Re: God as tinkerer

From: Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu Aug 25 2005 - 10:28:39 EDT

Agreed. What I have had in the back of my mind during this entire exchange with
Dave is that he may be trying to constrain God to operate according to human
logic. This is questionable when from the getgo we agree that God is outside of
time. And there are other paradoxes when we try to analyze God. I won't repeat
the old chestnuts, but what about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? We
can't know simultaneously the position and momentum of a particle. Can God?

--- Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure our logical underpinnings correctly take into account how God
> might (or might not) be constrained by his being outside time. As I've
> stated here before, I'm convinced that I've had extended personal
> interactions with God as Spirit. These could not have happened unless God
> entered my space. I conclude there's something wrong with the logic.
> Actually, both QM and Relativity tell us clearly that human logic is
> inadequate for comprehending the world. Who would be surprised if it's
> inadequate for comprehending God?
>
> As a scientist I was an experimentalist; as a man of God, likewise.
> Experience is by far the most concrete thing; our logic must be forced to
> conform or be set aside if it can't.
>
> Don
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: D. F. Siemens, Jr.<mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> To: dfwinterstein@msn.com<mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com>
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu> ;
> burgytwo@juno.com<mailto:burgytwo@juno.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 1:09 PM
> Subject: Re: God as tinkerer
>
>
> Don,
> You raise interesting points in everyday language. However, within a strict
> context, you are making the eternal God to be confined in time. This is
> inconsistent, producing nonsense. I'm doing my best as a logician to maintain
> coherence.
> Dave
>
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 02:55:41 -0700 "Don Winterstein"
> <dfwinterstein@msn.com<mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com>> writes:
> Iain: "It seems astonishing to me that
> God could create a universe that was capable of assembling itself and
> lead to creatures complex enough to sense the Creator. That in itself
> is enough to marvel at. But I agree that if creation breaks down from
> time to time and God has to step in to help it over the tricky bits,
> then that doesn't seem so good."
>
> Burgy: "All this ignores a third possibility -- that God likes to "play"
> with His
> creation. It may, or may not, be true -- but it ought not be summarily
> dismissed. In such a scenario, God is not "tinkering" to "get things
> right" but simply trying out new ideas and possibilities."
>
> How about a fourth possibility, that God's goal in making things out of
> matter is to come into interactive relationships with his creatures.
> "Tinker" is loaded, as is the expression, "...step in to help it over the
> tricky bits." Both ignore the possibility that God gets his satisfaction out
> of interacting and relating personally. "Playing" with the creation is sort
> of OK but not wholly, because of suffering and death. Many of his creatures
> would be miffed to know that their suffering is a necessary consequence of
> God's play. There's a deeper motive.
>
> And let's not forget the NT. There's a great deal of emphasis on God as
> interacting and responding Father. "Pray importunately" means bug God to the
> point where he gives in not because that was his original intent but because
> he's tired of the bugging (Luke 11:8, 18:1-8). Not that we need to take this
> picture literally; but the Bible clearly indicates that prayer affects God.
>
> Finally--I've raised this issue before, but...--where is it written that
> the creation is fully capable of self-assembly? And how is God diminished if
> it becomes necessary for him to step in and cause a change of direction?
> Might it not be that creatures simply cannot be sufficiently well endowed to
> manage every step of the process without intervention? Such a scenario is
> distasteful to many scientists, to be sure, but who listens to scientists
> speaking on the subject of religion? : )
>
> Don
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carol or John Burgeson<mailto:burgytwo@juno.com>
> To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 10:19 AM
> Subject: Re: How to encourage a former creationist to persevere in
> faith?
>
>
> Iain wrote: "I thought David F. Siemens was closest to my own thoughts
> when he said:
>
> >By the way, a God who has to tinker to get things right seems to fit
> the
> >notion that the deity is not bright enough to get it right from the
> >beginning. ... '
>
> And this is very much my own feeling. It seems astonishing to me that
> God could create a universe that was capable of assembling itself and
> lead to creatures complex enough to sense the Creator. That in itself
> is enough to marvel at. But I agree that if creation breaks down from
> time to time and God has to step in to help it over the tricky bits,
> then that doesn't seem so good."
>
> All this ignores a third possibility -- that God likes to "play" with
> His
> creation. It may, or may not, be true -- but it ought not be summarily
> dismissed. In such a scenario, God is not "tinkering" to "get things
> right" but simply trying out new ideas and possibilities.
>
> Burgy
>
>
>
>

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Thu Aug 25 10:30:46 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 25 2005 - 10:30:47 EDT