Yo crowd! What's going down?

Just finished up a grrrrrreat course (New Testament Backgrounds) here in Brussels. Mephi, you would of loved this prof. We were all over the place. Dude, you wouldn't believe what evangelical grad students outside the NewNited States believe. Hell? Dude, that's just apocalyptic. Eternal conscious torment? You gotta be kidding!

Anyhow...

I had to turn in my thesis proposal.

A Critical Evaluation and Reconstruction of the Claims of Open Theism.

I don't have an adviser, and I have to find one in the Twin Cities. Has to have a Ph.D. That's it. Let's see now. Who do I know who has a Ph.D. and would be knowledgeable enough to advise me on THIS particular subject? Hmmmmm.

Rock on.

Tom

By the way, Mephi, I ran accross a couple of very interesting unpublished dissertations and theses on the open view, some pro and some con. But two pro were especially interesting. Here they are:

Robinson, Franklin Webster. "Adversity, crisis counseling, and the openness of god: An evaluation of open theism for pastoral response to victims of violence." Azusa Pacific University, 2002.

Verhage, Kara Elizabeth. “Prayer and a Partially Unsettled Future: A Theological Framework for Prayer From the Perspective of Open Theism Emphasizing Prayers of Supplication.” Luther Seminary, 2004.

I wrote Kara and hope to get her thesis. I wonder if any of you know her since she’s there in town. But I’m having trouble getting Robinson’s dissertation. 

Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 2/18/2006 11:41:32 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (selah) : 2/19/2006 1:30:58 AM (GMT-6)

Jeff: Well, I would say that it seems possible that God may CHOOSE to not think about necrophiliacs once their punishment is complete.

Tom: Sure. But this isn’t a denial of omniscience. God can choose to not think about something without being ignorant of that something. We discussed this a long time ago. Are you still under the impression that knowing something means consciously entertaining it? It doesn’t. If you just want to avoid having God eternally ‘contemplating’ evil without a break, you can do that without denying omniscience.

Jeff: The only reason why I would think otherwise is if it can be demonstrated that God is conscious of ALL truths at ALL times by NATURE.

Tom: Who argues that? That’s not what omniscience is.

Jeff: But if this is not necessarily true, God can imagine IN TIME and act volitionally therefrom.

Tom: If this is not necessarily true, what about God being able to not consciously contemplate all that he knows? That's what I've always argued.

Jeff: So it's not so much that I think God chooses NOT to know; rather, He chooses WHAT to think about. He KNOWS about the necrophiliac in one sense, for the rest of time, insomuch as those facts have been attained by God. But that doesn't imply that He can't refuse to consciously CONTEMPLATE the necrophiliac for the rest of time.

Tom: Dude, I was the first to suggest to you (because you were bothered at the time by the idea that God might be eternally ‘contemplating’ necrophiliacs) that God doesn’t have to be thought of as consciously contemplating all he knows (just as we don’t). But that’s no denial of omniscience. This has been MY position. You're been arguing for flat out IGNORANCE of truths. Dude, don't tell me know that you think God DOES know all truths but only chooses to "consciously think about" those truths as are revelant to his purposes at particular times.

Not sure what you mean by “facts attained by God.” But would you agree that all “facts” are attained by God?

Jeff: Similarly, God may not CHOOSE to think about what He might do billions of years out. Maybe He lives in a dynamic mode which stimulates His imagination in ways that ensure an on-going volitional and relational existence. Just wondering...

Tom: (1) God can ‘know’ that something might happen in the future without ‘thinking about it’ (if by that you mean ‘consciously contemplating it’). No denial of omniscience required by that. And (2) volitional and relational existence isn’t jeopardized by such knowledge even when consciously contemplated. I can know all the possible ways a particular meeting with a friend will turn out, and know how I would best choose in each possible outcome without any harm being done to volitional and relational integrity. I do it all the time.

Tom

Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 2/19/2006 12:07:48 AM (GMT-6)

Hi Humphrey. Sorry for the length!

