 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Love and Freedom in the Hereafter | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 9/25/2003 4:17 AM (GMT -6) |   | MephEternal
The notion of eternal choice doesn’t make sense. ETERNAL CHOOSING does make sense. Let me explain.
To me, Iconoclast, you seem to posit that the choice for God to “exist” was a ONE TIME choice, but this is plain not the case. If God truly is PURELY WILL, then God should be able to choose non-existence at ANY time God chooses.
Iconoclast
If God chose TO choose A then, by definition, God chooses eternal existence. Now at this point God CANNOT choose NOT to choose BECAUSE He has already chosen TO choose. Eternal non-existence is to NEVER choose. Thus, once ANY choice is “made” eternal existence quantum jumps into existence and it can NEVER be otherwise, again, by (my) definition.
Thus, for existence to EVER come into being is for it to be in eternal being.
MephEternal
It would be more on point to say this:
God has always existed and God always CHOOSES to exist.
Iconoclast
Do you see now how there are really two senses of this notion of “always CHOOSES to exist”.
There is the sense of “always chooses” meaning that at every “moment” God is actively choosing between A and B.
But there is also the sense of “always chooses” meaning that God has made an eternal choice. Unfortunately I can’t really express this notion any further than the definition without using temporal metaphors that cause us to fall back into the sense of “always chooses” above.
Perhaps I can say something like this; will that can eternally choose is an extremely potent will – it knows what it ETERNALLY wants (it is omniscient) and thus CHOOSES what it eternally wants (it is omnipotent) AND that this eternal choice to choose what it eternally wants IS ITSELF the WANTING of the eternal choice. The eternal choice IS eternally WANTED. AND it WILL never be otherwise for if it WAS otherwise it would NOT be an eternal choice which means it is NOT eternally wanted, again, by (my) definition.
So, can we conceive of God knowing what He eternally WANTS and therefore can we conceive of God eternally choosing what He eternally wants? If we can, would God NEED to keep choosing? If so, who or what is causing God to NEED to keep choosing? And wouldn’t this who or what be more fundamental than God?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
 |
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 9/27/2003 8:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph: Saying that a Creation possessing moral deliberation and pursuit of loving character requires freedom is distinct from your current TWT 1.
Doc: Not if one agrees that’s LOVE is a MORAL concept and that all morality is ultimate about (or at least includes) love.
Meph: That theodicy problem AIN’T gonna go away, Doc. We both know that. You cannot provide a metaphysical reason WHY God HAD to create a Creation like the one we find ourselves in.
Doc: Of course he didn’t HAVE to create a Creation like the one we find ourselves in. But IF HE WANTED love, he did. Now, even if you disagree about the love piece, it seems you would grant that if God wanted a universe where agents are morally responsible, he HAD to create a world with freedom. So, it seems YOU have yourself a theodicy! Congrats. And I think you’re right!!! We just disagree about whether we’re saying different things. I don’t think we are.
Laika: But I think TWT1 is about deliberative love and not the touchy-feely kind of love that equates love with chocolate for example.
Doc: Bingo. Obvious when I say "love" must be chosen I’m talking about deliberative love, not the kind pets have for their owners or anything like that.
Springs: I’m not saying I understand it all. And maybe you’d prefer I don’t cheerlead or critique. But the Zorro tribute was more to honor Iconoclast’s work than to disparage yours.
Doc: I took it as being a tribute to honor Iconoclasts work. I didn’t feel at all disparaged. But I assumed that if you were paying tribute to him you understood him – which I DIDN’T. (Its not clear to me how you can honor someone’s work if you don’t understand it.) Hence I said, "apparently Springs does…[understand Icon]"
Icon: so I just defined non-existence AS Eternal Will that chooses NOT to choose.
Doc: Yes, but this strikes me as a very odd definition of non-existence, since it includes at least one thing that exists – a will.
Icon: By my definition only a giant rock existing would BE non-existence.
Doc: But the rock would EXIST? Are you equating ‘existence" with "personal" or "conscious" existence?
Icon: The problem I have here is that your metaphor seems to be that God is a prisoner of his own REQUIREMENT or CONSTRAINT to love. I just cannot conceptualize how your concept makes God MORE FREE for love. It seems to do exactly the opposite.
