 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Need a little help on this one... | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/19/2008 3:03 PM (GMT -6) |   | Z: My guess is that we make up these concepts. We are creative. We organize experience into self-created categories.
J: Personally, I have no idea how to create new categories. Similarly, I have no conscious awareness of deciding to see "blue", as opposed to green, when I look at the sky. So this is a fundamental difference in our epistemology. And it is why I can not understand what you think about covenants. It seems you're saying something like this:
I created the notion of obligation, including the attributes entailed in it.
Then I created the notion of a covenant, and the attributes entailed in it.
Then I decided to believe that covenanting obligates me.
The whole thing sounds completely arbitrary (on top of implying powers I don't have). I don't see why you would expect me to think that way since I could just as arbitrarily decide to think that covenants do NOT obligate.
Z: Doesn't the belief in limited omnipotence fall in the trap of requiring a standard above God? Or else our trust would then rest in the chance serendipity that God cannot sin, because there is no reason I'm aware of why God necessarily cannot sin. It is just chance contingent luck occurring logically prior to God's will.
J: Apart from scripture and an intuitive belief in moral accountability, I agree. But apart from an intuitive belief in moral accountability, I have no reason to believe that God has moral attributes. I could just believe in an amoral God, like Flew and Einstein.
J: Frankly, I find it quite implausible that Jesus was actually TEMPTED to worship Satan seeings how many sinful humans wouldn't be under those same circumstances.
Z: What do you mean by this? You think sinful humans would tend not to give into the temptation to worship Satan in exchange for rule over the entire world? Really? Why? I'm one sinful human who would be tempted by such a proposal. I'm sure we can find many more.
J: I mean just what I said. I think many would and many wouldn't. I think many wouldn't because they believe in moral accountability. Since you believe you will only be judged for what you decide to be judged for, I can see why you would be tempted. Because by your view, all you have to do is to not decide to covenant to being accountable for that, and you're exempt.
But when Judas did something analogous, Christ told him it would have been better for him had he never been born. And I don't assume that was because Judas had covenanted himself with God, thus. So you can see why I'm in a different boat than you, motivationally speaking.
J: But I asked YOU a specific question and you didn't answer. Paul says IF we are unfaithful, Christ ABIDES faithful, for he can not deny himself... ... So again, what do real scholars say it means--that Christ might NOT abide faithful in the future, since he CAN deny himself?
Z: No that's not what he means. He is not addressing the issue of Christ's seemingly moral capacities actually being hardwired. He is addressing Christ's faithfulness. I read 'cannot deny himself' as a colloquialism amounting to the literal 'will not deny himself'. Just like a thousand other examples that I could come up with.
J: As Tom has asked, how do you know that he won't deny himself? How could Paul know that? So what you really mean is that Paul is saying that he BELIEVES that Jesus will not deny himself, not that he knows that he will not deny himself. Right? But then why add, "for he can not deny himself?" That stated reason for the prior belief makes no sense, given your interpretation.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 7/19/2008 3:22:33 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/19/2008 3:14 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Jeff: I don't have a problem with the idea that Christ did not realize he couldn't fail. But that doesn't mean that Christ could be tempted of (by desiring) evils that the Father can not be. Would you agree with this much?
Tom: Yeah.
Jeff: Yet none of this means He can actually have EVIL desire. I'm thinking Christ could not either. We are told to put off evil desires. So by your own logic, Christ could not have evil desires. This is what James is saying, is it not?
Tom: That’s how I read him, yeah.
----------------------
Zach: the same general who 'cannot lose' in fact 'will not lose'. That's exactly what is meant, is it not?
Tom: Right. God’s future with respect to love vs evil is all “will” and “will not.”
Zach: And this 'will not' meaning is the force behind the verses Jeff proof-texts. To read the literal 'cannot' implies a limit to omnipotence…
Tom: I guess I don’t see the inability to will evil as a genuine ‘lack’ or privation of will. How is the general who’s so capable on the battlefield really ‘less than capable’ on the battlefield because he cannot fail?
Zach: What is the non-volitional reason for this uncharacteristic gap in omnipotence?
Tom: With Jeff, I think omniscience, the perfect apprehension of all reality and value, is what makes God’s mis-valuing and so mis-relating existentially impossible for God.
When we choose to sin we are nevertheless attempting to address some less-than-perfectly-perceived need (want, or imballance). So misrelating/sin is only possible because we misperceive (we’re not omniscient). But how’s God misrelate if he’s omniscient?
Great discussion!
Tom Post Edited (Tom) : 7/20/2008 12:43:51 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/19/2008 10:37 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Z: I think you are capable of creating new categories. I'll do it now... On my desk are some CDs and a glass. I hereby invent the category of shiny-circle-thingys.
When scientists began to understand the relationship between electronics and magnetism, they formed the new category electromagnetism.
J: Shiny-circle-thingys is a concept, but not a category. Same with electromagnetism. A category is a concept or relation that one is possessed of a-priori. It can not be abstracted from sense perception because it is not an attribute OF any specific sense perception. Green, round, big, etc. are attributes of sense perception, but they tell me nothing of causality or means-->ends relationships or whether time is infinite or not, e.g.
Z: When a caveman took the mate of another caveman and subsequently had his faced smashed in concepts such as ownership and obligation were invented.
