ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Bodger]

Forgive my intrusion you have been at this discussion for a long time and I have not read all your of previous posts. I have recently been exposed to Open View Theism from a new friend of mine.

I see that your most recent arguments deal with whether God is outside of time or not. I believe he is outside of time and in support of that follow my logic.

If God created the Heavens and the Earth as per Genesis. That would mean to me that He also created all matter that is in existence, also all the energy in the universe as well since from modern physics we know that matter and energy are the same but in different states (E=MC^2). Along with matter, comes all the subatomic particles with incredible complexities. If God is capable of creating the complexity of the minutest of this physics how could He be limited by time? Time is part of His creation and is intricately woven into the physics that He has created.

Now granted this is not a biblical argument, but I feel it is still valid.

Bodger

 

[Clete]

Forgive my intrusion you have been at this discussion for a long time and I have not read all your of previous posts. I have recently been exposed to Open View Theism from a new friend of mine.

I see that your most recent arguments deal with whether God is outside of time or not. I believe he is outside of time and in support of that follow my logic.

If God created the Heavens and the Earth as per Genesis. That would mean to me that He also created all matter that is in existence, also all the energy in the universe as well since from modern physics we know that matter and energy are the same but in different states (E=MC^2). Along with matter, comes all the subatomic particles with incredible complexities. If God is capable of creating the complexity of the minutest of this physics how could He be limited by time? Time is part of His creation and is intricately woven into the physics that He has created.

Now granted this is not a biblical argument, but I feel it is still valid.

Bodger

Do I understand the form of your argument to be that if God wasn't outside of time there's no way He would had the time to build all the complexity into the physical universe?

If that is accurate there is no way that argument is valid.

If however your argument has more to do with Relativity and how motion seems to have an effect on the flow of time then that is a different matter, which has been discussed at length on many threads here on TOL, the best of which by far (if you ask me) is this one...

The Summit Clock Experiment (Ver. 2.0)

If you want to respond on that thread, don't feel obligated to read the whole thread; just read the opening post and respond to it.

Now, since you are interested in making a rational argument (my favorite kind by the way), let me just repost something I've posted many times before on this subject of God existing outside of time and I'll be interested in your response to it....

You can prove God exists within time by eliminating the rational alternatives (there is only one). Here are ALL of the rational possibilities...

1. God exists in time.
2. God exists outside of time.

You can logically eliminate the latter by realizing that it contains an inherent internal contradiction. The idea that something, including God, could exist outside of time commits a stolen concept fallacy. Let me explain...

Stolen concept fallacies have to do with the fact that most ideas and concepts are not isolated islands unto themselves but are built upon other more foundational concepts without which they would have no meaning. This is what makes dictionaries possible. You can define a concept by using the concepts upon which it is founded. The Stolen Concept Fallacy happens when you make use of a concept while at the same time denying another concept upon which the first concept is built. It's like trying to build a house in mid air. You have no ground upon which to even place a foundation and the house therefore doesn't get built but you insist on trying to move in anyway. It just doesn't work.

In this case the concept that kills option two is that of existence. The concept of existence implies duration and/or sequence (a.k.a. time), and so to say something exists outside of time is a contradiction and therefore cannot be true. By saying that God exists outside of time you've "stolen the concept" of existence because you are denying the concept of time. It's like trying to talk about yellow darkness; it's irrational. Thus we can know for a fact that God experiences time because the alternative is rationally impossible.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Bodger]

Do I understand the form of your argument to be that if God wasn't outside of time there's no way He would had the time to build all the complexity into the physical universe?

If that is accurate there is no way that argument is valid.

Not that he did not have the "time" to do it, because that would not make sense as you have pointed out. But that "time" is part of his creation.

If however your argument has more to do with Relativity and how motion seems to have an effect on the flow of time then that is a different matter, which has been discussed at length on many threads here on TOL, the best of which by far (if you ask me) is this one...

I will review that.

Now, since you are interested in making a rational argument (my favorite kind by the way), let me just repost something I've posted many times before on this subject of God existing outside of time and I'll be interested in your response to it....

You can prove God exists within time by eliminating the rational alternatives (there is only one). Here are ALL of the rational possibilities...

1. God exists in time.
2. God exists outside of time.

You can logically eliminate the latter by realizing that it contains an inherent internal contradiction. The idea that something, including God, could exist outside of time commits a stolen concept fallacy. Let me explain...

