On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 06:02:43 +0000, mortongr@flash.net wrote:
>SJ>Glenn is deluding himself if he *really* thinks that what I wrote
>>substantiates the thesis he was advocating! I quite clearly said that
>>"Theism has no problem with chance defined as 1) the `intersection of
>>two or more lines of causality'".
GM>And that is not the definition of chance I am using. So don't play those
>semantic games.
Then why doesn't Glenn acknowledge that Sproul and Geisler can accept
at least *one* definition of "chance" as compatible with theism, rather than
give the impression that they reject *all* definitions of chance?
>SJ>I also quite clearly said that theism was only incompatible with chance
>>defined as: 2) "the lack of any cause"; or 3) "chance as a real cause
>>itself":
GM>And if your god (little g) can't deal with chance (2/3definition) then your
>god is not omnipotent. He is powerless against them and thus impotent.
Again I remind Glenn to consider what God thinks of what he says.
GM>Your note still proves my point.
All this shows is that Glenn has an incoherent idea about the historic
Christian doctrine of the omnipotence of God! The Christian doctrine of
God has always recognised certain limitations to God's omnipotence,
namely "the logically absurd or contradictory":
"There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of
God. He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatsoever that we may conceive
of. He can do only those things which are proper objects of his power.
Thus, he cannot do the logically absurd or contradictory. He cannot make
square circles or triangles with four corners. He cannot undo what
happened in the past, although he may wipe out its effects or even the
memory of it. He cannot act contrary to his nature-he cannot be cruel or
unconcerned. He cannot fail to do what he has promised. In reference to
God's having made a promise and having confirmed it with an oath, the
writer to the Hebrews says: "So that through two unchangeable things, in
which it is impossible that God should prove false, we ...night have strong
encouragement" (Heb. 6:18). All of these "inabilities," however, are not
weaknesses, but strengths. The inability to do evil or to lie or to fail is a
mark of positive strength rather than of failure." (Erickson M.J., "Christian
Theology", 1988, pp277-278).
Since it is "logically absurd or contradictory" for an omnipotent and
sovereign God to coexist with something which is not ultimately caused by Him,
then either such a God does not exist or that something does not exist. It
is incoherent for Glenn to claim that chance can exist as 2) "the lack of any
cause"; or 3) "as a real cause itself", as well as claim that God is the
ultimate cause of everything.
If Glenn cannot see that, then that is his problem! I am not going to waste
any more time trying to help him see it.
>SJ>I doubt that there would be many Christian Evolutionists would agree
>>with Glenn on this.
GL>Argumentum ad populum--a logical fallacy!
Not really. Glenn, in attacking the anti-evolutionist position re God and
chance is implicitly claiming to represent the evolutionist position on same.
Otherwise what is his point singling out the anti-evolutionists?
But unless he can show that it *is* the evolutionist position, it remains just
Glenn's unsubstantiated personal position.
>SJ>If yes, then I wonder if any on the Evolution side would agree with
>>Glenn?
GM>Truth is now determined by having at least one person second the argument?
>argumentum ad populum--a logical fallacy!
See above.
>SJ>If no, then what is Glenn's point?
I note Glenn sidesteps this!
>SJ>BTW, this is page 6 of my copy of Wilder-Smith's, "The Natural
>>Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution".
GM>Page 5 in mine.
Interesting. I have just checked. Mine is the 1981 edition published in the USA
and the words quoted are definitely on page 6.
>>GM>"By intelligence I mean that the Designer is capable of performing actions
>>>that cannot adequately be explained by appealing to chance - the Designer
>>>can act so as to render the chance hypothesis untenable." ~ William A.
>>>Dembski, "On the Very Possibility of Intelligent Design," in J. P.
>>>Moreland, editor, The Creation Hypothesis, (Downer's Grove: Intervarsity
>>>Press, 1994), p. 116.
>SJ>This says nothing about the origin of life.
>>
>>Does Glenn deny what Dembski says above?
GM>Yes, a slot machine is designed to work with chance. Thus we humans are
>more powerful than God.
First, Glenn ignores the fact that his quote says nothing about the origin of life.
Seconf, the point is that it is only "chance" in the epistemological sense, not the
ontological sense. The numbers that come up in a slot machine are not uncaused.
They are therefore: 1) "the intersection of two or more lines of causality";
not 2) "the lack of any cause"; or 3) "chance as a real cause itself".
>SJ>Like a lot of Glenn's arguments, this depends for its existence on fuzzy
>>definitions. If Glenn defines what he means by "chance" his argument
>>would collapse.
GM>CHance in your definition 2 or 3.
Then the examples Glenn uses don't support his argument. They are all
chance in the sense of 1) the intersection of two or more lines of causality.
I challenge Glenn to give an example of something physical in the real world which
itself is 2) "the lack of any cause"; or is 3) "a real cause itself".
>SJ>This is simply not true. Maybe some extreme YECs "rule out evolution
>>as being impossible" but most "anti-evolutionists" don't "rule out
>>evolution as being impossible". I certainly don't claim that evolution is
>>"impossible".
GM>Ha ha ha ha ha [Rolling On The Floor Laughing]. For someone who thinks
>evolution is possible you sure spend a bunch of time fighting it. ha ha ha
>ha ha ha ROTFL. Ha ha ha ha ha ha....
So Glenn's proposition is that if I thought evolution was possible I would
not "spend a bunch of time fighting it"? But only if I thought it was
impossible! The joke's on Glenn!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"How much of this can be believed? Every generation needs its own
creation myths, and these are ours. They are probably more accurate than
any that have come before, but they are undoubtedly subject to revision as
we find out more about the nature and the history of life. The best that can
be said for any scientific theory is that it explains all the data at hand and
has no obvious internal contradictions." (Wilson E.O., et. al., "Life on
Earth", [1973], Sinauer Associates: Sunderland MA, 1975, reprint, p624)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------