> To be honest here, it seems to me that you are leaning more and more toward
> a creation that has been endowed with autonomy, i.e. ultimate governance
> lies in the created thing itself. No doubt you would say that it is a
> God-endowed and God-gifted autonomy, but it is autonomy that differs little
> from the self-governed governance of the Naturalist. No name-calling
> intended, but I'm having a hard time seeing the difference if you are
> saying what I think you are saying.
Now here's an issue where I believe it helps to think about God's
omnipotence and omniscience.
In prior posts, we discussed two views about stochastic
events: (1) God controls every outcome; (2) God is sovereign and
grants real freedom and contingency (within limits) to such events.
I speculated that it might be possible to harmonize these views by
thinking about God's omnipotence and omniscience, although it is not
clear to me how this would work.
However, on the issue of governance and autonomy, it seems that any
such distinction must collapse in view of omnipotence and omniscience.
Consider: (1) Everything in creation is radically dependent upon God's
sustanence and governance for its moment-by-moment existence, yet
creation is distinct from God and not merely a "part" of God; (2) God
has gifted creation with genuine existence and capabilities, but God
remains sovereign and nothing happens outside his will.
Such a distinction would be important for anything we human beings
create. We can make things which depend, for anything to happen, upon
our conscious attention and control. We can make things which we can
control but which are autonomous when we relinquish control or stop
paying attention. But does such a distinction make sense when the
creator is omnipotent and omniscient? I would propose that the
distinction evaporates.
Loren Haarsma