to the problem of human freedom. He takes a libertarian view of free action in which “nothing other than my choice itself uniquely determines me to choose one way rather than another.” Does human freedom pose a problem for

the goal of eliciting a free response of love and sacrifice from free individuals.” This interpretation of divine action guides Ellis in his proposal of a Christian Anthropic Principle (CAP), combining design with divine omnipotence

context for the growth of free beings towards God, Polkinghorne to a ‘free-will defence’ - if beings are genuinely free they will be free to inflict suffering. (He has also extended this to the problem of such ‘natural

The central argument of No Free Lunch is that objects/events that exhibit specified complexity cannot be actualized by natural processes alone and must, therefore, be the outcome of intelligent design , in the sense consistent with the way

fundraising to start a Free Care Hospital for the Working Poor in the Boston area. Dr. Razvi currently holds the position of the President of the Islamic Center of Boston and has lectured extensively on various topics in Islam.

order, including, finally, free human beings. Special divine action focuses on providing to human beings intimations of God’s will for their social lives. Thus, the problem of the mode of divine action is largely a question of how God might

it is that the self has some freedom. Not absolute freedom, of course, but there's always a kind of dialectical freedom between genes, environment, and the human self that makes choices. QUESTION: The notion that our behavior is determined by

and internal degrees of freedom that our instruments and measurements cannot reliably follow. As we leave the realm of machines, we encounter what might be termed beings. Of course, the example par excellence of a complex system with a great

’s argumentation in No Free Lunch focuses the reader’s attention on his particular concept of the way in which these transformational processes might be limited and constrained by the logical and mathematical requirements of information

etc.) and moral evil (the free actions of murders, rapists, etc.)” While we can grasp that in order to be more than robots, we need to have freedom to commit evil, how do we explain suffering which results from natural evil, such as genetic