The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Maybe God Doesn't play dice with the universe?

The details of physical phenomena have no bearing whatever on “God playing dice with the universe.”

One cannot conclude determinism from physics unless one assumes that the universe contains ONLY physical particles. But what if God is a metaphysical Self, and in addition to physical particles, He created other metaphysical selves, including man?
And what if these metaphysical selves (hereafter called “persons”) have libertarian free will so that they can cause the various parts of their physical bodies to move as they wish, and that there is not prior conditions which cause that movement, though such conditions may influence these persons?

“Playing dice” or “random event” is not part of the equation. Indeed, what IS a random event? I think it is none other than an event which we cannot explain. Every event has a cause. Sometimes the cause is a prior event, and sometimes the cause is a person or some other rational self.

Yes it does.

What you mean is that “the details of physical phenomena have no bearing whatever” on questions regarding creaturely free will, but pog seemed to think that they do have some bearing, and kept bring quantum theory up on another thread (and suggesting C.S. Lewis’s comments on the subject were somehow out of date.)

This thread was intended more as an answer to him (and those who share his views), than an invitation to debate libertarian free will.

But since you brought the subject up here, I’ve been reading a paper by our own Prof. Thom Talbott, and his thoughts are very interesting (and if he ever drops in here, I’d be very interested in anything he might say relative to my questions.)

The paper can be found here.

willamette.edu/~ttalbott/God-Freedom.pdf

I think that’s what Lewis was saying.

P.S. After reading this, would you consider Prof. Talbott a libertarian or a compatibilist?

Sorry Michael, but I think you may have misunderstood me. All that quantum stuff in the previous thread was mostly about whether there is an uncaused and truly random non-free agent dimension to the physical universe, and although some theologians and scientists speculate that the mind-body problem can be solved by appeal to quantum phenomena, I am no where wedded to it nor used it as an explanation for free willed agency.

I basically agree with Paidon when it comes to free agents as self-determining causal agents, and I thought I’d made that clear in the previous thread - where I also noted the problems with determinism.

Regarding this research and quantum indeterminacy all I can say is what I previously posted: the jury’s still out on this, the scientists really are arguing about whether randomness is ontic (Lewis was wrong on that), and I have no problem with it if it is. Or if it isn’t, for that matter, so long as free will exists.

So “all that quantum stuff” was off topic on a thread that had to do with “Libertarian Free Will and the Existence of God,” wasn’t it?

Especially when I started the thread to explore whether it was possible to explain all the contingency in the universe without positing a God who has libertarian free will (whether or not man does.)

You’re saying you successfully derailed the thread, got us talking about “whether there is an uncaused and truly random non-free agent dimension to the physical universe” (which you now say is irrelevant), and caused me to question libertarian free will (when I started out questioning the compatibilist position I had always more or less taken for granted.)

Good job.

Now if there is “an uncaused and truly random non-free agent dimension to the physical universe,” I would once again ask you where it came from?

That position seems fundamentally atheistic (or dualistic) to me.

How does the one uncaused Cause (Who created and maintains all things, visible and invisible ex nihilo according to clasic Christian Theism) turn things over to “Chance” whenever He wants to?

Where did this “Chance” come from?

Is it uncreated and co-eternal?

If it’s created, is it logically coherent to say that God created and maintains some law or force that somehow makes 50% of photons shot at a mirror go thru the mirror, and 50% go around it, but neither God or this thing He created determines which 50% do what (they just kinda do this on their own, even though they have no minds or wills of their own)?

And if this law or force (that I’ve called "Chance’) actually does determine which 50% do what (however unpredictable that might be to human observers), how is it that God isn’t aware of how this thing He created and maintains operates?

How is it that He doesn’t in effect decide which 50% do what by creating and maintaining this hypothetical law?

Or put metaphorically, how is it that He doesn’t (in effect) decide which way the coin lands before He even tosses it?

Since you kept bringing up and defending the theory that there is some “uncaused and truly random non-free agent dimension to the physical universe,” could you please explain that?

Are you suggesting that it is uncreated?