J: But the examples you gave above have nothing to do with inventing the attributes that constitute the concept. Those attributes are either entailed in sense experience or they are apriori, like causality. Explain which attributes make up the notion of obligation, as you define it, and then explain how the experience of having your face smashed in entails those attributes so they can be abstracted into a concept.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 7/19/2008 11:56 PM (GMT -6) | |
Similtude said...
Let's say that's true, Mark. Does it follow that because Jesus could be tempted to eat bread while fasting, or call angels to deliver him from suffering, that he could be tempted to do evil to someone? I'm not sure the former implies the latter in the case of Christ. James says God is not tempted of evils. But Jesus says thou shalt not tempt God. SO just because Jesus and the Father can be tempted (tested?), it doesn't follow that they can be tempted to do EVIL even in human form.
Hi Jeff,
The way I see it, “temptation” comes from the father of lies intent on pulling us down, while “testing” comes from the Father of Truth intent on lifting us up.
Either one, temptation or testing can hinge on our faith and our will to be obedient to God. This should vary between believers (indwelled in the Holy Spirit) and non-believers(prevenient grace and moral conscience only). Nevertheless, both are a test in the armor of the heart and both have the potential to evolve into contemplation and sin. It’s when we fail the test and succumb to temptation that sin gives rise to evil. The Son of Man was tested by God the Father and God permitted Satan to tempt his Son (i.e. Job), yet he never sinned. The point is Jesus had the human potential to sin, and if he did it would’ve been “evil” in the eyes of the Father.
This brings me back to the Image of God and the makeup of man’s nature. Sin flows out of a misaligned heart, an act of rebellion and disobedience to God’s will. Sin is subjective to the extent of one’s spiritual awaking to God and his will. This is how we’re called to task to take every thought captive before we act in a perversion of the flesh, by filtering it through our moral conscience, our right spirit, the Spirit of Truth, so we can find victory. IOW, all of humanity is continually tested and tempted by the flesh and things of this world as well as by the spiritual realms. Internalized through our own moral intuition, we wage war with this innate natural law (Jiminy the Cricket) as exemplified in the historical struggles found in the likes of Manichaeism and their battling of impulses and the material realm. Today on the other spectrum, we see the narrative continued in the depravity of our narcissistic modern culture that is bent on instant self gratification “...and all the people did what was right in their own eyes.” as they need to suppress the self evident truth written on their hearts. Or as my old pal Abe Lincoln called it, “the better angels of our nature".
By default, in this fallen world, we have a propensity to fall away from God. Drawing our spirit any direction other than towards the gate of God, potentially gives rise to sin. Guided by the Spirit of Truth, our moral conscience convicts us and “test” us if we are right with God. Christ’s in his humanity(with LFW) was tested in this regard, probably more so then any other human. A good exhibition of such struggle of wills is Jesus sweating blood in the Garden of Gethsemane.
“Then going out he went, as was his custom, to the Mount of Olives, and the disciples followed him. When he arrived at the place he said to them, "Pray that you may not undergo the test. After withdrawing about a stone's throw from them and kneeling, he prayed, saying, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done." And to strengthen him an angel from heaven appeared to him. He was in such agony and he prayed so fervently that his sweat became like drops of blood falling on the ground. When he rose from prayer and returned to his disciples, he found them sleeping from grief. He said to them, "Why are you sleeping? Get up and pray that you may not undergo the test." -Luke 22
The paradox is that Jesus was both fully man and fully God with a divine will and a human will. The perfect Sacrificial Lamb would be meaningless to us if God deterministically made him perfect with no chance to do the contrary, it would be a stacked deck. Similarly, Jesus could not die on the cross in his deity. "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" If so, we could all agree with the nihilistic madman Nietzsche that said, “god is dead”.
The Truth, the Life and the Way taught us to tap into the will of God to strengthen our faith and guide us in the way. To line oneself up with God’s will does not mean we lose being self disposed or self determined or that God’s providence is some kind of detailed map that strips us of our freedom. To freely line our will up with God is to live the way we are intended to (in Truth) and in doing so, live a full life with a clean moral conscience, one that leaves us at peace with God in both this temporal world and the everlasting world to come.
Good discussion,
Mark Post Edited (Truth Aficionado) : 7/20/2008 8:49:12 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/20/2008 1:38 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Tom: With Jeff, I think omniscience, the perfect apprehension of all reality and value, is what makes God’s mis-valuing and so mis-relating existentially impossibility for God. When we choose to sin we are nevertheless attempting to address some less that perfectly perceived need or imbalance. Misrelating is only possible because we misperceive (we’re not omniscient). So how’s God misrelate if he’s omniscient?
Zach: I get the idea, but I don't see why it should be accepted. Why assume that omniscience limits omnipotence?
Tom: It doesn’t limit omnipotence. The general isn’t ‘less’ capable because he ‘can’t’ lose.
Zach: Why assume that misrelation requires misperception?
Tom: Because all responsible choice is motivated, and motivation is the ‘reason’ for which we act, and those reasons are determined by our perceptions.
But I’m all ears. Offer me an example of misrelation/sin following perfect perception and valuation of all the relevant factors. No such example exists, because to choose to misrelate is to misconstrue the meaning and value of existence, the very meaning and value an omniscience being cannot fail to perceive.