HB: For instance, Morris (2003, 65) defines the classical doctrine of omniscience as follows:

“(1) God has all propositional knowledge
and
(2) God has perfect acquaintance with all things”

Now I think a very good case can be made that the Bible only claims that God has perfect acquaintance with all things (Morris' point 2), and does not necessarily have exhaustive propositional knowledge.

Tom: I think I could probably agree with the first part, not with the second. I agree that the biblical portrayal (certainly the OT) of the scope and nature of God’s knowledge is of God as infallibly acquainted with all realities (as opposed to an infallible knower of propositional truths). That’s how the Bible presents God. Unfortunately this doesn’t at all mean God doesn’t have exhaustive propositional knowledge.

I for one think divine knowledge of propositions is entailed in perfect acquaintance of all things/realities. We leave biblical theology, strictly speaking, and move into systematics when we talk about divine knowledge of all truths/propositions. But so what? Nobody does their faith solely in biblical terms and leaves it at that. If we did we’d have no doctrine of the Trinity and much of our Christology would not exist. We reflect on the Bible’s portrayal (in the Bible’s terms and contexts) of God, the world, and the relationship between the two, but in the end we do so in our language and contexts. Nothing wrong with that. Some NT writers do it in working out their Christology. It’s necessary. So I don’t at all mind admitting that the Bible nowhere makes a philosophical case for God’s knowledge of all propositions. Big deal?

But for someone who argues the truth of propositions is grounded in realities God is perfectly acquainted with, the absolute distinction you make between “apprehending all things/realities” and “propositions” is simply false. I’m not suggesting there is no distinction. There is. The truth-value of propositions, an adherent of the correspondence theory of truth can argue, is grounded in the realities that make our world what it is…the Bible’s “all things.” I’m just suggesting that if propositional truths are grounded in realities/states of affairs, then one can also argue that knowledge of propositions is entailed in a perfect knowledge of the realities that ground those propositions, and that someone who failed to know all S’s properties and relations shouldn’t be thought of as perfectly acquainted with S.

Propositional truths are arrived at through the very sort of perfect acquaintance you agree God has of all things, assuming such acquaintance involves reflection and contemplation. To suggest that God has perfect or infallible acquaintance of some reality but does not know the truths that reality grounds is to suggest God is THE most unreflective sentient being that could possibly exist.

I think we’ve discussed this at length before without convincing each other!

HB: Furthermore, the classical doctrine of omniscience results in all sorts of difficulties. For instance, there are an infinite number of propositions of the form “a right-angled triangle with short sides of length such-and-such and such-and-such, has a hypotenuse of length such-and-such”. So we must suppose that God keeps in his mind an infinite number of propositions about right-angled triangles for no reason. And each of these propositions can be expressed in an infinite number of possible languages. If God knows all true propositions, then he would have to know what each individual proposition would be like expressed in every one of these possible languages. This has shades of Platonism, and the idea that God must know these propositions because they need to be somewhere. More importantly, they render God a rather impersonal being. Persons do not keep vast repositories of useless abstract knowledge in their consciousness just for the sake of it. Persons use abstract knowledge as a means to an end, to engage in relationship with other persons. Why would God be obliged to keep all these propositions in his mind?

Tom: It might seem strange coming from someone who believes anthropomorphic language is reality depicting, but it seems to me you have a overly anthropomorphic view of God. I mean really, who are we to say what God can enjoy thinking about or not? You come close to simply denying that God’s even smart enough to know all the propositional truths there are. You assume that since no human knower has enough intelligence to contain all that’s knowable, or has to spread his intelligence thinner the more he knows, God must be limited in the same ways. But why think that?

(1) There are, I think, an infinite number of propositions. All one has to do is consider the set of all numbers 1, 2, 3, and so on. They go on infinitely, as do that propositions positing these numbers. If the infinite mind of God is the truth grounds for such propositions, then I can completely understand why they go on forever. Does God sit around counting numbers like shepherds count sheep? Does he need to? If he wanted to, is not capable?

(2) I find little to commend the objection that God can’t know such things because knowing them is of no practical use to God. Who are we to judge what uses God may find in knowing those truths which his own being and existence ground? Perhaps God enjoys himself and the infinite variety of possibilities and truths that flow from him? Perhaps he gets pleasure from reflecting upon his own infinite capabilities. Who are we to deny him this pleasure?