Hi Michael –
I don’t think that Pog tried to derail the discussion – he was simply introducing a matter of speculative interest that some up in all current debates about determinism and freedom.
I personally think that the relationship between determinism and freedom is a matter that we can attempt to clarify as best we can – but I don’t think there will ever be a fully cogent water tight description of the relationship (at least in my lifetime).

What I can see is that the matter is one of personal anguish for you – whereas Pog is seeking as much clarity as he can on the matter through discussion but is a bit more detached from the anxieties adn therofore takes the subject more discursively (as I would actually).

Some sage once said that all the biggest problems in life are such that they are not completely solvable but have to be lived with creatively. And knowing that the greatest minds over centuries have pondered this one – and never agreed completely – I just think that, yes it’s great to talk about but when we come up against paradoxes that test the limits of our knowing, it’s at that very point we have to start trusting in God as Abba (something that Cindy said to you in another conversation on his thread. So rest you merry and be not so anxious about this – ‘Consider the lilies , consider the birds of the air’.

All the best

Dick :slight_smile:

Which God?

The God of Classic Christian Theism (Who created all things, visible and invisible ex nihilo)?

The dualistic god of the Parsees (who’s kingdom of light is co-eternal with a kingdom of darkness, and who didn’t create matter at all)?

The God of Joseph Smith Jr., who organized the world out of pre-existing matter (and who didn’t “create” us at all, according to the most common interpretation of certain Mormon texts, which takes individual human “intelligences” to be as co-eternal with God as physical “element”)?

Or the God of Process Theology (which seems similar to the Mormon God, in that He didn’t create everything ex nihilo)?

Hi Michael - I’ll answer as best as I can -

Many modern theologians have objections to the God of Classical Christian theism as found in Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm etc, I understand. The God of classical Christian theism is spoken of in terms of his mighty attributes – Aseity, Omniscience, Omnipotence and Impassibility for example. In all of these God stands outside and apart from God’s creation, and the creation ‘ex-nihilo’ is an act of transcendent power. I understand that the problem with this picture is that it downplays the central tenet of orthodox Christianity that God is relational. There is relationship within God in the Trinity community of loving persons. God in the Holy Spirit and as Logos are intimately related to the universe as a work in progress. God becomes incarnate in Jesus and lives a fully human life taking our subjectivity into Godself etc. So the picture of God in Classical theism as wholly transcendent and in control doesn’t do our faith or human experience of God full justice.

Process theology is one attempt to speak of God in a more relational way – but it is criticised for sacrificing the transcendence of God in favour of a completely immanent theology (at least in some of its variations). I understand that

Boyd’s Open theism – that Pog finds compelling – is an attempt to recombine the insights of process theology with Christian orthodoxy.

But when I answer the question Which God? I have to say that it is God who is both the creator of all things, and God who also limits himself in the Incarnation and makes Himself vulnerable in relationship with us. Otherwise the incarnation would just be a puppet show in an almost docetic way.

No not this God – and I’m not sure that this is a correct description of the Zoroastrian worldview – as I understand classical Zoroastrians they believe in an ethical dualism that is played out in the human heart. However, The Manicheans and other later Parsee sects misunderstood this and instead believed in a metaphysical dualism between matter(evil) and spirit (good). So if we are talking about Manicheans and by extensions the Hellenistic Gnostics – no I don’t believe in their god or their Christ. Their high god is pure spirit; the world was created by an inferior godling/demiurge that got above himself and created the world, accidently trapping human spirit in the prison of the flesh; and their Christ came to remind us of our spiritual nature – and only seemed to be a human being and to suffer and die. No I don’t believe in any of this – I affirm the Incarnation.

I know very little about Mormonism, but I understand it is a form of American Gnosticism – a bit like the offshoots of New Thought. I understand their God is the craftsman of pre-existing stuff rather than the creator. I didn’t know that they believe human intelligences to be co-eternal with God. I can’t say that any of their shtick resonates with me.