Zach: Just as with the general, God's knowledge of the battlefield has nothing to do with his ability to throw the fight.
Tom: It has everything to do with his ability to lose (or throw the fight). To say he has the “ability to lose” is to say he’s capable of being "motivated to lose." So give me an account of such a motivation in the event the general is omniscient? Exactly. What would rationally motivate his free choice to deliberately lose in the battlefied? His motivations are formed and determined from within the scope of those perceptions. What perceptions can there be within the set of all perfect perceptions that would serve as the rational grounds for the motivation to fail?
T Post Edited (Tom) : 7/20/2008 1:43:51 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/20/2008 2:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: It doesn’t limit omnipotence. The general isn’t ‘less’ capable because he ‘can’t’ lose.
Zach: This is clearly false. If he is incapable of losing, he is less capable than otherwise. Capacity does not require a positive spin or a limited will. If Jesus can't open a certain door, then he does not possess a certain potential i.e. not omnipotent.
Tom: Because all responsible choice is motivated, and motivation is the ‘reason’ for which we act, and those reasons are determined by our perceptions.
Zach: You've introduced responsibility to the discussion. But I'm talking about what you might call an irresponsible choice. To limit the discussion to responsible choice is to assume the conclusion. It only begs the question.
Further, such reasons for action are NOT determined by perception. Cain does not misperceive anything. He knows exactly what has happened. God says, "Timshel". Cain experiences and perceives the actual event. God clarifies it. Then timshel. "Thou mayest." Sin is crouching at the door, and he has a choice to make.
If the choice is determined by the motivation and the motivation is determined by the perception... where is the freedom?
Tom: No such example exists, because to choose to misrelate is to misconstrue the meaning and value of existence, the very meaning and value an omniscience being cannot fail to perceive.
Zach: Either Cain (and countless other examples) meets your criteria or only God himself can ever not misperceive. In the latter case, it is no surprise that there is no example, because God is faithful. But there is not always misperception at the root of all sin. I can't imagine how you could go about supporting such a claim. What is Cain's misperception? He simply chooses hate over love. Both options are put before him without distortion and he prefers hate. If you want a perfectly sterile example we would have to turn to a thought experiment (but one that happens to be nearly identical to the one already provided in Gen 4).
Say God creates Bob, then imediately poses Bob the choice of loving, happy, goodness or hateful, angry, suffering. Maybe Bob resents being forced to choose and so chooses the bad one out of spite. No misrepresentation. The differences between this story and Gen 4 are trivial.
Tom: It has everything to do with his ability to lose (or throw the fight). To say he has the “ability to lose” is to say he’s capable of being "motivated to lose."
Zach: Yeah, but not "deterministically motivated". You've said that such determinism exists, but you have not demonstrated to me why I should abandon belief in libertarian free will (which is what cause-and-effect perception->motivation->action amounts to).
Tom: So give me an account of such a motivation in the event the general is omniscient?
Zach: Ok. The general is omniscient. He's never lost a battle before. He'd like to experience it first hand. Why does he want to? Boredom, a whim, because the other side dares him, or any other 'irresponsible' reason. We may call him a bad general. We might say that he's been sinful. But he's still omniscient.
Tom: What would rationally motivate his free choice to deliberately lose in the battlefied?
Zach: I don't know. Is boredom rational or irrational? Or does the category even apply? Is taking up a dare just to prove your ability to someone else rational or irrational?
But it's all a moot point. I don't need to show any rational motivations. All I'm arguing for is coexistent omniscience and omnipotence. Not continual rational motivation.
If you feel God must be bound to only act from rational motivations (another lack of omnipotence), then that's your thing. I assume no such limitation on God. Were I to assume that, then it very well may be that case that I must adopt your understanding of omnipotence.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 7/20/2008 2:50:43 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/20/2008 8:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: It doesn’t limit omnipotence. The general isn’t ‘less’ capable because he ‘can’t’ lose.
Zach: This is clearly false. If he is incapable of losing, he is less capable than otherwise.
Tom: Omnipotence conceived as a perfection doesn’t require such capacity for evil, Zach. Your ‘capacity to lose’ can be construed (and ought to be) as just the ‘incapacity to be impervious to failure’, a failure of omnipotence. So we can go round and round. God doesn’t have the “capacity” to commit suicide, for example. He doesn’t have the “capacity” to make married bachelors and square circles. These are not a failure of omnipotence, because the ‘potency’ referred to in ‘omnipotent’ is a potency for existence, for being, not for privation or non-being. True ‘potency’ is ability to be, not the ability not to be. So it is no “incapacity for being” on God’s part to possess a nature which is not susceptible to a privation of being. You view such susceptibility for non-being as a positive capacity and that’s why ‘lacking’ such susceptibility undermines omnipotence for you.
----------------------
Tom: Because all responsible choice is motivated, and motivation is the ‘reason’ for which we act, and those reasons are determined by our perceptions.
Zach: You've introduced responsibility to the discussion.
