They reject the only important definition of chance (2/3) as being
incompatible with God. Their God is not omnipotent if he can't overcome a
definition 2 or 3 style 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.
God used chance (the drawing of lots) to choose a disciple, to find Achan
(in Joshua) to distribute the land (in Joshua), to choose the goat for
sacrifice etc. The type of chance was a random choice, not as in your
definition 1 which had chance occurrence of two caused events. Rolling
dice is random chance pure and simple, yet you and Giesler say that God
can't be God if the roll of a dice is random. This is silly.
>
>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.
Ruling over a random chance-generated, quantum mechanical universe is
precisly God's role. Your theology would require that God be unable to
control this randomly generated quantum mechanical universe. This is the
way our entire electronic world of today is controlled.
>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.
So you are saying that God can not create a random number generator. Human
beings do it all the time and some of them are really good.
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.
God created chance!
>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".
The Lamb Retherford effect. Virtual particle pairs (positrons and
electrons) are generated throughout space time. As an electron in orbit
travels it collides with positrons which were created in a quantum
mechanical particle pair. The electron and the virtual positron are
destroyed, but the virtual electron now becomes the electron in orbit
around the nucleus. It then strikes another virtual positron and is
destroyed and replaced by another virtual electron. This effect causes
slight energy shifts in the spectra of atoms and the effect has been observed.
One really can't ascribe causality in the classical sense to the weather
pattern. If one could, then one could predict the weather--something we
are incapable of doing.
>So Glenn's proposition is that if I thought evolution was possible I would
>not "spend a bunch of time fighting it"?
Your last 4 years refute the above. You don't really think evolution is
possible. And I doubt that anyone around here really beleives your
blatently self-serving claim about this.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution