 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 10/21/2010 12:41 PM (GMT -6) |   | W. L. Craig recently released a podcast in which he criticizes Greg Boyd's open theism:
www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=podcasting_main#rf
Craig makes a few serious errors.
(1) He wrongly supposes that Greg denies bivalence for future contingents.
(2) He wrongly supposes that Greg attributes to God prevolitional knowledge of all of God's decisions, and hence that God is not free.
(3) He repeatedly and erroneously claims that Greg has offered "no reason" for supposing that it can only be true that something "will" happen if it is causally necessary that it happen.
Greg's planning to reply soon in a blog post.
Cheers,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/21/2010 8:17 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/29/2010 8:16 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/2/2010 2:01 PM (GMT -6) | | You know, I just don't get it.
I mean, if something is determined to happen, there is no "might" about it. That's just simple common sense, and all the attempts to argue that "might" logically is entailed by the truth value of propositions about what “will” and “will not” occur is...well, illogical. It's not even common sense. I mean, "might," by definition, means just that, does't it? that it might happen, which, obviously, means that it's possible that it might not happen. So how the hek are you going to just lump "might" and "might not" into the mix of "will" and "will not." Running back to the logicians of old isn't going to work either. If they were logically wrong about the matter, then they were logically wrong, not right, about the matter.
I do wonder if Craig is holding on to what amounts to this last (and horribly thin) thread of argument because he feels he has to. I mean, if Craig is clear that the open view does not deny God's omniscience, then there's nothing else to be worried about, in the least, if simple common sense and logic seem clear that "might" is not to be lumped into the propositional truth value of "will."
It just seems so obvious, you know.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted Yesterday 7:23 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted Yesterday 7:32 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted Yesterday 10:57 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm having some thoughts...
1) Where is "Here" and "Now" for the God Himself working through God's uncreated energies (Grace)?
2) Aren't "all moments in time equally real" insofar as Grace's creatio continua relationship to Creation? Meaning that our past, present, and future exists in God's uncreated energies...LITERALLY.
3) When is it "Then" for God?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm...the casual relationship of God to Creation. God's uncreated energies are the "continual cause" that simultaneously exists with Creation. Interesting. It seems that Craig thinks that God had the simultaneous cause and effect relationship with Creation in it's Creation...at one point in time. Basically, Craig doesn't see time and space as Grace (EO perspective).
EVERY MOMENT is a "moment of creation" where God Himself working SIMULTANEOUSLY EXISTS with Creation's existence from no-thingness.
Hmmm...
There is something worse than secularism. That's evangelical practical deism ala a Christian two-storey worldview. It engenders the sacred/secular antithesis in the mind of the believer...instead of seeing all of life as eucharistic worship in divine omni-presence. Can I get a witness? 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 11/8/2010 10:10:40 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted Yesterday 11:56 AM (GMT -6) | | D: 1) Where is "Here" and "Now" for the God Himself working through God's uncreated energies (Grace)?
T: Every finite location/experience contributes to the totality of God’s experience of the world, and the ‘now’ of that experience is God’s universal, immediate apprehension of the universe.
What’s the deal?
D: 2) Aren't “all moments in time equally real” insofar as Grace’s creatio continua relationship to Creation? Meaning that our past, present, and future exists in God’s uncreated energies...LITERALLY.
T: I’d say certainly not. The logoi of all created entities exist eternally, and since all logoi are drawn to and participate in the Logos, and since they cannot be irrevocably foreclosed by any exercise of creaturely volition, and since all possible trajectories of creaturely freedom can be contemplated by God…providence can thus know the end from the beginning and creation’s destiny is secure. BUT it’s a mistake to suggest that “all moments in time are equally real.” If they’re equally real, then there is no distinction in reality between past, present and future, presentism is false (as is open theism), etc.
You think the event of Caesar's crossing the Rubicon and the event of my typing the letter "p" in this 'post' are "equally real" to God? That creates huge problems Bro.
D: 3) When is it "Then" for God?
T: I don’t get the question. Are you asking ‘when’ does God perceive an event as ‘past’ instead of ‘present’?