Tom: It’s already there. We’re debating whether or not God can ‘sin’ or ‘choose evil’. But ‘sin’ is a responsible choice, and it’s responsible because it’s motivated rationally. The point about epistemic distance is that there is within our limited field of perception and understanding enough that’s KNOWN to make possible our responsibly choosing the right AND enough that’s NOT KNOWN to make possible our finding some reason to choosing the wrong. By rational I just mean that the choice is perceived BY THE AGENT to be purposeful, to be directed at ‘some aim’, and this aim is the reason or motivation for the choice. There’s room for misunderstanding given his limited perspective. But it’s responsible because there’s also sufficient room in his understanding to see and desire the right choice.
So when you say, “God can sin,” I take that to mean, “God can find within his field of perception grounds upon which to motivate a choice for non-being.” And given God’s field of perception, that’s quite impossible for God.
Lastly, by “determined” I don’t mean the choice is causally determined by psychological states. I mean the psychological state “defines” or “delimits” the options.
Zach: Further, such reasons for action are NOT determined by perception. Cain does not misperceive anything. He knows exactly what has happened.
Tom: Again, I don’t mean that the adoption of a reason for acting is itself causally determined by perception. I just mean that our perceptions “define” or “delimit” a range of possible reasons for acting.
Cain’s sin consists in a failure to rightly perceive God’s loving provision and the true nature of relationship and sacrifice to God.
Zach: If the choice is determined by the motivation and the motivation is determined by the perception... where is the freedom?
Tom: I don’t mean “determined” in this sense.
-----------------------
Tom: No such example exists, because to choose to misrelate is to misconstrue the meaning and value of existence, the very meaning and value an omniscience being cannot fail to perceive.
Zach: Either Cain (and countless other examples) meets your criteria…
Tom: He doesn’t meet my criteria at all.
Zach: But there is not always misperception at the root of all sin. I can't imagine how you could go about supporting such a claim.
Tom: I can’t imagine how you can’t imagine it.
----------------------
Tom: It has everything to do with his ability to lose (or throw the fight). To say he has the “ability to lose” is to say he’s capable of being "motivated to lose."
Zach: Yeah, but not "deterministically motivated". You've said that such determinism exists…
Tom: No, I only used the word “determines” (and not in the ‘causally deterministic’ sense that belongs to that debate). I didn’t say that such “determinism exists.”
----------------------
Tom: So give me an account of such a motivation in the event the general is omniscient?
Zach: Ok. The general is omniscient. He's never lost a battle before. He'd like to experience it first hand. Why does he want to? Boredom, a whim, because the other side dares him, or any other 'irresponsible' reason.
Tom: And you think God is capable of this?
-------------------------
Tom: What would rationally motivate his free choice to deliberately lose in the battlefied?
Zach: I don't know.
Tom: Then how are you so sure God can make such a “choice”?
------------------------
Zach: If you feel God must be bound to only act from rational motivations (another lack of omnipotence), then that's your thing. I assume no such limitation on God.
Tom: Must be bound? No, I don’t feel that. To be impeccable is not to “be bound” to the chains of any “inability to be.” And yes, I think God’s choices are always perfectly rational. There can be no irrationality in an omniscient God. But if believing God really is free to be and do the irrational and evil helps explain something for you, rock on Bro.
T | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/20/2008 9:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
So when you say, “God can sin,” I take that to mean, “God can find within his field of perception grounds upon which to motivate a choice for non-being.” And given God’s field of perception, that’s quite impossible for God.
and...
Jeff:
God may have perfect perspective by nature.
A thought.
Can our human spirits have perfect (complete) perspective by Grace (Divine Presence via Holy Spirit)? Becoming "like God"? Such that our human spirits can "find ABSOLUTELY NO GROUNDS within it's field of perception which motivate a choice for non-being. (Separation from God)"
Jesus shows that humans (human spirit, human will, human self-knowledge) can be "perfect" as God is "perfect." (Divine spirit, Divine will, Divine Self-Knowledge)
Humans...becoming "gods" by Grace.
-----------------------------
Payton (Light from the Christian East) quoting Clement of Alexandria from "Christ the Educator 1.26"...page 147.
Clement...
When we are baptized, we are enlightened; enlightened, we become adopted children; adopted as children, we are made complete; and becoming complete, we are made divine. It is written, "I have said, 'You are gods and all of you the sons of the Most High' [Ps 82:6; Jn 10:34]. This ceremony is often called 'free gift', 'enlightenment', 'perfection', and 'cleansing' -- 'cleansing', because by it we are completely purified of our sins; 'free gift,' because through it the punishments due to our sins are remitted; 'enlightenment,' since by it we behold the wonderful, holy light of salvation (that is, it enables us to see God clearly*); finally, we call it 'perfection,' since we need nothing else--for what else could anyone need who possesses the knowledge of God?"
* "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God."
Just a thought. 
Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;
"Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them."
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Look! God's dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/20/2008 9:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
And yes, I think God’s choices are always perfectly rational. There can be no irrationality in an omniscient God.
I think God is not irrational, but supra-rational. Not chaotic, but infinitely creative.
Sin is neither rational, nor open to supra-rationality beyond it's limited scope. It's a product of passion, creating despair in the soul, and darkness of the mind.
I think...
Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;
"Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them."
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Look! God's dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/20/2008 10:36 AM (GMT -6) | | J: Explain which attributes make up the notion of obligation, as you define it, and then explain how the experience of having your face smashed in entails those attributes so they can be abstracted into a concept.
