On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 15:25:09 +0000, mortongr@flash.net wrote:
>SJ>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?
GM>They reject the only important definition of chance (2/3) as being
>incompatible with God.
So Glenn should change his claim from: "One of the things that both
young-earth and old earth anti-evolutionists agree upon is the concept that
life did not arise by chance" ;
to:
"One of the things that both young-earth and old earth anti-evolutionists
agree upon is the concept that life did not arise by the lack of any cause".
GM>Their God is not omnipotent if he can't overcome a definition 2 or 3 style chance.
Sproul and Geisler (and I) go even further than that. They (and I) say that
"Their God" would be *non-existent if there even *existed* "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.
>SJ>Again I remind Glenn to consider what God thinks of what he says.
GM>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.
First, my definition 1 says: "the intersection of two *or more* lines of
causality" (my emphasis).
Second, the drawing of lots, like the throwing of dice, is determined by the
laws of physics (unless God intervened). We call it "random" as a
placeholder for our ignorance. If we could identify and allow for all the
physical forces acting on the lots or dice, and threw it exactly the same
each time, ie. the initial conditions, the lots or dice dice would yield the
same result each time (unless God intervened).
Third, Glenn does not know in the examples quoted, whether God did in
fact intervene to make the lots fall the way He wanted. So he cannot even
say that the results were chance in *any* definition of the word!
GM>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.
See above.
>>GM>Your note still proves my point.
>SJ>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.
GM>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.
Neither Sproul, Geisler or I have any problem with God ruling over a
quantum mechanical universe. We would just deny that ultimately it was
uncaused.
>SJ>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.
GM>So you are saying that God can not create a random number generator.
In the sense of a *truly* random number generator in which events
happened which were uncaused, yes, because this would logically
contradict the claim that God was ultimately the cause of all things.
GM>Human beings do it all the time and some of them are really good.
Sproul, Geisler and I would deny that these "random number generators"
are truly random in the sense of the results they generate are uncaused.
GM>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.
GM>God created chance!
Using the first of Glenn's own important definition of chance above, ie. 2),
it boils down to saying "God created...the lack of any cause", which is
incoherent.
Or using the second of Glenn's definitions, ie. 3), it says "God
created...chance as a real cause itself". This would contradicts the Christian
doctrine of Providence, which says God is in control of everything.
If "chance" means uncaused (definition 2); or the ultimate cause (definition
3) then the *Christian* God does not exist.
>SJ>First, Glenn ignores the fact that his quote says nothing about the origin
>>of life.
>>
>>Second, 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.
>SJ>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".
GM>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.
Glenn has not shown that these events happen without a cause or are
themselves ultimate causes.
They could for example, be happening due to causes we are unable to
determine, or they could even be being caused directly by God.
GM>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.
Glenn confused causality with predictability. The fact that we cannot
predict the weather does not mean it is uncaused.
>SJ>So Glenn's proposition is that if I thought evolution was possible I would
>>not "spend a bunch of time fighting it"?
GM>Your last 4 years refute the above. You don't really think evolution is
>possible.
Glenn is here indulging in the same mind-reading which he accuses others of!
I can only repeat that I do think that evolution (in the fully naturalistic,
molecules-to-man sense) is possible, and that if I thought it was impossible,
I wouldn't waste 4 years of my life arguing against it! My position is, and
always has been, that I believe that evolution (in the above sense) is
possible, but *improbable*.
GM>And I doubt that anyone around here really beleives your
>blatently self-serving claim about this.
Whether Glenn or anyone else believes me on this is *irrelevant*. I can't help
what people believe.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mr. Bird is concerned with origins and the evidence relevant thereto. He is
basically correct that evidence, or proof, of origins-of the universe, of life,
of all of the major groups of life, of all of the minor groups of life, indeed
of all of the species-is weak or nonexistent when measured on an absolute
scale, as it always was and will always be." (Nelson G.J., "Preface," in Bird
W. R., "The Origin of Species Revisited", Regency: Nashville TN, 1991,
Vol. I, p.xii)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------