RE: Who's Burden of Proof?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Petermann [mailto:steve@spetermann.org]
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 9:08 AM

> Glenn wrote:
> > I simply don't like words being put
> > in my mouth.
>
> Sorry about that. Nothing intended.

No problem, it is a technique often used to cause debate opponents to fall
into traps. I try to avoid such things. :-)
>
>
> > I used the term random, I meant the term random, which means
> > basically, based upon probability.
>
>
> Ok. The point I was trying to make is that often when people see the word
> random they think of unguided or uncaused. However, the term as
> you use it
> does not attempt to say anything about causation.

Indeterminate might be a better term. As Gordie and I note in our letter to
the PSCF this month, if God designed the world by using a sequence of
pre-determined decisions, based upon a random number generator, and thus
these predetermined numbers determine everything that happens in the created
universe, from our point of view, they would look entirely random, entirely
without predictability. But from God's point of view, knowing the entire
sequence of quantum decisions, it would look like predestination. While that
isn't our theology necessarily, (it isn't entirely mine but I will let
Gordie speak for himself) it does illustrate the fact that just because we
can't predict or we can't determine a cause for a given natural phenomenon,
it doesn't automatically follow that God can't do those things. Too often we
place God on our level and decide what He is allowed to do based upon what
we can see. That seems in my opinion, to make God dance to our whims.
>
>
> > A quantum measurement, say the polarization of a photon is by utterly
> random
> > when compared with the flip of a coin. It is not determined, if
> you use a
> > vertical polarized filter, exactly half the photons will pass the filter
> and
> > half will be absorbed as long as the polarization angle is 45 degrees to
> the
> > vertical or the filter 45 degress to the polarization. You can't tell
> which
> > photon will pass and which won't. That makes it indeterminate and
> > non-forseeable for individual events. I can forsee that 50%
> will pass but
> > can't tell if the next photon will pass or not.
>
> The other point I was trying to make that relates to the process
> of mutation
> and selection is that often ontologically indeterminate events are assumed
> to be uncaused. But this is a metaphysical assumption not a scientific
> assertion.

Agreed. While we might not be able to predict or determine a cause (thus
the term indeterminancy) it is a metaphysical assumption that God can't do
what we can't do.
>
Received on Sun Nov 30 14:36:07 2003