Z: Obligation is the conviction that I should do something. When the cave man gets his face smashed in, he gets the feeling that he should avoid further face-smashings in the future. That's it. There is nothing else required for the formation of obligation. This is big-stick unilateral covenant. It's bad. Another form of obligation is created when I voluntarily restrict my actions to what I think I should do. This is what happens in bilateral covenant. I don't know what other attributes you're looking for. There is no need to posit some eternal law or higher obligation to make sense of these ideas.
J: What you have written is equivocal. As far as I can tell, volition is required for either moral relativism or true human morality of the religious kind. In either case, "what we think we should do" is based upon perceived consequences that MOTIVATE us. Apart from consequences, I have no idea what gives meaning to "should" or "ought." So if you posit only consequences occurring in this life from non-god beings, you would be a relativist. If you posit consequences from God, you are positing a "higher obligation."
So you are right that "there is no need to posit some ... higher law to make sense of these ideas." It's just that apart from a higher law and consequences, we're left with moral relativism. In that case, Flew's god makes sense of all that needs to be explained.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/20/2008 11:22 AM (GMT -6) | |
D: Can our human spirits have perfect (complete) perspective by Grace (Divine Presence via Holy Spirit)? Becoming "like God"? Such that our human spirits can "find ABSOLUTELY NO GROUNDS within it's field of perception which motivate a choice for non-being.
T: Absolument (said with a nice French accent)! If that’s not possible, then it is the future of creation never to mature beyond susceptibility to non-being and privation. Creation never arrives. Me geneto! So yes, I think what will ground the psychological impossibility of sin in us in the eschaton will be the beatific vision and the clarity that its light will shed on all we perceive, closing the epistemic distance and making misrelation impossible.
I’m happy you said “like God.” I know you say “become god” elsewhere. I won’t say the latter because it’s not helpful and because attempts to justify it biblically (Ps 82:6; Jn 10:34) are shoddy. People already settle on its use and then just go looking for a verse to hang over it. It’s not born of careful exegesis in my opinion.
D: I think God is not irrational, but supra-rational. Not chaotic, but infinitely creative.
T: What does supra-rationality (a) even mean, and (b) what’s it buy you? I mean, you have to posit it either because there's something you WANT to say about God that's other than rational or there's something in saying God is rational that you DO NOT WANT to say about God. Which is it?
Infinite creativity is perfectly rational as far as I can tell. And I don't mean 'rationalism' either. I mean 'meaningfulness', the coherence and singularity of truth, experience, and purpose.
Tom Post Edited (Tom) : 7/20/2008 12:18:27 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/20/2008 2:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Your ‘capacity to lose’ can be construed (and ought to be) as just the ‘incapacity to be impervious to failure’, a failure of omnipotence
Zach: Not able to not be able to fail? Seriously? I'm not saying that God is able to not be able to fail. I'm saying God can choose to fail. It's not a lack of capacity to be able to fail if one so chooses. Omni - potent = all powerful. He can do whatever he wants. Even if it's naughty. Even if it's self-destructive. Even if it is to choose to stop being omnipotent. Tell me, why do you think such a thing is impossible for God? Why should we define 'omnipotent' as 'impervious to failure'? If that's really what people have meant all these years, then I don't believe in God's omnipotence; instead I believe God is all-powerful.
Tom: He doesn’t have the “capacity” to make married bachelors and square circles.
Zach: That's another matter entirely, because married bachelors and square circles are nonsense terms. An omnipotent being choosing to commit suicide is not nonsense. It is only nonsense when you apply other attributes that do not follow from omnipotence, such as inability to fail.
Tom: These are not a failure of omnipotence, because the ‘potency’ referred to in ‘omnipotent’ is a potency for existence, for being, not for privation or non-being. True ‘potency’ is ability to be, not the ability not to be.
Zach: I agree entirely. But this communicates nothing about how God uses that potential or whether or not he will choose to abandon it.
Tom: So it is no “incapacity for being” on God’s part to possess a nature which is not susceptible to a privation of being. You view such susceptibility for non-being as a positive capacity and that’s why ‘lacking’ such susceptibility undermines omnipotence for you.
Zach; You misunderstand my position. I've not talked about 'susceptibility'. That's only your caricature. It's a loaded word. I do not believe God is susceptible to non-being, with the connotation that something outside is breaking in. He is only susceptible to his own choices. You can string negatives on top of negatives all you like; all I'm saying is that God can do whatever he wants. If he wants to stop being omnipotent, he can do it. If he wants to die, he can do it. Omnipotence does not imply eternality. If he wants to sin, change, or die, who or what is going to stop him?
Tom: It’s already there... But ‘sin’ is a responsible choice, and it’s responsible because it’s motivated rationally.
Zach: So help me understand. What is the 'rational motivation' for Cain to kill Able. As of now, I wouldn't define such an action as rationally motivated. I would say emotionally motivated or something.
Tom: Cain’s sin consists in a failure to rightly perceive God’s loving provision and the true nature of relationship and sacrifice to God.
Zach: I disagree. I think Cain's failure consists of choosing to murder his brother. He could have chosen otherwise. The Bible says as much. However much Cain was limited by his perception, he still had a choice.
Tom: I don’t mean “determined” in this sense.
Zach: Then where is the force of your argument? If God is not bound by omniscience to refrain from sin, then what is it that binds him from sin and self-destruction.
Tom: And you think God is capable of this?
