ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Lon]

Posted by DFT_Dave
As I said, God has no knowledge of what does not exist, I was not talking about our knowledge. If we are finite then by definition we are limited to present activity only, and I want a yes or a no from you on this. Only if God creates the activity for us can it become known to him before we do it, right? Your stuck in a contradiction if you believe future activity of a finite (limited to present activity only) being is knowable. The problem has never been how can God know the future if he has granted us free will, the problem has always been, how can God know the future if he created us finite? It doesn't matter if you say God is infinite or timeless, you have to regard the world as finite if you accept it Biblically, or else the world is eternal.

Posted by Lonster
The problem is that it doesn't, in fact, exist to us. Our logic is tied to this limitation. It however has nothing to do with God. We are the finite, limited beings. He is infinite (which means He reaches to and beyond where, what, and when we go. Infinite means already there, and surpasses. Infinite by definition has no boundaries, none. So when you ask, "Can God make a rock He cannot pick up?"
You've already exceeded your limitation. You cannot know. We recognize faulty logic when we see it. It is an illogical question that hits the ceiling of our logic ability. We are finite, but He's infinite. The question cannot be answered, but more importantly, it cannot be denied or affirmed one way or the other. It is either recognized as philosophically ludicrous, or it is the ceiling of our logical apprehension. Either way, it points to a God who is infinite and gives boundaries in our logical ability we can recognize and appreciate. We are only 'so' smart.

Posted by DFT_Dave
It's a contradiction to believe that the future activity of a finite (limited to present activity only) being is knowable even to God who created him that way. When you accept contradictions your faith becomes irrational. If this is the kind of faith you want to have that's fine with me, but then don't accuse me of "faulty logic" when you have abandoned "logic" altogether in order to believe this, hypocrite.

Posted by Lonster
This is like saying 'a car cannot fly, so therefore, neither can it's creator.'
The car is wrong, logical, but wrong.

Posted by DFT_Dave
No, its like saying if the creator of the car did not make it to fly we will never see it in the sky an neither will the creator, even if he is infinite.

Posted by Lonster
But your extrapolation changes components, my analogy did not. So help me out. I'm either not using a strong enough of a tie-in analogy (I totally am not the best at them, but they help me), and/or you've missed the connection.


This is a break down of what you are accusing me of inferring;

"A car cannot fly"=If a man is finite (not infinite) and cannot have foreknowledge of future activity.

flight=foreknowledge of future activity

"then neither can its creator"=then God is finite (not infinite) and cannot have foreknowledge of future activity.

This is a strawman argument because I said and meant something different;

"If the creator of the car did not make it to fly"=If God made us finite we cannot have foreactivity

flight=inability to act into the future

"we will never see it in the sky and neither will the creator"=neither we nor God can have foreknowledge of future human activity if we cannot have foreactivity.

Now if your sharp, and so far I give you credit for that, you can argue that I have still left God being "finite" under your, and all those "no-name" commentary writers, definition of what it means to be "infinite". And this is where I would like this thread to go, what does it mean for God to be infinite?

Is God "infinite actuality" or "infinite potentiality"?
One of these views makes him "timeless (without time)", the other gives him "unlimited amounts of time". One of these views makes eternal time "circular", the other makes eternal time "linear". One of these views leads to "determinism", the other leads to "free will". In one of these views God is "singular being", in the other God is "plural being (Trinity)" One of these views supports the "Open View" the other supports the "Closed View". I will use Aristotles critique of Plato, Augustine, and C. S. Lewis to make my point, you can use those commentaries, but please, only if you add a name and a date--Pre-Socratic or Post-Socratic.

I agree, this is the discussion point. I don't mind the strawman argument, and was glad you made those connections. It helped push the analogy in the right direction but it left me perplexed that you extrapolated it oddly the first time.