Doc: Whose more free: the husband who has to struggle every day to choose whether he’ll be faithful or not, or the one who has the kind of character that is such that he IS faithful and no longer has to CHOOSE it over against unfaithfulness? Seems to me the latter is. I see God as ETERNALLY having this kind of character, hence being eternally FREE in the most significant (non-libertarian) sense of the word.
Iconoclast’s definitions:
Eternal Will = eternal choice.
Eternal choice eternally exists in a superposition of eternal states – the eternal choice to choose and the eternal choice to NOT choose. Upon "choosing", eternal choice eternally collapses into one of these eternal states.
Existence = the eternal choice to choose.
Non-existence = The eternal choice to NOT choose.
Voila. A clear state of affairs where we have will and non-existence.
Doc: The "superposition" metaphor is very helpful in giving me some idea what you’re talking about. Still, either the superposition state EXISTS or it DOESN’T. And if it DOES, its not equivalent to "non-existence" (except on your definition… which still strikes me as idiosyncratic.
Icon: In my view God IS Eternal Will. God eternally chooses to choose. Which simply means that God eternally chooses to exist and to love.
Doc: But what grounds the "and to love"? It either "lies in the nature" of existence that it IS love, or it lies in a second choice of God. You seem to want to deny the second, but not affirm the first.
Icon: There is no "rule" or "standard of love" here in my view. There is only a clear description (at least in my head) of what it means for Will (God) to be the ground of His own being.
Doc: "what it means" suggests a metaphysical principle. BY DEFINITION existence is love. The NATURE of existence is love. So God doesn’t CHOOSE to have existence to be love, it just IS. And to me this suggests that WILL isn’t the ONLY ultimate thing. There is the metaphysical law that existence is love. And my point is that if you must grant that there is an eternal metaphysical nature to existence, why not TO GOD???
Icon: But, how can we possibly distinguish between this eternal superposition state where an active "choice" is NEVER made to the Non-existence state where the choice is NOT to choose. Isn’t NEVER actively CHOOSING really just the same as choosing NOT to choose?
Doc: Well and good. But the STATE of never actively choosing is conceivable only as existing and as being chosen.
Icon: Thus, for existence to EVER come into being is for it to be in eternal being.
Doc: Yes, it SOMETHING exists, something must have ALWAYS existed. But this is precisely why I can’t conceive of the eternal existence as the result of choice.
Icon: Determinacy CANNOT produce indeterminacy but indeterminacy CAN approximate determinacy by determining some things.
Doc: Dude, if you’re going to hold this then I think you have to go all the way with Neville and say that EVERYTHING that is "this" rather than "that" (viz. determinate) is the result of choice. So if God is triune as opposed to quadrune, or loving as opposed to hating, is the result of choice.
Oh, but wait, you may have already covered this. For you hold that firstness, secondness, and thirdness, as well as love, is built into the definition of existence. So, for superposition God to choose to be actual God IS for God to choose to be triune and loving. Is this right? If so, I drop my objection.
Icon: These definitions allow my conceptual system to confidently affirm that God CHOOSES to love because He WANTS to love AND that this choice of His is an eternal choice BECAUSE he knows (and I can confidently affirm that He is omniscient) what He eternally WANTS.
Doc: Now Icon…. Arghhhhh…. How can you say this? You’re providing determinate "wants" and "knowledge" as the GROUND of God’s choice to be loving – but you hold that God is indeterminate prior to God’s choice to be loving. You’re guilty of anachronism and circular reasoning. God can’t WANT and KNOW prior to his choice to EXIST.
Strange, but interesting.
Doc
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/27/2003 10:06 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Meph: That theodicy problem AIN’T gonna go away, Doc. We both know that. You cannot provide a metaphysical reason WHY God HAD to create a Creation like the one we find ourselves in.
Doc: Of course he didn’t HAVE to create a Creation like the one we find ourselves in. But IF HE WANTED love, he did. Now, even if you disagree about the love piece, it seems you would grant that if God wanted a universe where agents are morally responsible, he HAD to create a world with freedom. So, it seems YOU have yourself a theodicy! Congrats. And I think you’re right!!! We just disagree about whether we’re saying different things. I don’t think we are.