Zach: Capable? Yeah. Is that his character? No.
Tom: There can be no irrationality in an omniscient God.
Zach: This is not self-evident, so how do you get from A to B?
1. An omniscient God knows all.
2. ______________________
3. Therefore an omniscient God must always act rationally.
What goes in the blank? Perfect knowledge does not force or imply rationality.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/20/2008 3:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: So you are right that "there is no need to posit some ... higher law to make sense of these ideas." It's just that apart from a higher law and consequences, we're left with moral relativism.
Zach: So I'm a moral relativist. I don't recall ever denying this.
Jeff: If you believe that God motivates by reward, then you are still not a relativist. But then we are still talking higher law. I.e., a system of motivation from God over and above what can be inductively inferred as consequences in THIS LIFE.
Jeff: That makes it pretty clear that the conventional use of obligation is just what I've been saying all along. For how do you compel a free act? By motivating with consequences. There is no other way I can conceive of that a free act can be compelled/forced and STILL be free. The act can still be freely refused, but only at the cost of the consequences that were "compelling" the person to choose to DO the action.
Zach: Ok. So what do you think of self-evaluation?
I think evaluation implies a standard. That standard has to do with how means are more or less fitted to ones end(s). Those ends can be proposed because of perceived theistic motivations or just motivations involved in how the world works independent of God's volitional motivational intervention. The latter would be true relativism. The former implies a higher law.
So here's how I see God as having no standard in the sense that we do. He is not MOTIVATED via consequences by anyone outside Himself. If He is, then whoever that is that motivates Him becomes the true SOURCE of His obligation. This is the problem that Berlinski sees. And it creates an infinite regress, seemingly. To circumvent that problem, we just say that God is motivated by His own sentient nature, PERIOD. And the only way He can do this and be perfectly benevolent is if
1) His sentient nature simply IS sympathetic, unchangeably
2) He is always exhaustively informed as to how to minimize the diminishing of sentient satisfaction of those whose sentient satisfaction IS the object of His design (which, in turn, increases His own since He is sympathetic)
3) He is powerful enough to do that which He knows, per 2)
Otherwise, we have an infinite regress as far as I can tell. And scripture seems to agree with the idea that God is unchangeable, anyway--the same yesterday, today, and forever. How can this be if He is free to change? Open theism demands that we can only say that if He actually IS unchangeable in that respect.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/21/2008 1:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Your ‘capacity to lose’ can be construed (and ought to be) as just the ‘incapacity to be impervious to failure’, a failure of omnipotence
Zach: Not able to not be able to fail? Seriously? I'm not saying that God is able to not be able to fail.
Tom: I know you’re not saying this. I’m saying that if you think of omnipotence as attributing every conceivable ability to God, then “the ability of impeccability” (or “the capacity to be impervious to failure”) is one such ability. But you don’t want to ascribe it to God. So I could get really anal and say that even on your own definition of “omnipotence,” God doesn’t qualify. This is why I say we ought to understand the “abilities” that rightly belong to an “omnipotent” being as the positive capacities for being, not capacities for non-being.
-----------------------
Zach: I'm saying God can choose to fail. It's not a lack of capacity to be able to fail if one so chooses. Omni - potent = all powerful. He can do whatever he wants.
Tom: Can God ‘want’ anything at all? I don’t think so.
Zach: Even if it's naughty. Even if it's self-destructive. Even if it is to choose to stop being omnipotent. Tell me, why do you think such a thing is impossible for God?
Tom: So God is free to commit suicide or annihilate himself?
If it explains stuff for you Zach, fine.
Why do I think this is impossible for God? I’ve gone into some depth on that the past few pages.
Tom: He doesn’t have the “capacity” to make married bachelors and square circles.
-----------------------
Tom: These are not a failure of omnipotence, because the ‘potency’ referred to in ‘omnipotent’ is a potency for existence, for being, not for privation or non-being. True ‘potency’ is ability to be, not the ability not to be.
Zach: I agree entirely. But this communicates nothing about how God uses that potential or whether or not he will choose to abandon it.
Tom: I communicates everything about such choices, because the so-called “potential or ability to choose to abandon the potential for being” is itself an “ability,” and you’ve just agreed that God’s abilities ought to be understood as potencies for being and not for privation or non-being. But if God is “able” to choose to abandon this very mode of existence, then it’s not the case that his abilities are “potencies for being and not for non-being.” So you can’t agree with me that the ‘potency’ referred to in ‘omnipotent’ is a potency for existence, for being, not for privation or non-being; that true ‘potency’ is ability to be, not the ability not to be. If you say God has the ability to abandon this, then you’re saying God has a potency that is not a potency for existing, for being and not for non-being. You’re saying God has the potency/ability to annihilate himself and cease to exist. That’s pretty much non-being.
--------------------
Tom: So it is no “incapacity for being” on God’s part to possess a nature which is not susceptible to a privation of being. You view such susceptibility for non-being as a positive capacity and that’s why ‘lacking’ such susceptibility undermines omnipotence for you.
Zach; You misunderstand my position. I've not talked about 'susceptibility'. That's only your caricature. It's a loaded word.