An infinite God, is a God of the possible, I do not disagree with that. However, it is important to recognize we are finite and our thinking is finite. While we can get a picture from the truths God has given us, I, at least, have to say that whatever conclusion I posit will be obscure at best (I could be incorrect). What I appreciate about OV is also that it can be incorrect, so I appreciate also the answers it comes up with. Since our perceptions are really about what is possible, I lean more to a view that has texts making more sense to me than the OV. This is all rehashed stuff, we are aware of our differences, but I'm addressing it for proper perspective here.

An 'infinite' God would be incomprehensible. I'm waiting on a few posts from my Hebrew friend, so will get back to this shortly.

 

[baloney]

Clete, why didn't you complete physics in college? Did you by an chance fail it?

Since Einstein, the view of time has become so intermingled with space, matter and energy that you cannot separate time from them. As Einstein said time acts like a dimension. It is something we can sensibly measure.

Can we put gravity in a testube or beaker? No. but its just as much a "thing" as space and time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

Catholics don't believe the world was created in a literal 6 days.

Paganism is a type of folk religion. Philosophy is reasoning. The two are not inclusive.

Within the New Testament, they use Greek concepts and philosophy about time and eternity etc. This is a fact you will never get around.

 

[baloney]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

Clete, in the post look under the heading "Interpretations" It describes how the Hebrews believed time to be a physical medium under which events were predestined. Under Time as Philosophy it states that modern physics consider time as real as space is real.

It also states that it was the Greeks that had a similar idea of time as you by saying it was just a concept and says Augustine tried to speak of time for what it was not because it was such a concept to him that he couldn't wrap a definition around time for what it actually was.

history, physics and Scripture farce!

 

[Clete]

Clete, why didn't you complete physics in college? Did you by an chance fail it?

On the contrary. I aced it and even carried a ding bat blonde chick through chemistry lab too boot.

The reason I didn't complete it is because while I was in college I realized that my interests in science had more to do with philosophy than it had to do with the actual work of scientists. The work of science is tedious and boring and had little to do with my actual interests. That coupled with the fact that I had run out of money caused me to drop out of college with the intent of going back, which ended up never happening.

Since Einstein, the view of time has become so intermingled with space, matter and energy that you cannot separate time from them. As Einstein said time acts like a dimension. It is something we can sensibly measure.

Can we put gravity in a testube or beaker? No. but its just as much a "thing" as space and time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

I will not respond to anything on this subject in this thread. If you want to debate me on it then fine, do so where it is on topic.

Catholics don't believe the world was created in a literal 6 days.

Most of them actually do and they most certainly did in Luther's day but even if they didn't (which of course they did) you understood the point I was making and so this was sort of a waste of time thing for you to have said.

Paganism is a type of folk religion. Philosophy is reasoning. The two are not inclusive.

The word "pagan" has a whole range of meaning and regardless of which one you pick paganism is philosophy and thus some philosophy can be and is paganism (i.e. non-christian).

I understand and agree that not all philosophy is paganism nor have I suggested otherwise. Indeed, Christianity is philosophy! Anything that describes one's worldview can be accurately referred to as philosophy.

Within the New Testament, they use Greek concepts and philosophy about time and eternity etc. This is a fact you will never get around.

It isn't a fact that I have tried to get around nor is it a fact that I want to get around. I don't understand why you can't get that through you thick head! :bang:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

Clete, in the post look under the heading "Interpretations" It describes how the Hebrews believed time to be a physical medium under which events were predestined. Under Time as Philosophy it states that modern physics consider time as real as space as real.

It also states that it was the Greeks that had a similar idea of time as you by saying it was just a concept and says Augustine tried to speak of time for what it was not because it was such a concept to him that he couldn't wrap a definition around time for what it actually was.

You just don't get it.

I DO NOT CARE WHAT THE JEWS BELIEVED!!!!!!!!!!

Many Jews believed there was no resurrection of the dead either; is that supposed to somehow trump the teaching of the whole Bible?

Further, you should actually read articles before you present them as proof texts for your inane positions.