I’m not sure it has to be similar to the Mormon idea of God. The case against creation ex nihilo is argued by the Christina philosopher Thomas Oord on the following grounds (cut and pasted from Wiki I’m afraid since I’m no expert; i understand that Oord is a Weslyan evangelical who has tried to integrate the best of process thought into orthodox channels)

*Thomas Jay Oord (born 1965), a Christian philosopher and theologian, argues that Christians should abandon the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Oord points to the work of biblical scholars, such as Jon D. Levenson, who point out that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo does not appear in Genesis. Oord speculates that God created our particular universe billions of years ago from primordial chaos. This chaos did not predate God, however, for God would have created the chaotic elements as well. Oord suggests that God can create all things without creating from absolute nothingness.

Oord offers nine objections to creatio ex nihilo:
1.Theoretical problem: One cannot conceive absolute nothingness.
2.Biblical problem: Scripture – in Genesis, 2 Peter, and elsewhere – suggests creation from something (water, deep, chaos, etc.), not creation from absolutely nothing.
3.Historical problem: The Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus first proposed creatio ex nihilo on the basis of assuming the inherently evil nature of creation, and in the belief that God does not act in history (interesting). Early Christian theologians adopted the idea to affirm the kind of absolute divine power that many Christians now reject.
5.Creation-at-an-instant problem: We have no evidence in the history of the universe after the big bang that entities can emerge instantaneously from absolute nothingness. As the earliest philosophers noted, out of nothing comes nothing (ex nihilo, nihil fit).
6.Solitary power problem: Creatio ex nihilo assumes that a powerful God once acted alone. But power, as a social concept, only becomes meaningful in relation to others.
7.Errant revelation problem: The God with the capacity to create something from absolutely nothing would apparently have the power to guarantee an unambiguous and inerrant message of salvation (for example: inerrant Bible). An unambiguously clear and inerrant divine revelation does not exist.
8.Problem of Evil: If God once had the power to create from absolutely nothing, God essentially retains that power. But a God of love with this capacity appears culpable for failing to prevent evil.
9.Empire Problem: The kind of divine power implied in creatio ex nihilo supports a theology of empire, based upon unilateral force and control of others. Is this so? *

Some additional arguments I’ve found against creation ex nihilo on Patheos are -

*Early Church Fathers didn’t sweat Creation out of ‘something.’ Both the Hellenistic tradition via Platonism and Judaism assumed that God created out of some unoriginate matter. Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and Clement of Alexandria all explicitly affirm the doctrine. In one of his apologies to Greek philosophers Justin martyr insists that Plato stole the idea from Genesis! If Creation out of Nothing was necessary to preserve Monotheism or the Biblical doctrine of Creation then someone needs to call Justin.

Creation Out of Nothing isn’t Biblical, as in it isn’t in the Bible. If you read through the Bible you will not find the affirmation that God created the world out of nothing. It’s just not in there. In fact, even Biblical scholars who in the end want to affirm the doctrine for theological reasons will not point to the idea being present in the Bible. Just re-read Genesis 1 and ask yourself ‘where did the darkness and waters come from?’ They weren’t created but were there when God began to create.

Creation Out of Nothing isn’t a part of the Biblical Imagination. Not only is the doctrine absent in scripture but in the quite robust doctrine of Creation in both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures you don’t even see an interest in the question itself. There is plenty of interest in the goodness of Creation, God’s on-going relationship with Creation, Creation’s role in God’s on-going mission, the Cosmic Christ’s relationship to Creation, Creation’s groaning and it’s worship of God but not an affirmation that it came from nothing. It seems odd to me to insist on a doctrinal nuance that isn’t in scripture or even asked. Sure you can hold it but if no author of scripture thought about asking, relax with the dogmatism.*

A theologian who has tried to chart a middle path between process theology and classical theism is Jurgen Moltmann. Here I quote another post from Patheos:

*The central reason why Moltmann wants to preserve creatio ex nihilo is that, following Barth, he sees the emphasis on the divine freedom as critical. - but it should be remembered that as with Barth and the Confessing Church there are also definite political commitments in his emphasis on divine transcendence (as a guarantee that God stands in judgment over all idolatrous political systems, i.e. Nazism).