Tom: On the contrary. The ‘possession of capacities’ is part of what defines an entity’s existence, it’s ‘way of being’. To possess the capacity for evil means that capacity is operational. It means ‘being evil’ is a possible future for that entity’s ‘way of being’. That’s what I mean by ‘susceptible’ to evil, viz., God is ‘open to becoming’ evil. You also prefer to make God’s every choice of good over evil (as a LFW choice) pretty much a 50/50% outcome. So we have no grounds upon which to expect God to continue loving us or to continue even existing at all as opposed to blowing his brains out or betraying himself and us and coming to hate us since these are all libertarian choices unaffected by the past or any solidification of character.
------------------------
Zach: I do not believe God is susceptible to non-being, with the connotation that something outside is breaking in.
Tom: Right, I didn’t mean that by ‘susceptible’ God’s choice for evil would breaking in upon him from without. You say God’s capacity for non-being is entirely self-generated! I’m going with that. But James pretty much says the same thing about us. Each sins when he is drawn away by his own lusts, etc. It’s from within. We are able to choose evil because of what we are constitutionally. And this constitution, this capacity for sin, you attribute to God.
Zach: He is only susceptible to his own choices. You can string negatives on top of negatives all you like; all I'm saying is that God can do whatever he wants. If he wants to stop being omnipotent, he can do it. If he wants to die, he can do it.
Tom: I think God can ‘do’ whatever he ‘wants’ as well. I don’t deny that at all. I just don’t think he can ‘want’ to…kill himself, reward evil for evil’s sake, condemn the just, torture widows and orphans, or give his thrown to Satan.
--------------------------
Tom: But ‘sin’ is a responsible choice, and it’s responsible because it’s motivated rationally.
Zach: So help me understand. What is the 'rational motivation' for Cain to kill Able. As of now, I wouldn't define such an action as rationally motivated. I would say emotionally motivated or something.
Tom: I mean Cain explained murdering Able to himself. Cain decided to murder Able for some reason. Able’s dying presented Cain with some utility, a way to address some need or imbalance, or internal struggle or pressure. From the text it seems clear that Cain was struggling with the fact that Able’s sacrifices were accepted by God but Cain’s weren’t. This caused stress and perhaps guilt and a sense of condemnation. Murdering Able, Cain ‘reasons’, is the way to assuage my pain.
------------------------------
Tom: Cain’s sin consists in a failure to rightly perceive God’s loving provision and the true nature of relationship and sacrifice to God.
Zach: I disagree. I think Cain's failure consists of choosing to murder his brother. He could have chosen otherwise.
Tom: I don’t deny that he could have chosen otherwise, Zach. Of course he could have chosen otherwise. What do you think I’m saying?
I’m saying that your don’t murder people for no reason. One is ‘motivated’ to choose to murder his brother. One has ‘reasons’ for doing such a thing. And that act itself is not the reason.
---------------------------
Tom: I don’t mean “determined” in this sense.
Zach: Then where is the force of your argument? If God is not bound by omniscience to refrain from sin, then what is it that binds him from sin and self-destruction.
Tom: I’m giving up after this post. I’d give up now, but I’ve been typing for too long.
A definition flows FROM a thing. We don’t say it “binds” that thing so that it’s not free to be some other thing, as if a thing’s nature is an outside determining constraint upon that thing’s freedom to be. We don’t say that ‘being an apple tree’ “binds” the apple tree and prevents it from ‘being a queen sized mattress’.
----------------------------
Tom: And you think God is capable of this?
Zach: Capable? Yeah. Is that his character? No.
Tom: Character. Exactly.
That’s as far as this ride takes me. I’m over to the bellydancing thread to chat about beauty.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/22/2008 9:58 PM (GMT -6) | | T: I’m saying that if you think of omnipotence as attributing every conceivable ability to God, then “the ability of impeccability” (or “the capacity to be impervious to failure”) is one such ability.
Z: The ability to of impeccability. The ability to be unable to....
These are word games.
I believe that God possess the ability to change himself into whatever he wants, irrevocably if he wants. So I also believe that he has the ablity to restrict his ability to sin. Has he used that ability? Is it possible he hasn't?
T: Can God ‘want’ anything at all? I don’t think so.
Z: Sure he can. Does he? No. Why would you assume he can't?
T: So God is free to commit suicide or annihilate himself?
Z: Yeah. Is the idea just too offensive to be considered? It's an ability people have. Are strong people less able to commit suicide?
T: Why do I think this is impossible for God? I’ve gone into some depth on that the past few pages. "He doesn’t have the “capacity” to make married bachelors and square circles."
Z: A being choosing not to be any longer. Is like a married man choosing to become unmarried or an artist erasing a square and replacing it with a circle. There's nothing logically impossible about it.
Tom: These are not a failure of omnipotence, because the ‘potency’ referred to in ‘omnipotent’ is a potency for existence, for being, not for privation or non-being. True ‘potency’ is ability to be, not the ability not to be.
Zach: I agree entirely. But this communicates nothing about how God uses that potential or whether or not he will choose to abandon it.
Z: I understood your 'for' in "a potency for existence" as agency. If you meant it as in "for the purpose of" then I do not agree.
T: That’s what I mean by ‘susceptible’ to evil, viz., God is ‘open to becoming’ evil.
Z: In that limited sense, I agree that God is susceptible to evil. But there is potential ambiguity with such a word.