Linear time

In general, the Judaeo-Christian concept, based on the Bible, is that time is linear, with a beginning, the act of creation by God. The Christian view assumes also an end, the eschaton, expected to happen when Christ returns to earth in the Second Coming to judge the living and the dead. This will be the consummation of the world and time. St Augustine's City of God was the first developed application of this concept to world history.​

The Openness position is that this view of time is not based on the Bible as this article claims but that it is indeed a concept that was introduced into Christianity by Augustine as were many other doctrines which are unbiblical not the least of which is the immutability of God upon which the linear concept of time is theologically based.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[baloney]

Clete, modern physics believes time is as real as space, gravity, mass, energy etc. and they are so intermingled that you cannot separate them.

So God created the universe, including gravity, space, mass, energy and TIME. Therefore, God cannot be in time but transcends it.

As you quoted in the article, time is linear based on THE BIBLE. All Augustine as a Christian did was develop a concept from Christianity that was already there.

You should think twice before you use quotes to contradict yourself!

 

[baloney]

Most Catholics as the polls suggest do NOT believe in literal six day creation and the Pope said that evolution is more than a hypothesis.

 

[Clete]

boloney,

You just made my ignore list. I will not waste any more time with the likes of you.

:wave2:

 

[baloney]

All right, Clete.

Like I said you ignore what modern science says about time.

You ignore what scholars say about Judeo-Christians view of linear time, God being eternal, omniscient etc.

But believe what you want. Good luck!

 

[patman]

All right, Clete.

Like I said you ignore what modern science says about time.

You ignore what scholars say about Judeo-Christians view of linear time, God being eternal, omniscient etc.

But believe what you want. Good luck!

Why would anyone take your word on God when you don't even believe in Genius?

 

[Philetus]

:think:
I wonder if Clete missed Knight's post about Johnny Boy being back? Sometimes chit-chat is guod. NO? Sometimes chit-chat can save us from a lot o Baloney. Yes?

Butter, brudder? More dots, anyone?

 

[godrulz]

Most Catholics as the polls suggest do NOT believe in literal six day creation and the Pope said that evolution is more than a hypothesis.

Catholics are wrong and compromising in this area. Your point?

 

[godrulz]

You need to believe in the omniscient, omnipotent, immutable God of grace, and trust in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, rather than depend on this fake persona you put up as a front to others.

Nang

Open Theists affirm these things, but rightly understand their biblical meanings free of philosophical, traditional trappings.

 

[Lon]

:think:
I wonder if Clete missed Knight's post about Johnny Boy being back? Sometimes chit-chat is guod. NO? Sometimes chit-chat can save us from a lot o Baloney. Yes?

Butter, brudder? More dots, anyone?

 

[DFT_Dave]

I agree, this is the discussion point. I don't mind the strawman argument, and was glad you made those connections. It helped push the analogy in the right direction but it left me perplexed that you extrapolated it oddly the first time.

An infinite God, is a God of the possible, I do not disagree with that. However, it is important to recognize we are finite and our thinking is finite. While we can get a picture from the truths God has given us, I, at least, have to say that whatever conclusion I posit will be obscure at best (I could be incorrect). What I appreciate about OV is also that it can be incorrect, so I appreciate also the answers it comes up with. Since our perceptions are really about what is possible, I lean more to a view that has texts making more sense to me than the OV. This is all rehashed stuff, we are aware of our differences, but I'm addressing it for proper perspective here.

An 'infinite' God would be incomprehensible. I'm waiting on a few posts from my Hebrew friend, so will get back to this shortly.

Basic concepts of God, or what ever is eternal/infinite and the origin of what is temporal/finite, were not incomprehensible for Plato and Aristotle.

