RE: Natural Evil

Everything about this Creation seems to cry out

1. "options!" -- more chances if mess up, pick up the pieces and
start over again

6. "novelty" -- fact or fiction, must judge

5. "branch" -- vintage years of fond remembrance

3. "diversity" -- in unity, pieces fitting together

4. "uncertainty" -- and trust/obey

2. "surprise!" -- attack/attend/attain if pay attention

7. "serendipity" -- pointing without being pushy

That suggests to me that these elements (ingredients?) are perhaps

of interest to the Creator, which reads in turn on the idea of
omniscience.

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Jim Armstrong
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 11:15 PM
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Natural Evil

Perhaps it applies there, but that wasn't my intent with the question.
So, are you suggesting that there was something of God that wanted the
experience of suffering, loss, and death? :-)
My question really had to do with the idea of omniscience. If that is
really a 100% certain attribute of God, with God's knowing beforehand
every detail of the course and outcome of this time-constrained and
process-oriented creation, then I just have to ask, what's the point? On
the other hand, everything about this Creation seems to cry out
"options!", "novelty", "branch", "diversity", "uncertainty",
"surprise!". That suggests to me that these elements (ingredients?) are
perhaps of interest to the Creator, which reads in turn on the idea of
omniscience. The course of Creation would manifest none of those
meanings to one in the total know. Moreover, it seems to my human way of
thinking that it would be pointless to set a time-constrained Creation
into motion if the outcome was already known. Why bother? JimA

D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:

Jim,

As I see it, your question applies to YEC, where the question has to
arise, "Why did God take six days instead, as Augustine thought, of
creating instantaneously?" The best answer to your question from a sane
view of science that I have found is from George L. Murphy. His The
Cosmos in the Light of the Cross, 2003, has a blurb that reads, in part:
"George Murphy finds understanding in the theology of the cross, with a
God who becomes a participant in the universe and thereby shares the
suffering, loss, and death that are part of the worldly experience." He
applies it to ecology, evolution and bioethics. His chapter,
"Christology, Evolution, and the Cross," pp. 370ff in Keith B. Miller,
ed., Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 2003 (which is less
expensive) also presents the argument. I won't try to summarize it here.

Dave

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:40:34 -0700 "Jim Armstrong" <jarmstro@qwest.net>
writes:

        Just for sake of discussion - if God has that level of knowledge
and understanding and control, why do you think he did not just go
directly for the bottom line in Creation instead of putting a
time-constrained process-oriented creation in place? JimA

                 
                With the omniscient God there is no such thing as "dumb
luck". No volcano
                erupted in the Garden because God knew what he was
doing. To Him natural
                processes are predictable so that, for example, he could
have the wind
                blow at the right time and with the right velocity to
roll back the waters
                of the Red Sea so that the Israelites could cross on dry
ground. We are
                confident that when we pray, if it is God's will, he can
keep natural
                disasters away from us without changing the laws of
physics even though
                such events happen at other times and places.
                 
                Gordon Brown
                Department of Mathematics
                University of Colorado
                Boulder, CO 80309-0395
                 
                 
                 
                  

         
Received on Fri Oct 1 12:13:08 2004