That’s the contention. The only way that your argument holds any water is by showing how contingent, sentient beings CANNOT] be loving METAPHYSICALLY SPEAKING unless they have the ability to morally deliberate. In other words, you have to show how it is NONSENSE to say that unchosen love for contingent, sentient beings that flows from unobstructed appropriation of God’s loving subjective aimis genuine love. But I honestly don’t see how you can do that we we’ve already assertained that, with your view of God, God’s love is genuine even though it is NOT a product of moral deliberation. This alone should show that love IN ITSELF doesn’t require moral deliberation to be genuine.
As I have shown over and over, the standard arguments that have tried to use the Creator/creation distinction to overcome this ultimately don’t WORK because they emerge from problematic assumptions!
Of course, I would agree that IF God wanted morally deliberating sentient creations who would self-determine their OWN moral characters, then loving characters could ONLY come about through moral deliberation. Makes sense. But my point is that this is DISTINCT from the metaphysics of love that you and Tom seem to espouse that says the following:
In order for love to be genuine for sentient, created beings IN ANY POSSIBLE WORLD, the beings MUST have the capacity to morally deliberate.
That’s why I would call this the “metaphysics of love”. This principle must be applicable in ANY POSSIBLE WORLD that involved sentient, created beings and genuine love. This is what you and Tom HAVE to say! And guess what? This is not true…and I will continue to OPPOSE this as being inconsistent! I would assert that there IS a possible world such that God could have created sentient beings who ALWAYS appropriate God’s subjective aim, with respect to love…and this love would be seen by God as JUST AS GENUINE as God’s OWN unchosen love.
I’m ultimately willing to deal with the question about WHY God chose to create THIS world rather than THAT possible one…by relying on FAITH and TRUST in God’s wisdom and the already abundant evidence of God’s love (ie God’s self-relevelation of loving Trinity, God’s continual sustanance of all things, and the Christ Work). Don’t need the metaphysics of love thing.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/27/2003 12:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi : In other words, you have to show how it is NONSENSE to say that unchosen love for contingent, sentient beings that flows from unobstructed appropriation of God’s loving subjective aims genuine love.
Tom: “Unchosen love that flows from unobstructed appropriation of God’s subjective aims”? Now there’s an interesting thought. As I understand it, Mephi, loving God and others IS God’s subjective aim for us. So for me your comment boils down to: “Unchosen love for God and others that flows from unobstructed appropriation of love for God and others.” This seems tautological (or is it self-contradictory? Gosh, at 2 AM who cares?). If it’s 'unchosen' then how is it 'appropriated'? It's not, at least not BY US…ever. It’s given to us, predetermined for us, appropriated for us, by God. Now, some things CAN be appropriated, or determined, for us by others (God or other people) and still be ours in a sense (like skin color, gender, and even characteristics that make us unique individuals). That’s cool. But "personal relationships of love" aren’t one of them.
I take it as self-evident that predetermined personal relationships of love is for us a meaningless notion. We have nothing in our experience that makes this notion meaningful. In fact, everything in our experience suggests that to be determined in THIS respect would render us less than persons, would render us robots. In fact, you have conceded this is exactly what we'd be if other HUMAN persons were doing the predetermining. Our love would be artificial in this case. And so you rely on the very divine/contingent distinction I rely on (which blows my mind) to argue that because GOD is able to embed the love code so deeply in our natures (as opposed to a micro-chip planted in our brains), our being determined to love and relate personally by a person other than ourselves does not result in an artificial love or artificial relationships (since the person in this case is divine, that makes it cool!). But I, at least, haven't argued that predetermined love is artificial because it's not embedded deeply enough in our natures. I'm arguing that it's artificial because we have no possible way of attributing meaning to the notion apart from libertarian freedom, which is still removed whether by a chip or by God. It's the end result (the love is still chosen for us), not the manner in which we're predetermined, that's problematic. "God chooses love for us" and "A microchip chooses love for us" both equally render us objects and not subjects in our own right. And to treat another as an object rather than a subject is to treat them as other than a person.
Sorry, Bro, but I'm not buying this camel. 
Mephi: But I honestly don’t see how you can do that we we’ve already ascertained that, with your view of God, God’s love is genuine even though it is NOT a product of moral deliberation. This alone should show that love IN ITSELF doesn’t require moral deliberation to be genuine.