Stolen concept fallacies have to do with the fact that most ideas and concepts are not isolated islands unto themselves but are built upon other more foundational concepts without which they would have no meaning. This is what makes dictionaries possible. You can define a concept by using the concepts upon which it is founded. The Stolen Concept Fallacy happens when you make use of a concept while at the same time denying another concept upon which the first concept is built. It's like trying to build a house in mid air. You have no ground upon which to even place a foundation and the house therefore doesn't get built but you insist on trying to move in anyway. It just doesn't work.

In this case the concept that kills option two is that of existence. The concept of existence implies duration and/or sequence (a.k.a. time), and so to say something exists outside of time is a contradiction and therefore cannot be true. By saying that God exists outside of time you've "stolen the concept" of existence because you are denying the concept of time. It's like trying to talk about yellow darkness; it's irrational. Thus we can know for a fact that God experiences time because the alternative is rationally impossible.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I take issue with your proof. I do appreciate you defining what a stolen concept fallacy was, I have been wondering what that meant. Anyway back to your proof.

This is what I take issue with:

The concept of existence implies duration and/or sequence (a.k.a. time)

Existence does not necessarily imply duration and/or sequence. Let me explain. Certainly existence as we would understand it implies time because we cannot imagine anything other then time and sequence. My grandfather was born, he married my grandmother and they begat my father who married my mother who begat me (pardon the KJ speak). God referred to Himself as "I am" that is I exist. Does that imply a beginning and/or an end, possibly, but I do not think it requires it. If you truly existed outside of time that is you could view or interact with any being or object at any point in time, would you not also describe yourself as existing?

Bodger

 

[Clete]

Not that he did not have the "time" to do it, because that would not make sense as you have pointed out. But that "time" is part of his creation.

An idea that is both completely without Biblical support and that happens to be irrational.

I'm sort of surprised you didn't catch the stolen concept fallacy in the statement "..."time" is a part of his creation." even directly after agreeing that it wouldn't make sense to say that God didn't have time to create time.

How did you not just say, "It makes no sense to say that God didn't have time to create time but He did create time."?

Do you see the contradiction?

How do you do anything without time? Actions require sequence and duration which is all that time is. Time is a concept by which we linguistically reference duration and/or sequence. Just as existence presupposes time, so does any action, including the act of creating things. To say God created time is to contradict yourself. It simply cannot be true.

Existence does not necessarily imply duration and/or sequence. Let me explain. Certainly existence as we would understand it implies time because we cannot imagine anything other then time and sequence.

You cannot imagine it because that's what the word 'time' means. Trying to imagine time without duration would be exactly like attempting to imagine yellow darkness. It cannot be done because its is contradictory.

My grandfather was born, he married my grandmother and they begat my father who married my mother who begat me (pardon the KJ speak). God referred to Himself as "I am" that is I exist. Does that imply a beginning and/or an end, possibly, but I do not think it requires it. If you truly existed outside of time that is you could view or interact with any being or object at any point in time, would you not also describe yourself as existing?

I don't think I understand your argument or how it refutes the definition of time or the fact that existence implies duration. If you haven't existed for any length of time, you haven't existed at all. God on the other hand has always existed and thus rather than being timeless, His duration is infinite.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Bodger]

How did you not just say, "It makes no sense to say that God didn't have time to create time but He did create time."?

What does not make sense is that if He is outside of time how would He be short for time?

Do you see the contradiction?

Not when couched the way I just answered it.

I don't think I understand your argument or how it refutes the definition of time or the fact that existence implies duration. If you haven't existed for any length of time, you haven't existed at all. God on the other hand has always existed and thus rather than being timeless, His duration is infinite.

My point is if God were timeless, i.e. outside of time, yet able to interact at any point in the time line God would still "exist". The time aspects of existence would have no meaning, you are only able to define existence in the form of time because of your (and mine as well, no insult is intended) limited capabilities.

Bodger

 

[patman]

Space, as in three dimensional space a.k.a. the heavens is a physical consideration and was created by God. Time on the other hand is an idea, as is location. God does have a location but is not bound by three dimensional physical space.

I always tried to stay away from physics when it comes to refuting their theories that seem to contradict the O.V.. It is pointless for me because I am no physicist.

But I realized something today. God, heaven, hell, the angels, the demons, the other heavenly creatures, and even us humans are ALL spirits/beings with spirits. We live in a vast physical universe, but really, it is only a fraction of God's creation that is natural/based on the laws of physics. The rest is supernatural. Physics cannot apply.

So why would anyone say God knows the future based on some half baked physics theory? Physics is irrelevant to heaven.

To try and say so would imply God didn't know the future until he created time-space... hmmm. The supernatural world was a mystery to him until day 1 of earth.

