Fascinating analysis, CottShop! I just have some observations and questions.
If one fills the role of "coder" with eternal, omniscient God, then certainly this coder can "anticipate" (since the coder is not time bound) each and every potentially deleterious development anywhere in creation and provide strategies in advance of its occurrence so that any potentially affected living creature can have means to deal with and "defend itself" against, e.g., the (usually bad) effects of genetic mutation, which is usually ascribed to a "random cause." (That term sounds like an oxymoron; but maybe it is not one. I'm keeping my mind open.)
But still I think this model generally would be wrong on two counts. In the first place, for the coder to work in this way (should he/she/it so choose it) would be tantamount to establishing determinism as the most fundamental rule of the universe.
While determinism is just dandy as a means for understanding the application of a rule and how it might play out in the world theoretically, it does nothing to explain the rise of novelty in nature, and therefore of the diversity of life. In the second place, developed from the first, any deterministic model of nature, being mechanistic in its foundational principles, is systematically blind to potential non-material, non-mechanistic contributions to natural causation. For any such finding would be self-defeating to the argument that nature is, at bottom, the sum of the random activity of "dumb" matter at any given point in time.
And yet the irony seems to be that, without the random in nature, novelty in nature cannot occur.
And if novelty cannot occur, then that means that the world of nature must be perfectly "static." Meaning: No change. No development. No "evolution."
And also as it seems to me: No human free will. In a determined world, human judgment and choice would be perfectly superfluous.
Must conclude for the time being without drawing any conclusions here, dear CottShop. I just figure that these problems are bigger than either of us, or both of us in combination. :^)
Thank you ever so much for pinging me to your excellent analysis/post!
[[If one fills the role of “coder” with eternal, omniscient God, then certainly this coder can “anticipate” (since the coder is not time bound) each and every potentially deleterious development anywhere in creation and provide strategies in advance of its occurrence so that any potentially affected living creature can have means to deal with and “defend itself” against, e.g., the (usually bad) effects of genetic mutation, which is usually ascribed to a “random cause.” (That term sounds like an oxymoron; but maybe it is not one. I’m keeping my mind open.) ]]
Yep this was one point I was goign to bring up to show the absolute need, and reality of, predesign- which of course shows the metainfo as nothign short of the Omniscient’s anticipating foreknowledge handiwork, as well it shows that each species has their own set of species specific paramters since htis ‘coder’ foreknew which deleterious mutaitons would affect which species.
[[While determinism is just dandy as a means for understanding the application of a rule and how it might play out in the world theoretically, it does nothing to explain the rise of novelty in nature, and therefore of the diversity of life.]]
I see nothign wrong with this as the coder would foreknow novelty as well and could design each species specifically in such a manner as woudl benefit the species fitness as novel traits appear (I’m not sure the word novel shoudl be used as the traits are simply enhanced or reduced due ot mutaitons, and nothing really novel is taking place- species are simply undergoing what they were predesigned to endure really- any ‘different’ result is simply a result of predesign- a derterministically foreknown design I would htink)
[[And also as it seems to me: No human free will. In a determined world, human judgment and choice would be perfectly superfluous.]]
This is a tough one, and one I’ve struggled with over hte years- I think God’s foreknowledge determined His perfect plans, but also shaped His allowed plans as well, and hwile one could mount an argument that if God already foreknew every thought, action etc, then free will does not exist, but I think the answer lies in the fact that we do infact have free will, and that God knew every thought and action etc, beforehand, and shaped His allowed will well before hte foudnations of hte earth were laid down (Perhaps these wills were ternally present- but that’s another discussion).
We can still have free will even with a God who is deterministic, and nothign we do or say will change how He knows everyhtign is goign to turn out- even if we’re presented with a 1000 choices, and htrough reasoning and contemplation we choose one ‘trying to trick God’ as it were, God already knew our descision and adjusted His allowed will accordingly before hand
This is a deep deep subject, and oen that can drive ya batty if we’re not careful, but I’ll have to dissagree abotu God not beign able to be deterministic. At least till I hear more coutnerargument
[[coder can “anticipate” (since the coder is not time bound) each and every potentially deleterious development anywhere in creation and provide strategies in advance of its occurrence so that any potentially affected living creature can have means to deal with and “defend itself” against,]]
One point here- The coder can as well determine whether He wants a particular species to be able to defend or not- He created man eternal to begin with, then through our sin, we became corrupted, so God is capable obviously of both, and our sins have caused us to become susceptible to things were were never originally designed to be- Man i nthe garden, before the sin, was living God’s perfect will- and after hte sin, was forced to live God’s allowed will, which was inferior to His perfect will.
I’m pretty big on predestination, and a shocker of a book on predestination was from an old time preacher named Pink- I’ll see if I can find hte link to the online copy of his book- His book contains a few mistakes I beleive, but the majority of it is quite sound, but shocking (After the first itme reading it I became so angry at predestination I went on a drinking binge and nearly died- the concepts in the book are a bit alarming, but once you get over the intitial shock of just what predestination really means, especially for hte unsaved, it really starts to hit home and make us face the reality of our salvation and what a gift it really is.
Here’s the hwole online book called: THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD
by A.W. Pink
http://www.sovereign-grace.com/pink/0-index.htm
Truly, error correction is a hallmark of good coding and redundancy is often used for speedy recovery in vital systems. Cyclic redundancy checks are often used to assure error-free data streams. These of course require an intelligent designer. And notably, we observe similar solutions in biological systems.
I find it particularly compelling that the biological versions of error correction and redundancy have been around since virtually the beginning of life in nature - whereas man had not yet discovered them (or invented them, if one is an Aristotlean) until the late 1960's.
On the predestination v. free will issue, I would only point out that it need not be an either/or situation. Scriptures include prophecy (predestination) and commandments (free will) - and show prophecies fulfilled and commandments obeyed and disobeyed with consequences.