Tom: Right. This alone DOES show that love IN ITSELF doesn’t require libertarian deliberation. But only God is love IN ITSELF. There IS no "love IN ITSELF" apart from "God in HERSELF." To claim that love IN ITSELF requires such deliberation would be to claim that GOD IN HERSELF requires moral deliberation, and nobody is claiming that. It’s not love IN ITSELF, but rather OUR LOVING, as beings who are not in themselves love, that requires the freedom to get there.
Mephi: As I have shown over and over, the standard arguments that have tried to use the Creator/creation distinction to overcome this ultimately don’t WORK because they emerge from problematic assumptions!
Tom: What you’re calling an assumption, Doc and I have been putting forward as an argument. And I don’t see where you showed over and over again that this argument doesn’t work. The argument seems pretty tight to me. You could dislodge it perhaps with an analogy that would make meaningful to us the notion of a predetermined interpersonal relationship of love. Then we at least might be able to attribute meaning to what you’re saying.
Loving it (by choice),
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/27/2003 1:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
ANALOGY:
Let’s say that you have TWO PEOPLE who have the love “microchips” in them. They know of each other, but have not yet met. They know, second-hand, that the other is completely loving. They know that, when they meet the other person, they WILL be loved because the other is completely loving. They meet and, of course, have a love relationship with each other (no matter how briefly the interaction) because of their all-loving nature.
Is there love relationship with each other genuine?
Let’s say that you have TWO PEOPLE who, by lots of self-work, have so developed their characters that they can ONLY love. It truly is not an option for them to consider NOT loving other people. They have a COMPLETELY SOLIDIFIED character. They know of each other, but have not yet met. They know, second-hand, that the other is completely loving. They know that, when they meet the other person, they WILL be loved because the other is completely loving. They meet and of course, have a love relationship with each other (no matter how briefly the interaction) because of their all-loving nature.
Now, is there love relationship with each other genuine?
*******************************
Anticipating something…
I believe that Doc and Tom would say the second scenario is genuine, while the first is not. They are going to say that BECAUSE their characters were chosen rather than not, then the love relationship between the two UNCHANGABLY LOVING beings is genuine.
But this ATTACKS the premise, I believe, that Tom wants to set. Tom wants to say that if one person knows that it is a FOREGONE CONCLUSION that another person will certainly love them…that the love relationship between them cannot be genuine. But that is the case in BOTH scenarios! You are dealing with predetermined interpersonal relationships in both models! Completely RISK-FREE love!
See, Tom. Perhaps your intuitional approach works TOO well. You are right in that we have NO EXPERIENCE of love relationships where BOTH PARTIES are unchangably loving! With respect to our human experience, there is ALWAYS the chance (no matter how seemingly small) of BOTH parties not loving, hence the ability to NOT choose love. There is ALWAYS risk involved, at least on ONE side of the equation (dealing with the God/world relationship). When you start to deal with the idea of two unchangably loving beings who KNOW that there is no risk in loving another being, you are speaking of something ENTIRELY out of our experience!
Heh. So, let’s really heat stuff up. THIS is what doesn’t align with our experience: RISK-FREE love among contingent, sentient beings. People like Sanders and Iconclast would say that RISK-FREE love relationships between persons are NOT GENUINE!!!!
But isn’t this JUST what you and Doc say is the case…at some point in the future? That there WILL be a state of risk-free love relationships among persons? LOL 
So, Tom and Doc, are you arguing that completely RISK-FREE interpersonal love relationships among contingent beings are genuine?????
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/27/2003 3:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Let’s try this.
I have so hardened myself into a pattern into going to the bathroom at exactly 1:00pm every day. At first it was by choice that I did this. But through YEARS AND YEARS of conditioning, my body got accustomed to this. Actually, I don’t choose it anymore. It just happens now. It’s pretty much a PART of me now. At approximately 12:54 pm, I always get to feeling that urge. And I gotta go. Always happens.
Now, I go into a new situation where we ALWAYS have to have Tuesday meetings that last from 12:45pm to 1:20pm. And the boss doesn’t like for anyone to leave the meetings for bathroom breaks when they start. He personally feels that people should have enough control to “hold it” for an hour…or at least have the decency to go before the meeting. As you’ve probably already figured out, problems arise because every meeting, sure as clockwork, at 12:54pm I feel the urge to go to the bathroom. And I leave to go.
