Re: Meaning of "fine-tuning"

From: Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@uncwil.edu)
Date: Tue Oct 24 2000 - 11:57:19 EDT

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "Is Diet Destiny?"

    I believe that when you say that the boundary conditions have to be set in,
    you are already assuming that there is a deterministic (mathematical)
    equation that determines the future evolution of the whole thing. I contest
    that. I think God has access to the whole of spacetime, not only time. All
    of us are worldlines to God. He sees the future because He saw us do it
    already. I think it is rather difficult to know how God interacts with
    nature, especially since He sustains the whole thing. I think that
    irreversibility in the universe is a consequence of the Fall. I think it is
    better to plead ignorance rather than to make all sorts of speculative
    remarks and, even worse, to write articles about how God interacts with
    nature. Moorad

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com <Dawsonzhu@aol.com>
    To: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
    Date: Monday, October 23, 2000 8:04 PM
    Subject: Re: Meaning of "fine-tuning"

    >
    >Moorad Alexanian wrote:
    >
    ><< 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.
    > >>
    >
    >Although I've wrestled a bit with Howard's view, I don't
    >really think you are correct here.
    >
    >The boundary conditions of the universe would have to be
    >set from the very start whether we have a deist god, or the
    >God of the Bible.
    >
    >Moreover, the deist god as I understand it, has no grasp
    >on time. The universe is wound up, and let go to fend for
    >itself. It is an otiose deity. God on the other hand would
    >have access to the time dimension. The nature of relativity
    >gives us the ability to see into our own past. Is it
    >impossible for God to "see" and act on this dimension?
    >I am a little reluctant to speculate on this, but the laws
    >of physics do not demand that water falls down, it is the
    >"arrow of time" that determines the direction that water
    >falls. The thermodynamic equations have symmetry, it is
    >simply the solution we chose that renders the result.
    >How is it possible then for us to describe God's
    >actions in time, when God has access to a time dimension?
    >Or do you assume a God who is restricted by the arrow of
    >time?
    >
    >I think it also puts more power on the message of Romans
    >5:8 "Yet while we were still sinners, Christ died for us".
    >God knew all that would happen, all our sin, all our
    >corruption, and all our twisted ways of thinking, yet even
    >knowing this, for some deeply unfathomable reason, God
    >granted this universe "life" and even sacrificed Christ
    >for it. Why? Certainly God is more gracious than I am.
    >
    >What I am not so clear about in Howard's model is the
    >theological model. Perhaps a Neo-Thomist view, but I am
    >trained in science, not theology.
    >
    >by Grace alone do we proceed,
    >Wayne



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 24 2000 - 11:57:31 EDT