So much for Moltmann when he’s doing straight ‘confessional’ theology. He’s going for creatio ex nihilo, no arguments. HOWEVER, because he is such a consistently creative thinker, he doesn’t want to leave things there (and is surprisingly charitable towards Tillich in the discussion that follows). So, putting his ‘radical’ hat on and drawing from the Jewish kabbalistic notion of ‘zimsum’, he tweaks creatio ex nihilo in a way that nobody here has discussed as far as I can see:
‘In order to create a world ‘outside’ himself, the infinite God must have made room beforehand for a finitude in himself. It is only a withdrawal by God into himself that can free the space into which God can act creatively. The nihil for his creatio ex nihilo only comes into being because - and in as far as - the omnipotent and omnipresent God withdraws his presence and restricts his power.’ (God in Creation, 86-87)

I’m not necessarily saying that Moltmann is correct here. For all I know, the universe may have arisen from fluctuations in a quantum vacuum (whether you call that a ‘nihil’ is a question of definitions). But for sheer theological and speculative creativity, you have to admit that Moltmann’s idea is top-drawer stuff. And the notion that God’s relationship to creation is characterized by SELF-limitation of divine power - a self-limitation without which there could be no world at all, represents a middle way between classical theism and process theology which still seems attractive to many of us.*

OK I may be a heretic – but I’m a Jurgen Moltmann type of heretic. I find his ideas on God’s self limitation in creation suggestive too and consonant with a theology of kenosis.

All the best

Dick

But if nothing predated God, and He created the chaotic elements as well, you’re talking about creation ex nihilo.

All creation ex nihilo (as it is used in creedal statements and by Church Fathers) means is that God didn’t create the universe out of pre-existing matter.

I don’t know what you (or Oord) mean by “absolute nothing,” but you seem to be thinking of “nothing” as some kind of material that God created the universe out of, and that’s not what the doctrine of creation ex nihilo means.

And as far as impassibility is concerned, I was looking for an Orthodox explanation of the true Patristic understanding of this doctrine that I bookmarked a long time ago.

Unfortunately, I have so many book marks that I was unable to find it, but I believe it was in essential agreement with the explanation offered here.

spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm

Michael, that was not a very nice thing to say. It was rude and incorrect. I’m not sure exactly what I’ve done to upset you (other than disagree with you). Consider:

On your Libertarian Freewill and the Existence of God thread started Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:43 am, you posted a long cut-and-paste text from another forum to which no one responded. In that post you (not me) first introduced talk of quantum randomness:

You then began trying to initiate a dialogue by goading/insulting the forum members here:

I saw that, and I tried to offer my thoughts so it wouldn’t become a dead thread (like many other of the threads you start on exactly the same topic), and I noted from the outset that:

I did not mention anything quantum at all in that opening post, although following your lead I mooted that the universe could have ‘randomness’ in it as well as freewill:

You responded to the ‘randomness’ and the ‘free will’ parts separately, thus starting two tangents. You directly asked me with regard to ‘randomness’ (not freewill):

And:

You had by this stage *already given *three astronomical examples that were clearly related to randomness in the universe more than freewilled agency. Again you cut-and-pasted a long block of text from another forum which this time discussed libertarian freewill in terms of casual indeterminacy.

Again I apologised for not being able to deal with your queries:

But tried to deal with freewill and randomness separately (as you had initiated) in relation to your comments, and very cautiously tried to say that I thought it was possible that there could be randomness in the physical universe:

At this point you said:

Which is why I started to give names and quotes (which you later had a go at me for!)