God didn't say to Satan "According to E=mc², I foresee you will fall from heaven." It doesn't even apply. If time were truly embedded and pliable with physics, it would seem any spirit could know the future of earth.

 

[Philetus]

Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;


Write the things which thou hast seen,-------These are things that are past.

Write the things which are, -------------------These are things that are present.

Write the things which shall be hereafter;-----These are things that will absolutely come to pass in the future.

[ I might add this is not the revelation of John but the revelation of Jesus Christ. This tells me that the information that was given John to be reveled was absolute knowledge of past, present and future events. Regardless of my understanding or what i believe concerning these events, they have happened, are happening and will happen in the future. I cannot dismiss what will happen without also dismissing the past and the present. Ether it is all true or none of it is. Even in the revelation itself it is reveled that there is man making choices that effect man's future. Those choices that man makes does not effect the future that God has decreed. Man's choices only affect man's relationship with that future.

(Ohmygod, the voices, the voices ... blue light specialatrol: )
You said: "Write the things which shall be hereafter;-----These are things that will absolutely come to pass in the future."

Welladuh! Dat esplaines everting.

So when did these things that SHALL BE HEREAFTER, that will absolutely come to pass IN THE FUTURE, become reality for John to experience on the isle of Patmos 2000 years ago?

Give it up E, while the future is still open. Your relationship with the future needs an adjustment. And after you repent, change your thinking, the future will no longer be what it once was. This is something that God showed me MUST COME TO PASS. (And God knows, it hasn't yet.)

RERENT REPAINT RETHINK
The end is not here!​

 

[Philetus]

:thumb:

So why would anyone say God knows the future based on some half baked physics theory?

:idea:

half baked physics theory:

Crusty on the outside ... googie on the inside.

Too much heat, too little time. The end gets here ahead of itself.

We will sail no future before its time.

 

[elected4ever]

(Ohmygod, the voices, the voices ... blue light specialatrol: )
You said: "Write the things which shall be hereafter;-----These are things that will absolutely come to pass in the future."

Welladuh! Dat esplaines everting.

So when did these things that SHALL BE HEREAFTER, that will absolutely come to pass IN THE FUTURE, become reality for John to experience on the isle of Patmos 2000 years ago?

Give it up E, while the future is still open. Your relationship with the future needs an adjustment. And after you repent, change your thinking, the future will no longer be what it once was. This is something that God showed me MUST COME TO PASS. (And God knows, it hasn't yet.)

RERENT REPAINT RETHINK
The end is not here!​

John said, " I was in the spirit on the lord's day." What ever John was describing was a spiritual setting and not in the created setting that we are in. It was a totally different reality. I do not believe that the same rules apply for the spirit world that exist in our world. I think that the spirit world is incomprehensible to us yet it is real and more indurring than ours. I think that the spiritual world existed long before the creation of the physical. What is it like, I don't know. I have a hard time trying to to understand how Angles pass through walls. I only know that they can and do.

 

[rehcjam]

Does the Trinity disprove the logic behind a perfect being not being able to change?

If a perfect being cannot change because to change would make that being different from perfect, then how can three distinct beings within the Trinity be individually perfect?

 

[rehcjam]

Does the Trinity disprove the logic behind a perfect being not being able to change?

If a perfect being cannot change because to change would make that being different from perfect, then how can three distinct beings within the Trinity be individually perfect?

bump

You guys must have heard this before.

 

[elected4ever]

Does the Trinity disprove the logic behind a perfect being not being able to change?

If a perfect being cannot change because to change would make that being different from perfect, then how can three distinct beings within the Trinity be individually perfect?

What trinity?

 

[godrulz]

Does the Trinity disprove the logic behind a perfect being not being able to change?

If a perfect being cannot change because to change would make that being different from perfect, then how can three distinct beings within the Trinity be individually perfect?

Strong immutability is a Platonic concept of perfection and absolute changelessness.

Biblically, weak immutability is the stronger position: God changes in some ways (relations, knowledge, experience, actions, thoughts, feelings), but does not change in other ways (essential being and character).

The triune God revelation shows that God can and does change. The relations within the triune Godhead are dynamic, not static. The incarnation/kenosis/humiliation of the Word made flesh is a profound change in the relations of the Godhead. The Word became flesh, but it was not eternally flesh (Jn. 1:1, 14; Phil. 2).

God the Father, Son, Spirit is perfect in the one essence and the 3 personal distinctions.

Again, it is a philosophical argument that a perfect being cannot change lest they become more perfect (not possible) or less perfect (impossible for God). This is a flawed assumption. Personal beings do change. They would be imperfect if they could not. Scripture says that God changes His mind, for example. This is freedom, not fatalism.