Here’s the questions:
1) In the case of “choosing” to go to the restroom during the meeting, have I truly chosen to do so, in the sense that we USUALLY mean to “choose” something? In other words, am I CONSCIOUSLY choosing to do what I do at the times of the meeting?
2) Would the boss be right to BLAME me for always leaving the meetings on the grounds that my tendencies were SELF-DETERMINED unto unchangable habit? In other words, would it be cool for him to say “Well, you put yourself in this mess by so determining yourself this way. As such you are RESPONSIBLE for constantly choosing to leave our 12:45pm meetings! You are making a disrespect conscious choice!”?
3) Bottom line: Am I SIGNIFICANTLY RESPONSIBLE for always going to the bathroom during the 12:45 meeting…even though I know about how the boss feels about it? Am I ACCOUNTABLE to the boss on this score?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 9/27/2003 3:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc
But what grounds the "and to love"? It either "lies in the nature" of existence that it IS love, or it lies in a second choice of God. You seem to want to deny the second, but not affirm the first.
Iconoclast
I do affirm the first. I think we can speak meaningfully about the nature of will.
Doc
"what it means" suggests a metaphysical principle. BY DEFINITION existence is love. The NATURE of existence is love. So God doesn’t CHOOSE to have existence to be love, it just IS. And to me this suggests that WILL isn’t the ONLY ultimate thing. There is the metaphysical law that existence is love. And my point is that if you must grant that there is an eternal metaphysical nature to existence, why not TO GOD???
Iconoclast
I am. God IS Eternal Will. Eternal Will IS the superposition of states. God eternally chose existence (TO choose) and thus love etc…
I am asserting that love must be chosen and that God eternally chose to love.
It seems to me that the key difference is that I am asserting that choice is fundamental and you are not.
What I do not understand is where choice comes from in your view.
In essence I am going behind Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness to suggest that Non-existence = Firstness that is ONLY sheer possibility whereas Existence = Firstness that is BOTH sheer possibility as well as facticity AND Secondness AND Thirdness.
Thus in the “Non-existence” mode God “exists” only as sheer possibility – there is ONLY the Father. Which starts to make you wonder why God talks about Himself as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Under my definition we could meaningfully talk about the Son and the Holy Spirit coming about by the Father’s choice to exist – and thus the Son was with the Father “from the beginning”.
The Holy Spirit = Thirdness = disposition = eternal choice(s) and other choices.
The Son = Secondness = the Unique “existent” = the “point” of actuality of God’s choice to exist.
The following quotes are from “Charles S. Peirce’s Philosophy of Signs” by Gerard Deledalle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are three categories, no less and no more. Let us suppose that the world is a unique sheet of assertion. Let us call it “1”. What can we say of “1”? Nothing – and, of course, as it is “unique,” nobody is there to say anything. So to speak, “1” is not even there. It is not “something,” and it is not “nothing,” unless as non-being, in the Aristotelian sense of sheer “possibility.” To conceive of “1,” “1” has to have a limit and consequently we cannot have “1” without “2” which delimits “1” on the sheet of assertion:
<<really nice diagram that explains it all>>
“1” can only exist in a pair. But, as Peirce points out, “it is impossible to form a genuine three by any modification of the pair without introducing something of a different nature from the unit and the pair.”
In other words, to have a pair (1, 2) one needs a “3” which mediates between “1” and “2”:
<<another really nice diagram>>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So, Firstness all by itself is “not ‘something’ and it is not ‘nothing,’ unless as non-being (non-existence) in the Aristotelian sense of sheer ‘possibility’.”
Eternal Will in the superposition of states is Firstness all by itself. It is the Father.
TO choose brings “existence” into being.
“’1’ can only exist in a pair.” But a pair (1, 2) entail a “3” which mediates between “1” and “2”.
So,
The Father’s choice TO choose brings the Father into “existence” (from the “non-being” of sheer possibility) which cannot but mean the actualization of the Son which entails the existence of the Holy Spirit which is ITSELF the very choice TO choose. The Father’s choice TO choose ITSELF is the instantiation of the Holy Spirit (thirdness / disposition – which IS eternal choice).
Doc
Yes, it SOMETHING exists, something must have ALWAYS existed. But this is precisely why I can’t conceive of the eternal existence as the result of choice.