And you also then *furthered our tangential discussion on randomness *(note: *you were driving *this discussion, not me) saying:

You introduced science:

And asked me a direct question regarding how I would explain randomness in the physical universe:

Again, I apologised saying:

And then gave you specific books to read. I continued to discuss your primary topic of freewill and God’s free will, but on the tangent of randomness (which you introduced and you furthered and you asked directly about) I tentatively stated:

8 very long posts in and quantum randomness (specifically) has hardly been mentioned … then in post 9 you say (with a quote):

And:

You clearly escalated all the quantum talk to specifics, not only questioning my tentative comments about the possibility of such a thing being ontic, but also specifically attacking the scientists own views on their own theory!
In response I was again restrained and tentative:

I then gave evidence/quotes to back up my point contra CS Lewis.
**You then responded massively **to my post, spending two-thirds of your time writing about what I’d said about quantum theory rather than on what I had said about freewill. **You asked me oddly irrelevant direct questions **(‘So is chad Ozel a Theist or an Atheist?’/ ‘Does Polkinghorne -as a Theist, not a scientist- explain where this randomness, chance, and chaos come from?’), and **asked me to expand my view on quantum theory **(‘Do you?’).

At this point your questions started to become a little too direct and **somewhat adversarial **in tone:

Again,* I was tentative and apologetic *as I tried my best to answer your very hard questions:

You then continued to further this debate on quantum science and *even introduced a new sub-topic *in our discussion (using bolded text no less)! ‘or particles that slip in and out of existence without His involvement’

You also then started getting snarky, making *unprovoked rude little asides *like:

And:

And:

In response, *I admitted when I was wrong *(‘You are correct. I was wrong to label Einstein an atheist’); and I tried to prevent another tangential sub-topic from opening up (‘Besides, I was really talking about indeterminancy about particle behaviour, not really expanding it to cover fluctutions in the quantum vacuum - whatever that is all about!’).
I spent most of my post trying to discuss issues directly related to determinism, freedom and God (rather than science) and always in a tentative manner:

And:

I (not you!) even tried to get the thread back on the OP topic:

Even going so far as to compromise my own view, and *agree with you *to bring the debate back onto freedom and away from randomness:

But in your next post **you ignored **all the stuff about freedom, and fixated on the quantum sub-topic I had tried twice to avoid:

I again responded tentatively:

Your next post was then again* fixated *on quantum stuff – entirely driven by you! You also started using an inordinate about of bolded text (shouting at me, basically) and your comments became even ruder:

And:

You also added to your already lengthy post a huge range of direct questions and another cut-and-paste (this time from another discussion you were having with Paidon).

At this point, growing exasperated with your rudeness, I tried to cool off for a while:

Again, I was always polite and tentative:

And:

But you wouldn’t let it go at that (**you even asked for a direct quote **even though you’d already told me that you didn’t like me quoting???):

Again *I tried to respond sensitively *to your rudeness and fixation:

And again I was tentative:

You were then rude and dismissive to Paidon (‘I’m more interested in logic here than I am in Patristic quotes that simply support your pre-stated position.’) before again focussing your attention on me:

I posted a reply saying:
‘O.K I’m sorry. I am of no use to you. I hope you find the answers you’re looking for’
‘Why the snarkiness? You seem to have adopted an adversarial tone in this post - is this how you want our discussion to progress? I will try my best.’
‘Quantum theory would be the way I view probabilistic causal relations as possible - I can see no other way. Note, this regards probabilisitc relations - I firmly hold to the choice of agents which is also non-deterministic but not proabilisitic.’

You made no apology for your rudeness, but said:

Nice :frowning:

You followed that up with:

And more back-handed compliments to make me sound like some sophomoric imbecile:

So I made my final post in that thread and left the discussion.
But even then you responded to me, referred to me (disparagingly and inaccurately) in posts with other people (and even whole other threads!) and tried to get me back into the discussion (why?) – and you even acted paranoid and defensive with Sobornost (why?) and got annoyed with Puddy (why?):

So, Michael, I am angry that you started this thread to hound me, and that you never apologised for being rude, and that you still refer to me on other threads inaccurately and that you have now responded to my measured post here in such a rude manner. It’s also irritating that you clutter up the Philosophy board with loads of threads on the same topic.

Hi Michael –

I think you have been rude to Pog actually. Also I’m uncomfortable with your idea that creating a thread means that you should be absolutely in control of it - to focus as you please, or to diverge as you please. If you wan to take on the informal role of thread faciltator, yes you have an informal function to guide and to clarify (and to see the thread out without creating another to qiockly) - but not to dictate, coerce and dismiss in this way.