Philosophic Premise:
Knowledge of God begins with nature and cause
The philosophers state that every change and movement in nature must have a cause. Plato wrote, "Everything that becomes or changes must do so owing to some cause;"7 Aristotle said, "There is something that is always moving the things that are moved.8 "For with all change, there is something that changes into, something else through the agency of something. The agent is the proximate mover; the thing that changes is the matter; and what it changes into is the form."9 Aristotle believed that nothing moves itself, even the soul is moved by the "object of its thought."10

Philosophic analysis
God is immovable, changeless, and timeless
Plato explained, "We must distinguish between that which is and never becomes (is changeless and immovable) from that which is always becoming but never is (is always changing and moving)."11 He also stated it this way, "When God ordered the heavens He made in that which we call time an eternal moving image of the eternity which remains...eternally the same and unmoved."12 Aristotle said, "There is something that moves things while being itself immovable and existing in actuality (without any potential for change), it is not possible in any way for that thing to be in any state other that in which it is."13

The philosophers, then, antithically abstracted from nature three essential attributes of a philosophically perfect being/unmoved mover: He is eternally changeless, immovable, and timeless; and therefore the ultimate cause of movement, change, and time in a temporal and imperfect universe.

Philosophic conclusion
God did not create the world and cannot enter it.
Plato's God is not the creator of the world, he has only moved it from a disordered state to an orderly one. Plato said, "God wishing that all things should be good, and so far as possible nothing be imperfect, and finding the visible universe (of water, fire, earth, and air) in a state not of rest but of inharmonious and disorderly motion, reduced it to order from disorder."14

For Aristotle, the world, orderly movement, change, and time are eternal. He argues, "It is impossible for movement either to come into being or to perish, since it has always existed. Nor can time do either of these things, since there could not be anything "prior" (before) or "posterior" (after) if there were no time; and movement is as continues as time, since time is either the same thing as movement or is an affection of it. There is something that is always being moved...(by) something that moves things without being moved."15

The God of Plato and Aristotle cannot enter the world and act in human history. It is clearly impossible for a perfectly changeless, immovable, and timeless deity to enter an imperfect world of change, movement, and time. That's why Plato says that God is "imperceptible to sight or the other senses the object of thought (only)."16 For Aristotle the "divine mind...thinks of what is most divine and most valuable, and plainly it does not change; for change would be for the worse, and already be a movement...The mind then, must think of itself if it is the best of things."17

That which is eternally immovable, changeless/immutable, and timeless cannot enter the (impassability) world that moves, changes, and is in time without becoming movable, changable/mutable, and part of time.

What is absolutely incomprehensible is how the God of Genesis could be the same God.

http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/Theism.html

 

[Lon]

Basic concepts of God, or what ever is eternal/infinite and the origin of what is temporal/finite, were not incomprehensible for Plato and Aristotle.

Philosophic Premise:
Knowledge of God begins with nature and cause
The philosophers state that every change and movement in nature must have a cause. Plato wrote, "Everything that becomes or changes must do so owing to some cause;"7 Aristotle said, "There is something that is always moving the things that are moved.8 "For with all change, there is something that changes into, something else through the agency of something. The agent is the proximate mover; the thing that changes is the matter; and what it changes into is the form."9 Aristotle believed that nothing moves itself, even the soul is moved by the "object of its thought."10

Philosophic analysis
God is immovable, changeless, and timeless
Plato explained, "We must distinguish between that which is and never becomes (is changeless and immovable) from that which is always becoming but never is (is always changing and moving)."11 He also stated it this way, "When God ordered the heavens He made in that which we call time an eternal moving image of the eternity which remains...eternally the same and unmoved."12 Aristotle said, "There is something that moves things while being itself immovable and existing in actuality (without any potential for change), it is not possible in any way for that thing to be in any state other that in which it is."13

The philosophers, then, antithically abstracted from nature three essential attributes of a philosophically perfect being/unmoved mover: He is eternally changeless, immovable, and timeless; and therefore the ultimate cause of movement, change, and time in a temporal and imperfect universe.