Are you serious?
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 11/8/2010 11:00:12 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted Yesterday 12:04 PM (GMT -6) | | D: There is one thing I can think of that Kierkegaard and Meister Eckhart agreed on: Compared to God's uncreated, continual omnipresent working in and for Creation, creation truly IS no-thing.
T: I'd say the exact opposite. I'd say that BECAUSE OF God's gracious will to sustain the world, the world IS something. I'd say creation is what God says it is and wills it to be, and he doesn't will it to be no-thing. It's WHEN we make this comparison, this connection, that we discover creation's something-ness.
If by no-thing you mean it's not a necessary thing that doesn't need to participate in something else in order to be something, then yeah, but why not just say that instead of callig what God values 'no-thing')?
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 11/8/2010 11:09:54 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted Yesterday 12:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Now Here
D: There is one thing I can think of that Kierkegaard and Meister Eckhart agreed on: Compared to God's uncreated, continual omnipresent working in and for Creation, creation truly IS no-thing.
T: I'd say the exact opposite. I'd say that BECAUSE OF God's gracious will to sustain the world, the world IS something. I'd say creation is what God says it is and wills it to be, and he doesn't will it to be no-thing. It's WHEN we make this comparison, this connection, that we discover creation's something-ness.
God "let's be" calling Creation from no-thingness continually by God's own working. Saying that the "somethingness" of Creation is ultimately God's will and God's active working by God's uncreated energies...is the same thing as saying Creation is simultaneous with God's will for and active sustanance of Creation.
Basically, Tom, we are talking about the same reality from two distinct perspectives. But it's still the case that the uncreated energies of Love (God) are the ultimate ground of Creation at any and all points in time.
All SK and Eckhart are talking about is the "voidness" of Creation in and of itself...without its transcendent grounding in God. This is expressed very clear in Loder's work, too.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted Yesterday 12:23 PM (GMT -6) | | D: When does God not have universal, immediate apprehension of the universe...when Grace is sustaining all aspects of the universe (actually, Creation in general)?
T: Never. But that doesn't make past moments of sustaining "equally real" to present moments of sustaining. God's experience of the world (and sustaining it) has a beginning and a history (a past, a present, and a future). Only the present moment is actual, or real...at all and to God.
God is not now sustaining Caesar in his crossing of the Rubicon. He sustained (past tense) that in its actuality. Actually, God's sustaining it constitutes its actuality. But that event is no longer actual and thus not equally real as the present moment God is sustaining. In fact, if all moments in time are equally real to God, then there is no creatio continua. There is just one command that all events "be" and be equally.
T
KIXYTΘEMTAPost Edited (Tom) : 11/8/2010 11:27:49 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted Yesterday 12:24 PM (GMT -6) | | D: 3) When is it "Then" for God?
T: I don’t get the question. Are you asking ‘when’ does God perceive an event as ‘past’ instead of ‘present’?
I'm asking this: From the perspective of uncreated energies, "when" does a "light year" happen for God? When does a light year "elapse" for God?
"Now"?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted Yesterday 12:33 PM (GMT -6) | | D: When does God not have universal, immediate apprehension of the universe...when Grace is sustaining all aspects of the universe (actually, Creation in general)?
T: Never. But that doesn't make past moments of sustaining "equally real" to present moments of sustaining. God's experience of the world (and sustaining it) has a beginning and a history (a past, a present, and a future). Only the present moment is actual, or real...at all and to God.
I agree that "only the present moment is actual or real" such that the SOFA of the universe is not the same "moment" as the Big Bang point. The Big Bang point is a reality of our collective human "memory", as it were. It doesn't currently exist as such. It is a historical perspective for the universe. At the same time, the uncreated energies that ground this whole historical process of Creation are God Himself working in and for Creation. Those uncreated workings of God are eternal and as such "timeless". God Himself working in and for Creation in our "1875 A.D." is the exact same God Himself working in and for Creation today...and "tomorrow." From that perspective, the fullness of the past, present, and future is "caught up" in the Now.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
| 71 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:59 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 |
|
|