(3) There’s even less to commend the objection that if God did know all propositions that he’d be less personal: “…they render God a rather impersonal being. Persons do not keep vast repositories of useless abstract knowledge in their consciousness just for the sake of it.” I’m just being honest here, HB, but this just appears so presumptuous to me. Humans do sometimes possess gratuitous knowledge. And we’re not less personal for this fact. So in principle there’s no basis for your claim. But once again, who can say what purpose God’s knowledge may serve him, if only the justifiable enjoyment God gets from reflecting on his own infinite worth and capabilities?

(4) You ask, “Why would God be obliged to keep all these propositions in his mind?” This misunderstands the issue. Nobody claims God is “obliged” to know anything. To be obliged is to be subject to a rule outside one’s self. God exists necessarily, so is God obliged to exist? Nobody thinks this. Of course God isn’t ‘obliged’ to know all propositions. I might as easily ask you if God is obliged to apprehend all realities perfectly? Really? All realities? Perfectly? What obliges him to do so?

HB: Does he have no choice?

Tom: Does he have no choice in what you claim is the biblical presentation, viz., that God perfectly apprehends all realities? Does God have no choice in apprehending those realities the Bible claims he perfectly knows? Must God contemplate ALL realities throughout the universe? Must he apprehend the slightest movement of every spec of dust on Saturn’s moon Janus? Personally I don’t think he has a 'choice' in the matter (except in as much as he was free not to create at all). I don’t find that lessens his perfections, not does it imply an "obligation" to do so.

HB: Classical omniscience, therefore, should be rejected. Instead, we should affirm only the second of Morris's points: that “God has perfect acquaintance with all things”.

Tom: If I begin with affirming just this I still get to propositional knowledge.

HB: But there is no Biblical or theological reason to suppose that his propositional knowledge goes beyond what is required for practical purposes in interacting with his creation.

Tom: Once again, this just seems so presumptuous to me (not that you intend it that way). But it would be arrogant for me to view it this way. To suggest that God can only know those propositions that concern his relationship to US and OUR world is arrogant. HOWEVER (important!), if by “practical purposes in interacting with creation” I can include God’s getting personal enjoyment from knowing things about the universe that are completely gratuitous so far as his purposes US and OUR world are concerned, then I totally agree, there’s no reason to suppose God knows any more than that! But there’s no reason to suggest he knows any less.

-----------------

Tom: Are you still under the impression that knowing something means consciously entertaining it? It doesn’t.

HB: For a being that has perfect knowledge, yes, "knowing" something must mean consciously entertaining it. Although we would say that a human being knows X, even though he currently does not consciously entertain it, but can call it up at will…the word "knowledge" is being used in a weak sense that would be defective from a divine point of view.

Tom: Says who? On what grounds do you consider such an ability a defect? One could easily argue it as a great-making property.

HB: Indeed, once one allows that God does not consciously entertain all propositional knowledge, then I fail to see how your position is any different to mine or Jeff's.

Tom: It’s quite different. As your next quote shows, for you God’s not keeping facts in conscious contemplation amounts to ignorance, since God has to “figures out” what is not consciously contemplated when God chooses to do so. That’s not at all my view, since it involves a movement from ignorance to knowledge, and I don’t think God is ever ignorant. But not consciously contemplating something one does know is different. I know that I was born in California. I don’t consciously contemplate this at all times. But when I do contemplate it consciously I do so without “figuring it out.” I know it even when I don’t contemplate it. I see now defect whatsoever in God’s being able to manage facts in like manner.

HB: I don't know anyone who would deny omniscience, if omniscience merely means that God has the capacity to bring any fact to his conscious attention. After all, God is infinitely brilliant, and could figure out every truth in an instant.

Tom: It all depends on what you mean by “bring any fact to attention.” If you mean God is ignorant of some fact but is able to “figure it out,” then I’ll disagree. If you mean God is able to call to attention for contemplation some known fact (such as we often do), then of course I agree.

HB: The question is whether he has already so figured everything out, and retained it in consciousness.