Philosophic conclusion
God did not create the world and cannot enter it.
Plato's God is not the creator of the world, he has only moved it from a disordered state to an orderly one. Plato said, "God wishing that all things should be good, and so far as possible nothing be imperfect, and finding the visible universe (of water, fire, earth, and air) in a state not of rest but of inharmonious and disorderly motion, reduced it to order from disorder."14

For Aristotle, the world, orderly movement, change, and time are eternal. He argues, "It is impossible for movement either to come into being or to perish, since it has always existed. Nor can time do either of these things, since there could not be anything "prior" (before) or "posterior" (after) if there were no time; and movement is as continues as time, since time is either the same thing as movement or is an affection of it. There is something that is always being moved...(by) something that moves things without being moved."15

The God of Plato and Aristotle cannot enter the world and act in human history. It is clearly impossible for a perfectly changeless, immovable, and timeless deity to enter an imperfect world of change, movement, and time. That's why Plato says that God is "imperceptible to sight or the other senses the object of thought (only)."16 For Aristotle the "divine mind...thinks of what is most divine and most valuable, and plainly it does not change; for change would be for the worse, and already be a movement...The mind then, must think of itself if it is the best of things."17

That which is eternally immovable, changeless/immutable, and timeless cannot enter the (impassability) world that moves, changes, and is in time without becoming movable, changable/mutable, and part of time.

What is absolutely incomprehensible is how the God of Genesis could be the same God.

http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/Theism.html

Unfortunately, you guys always assume correlation means extrapolation. I don't buy all of Greek philosophy, and I certainly don't build any of my theology from Plato or Aristotle. I refuse to build my theology by anything but a 'biblical' philosophy. Secondary. third, fourth, tenth, twenty second sources are fine, but Greek influence being my prime influence? Straw-ha-ha-man (by the way, I'm shooting OV theorists in the foot here, not you or the OV in general). This so reminds me of conspiracy theorists, chicken little, and Mr. Magoo.

 

[Nang]

Open Theists affirm these things, but rightly understand their biblical meanings free of philosophical, traditional trappings.

Open Theists affirm and assert a lot of things, using the holy Word of God in one breath, and denying the Spirit of God in the next.

Do you hold to their beliefs?

 

[Clete]

Unfortunately, you guys always assume correlation means extrapolation. I don't buy all of Greek philosophy, and I certainly don't build any of my theology from Plato or Aristotle. I refuse to build my theology by anything but a 'biblical' philosophy. Secondary. third, fourth, tenth, twenty second sources are fine, but Greek influence being my prime influence? Straw-ha-ha-man (by the way, I shooting OV theorists in the foot here, not you or the OV in general). This so reminds me of conspiracy theorists, chicken little, and Mr. Magoo.

I don't think you understand the point, Lonster.

No one is suggesting that you read Aristotle and Plato and decided to incorporate their philosophy into your Christian doctrine. Chances are you've never read a word of Plato or any other Greek philosopher. The point is that Calvinism and all its various flavors has its origin in Greek philosophy and that you would therefore have never heard of the doctrines that you've been taught are Biblical, had the Greek influence not been there.

It's not as if you sat down yourself and went through the Bible on your own and developed a systematic theology just to find out later that Calvin had beaten you to it by some 400 years. You believe what you believe because someone taught you and the the person who taught you believes what he believes because someone taught him and so on. If you go back far enough you go straight through Calvin and then Luther and then Augustine and then Plato and Aristotle. That's is what we are getting at when we say that your theology is based on Greek philosophy, nothing more and nothing less.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Philetus]

Open Theists affirm and assert a lot of things, using the holy Word of God in one breath, and denying the Spirit of God in the next.

Do you hold to their beliefs?

Dang, Nang, that's cold!
So, Godrulz, do you deny the Spirit of God in every other breath? (just between asserts?)
(This woman will have even you calling her names under your breath. Where's Clete when you need him?)

I'm wondering if we will ever get to talk about OT on TOL again, or just spend the future name calling with the pure in heart.

 

[elected4ever]

Dang, Nang, that's cold!
So, Godrulz, do you deny the Spirit of God in every other breath? (just between asserts?)
(This woman will have even you calling her names under your breath. Where's Clete when you need him?)

I'm wondering if we will ever get to talk about OT on TOL again, or just spend the future name calling with the pure in heart.

its true and godrulz does not even recognise who the spirit of God is. In fact he denies Him every chance he gets.