it's implicit discussion. General Relativity says the
same thing--the world was made with time. The fact that creation
created time as well still doesn't negate the fact that God did it
according to Genesis 1:1. That doesn't turn Genesis 1:1 into a statement
of who God is, at least that I can see.

>
> I.e., I'm not arguing here that you're wrong but just that
> your charge that others (including myself) are inconsistent -
> doesn't hold up.

Then answer the questions I put to Don Winterstein today. I am a bit
surprised that no one but Roger has address the noisy communication
channel theorem, I took note of yesterday. Someone has to tell me why
that theorem, which applies to all known forms of communications doesn't
apply when we are dealing with God's communication to man, at least part
of which travels through physical systems which are otherwise subject to
the physical laws of nature. Why if we can't tell if something is
historically true or not historically true, do we not think about what
that means for other areas we think are true?

A noise free seismic reflection trace would be a series of numbers which
the amplitudes of the digital samples would directly reflect the
relative energy levels of the sound reflected off of rock layers beneath
our feet. In reality there is always noise. When noise is low (signal
to noise ratio > 10) the numbers are fair approximations of the
reflected sound energy. In acase of a seismic trace with a signal to
noise ratio of 1, as I pointed out one can't really know truth from
fiction. The noise is so high that it swamps the reflected energy and
truth in that case is not possible. I may believe that digital samples
15, 84,1023 and 3972 are absolutely correct and represent the real
reflection amplitude off of the rock interfaces represented by the
sample numbers. (a digital sample is merely the ditigal reading of the
geophone at a particular time. It is a number representing the earth
motion). But the noise level is such that I can't expect any of the
samples to actually represent the real reflection amplitude. But I
believe these samples to be metaphysically true observations of reality.
My belief that these numbers are true, doesn't mean they are actually
true. It is merely a belief. And if I don't understand that the noise
that affects all other samples on my seismic trace also affects the ones
I believe to be true, then I am a silly goose who can't see that what
happens to other samples is also happening to my beloved digital
samples. I am not allowing the signal to noise ratio to apply to my
beloved samples. They are special. They are protected from that mean
nasty world of noise out there. These samples give me absolute truth!
(which is a silly goose of a thing to believe).

The inconsistency is that what I see is a very ad hoc picking and
choosing of what is and isn't to be considered historically true or the
very ad hoc picking and choosing of what is and isn't accommodated to
the primitive beliefs and then not understanding that that very activity
leaves you open to the same need of possibly being accommodated to by
God? Why is it absolutely true that Jesus died for our sins (pure
unaccommodated truth--e.g. samples 15, 84,1023 and 3972)? What makes
that fact so special, so Copernican, that its truth can't be questioned
and all accommodation must cease at that point(same as my belief that
all noise stopped at samples 15, 84, 1023 and 3072)? What makes
Christianity itself another example of pure unaccommodated truth in
which no further fixes to the accommodation are required? Why does
accommodation cease upon the birth of Christianity (same a me saying
that all noise ceased at samples 15, 84, 1023, and 3972)?

The inconsistency is that y'all apply accommodation to everything that
you don't want to be true but stop its action when it affects what you
want to be preserved as true. You don't allow accommodation to be self
referential. You keep it ad hoc-ly caged like a tiger, which if loose,
would eat everything in sight.

>
> As to your 1st point here: Yes, 1:1 says that God created
> the entire universe. But that does not require (as explained
> in my 1st paragraph) that it be an historical that it be an
> historical statement.

Sorry, but I simply don't see that time affects the issue. Maybe you
could explain
Received on Sat Sep 4 11:07:22 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Sep 04 2004 - 11:07:22 EDT