Tom: That’s a question you’ll have to struggle with since you limit divine knowledge to what is analogous with our conscious contemplation of facts. I don’t find it attributing defective knowledge to God to suppose that he is able to call to attention what he knows (as opposed to having to “figure it out”). And the reasons you offer for why God should be thought of as not knowing all propositions (that such knowledge is pointless, doesn’t have anything to do with God’s relating to US, that God gets not use out of such vast knowledge, and that if he so knew all truths he’s be less personal) all seem extremely weak to me for the reasons I shared.

Well, peace out,

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 2/19/2006 4:02:11 AM (GMT-6)

Tom (in response to HB): I find little to commend the objection that God can’t know such things because knowing them is of no practical use to God. Who are we to judge what uses God may find in knowing those truths which his own being and existence ground? Perhaps God enjoys himself and the infinite variety of possibilities and truths that flow from him? Perhaps he gets pleasure from reflecting upon his own infinite capabilities. Who are we to deny him this pleasure?

Jeff: I take you to be admitting that we can't prove the case either way--that God may or may NOT find it useful to contemplate necrophiliacs billions of years before their existence. Now THAT'S the point. We can't prove WHICH is true, unless the ontological argument does that for us. And I'm assuming that God's mind is quintessentially telological. Maybe He daydreams, but I doubt it.

But let's step back and consider the idea that God does not consciously contemplate ALL truths at ALL times in light of the idea that time is eternal (past and present). You had said in another thread that God's knowledge doesn't just exist--that it is ontologically and epistemologically grounded. You said it was epistemologically grounded insomuch as God INTUITIVELY apprehends ALL truths FROM His exhaustive self-knowledge.

I can follow this easily if apprehension occurs at a point of time when God PURPOSELY directs His attention to the question of what is possible, given His own self-knowledge. But if this intuitive apprehension occurs automatically and continuously, then HOW can we be sure that God can ever cease to be conscious of a truth about a necrophiliac?

It would seem that the intuitive mechanism you posit to account for God's ETERNAL omniscience would render it impossible for God to contemplate only a SUBSET of all truths at any given time. In other words, it seems to me that the intuitive mechanism that you postulate to account for the ETERNALITY of God's omniscience can only work if it works ALL THE TIME. Otherwise, we can only account for a NON-continuous apprehension of truths by God's VOLITIONAL CHOICE. I.e., He must CHOOSE to apprehend and consciously contemplate all possible truths at a point in time, if He does so at all.

It is the eternality of time that creates the problem for me. The only way I can see an intuition-mechanism generating all truths from eternity past, is if it is continually occurring forever. But if so, how can we suppose God can be conscious of only SOME truths at any particular time? I'm not being clear, but I hope you see what I'm asking.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 2/19/2006 8:42:11 PM (GMT-6)

Tom, I'll be back on-line next weekend. Until then, let me try to boil it down. All knowledge acquisition must occur, I would think, in one of three ways:

1) the knowledge is attained automatically, like intuitive knowledge,

2) volitionally AND automatically, like discursive knowledge, or

3) possibly, in the case of God, volitionally only.

Now 2) & 3) require that the knowledge acquistion is done AT THE TIME that the agent VOLITIONALLY chooses to acquire the knowledge. Thus, 2) and 3) can not get us to ETERNAL knowledge. Now 1) might be able to get us to eternal knowledge, but I need to understand how you account for purely automatic knowledge generation resulting in conscious contemplation at some times but non-conscious knowledge acquistion at others. I would think ALL conscious contemplation by God would be volitional.

Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 2/20/2006 3:37:48 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 3/21/2006 3:08:07 AM (GMT-6)

Albert: I would also argue that whatever being has unconscious psychological processes which influence their behaviour, cannot be perfectly rational and cannot be perfectly good. I will leave the argument aside, but this entails that God, and indeed, we in the resurrection of the dead, will not have unconscious cognition.

Jeff: So are you saying that we, in the ressurection, will have perfect knowledge of the workings of our sensibilities and intelligence? I've never heard this idea before, so I'm curious about the argument if you ever have time, or can recommend a reading.