From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Fri Sep 19 2003 - 13:53:58 EDT
From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@chartermi.net>
> >From: <richard@biblewheel.com>
>
> > Howard wrote:
> >
> >> Within the limits of the RFEP as stated, form-imposing
> >> interventions as the means of actualizing novel creaturely
> >> forms could be posited, I suppose, but I would find
> >> them awkward at best. All argumentation by proponents of
> >> YEC, OEC, ID, or any other form of episodic
> >> creationism that appeals to the claim that such an
> >> intervention is necessitated by the Creation's lack of the
> >> requisite resources or formational capabilities, would be
> >> disqualified by the Creation's conformity to the RFEP.
> >> If such form-conferring intervention is unnecessary, how
> >> would a person justify the assertion that it nonetheless
> >> took place?
> >
> > This seems radically inconsistent - logically, theologically, and
> > psychologically. You appear to be willing to accomodate the Christian
God
> > just long enough to silence the valid protest of those who believe in
Him,
> > and then you immediately toss Him out if anyone suggests He actually did
> > what you allowed in your concession.
>
> No, Richard, read what I actually wrote. I asked how you would approach
the
> matter of justification. You did not answer that question.
>
> > If you allow that God is *able* to freely confer form under the RFEP
then
> > you have absolutely no basis to follow that concession with the
statement
> > that IDers can never say He actually did such a thing.
>
> No, Richard, read what I actually wrote. If the Creation satisfies the
RFEP,
> thereby making form-conferring interventions unnecessary, then IDers and
> other episodic creationists can no longer "claim that such an intervention
> is necessitated by the Creation's lack of the requisite resources or
> formational capabilities." The logic seems remarkably straightforward to
me.
>
> > My argument appears to stand. You can not accomodate the Christian God
on
> > the one hand and then say He doesn't actually do anything on the other.
>
> You are here mischievously putting words into my mouth. I am weary of that
> style of engagement. Our conversation is over.
>
> Howard Van Till
>
Howard, I knew the words I wrote would be hard for you to read, much less
accept. I tried to soften them with verbs like "seems" and "appears" so you
would know that I was talking about the implications your theory has *as I
see it*, nothing else. I could be wrong, and if so, all you needed to do was
show me where I had erred. I wasn't trying to make you look bad. You didn't
need to shut down the conversation. The questions I raise should be of
supreme importance to any Christian who is contemplating your theory.
I don't know how you can question the fact that I carefully read and
contemplated every word you wrote in this thread, as well as many others.
Did you not recognize that I presented my argument using your very own words
and phrases? In contrast with your accusation, I did everything humanly
possible to *avoid* putting words in your mouth, which would be a vain
enterprise indeed.
You say I didn't deal with the question of how a person would "justify the
assertion" that God confered form when it was "unnecessary." This really
confounds me. My original post hinged on this very issue - the ambiguity in
your statement based on the word *unnecessary*. I quote myself:
==Quote RAM===
The second statement has one slight ambiguity. It states that divine
intervention is *unnecessary*, but it doesn't say that it is *impossible*.
But in either case, we seem to have a logical inconsistency between God's
Agency and the RFEP.
==End Quote RAM==
I then presented the two logical possibilities and showed that both were
fatal to RFEP. Note that both points were carefully constructed using your
own words with their intended meanings (as far as I could tell). And I have
no reason for doubting this since you have yet to correct me on a single
point where I quoted you. Here then are the two logical posibilities that I
presented:
==Quote RAM===
1) If "form-imposing (coercive) divine intervention" is allowed as a
*possible* explanation for the appearance of any "novel creaturely form"
then the RFEP is eviscerated of all significance, because then *all* "novel
creaturely forms" could be a result of divine intervention.
2) If "form-imposing (coercive) divine intervention" is *not* allowed as a
possible explanation for the appearance of any "novel creaturely form" then
the RFEP is inconsistent with the assertion that "it avoids a categorical
denial of supernatural divine actions" since one possible divine action is
the formation of a "novel creaturely form" that would not result from the
natural outworkings and contingencies of a fully gifted creation.
