Re: Meaning of "fine-tuning"

From: Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@uncwil.edu)
Date: Mon Oct 23 2000 - 14:12:09 EDT

  • Next message: Doug Hayworth: "Re: Meaning of "fine-tuning""

    The view of Van Till always smelled to me like deism and I still feel that
    way. The biblical statement that God sustains the creation means that in a
    sense God creates the universe every instant of time. That is to say, God
    cannot "go away" since if He did that, then the creation would go off in a
    puff. The universe derives its being from God and is not self-existing.
    Moorad

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Howard J. Van Till <hvantill@novagate.com>
    To: RDehaan237@aol.com <RDehaan237@aol.com>; hayworth@uic.edu
    <hayworth@uic.edu>; asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
    Date: Monday, October 23, 2000 2:05 PM
    Subject: Re: Meaning of "fine-tuning"

    >Bob wrote,
    >
    >> In a message dated 10/21/2000 9:04:14 AM, hvantill@novagate.com writes:
    >>
    >> << Episodic creationism, on the other hand, should see evidence for fine
    >> tuning
    >> and the Anthropic Principle as surprising, since occasional acts of
    divine
    >> adjustment could presumably make up for any lack of original tuning. >>
    >>
    >> Howard,
    >>
    >> Not at all. The fine tuning, as I understand it applies only to the
    >> pre-biotic universe, and, as you said, originated in the initial state of
    the
    >> universe.
    >>
    >> If one has a developmental model of the universe, as I have, then
    episodic
    >> interaction with it on the part of God is no problem, anymore than your
    >> interaction with your children, all along their developmental trajectory,
    >> does not mean that there was something deficient in them. God called His
    >> creation Good. Not perfect. Not robust. Just good. There is nothing in
    >> Scripture that I can find that says that God is not involved in His
    creation
    >> at all levels.
    >>
    >> Best regards,
    >>
    >> Bob
    >
    >You and I know well the differences in our two perspectives. No doubt those
    >differences are rather stable and unlikely to change quickly.
    >
    >You welcome episodes of divine form-imposing interventions as integral to
    >God's creative action. I expect that God gave being to a Creation in which
    >such interventions are unnecessary.
    >
    >I see no basis for thinking that God gave being to a Creation equipped with
    >a robust formational economy for the actualization of physical structures
    >but a non-robust formational economy for the actualization of life forms.
    >
    >You have often compared God's creative work to that of a gardener tending a
    >garden. But a human gardener does not first give being to the formational
    >economy in which the garden participates. The human gardener can do no more
    >than employ what already exists. The Creator of the universe, on the other
    >hand, has no such limitations and begins by giving being to everything,
    >including the Creation's formational economy.
    >
    >Cordially,
    >
    >Howard Van Till
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 23 2000 - 14:13:54 EDT