Anway I post below what I intended before Pog posted.

You must note that I am not a metaphysician; I take a general interest in a lot of things, but I quickly get lost when things get very abstract (I find mathematics very difficult – and perhaps this is why metaphysics is not my metier, neither are thought experiments about randomness and probability). A lot of the contradictions expressed in the debates alluded to here and on related threads – objectivity/subjectivity, determinism/freedom, transcendence/immanence – are held in a completely liveable with tension for me just by meditating on the Incarnation as mystery. This will more than suffice as a gift of food for my mind that is quite simple when it comes to these matters.

Bearing this in mind, I will now have a look at your questions about my last slap dash cut and paste post.

First, I must say that I don’t necessarily agree with Oord. I’ve only read about him ever in passing. I have read Levenson’s Book on creation themes in the Hebrew Bible which, according to the Wiki article, Oord has been influenced by. I enjoyed the book – but haven’t followed it up with rigorous reflection. I mentioned Oord only to suggest that theologians who want to qualify the Classical notion of ‘creation ex nihilo’ – probably influenced in some way by Process Theism – are not necessarily in any way analogous to the Mormons in this aspect of their theological reflections.

That’s a very fair point. Technically this is creation by ex nihilo – and since I’ve not read Oord I can only give my own answer here. My problems with classical ‘ex nihilo’ accounts is that they tell us that the creation was an act of Divine fiat/power. I have problems with pictures of God that focus too much on power. All of the critics of the Process Theist, the Open Theist, and the Personalist Theist critics of Classical Theism would agree that God is not omnipotent in the sense of being coercive. The divine has a power of persuasion rather than coercion. Process theologians interpret the classical doctrine of omnipotence as involving force, and suggest instead a forbearance in divine power. “Persuasion” in the causal sense means that God does not exert unilateral control.

So yes God does create the chaotic elements (and I’m at the limits of my thoughts here). However this creation takes place in a way nearer to what Moltmann speculates on so richly (outlined in my previous post through a cut and paste job). The chaotic elements come into being by God’s act of self limitation of omnipotence which God does in order to allow the universe the space to be in freedom – that is to be other than God. It is this chaotic freedom that God creates and then shapes with persuasion and forbearance in an ongoing process. This picture satisfies me because it suggests that the creation and the kenosis of incarnation are intimately related. And it all I say is very different from Mormon ideas about the eternity of matter, God as craftsman and not creator, and the coeternity of human beings with God. Perhaps Oord argues along these lines – I dunno.

Just a quibble here – some of the Church Fathers didn’t argue for a creation ex nihilo doctrine apparently (see above concerning Clement of Alexandria, Athenagoras, and Justin Martyr).

I dunno what Oord means – the position that chimes with me is Motlmann’s where the idea of nothing as some kind of material is not an issue.

My only beef with what Packer says is his emphasis on God’s absolute control – God is in relationship with us. God cares about us. God make Himself vulnerable to us – I’m not sure that Packer’s description of God does full justice to God’s vulnerability and forbearance for me. But who knows?

One last thing I’d say is that Classical Theism and Christian Orthodoxy are not the same thing. The metaphysics of Classical Theism are derived from Plato and Aristotle as well as being formative on the theologies of Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas, were also formative on the Classical Theists of Judaism (Maimonides) and Islam (Averroes). So Classical Theism is a current within Christian Orthodoxy but there are perfectly orthodox Christian thinkers who disagree with aspects of the Classical synthesis – for example Alvin Plantinga ( rejects divine simplicity), Richard Swinburne (rejects divine timelessness) and William Lane Craig (who reject both divine simplicity and timelessness).

Well that’s the best I can do. As I said my spirituality focused on Incarnation is not horribly troubled by the issues discussed here. I thank God for this – because I’m no metaphysician.

All the best

Dick

I don’t know if Craig rejects simplicity, but it’s an oversimplification of his position to say he rejects timelessness.

His position is that God is timeless sans creation, and temporal with creation (and whether you say God is dipolar, or omni temporal, some such position seems absolutely necessary to me–otherwise you’re left with questions like how God could have transversed an actual infinite of successive moments to arrive at the moment of creation, and how He can be relational–it seems to me that God has to be both in time and out of time.)

