Re: [asa] Because of us - Steve Fuller's anthropic principle - Darwin's original sin

From: Murray Hogg <>
Date: Wed Apr 29 2009 - 11:23:16 EDT

Hi Moorad,

Yes, that's the rub of it: how do we step "outside" our little bubble of space and time to speak meaningfully of what is "probable" OR "certain" from God's perspective.

It MIGHT be presumptuous, as you mention, to claim that those things that are indeterminate to us are certain to God. But that said, I think it would be equally presumptuous to assert the opposite: that God cannot somehow see clarity where to us there is only an indeterminacy.

And lest one scoff at this, it only need be pointed out just how very, very weird the universe really is - we never predicted quantum indeterminacy, why should we be so certain in our predictions that there aren't further depths to plumb - depths which are already well within the grasp of the divine consciousness? I'm handicapped by my limited grasp of physics here, I'm afraid. But then I suspect that so to are even the most eminent of physicists!

So, yes, I fully agree that we can't base our theology on the merely physical aspect of nature. That said, I often think we fall into the trap of doing so because we flatter ourselves that we know much more than we really do.

Blessings as always,

Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
> Hi Murray,
> You are right. However, humans cannot conceive of nothingness and even less so to think of God bringing the whole thing into being, initial conditions and time simultaneously. This would still place God in a “medium,” which is clearly incorrect. The concept of the Christian God is indeed humanely almost impossible to fathom.
> My main point was that the notion of chance, as being a possible human way to understand our existence in time, would mean from God’s perspective, if I am be so presumptuous to say, not chance at all but certitude.
> All theists can use this view but the support for it cannot come from our understanding of merely the physical aspect of Nature but we must bring in the totality of the human experience.
> In any case, the question boils down to if there is intelligence behind the whole of reality or not. I say yes, since human intelligence is required to study Nature and the existence of intelligence, and for that matter, life, human rationality, etc., cannot be reduced to the purely physical.
> Blessings to you too,
> Moorad

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Apr 29 11:23:35 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 29 2009 - 11:23:35 EDT