By way of analogy, a clock is perfect because it does change. If it was static and did not change, it would only be correct once every 12 hours. A seed turning into a tree is another example of change without imperfection (or a child to an adult).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/immutability/

Plato has been refuted by many scholars. I am not sure of this article since I just skimmed it (you are not alone to think about this).

 

[rehcjam]

Strong immutability is a Platonic concept of perfection and absolute changelessness.

Biblically, weak immutability is the stronger position: God changes in some ways (relations, knowledge, experience, actions, thoughts, feelings), but does not change in other ways (essential being and character).

The triune God revelation shows that God can and does change. The relations within the triune Godhead are dynamic, not static. The incarnation/kenosis/humiliation of the Word made flesh is a profound change in the relations of the Godhead. The Word became flesh, but it was not eternally flesh (Jn. 1:1, 14; Phil. 2).

God the Father, Son, Spirit is perfect in the one essence and the 3 personal distinctions.

Again, it is a philosophical argument that a perfect being cannot change lest they become more perfect (not possible) or less perfect (impossible for God). This is a flawed assumption. Personal beings do change. They would be imperfect if they could not. Scripture says that God changes His mind, for example. This is freedom, not fatalism.

By way of analogy, a clock is perfect because it does change. If it was static and did not change, it would only be correct once every 12 hours. A seed turning into a tree is another example of change without imperfection (or a child to an adult).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/immutability/

Plato has been refuted by many scholars. I am not sure of this article since I just skimmed it (you are not alone to think about this).

So God could change and then in that change eventually become different yet remain perfect? As in the different persons in the Trinity.

In other words, can there be different forms of perfection? Thus nullifying the logic behind a perfect being cannot change.

 

[godrulz]

So God could change and then in that change eventually become different yet remain perfect? As in the different persons in the Trinity.

In other words, can there be different forms of perfection? Thus nullifying the logic behind a perfect being cannot change.

Something like that. God is personal. Every time He has a new, creative thought, this is a change in one sense, but not a change from perfection. Absolute immutability is an overstatement and would apply to an impersonal cosmic blob, not the Living God, the Father of life.

The triune God is eternal, but the Word was not always flesh. This is the only ontological (being) change in God. Incarnating does not make God less than perfect (Christ was sinless), but it does bring about limitations in His human nature (Lk. 2:52= Jesus is God...yet as a man, He grew is various ways= change).

If God changed in a way that made Him evil or ignorant or not all-powerful, then that would be a change for the worse. This is not the case with God. His perfection is absolute precisely because He can and does change (a dynamic, creative, responsive being is superior to a static, fixed, impersonal being).

The analogy of the cosmic Chessmaster is helpful. A chessmaster can beat inferior opponents because of his great ability and ability to change in response to changing contingencies (choices or moves that may or may not happen). A robot that knew the opponent's moves in advance or controlled the opponent's moves to ensure victory is inferior to one who is able to think and respond and calculate despite the best attempts of the opponent to win.

God is omnicompetent (all wise, all powerful, all knowing, etc.), not omnicausal. He changes in some ways in response to His changing creation. This is perfection and glory, not imperfection.

A parent who raises loving, obedient, mature children is greater than one that uses brute force or threats to gain compliance. Lip service out of fear is inferior to intrinsic love and maturity that values the right and good without coercion or threat.

 

[rehcjam]

God is omnicompetent (all wise, all powerful, all knowing, etc.), not omnicausal. He changes in some ways in response to His changing creation. This is perfection and glory, not imperfection.

I like that. That's pretty good. :thumb:

 

[godrulz]

What trinity?

The triune God revealed in Scripture.

 

[godrulz]

I like that. That's pretty good. :thumb:

If you understand the principles, feel free to use it as your own.

(I think Dr. Gregory Boyd? introduced me to the term 'omnicompetent' in his writings)

 

[Lon]

I was discussing with another the concept of time in our considerations and he asked a good question:

By definition , eternity has to exist outside of time . Why wouldn't God ?

 

[godrulz]

I was discussing with another the concept of time in our considerations and he asked a good question:

Why does eternity have to exist outside of time (whatever that means). Time is not a thing, not a place, not space.

Endless time is the Hebraic concept of eternity (word studies and context in the OT). Timelessness is a Platonic philosophy adopted by Augustine and others (eternal now). It would be begging the question to assume that eternity or God exists outside of time. Time is a fundamental aspect of any personal being's experience. It is not something one can be 'outside' of.