==End Quote RAM===
In your response to this argument, you addressed neither of these points.
Rather, you conceded the premise of Point 1 as a possibility, saying:
==Quote HVT===
Within the limits of the RFEP as stated, form-imposing interventions as the
means of actualizing novel creaturely forms could be posited, I suppose, but
I would find them awkward at best.
==End Quote HVT===
You then ignored the implication that clearly follows from this concession
which I stated in Point 1, namely, that if God could do it once then God
could do it always. You didn't even address the argument at all. In your
answer, you simply switched the terms from *possible* to *necessary* which
is the very ambiguity that I initial addressed! You acted like you hadn't
read anything I had written. I quote:
==Quote HVT===
All argumentation ... that appeals to the claim that such an intervention is
necessitated by the Creation's lack of the requisite resources or
formational capabilities, would be disqualified by the Creation's conformity
to the RFEP.
==END Quote HVT===
Point 1 was not about *necessity* Howard. It spoke of the mere
*possibility*, which you allowed. You can't then declare its *not possible*
in the very next sentence!
I am really at a loss here Howard. You are a professor emeritus from Calvin
College. You know the issues at the heart of Christianity. You doubtless
have many Christian friends. How is it that this issue can be so confounding
to you? You have been seeking to develop and propagate your theories for
years. Why don't you have a clear and simple statement that answers the
question of the relation between the RFEP and God's freedom to act and
create as He will? This seems to me one of the most obvious issues that
should be dealt with in any introduction to your theory. And even if you
don't have a solid answer, surely you know enough to know that it is a
central issue of great importance to Christians, and if you don't have a
solid answer, you should at least acknowledge the issue.
This isn't the first time I posed these questions to you. In another thread
called "RFEP and the Heart of Christianity", I wrote:
==Quote RAM===
Of course, I understand that the RFEP was designed with a caveat to allow
for God as a Free Agent who acts at will in the world. But this seems
motivated more as a concession to Christians than as a response to your
intuition of how the Universe really is. Am I correct in this?
In any case, given the fact that the RFEP explicitly allows for God to act
in the Universe, I see no reason whatsoever to limit Him to
non-form-conferring actions. But this then seems to contradict the
principle!
It would seem therefore that a free God who confers form is actually
*inconsistent" with the RFEP. Is this correct?
==End Quote RAM===
This is the post that prompted this thread. You answered that post but
snipped and ignored the questions.
Your next comment is also in need of clarification:
> No, Richard, read what I actually wrote. If the Creation satisfies the
RFEP,
> thereby making form-conferring interventions unnecessary, then IDers and
> other episodic creationists can no longer "claim that such an intervention
> is necessitated by the Creation's lack of the requisite resources or
> formational capabilities." The logic seems remarkably straightforward to
me.
Again, this ignores the argument I present, namely if RFEP makes
"form-conferring interventions unnecessary" for the explanation of any and
every "novel creaturely form" then God CAN NOT confer such form and this
directly *contradicts* your accommodation. I quote you again:
==Quote HVT===
Within the limits of the RFEP as stated, form-imposing interventions as the
means of actualizing novel creaturely forms could be posited, I suppose, but
I would find them awkward at best.
==End Quote HVT===
This logic is beyond "remarkably straightforward." It appears to be an
ironclad proof.
The RFEP, as stated by you, is logically inconsistent.
QED.
Of course, I could be wrong. I would like to see other list members comment
on these questions and our interaction. Maybe I've completely misunderstood
something you said. Or maybe you just haven't thought through this angle yet
and need to find an answer. But no matter what the case, I would think that
as the primary advocate of the RFEP, you would at least have some interest
in pursuing these fundamentally important questions.
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 19 2003 - 13:50:45 EDT