Iconoclast
Yes, my definition concedes that something must have always “existed”. I conceded this without explicitly saying so after you said that to you non-existence was logically impossible. However, this “existence” is NOT our standard notion of existence. It is “existence” only in the sense of the “non-being” existence of sheer possibility – this “superposition of states.”
Doc
Well and good. But the STATE of never actively choosing is conceivable only as existing and as being chosen.
Iconoclast
Yes. But this definition gives distinct meanings to active choice and the choice of never choosing as well as existing in the mode of “non-existence” and existing in the mode of “existence”. AND, if we check these with our intuition they fit – we can all conceptualize the “non-existence” of a person who NEVER chooses, who NEVER actually DOES anything – we can all conceive of this state as “eternal death” – as an “annihilation” of sorts – certainly an annihilation of their “personhood.”
And doesn’t this conceptualization help us understand a bit better what “eternal death” might mean? Doesn’t it fit with C.S. Lewis picture in the “Great Divorce”? And doesn’t it in essence fit with an understanding of what “annihilation” would mean? To me it unifies these thoughts to be more comprehensible.
Doc
Icon: so I just defined non-existence AS Eternal Will that chooses NOT to choose.
Doc: Yes, but this strikes me as a very odd definition of non-existence, since it includes at least one thing that exists – a will.
Iconoclast
Yes. Eternal Will as Firstness which IS an odd definition of non-existence from our current conceptual framework which only knows of temporal existence. But aren’t ALL new definitions in a new conceptual framework odd until we use them and see if they end up generating familiar concepts within our standard conceptual framework? Isn’t the Heisenberg uncertainty principle an odd definition? And yet we somehow accept this (very, very grudgingly I might add) as it shows itself to actually generate explanations of things that are familiar.
Also, wouldn’t you expect some odd new definitions and notions of non-existence in coming up with a conceptual framework where we could affirm that God chooses to love us?
Isn’t the notion of “eternal death” an odd notion? What does this mean exactly? Can you define it? And doesn’t you intuitive sense of this notion resonate a bit with my definition of non-existence?
Doc
The "superposition" metaphor is very helpful in giving me some idea what you’re talking about. Still, either the superposition state EXISTS or it DOESN’T. And if it DOES, its not equivalent to "non-existence" (except on your definition… which still strikes me as idiosyncratic.
Iconoclast
Couldn’t we say the same thing about an electron? That it MUST either exist as a particle or a wave? Isn’t it a very odd notion that it can actually exhibit both aspects?
Wouldn’t we expect that to explore the very ground of being (which is will, by the way  ) we would have to postulate (abduct) some new notions of existence and non-existence? Or, do you think that us humans have explored every conceivable notion of existence and non-existence?
The question is not whether it appears idiosyncratic or not – the question is – does this abduction generate further inferences that provide us more light.
Also, another metaphor for this notion of existence and non-existence “existing” in a superposition of state is the fact that in the vacuum of space where there is absolutely ‘nothing’ but a void – space itself – particles and anti-particles quantum jump into existence and then out of existence ALL THE TIME within the limits of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Come on, let’s be creative with this. If we can’t find a way to clearly conceive of how will is the ground of its own being then the MephMeister has TWT-1 on the ropes. Meph has found what I think is a deterministic presupposition within this notion of TWT-1 and he is exploiting it.
In fact, I think I will switch to arguing FOR Meph’s case for a while just to highlight what I think he has found.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 9/27/2003 4:01 PM (GMT -6) | | The following is the response I received from Kel Good, the author of one of the articles I linked to early in this thread, which argued for God's character being voluntarily holy and loving. Just passin' it on...
Hi John,
Sorry to be a while getting back to you on this.
I think your first thought is probably the most important one. If God has always existed in the past, and always been making choices, then there would not be a "first choice" prior to which there was no moral action happening. So God's character would always have been good, given that scenario.
However, let's pretend there was a "first" choice. This would not prevent us from saying God has always been good. A moral being is a being that chooses, in light of moral value and obligation. To me a being that has made no choices in its history can only be seen to be a potential moral being. We can of course extend our definition of a moral being to include this potentiality, but that might be a stretch. Do we consider a new born baby as a moral being? If you review Finney's thoughts in his ST, I think you'll find he would say no. Until the capabilities of moral choice and light exist, a being cannot be a moral being.
