One version of the argument from natural evil that I sometimes run across goes like this: since the laws of nature are contingent rather than necessary, God could dispense with natural evils by making a universe with different laws.
There's a grain of truth to that, but the reality is a good deal more complicated and imponderable. It's simpler for God to bypass natural laws than for God to change natural laws. When God circumvents a nature law to perform a miracle, God is accessing his omnipotence to product the result directly.
But if he alters the laws of physics, it's not just a case of changing one law or another law in piecemeal fashion. For in a cause/effect universe, all the laws must be mutually consistent. One law can't be changed while leaving all other laws in place. Rather, changing one law requires a systematic adjustment in other laws, for them to cooperate.
The hypothetical alternative is so different from our own that we have no idea what such a universe would be like. And there may be few coherent alternatives. Compare it to a game of checkers:
Researchers at the University of Alberta in Canada formally announced that they had finally solved the centuries-old game of checkers. Specifically: they had a file which contained full information on every legal position that can arise during the game, and which move, if any, will lead to a win or a draw in that position.The conclusion to be drawn from the completion of the database: with perfect play by both sides checkers cannot be won or lost. The game will inevitably end in a draw. This means that even the most skilled player cannot beat a computer which has access to the database. The computer can't win either – it can only do so if the human opponent makes a mistake that leads to position that is classified as a loss in the database.Actually, there aren't an unlimited number of combinations. It turns out, there are a mere 500,000,000,000,000,000,000 combinations (500 quintillion) that can be made over the course of a game of checkers...now the system knows the perfect series of plays to win the game at any point. A perfect opponent matched against Chinook can never hope to beat it; even if they play a perfect game, their best result is a draw.
If God plays by the rules, that imposes a severe restriction on his field of action (a self-imposed limitation, to be sure).
If he plays checkers, he's not assuming the role of an omnipotent player. He's bracketed his omnipotence. He's an omniscient player, but not an omnipotent player, because he's not taking advantage of his omnipotence. That's available, but kept in reserve.
God cannot achieve a result by law without imposing a self-limitation on his field of action. God can achieve a result by acting outside a network of natural laws, but if he's operating within a network of natural laws, if he employs that medium to achieve the result, then there are many things he cannot do.
If God plays checkers with a computer, God can't beat the computer. Even though God is omnipotent and the computer is finite, if God confines himself to the rules of the game, then he can only play to a draw. There are only so many ways to win and lose. The program has that information. That's all it needs to be invincible. God isn't bound by the rules, but it ceases to be a game of checkers if he breaks the rules or overrides the computer.
No comments:
Post a Comment