Perhaps you owe Craig an apology?

And BTW, I believe you referred to Aaron as a friend of yours?

I received a PM from him last month thanking me for these threads, and telling me he failed to see how I had been at all “snarky,” so I don’t really think I owe pog any apology.

(but if it makes you happy, I will apologize for being somewhat annoyed at being forced into a debate on quantum physics.)

While he appears to be a compatibilist in regards to human free will, Aaron had some interesting thoughts regarding God’s free will that might answer some of my questions, and when not distracted by the QM debate that pog forced on me, I tried to explore that issue.

I didn’t actually post any of Aaron’s thoughts at the time because I wanted to see what others thought (and because I thought he might want to.)

But since no one else (except maybe Chrisguy90) has really said anything, and Aaron still hasn’t posted his thoughts, I don’t think he’d mind if I share them here.

Here are his exact words (emphasis mine.)

Aaron at least attempted to answer my questions.

We were actually talking about the same issues (not Quantum Mechanics.)

And his suggested answers actually seemed like they might make some sense.

I’d like to take this opportunity to publicly thank him, and to ask the rest of you what you think of his thoughts?

Dear Michael -
I’m really sorry about the intro to my last email - must have been feeling snarky myself after a difficult day. None of us are perfect – so please let it go.
Of course I think your ideas are really interesting and well worth the effort you put in posting here – and you stimulate good conversation too.
Obviously I am sad that the questions of metaphysics are a source of great anguish to you rather than something that fills you with wonder at mystery. Perhaps my willingness to embrace ‘mystery’ is a copout sometimes. As I said – I’m just not very good at abstract thinking. I’m very interested in people that think in the abstract – I had a good friend once who was a brilliant mathematician and talking to him filled me with wonder at how different our ways of looking at the world can be. But as for me – I do my best when it comes to metaphysics; but I’m soon out of my depth and just trying to get a cut and paste general knowledge idea of what’s going on when I’m trying to answer or questions. Also I only have a dilettante knowledge of thinkers in this field (so I don’t think Craig needs an apology from me if I have misrepresented him – which is very likely because I was only quoting someone else’s view and haven’t checked this stuff out; he would need an apology from a peer, but not from a bungling amateur like me).

Anyway friend, my apologies again. And please understand that while I can take a very general interest in metaphysics, when we get down to the fine detail I do start to get lost. Getting lost doesn’t bother me – but I can only concentrate on abstract conversations and contribute to these positively in very small spurts.

Bless you Michael –

Dick

P.S. I don’t know Aaron – but that’s a fine letter. You obviously can communicate well together, so he can speak to your condition as a fellow metaphysician.

Then perhaps your source of information owes him (and you) an apology.

My apologies.

I see now that it was Chisguy90 who referred to Aaron as a friend.

I don’t know about that, but I thank you.

I never said you or anyone else owed me an apology, but I thank you again for your kind words (and for sharing your thoughts on these threads.)

P.S. If your source of information on Craig’s views is what you’d call a metaphysician, it would be nice if he actually took the time to share some of his thoughts on these threads.

P.S. I just received an interesting reply to some of my questions on Craig’s Forum (and I’ll post it here for those who might be interested in these questions.

Basically, your question supposes that ‘East’ and ‘counter-cockwise’ are meaningful without implicit reference to the rest of the universe. The term ‘East’ does seem arbitrary if we consider it alone, as in such particular questions you raised. However, when we give the meaning of those terms, we give them as the objects referred relate to other objects, which are defined in terms relative to other objects and so on. Eventually, a complete denotation will be wholistic in the sense that the whole universe will be referred to (atleast implicitly), and so the underlyng question is:

Why is the universe the way that it is?

This however still separates the universe from it being the effect of which God is the cause, and when we look at the picture wholistically, ie., God and creation, our question has to do with asking:

Why is God the way that He is?