But suppose this potentiality is enough to call God a moral being even before his first choice. We still must say that as long as God has made choices, he has always made good ones. This still makes his character perfect. Outside of being a philosophically intriguing question whether there might have been a time before God chose, it does nothing to impinge the basic thought that God's character, throughout its history, has been good. Not having a character because one has not yet chosen does not constitute the opposite claim, that one's character is bad or questionable in any way. So you still have the basic claim about God intact, however this unique perspective lands.
The idea of a "first" choice is actually quite problematic philosophically, but then again, so is the idea of an infinite set of past choices. This is just an area where philosophy runs up against bizzare walls. Kant's Critique pointed this out in his anomolies. It was part of what led him to believe Reason was not really revealing "the real", but just "the real as seen through the glasses of our cognitive faculties". I don't find that possibility a complete stretch.
But on that level, your friend is on the same ground as you philsophically.
We all have to do the best we can with the faculties we have. There probably are questions we cannot answer. But it still comes down to what makes the most sense of things, given our capabilities. I haven't heard of a theology better equipped to give sensible answers to how things seem than MGT, and it also appears to jive quite well with biblical statements.
I hope these thoughts prove helpful. Keep in touch! :-)
Kel
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 9/27/2003 6:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc
Not if one agrees that’s LOVE is a MORAL concept and that all morality is ultimate about (or at least includes) love.
Iconoclast
Love is only a moral concept to the extent that it must be chosen. If God does not need to choose love for love to be love then why say that love IS a moral concept?
It seems to me that love is only tied to morality because God gave US the free-will to choose love or not. But, God could have given us the kind of love that does not need to be chosen – then it would not be linked to morality.
Doc
Of course he didn’t HAVE to create a Creation like the one we find ourselves in. But IF HE WANTED love, he did. Now, even if you disagree about the love piece, it seems you would grant that if God wanted a universe where agents are morally responsible, he HAD to create a world with freedom. So, it seems YOU have yourself a theodicy!
Iconoclast
If love does not necessarily need to be chosen to be love then why wouldn’t God create with His kind of unchosen love?
And why does moral responsibility entail libertarian choice? Isn’t God morally responsible? Does He have libertarian choice about being morally responsible?
If God does not have libertarian choice and yet we consider Him to be morally responsible then why do we think that it entails choice for us?
I agree that God DID create us this way for some unknown reason but it cannot be said to be NECESSARY that we were created with libertarian choice for the purpose of becoming morally responsible.
“317 is a prime number” is a NECESSARY truth. It is not even conceivable that this would be different in ANY possible world.
It seems clear as a bell to me that “moral responsibility entails libertarian choice” is NOT a NECESSARY truth. Is is clearly conceivable (to everyone but me apparently) that God is morally responsible but does NOT have libertarian choice.
Now, it seems to me that Tom and Doc argue that “moral responsibility entails libertarian choice” is true for contingent beings. What I really don’t understand is why? Clearly it is not a necessary truth so it cannot be based on that idea. So what is it based on?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 9/27/2003 7:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Doc
What I can’t even conceive of, however, is beings who are eternally solidified in love who had nothing to do with their being such.
Iconoclast
Isn't God a "being?" Yet you say that you can conceive of Him as being eternally solidified in love and who had nothing to do with his being such.
So, now imagine a person who God give His loving nature to. Who God made in His "loving image". Why is this a problem. It is clearly not a necessary truth that love must be chosen so what mechanism is preventing God from replicating His loving nature into other beings? Does God not understand His loving nature well enough to give it to others? Is He not powerful enough to do so? It is certainly not a mountain / valley problem so what is the problem?
Doc
I would no more feel loved by them than I’d be inclined to attribute virtue to them if they had nothing to do with their virtuous character. I see all of them as simply extensions of God’s love to me… they are his hands, his feet, his mouth, the glove his hand animates… the wife my computer chip animates.
Iconoclast
But then why attribute virtue to God's character? God's character was just given to Him by metaphysical reality. Isn't metaphysical reality the real god here who we should be happy about? Isn't this like saying that we are really glad that "317 is a prime number" in all possible worlds?
Isn't God really operating like He has a metaphysical "chip" in Him? Isn't it His unchosen nature that is causing Him to love? Why is this praiseworthy any different than the metaphysical fact that mountains entail valleys?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
| 400 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:47 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 |
|
|