T: You also prefer to make God’s every choice of good over evil (as a LFW choice) pretty much a 50/50% outcome.
Z: No I don't. Probability deals with unwilled chance, not will. You could just as plausibly say I have a 50/50 chance of becoming a transvestite tomorrow. You could just as plausibly predict that I had a 50/50 chance of writing this sentence or that the president had a 50/50 chance of doing the chicken dance in the middle of the last state of the union address. Probability doesn't apply.
T: So we have no grounds upon which to expect God to continue loving us or to continue even existing at all as opposed to blowing his brains out or betraying himself and us and coming to hate us since these are all libertarian choices unaffected by the past or any solidification of character.
Z: Almost. We have to probabilistic grounds for such expectations. Faith doesn't have to be a matter of playing the odds. You can be bad at statistics and still be saved.
T: We are able to choose evil because of what we are constitutionally. And this constitution, this capacity for sin, you attribute to God.
Z: Yeah. Free moral decision-making ability is a shared attribute of God and man.
T: I think God can ‘do’ whatever he ‘wants’ as well. I don’t deny that at all. I just don’t think he can ‘want’ to…kill himself, reward evil for evil’s sake, condemn the just, torture widows and orphans, or give his thrown to Satan.
Z: Ok. We both agree that he does not choose sin. It's not logically impossible for omnipotent God to sin unless you restrict the meaning of 'omnipotent' in what seems to me an arbitrary way. So is that the point of our disagreement? It seems all of this only begs the question. You believe God can't choose evil, because he is omnipotent and omnipotent means 'unable to choose evil." That's circular. And if 'omnipotent' is defined this way, I have no problem admitting that I do not believe in omnipotence. But all this gets me no closer to understanding why you believe God's abilities/will are necessarily and irrevocably geared toward being.
Here's why I believe the opposite: In our case, sin is not an inability. Sin is not the consequence of our inability to be good. I say this because sin carries with it the idea of guilt, and guilt implies that we, not forces acting deterministically upon us, are the origin of the act. Sure, we can say that sin is the privation of good. What we cannot say is that sin is the inability to be good. We can't say sin is the unchosen privation of good. To say this empties sin of it's guilt connotations. So when I sin (or when I act well), I am exercising a positive ability. Since it could be the case that God is free sin or that God must not sin, and since I am not inclined to limit my belief in God's abilities (except to exclude semantic absurdities), and since the capacity sin (at least in our case) is a a positive ability, I think the evidence suggests that God does have the capacity for sin (and self-destruction and a whole slew of other things we could add). I don't see anything that suggests otherwise (except perhaps literalist and rationalist proof-texting, which I don't put much stock in for reasons I hope I don't need to go into and which I suspect you share).
I'll just throw this out there: I think it is possible for God to limit his own freedom. He could make himself into an unable-to-sin machine; he could choose to solidify that way. Has he or hasn't he? I don't know. The idea of a good heart hardening is not pleasant to me, but I don't see much of a way to argue for or against it.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 7/22/2008 10:06:40 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/24/2008 7:35 PM (GMT -6) | | J: He is not MOTIVATED via consequences by anyone outside Himself.
Z: Neither is anyone else necessarily. We can all decide which consequences will motivate us. I can choose to ignore the pain and lift the weight, or I can choose to give into the pain. I can choose to ignore more serious consequences as well. I'll admit there are limits. You can involuntarily psychologically break a person in a way that God cannot be involuntarily broken. Is that what you're resting your argument on?
J: I've already said what my argument rests on. I don't know what, other than God's sentient nature can be the source of His motivation. Part 2 is below:
Z: God is no more to be praised for his lovingkindness than I am to be praised for having two hands. In fact my having two hands is MORE praiseworthy than God's lovingkindness, because at least my free will plays some role in the continuing existence of my two hands. The same cannot be said for God's character under your view.
J: The problem here is that the open view doesn't ground any reason to believe God's future will be benevolent on your assumptions. For free actions can not be foreknown. And since our hope is FUTURE, virtually everything that we mean by God's lovingkindness has to do with what we believe He will do in the FUTURE (God is watching the innocents be slaughtered and tormented in the present). But that's exactly what your view has up for grabs, with a mere 50% probability of being benevolent, given your grounds of belief. So any praise you give to God based on what He is supposedly going to do may be misplaced anyway for all you know.
Besides, there is a sense in which people really do praise non-voluntary attributes. People praise beauty and un-acquired talent all the time. If you don't find positive attributes, per se, emotionally moving, that doesn't mean that it is a common human trait. Granted, voluntary attributes are ALSO emotionally moving. But it is not true that humans only find voluntary attributes emotionally moving. I'm moved by my dog. And I don't believe she is volitional at all.
J: If He is, then whoever that is that motivates Him becomes the true SOURCE of His obligation.
Z: This whole dichotomy assumes that free will is not an option. God can choose to be motivated by whatever he wants in a manner exactly the same (though to a greater extent) as you or I. We and God can choose our motivations, what we will value.
J: I think sentient beings seek sentient satisfaction. They differ as to how informed they are about what results in the highest sentient satisfaction. And they differ in their capacity to choose what they believe will result in their highest sentient satisfaction. To say that God or humans could just as easily choose suffering as pleasure makes no sense to me.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 7/24/2008 9:01:00 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 142 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:08 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|