At this point, one assumes that the ontological ground for logical truths are more fundamental than the nature of God. What I mean is – when we ask what the sufficient reason there is for God being the way He is, we are presupposing that the reason why the laws of Logic are the way they are, precede the ontology of God.

We can only ask for the reason why God has the ontology that He has, at the same level as asking for why the laws of logic are the way they are.

Because the PSR can only be meaningfully applied to truths which are logically posterior to the ontology of logic, it is inapplicable in the case of God. The reason why the laws of logic hold the way they do, is because the negation of such is logically impossible, which in this case is to say is ontologically impossible (logicality being the ontology of logic).
Similarly, the reason why God is the way He is, is because the negation of such is ontologically impossible.

You haven’t upset me, but your back quoting here was selective and misleading.

Did you forget this?

When you wrote this, you seemed to understand my philosophical objections to the interpretations of QM you kept wanting to argue about, and even seem to see how illogical it is (though how you could go on to say you find it “possible” I don’t know.)

But you still bring it up (post after post, page after page) and insist that it must somehow be possible because it’s the opinion held by the scientists you quote.

That’s the only defense you ever offered!

You never offered any logical reason particles could move, move in this direction instead of that, or change direction without being caused to by God, or some deterministic force created and controlled by God, or offered any philosophical explanation of how such a thing could be.

You just tried to wear me down by quoting your quantum scientists, and endlessly insisting that their view was the majority view.

And please note, you agreed that what you were saying was analogous to the keys of a typewriter moving by themselves and randomly typing out works of human literature, and then said “actually, I think you’ve represented me (or at least the science I’m saying I find possible) accurately.”

That’s the kind of irrationality I was subjected to on that thread.

“No, an explosion at a typewriter factory couldn’t produce a typewriter; but, yes, a typewriter could mysteriously start typing on it’s own and produce the complete works of William Shakespeare.”

“Yes, that’s an accurate representation of what I’m saying; and no, I can’t offer any logical explanation of how it could be possible–but look at the scientific credentials of the men I’m quoting. If they believe it’s possible, I find it possible (and so should you.)”

That was your argument, all through that thread (and then you accuse me of being snarkey.)

The argument that random quantum fluctuations somehow explain human free will has been made by some of the people you’re fond of quoting, and from your comments here it seems that we both agree that that argument is bogus (because it would wrongly equate random effects upon the brain with freedom.)

Strange that you managed to argue about human free will with me so long, on a thread where I wasn’t even interested in discussing that subject, when we both seem to agree that it has nothing to do with QM.

Which would have been nice if you actually had something to say.

Instead you chose to argue about QM.

If I owe you any apology, it’s for not picking up on this at the time.

You really didn’t understand the opening post from the beginning.

The only free will that I was interested in was God’s (not man’s.)

The question was whether evidence of randomness in creation pointed to a God who had to have some kind of libertarian free will (and Aaron, a determinist, seemed to understand that, and replied in the affirmative.)

Now while I’m sure you’d like to have a long argument with Aaron about humans having free will, my point here is that he understood the OP far better than you did, and if it makes you feel any better, I apologize for not realizing sooner that you really had no idea of what we were talking about.

Because, to me, they were always two separate issues (and I wasn’t interested in discussing human free will on that thread at all), but you kept conflating the two.

You kept going off on a QM tangent, and arguing that mindless particles could conceivably do things on their own (without being caused to do what they do by God or any determining force created, sustained, and understood by God.)

I kept telling you that I found that logically incoherent, and you kept bringing it up, repeating it, and going on your QM tangents.

Now you say you don’t know what you did to upset me, unless it was to disagree with me, but when I look at what you said here, I don’t see where we really disagreed?

The one thing that is annoying is that you somehow kept the argument going anyway.

Think about that pog.

Now back to the topic here (where free will isn’t even in the topic heading.)

You quoted scientists who supported your indeterminist interpretation of QM ad nauseam on the other thread, and thanks to you I’m somewhat interested in the de Broglie–Bohm theory (a determinist interpretation of QM.)

If you’re at all interested, here’s a little more on it for you (and if you’re not, here’s a little more for anyone else who might be.)

physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=3077

And for those who missed it.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/