Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Love and Freedom in the Hereafter

Forum Quick Jump

400 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

selah
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210

Posted 10/4/2003 2:18 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal

About God and Explanations...

Honestly, it sickens me that people NEED these types of psychological devices to keep faith in God when people who’ve endured more pain and needless suffering in live than all of us COMBINED continue to minister in the Spirit and trust God REGARDLESS of God’s ominous silences. I’m of the mind that if you need to erect your own God to serve God , you should do yourself a favor and just not worry about it anymore. If you need a theodicy God “worth worshipping” before you can believe that the Christ-Work is worth a damn, then scrap the whole thing!

Personally, I believe we all erect our own God to some extent anyway. Don't we spend our lives seeking so that we may find the true picture of this unseen God in all areas? We imagine (see internally) everything we know about God (even the Christ-Work). Saying it out loud can't hurt since we are already "doing" it (tainted by life experience/beliefs etc.) in the way we relate to Him every day. In my opinion, no matter how difficult the subject, synergy rules (come let us reason together) because it forces us to push back our individual presuppositions and wrestle with the concept together--hopefully inching ourselves closer to the truth. By trying to bring clarity to our picture of God, even in the midst of the presence of suffering, (in my opinion) we are also trying to more easily enter into our internal picture of the reason for our hope. I don't think we could escape that--even if we wanted to.

quote:

The facts are these:

The loving Triune God has created this type of world for God’s own purposes, and interacts with this world in a loving gracious way…not the least of which is the Christ Work, where God himself DIED for Creation.

Evil exists in this world.

God is Lord of all, glorious, and worthy of all worship, love, and praise regardless.

Although I generally agree with those statements, if I think about them (sans questioning, wonder, and qualifications) I get a picture of a guy plugging his ears saying "nah nah nah nah nah I can't heaaaaaaaaaaarr you" to his own thoughts. (sorry)

quote:

We will NOT solve these problems. Deal with it. If you can’t deal, get off the friggin ship. Sheesh…

If we get off this particular friggin ship, shouldn't we also get off them all? Who can know God?

Finally Meph, I'm just thinking out loud. Much of this may have already been said (I haven't carefully read through the entire thread due to extreme time limitations) so, for what its worth, sorry about that too.

I was moved to post because of your examples of suffering as well as your own personal thoughts lately...

heartfelt blessings,
love,
selah

"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."

Scout Cloud Lee

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 10/4/2003 3:32 AM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 10/5/2003 2:31 PM (GMT -6)

Doc

Nevertheless, I agree that choice must have meaning at infinity. it cannot be an "emergent property." But the question is, "what is the scope of this choice"? You have argued that it includes whether God would exist or not, and this is where my problem arises.

Iconoclast

I think part of the disconnect we are having is in the meaning of God “existing”.

Let me agree with your notion that this primordial choice God has cannot determine whether God exists or not. Let me agree that God has always existed and that God IS an agent with a “nature”.

Now, what I want to say is that the nature of God is that He is an agent and that the nature of an agent is to have (or be) a “knower” and a “chooser”.

So,

Primordial God = agent = knower + chooser.

Thus primal reality is ONLY a singularity (God) who is an agent who has a (is a) knower and a chooser.

The knower part of God then generates possibilities. Possibilities do not exist in any sense without there being a knower of possibilities. And possibilities can never be actualized without a chooser to actualize them. The very meaning of possibility entails a knower and a chooser.

Thus Primordial God exists as pure Firstness:

Facticity = determinate agent (God) with a knower and a chooser.
Sheer Possibility = the possibilities that the knower ‘generates’ or ‘knows’.

The first and most primal possibility that God knows is the possibility of choosing to actualize possibilities. God knows that it is possible for Him to actualize possibilities or not to actualize possibilities – TO choose or NOT to choose.

It seem to me that it is conceivable that God could have never chosen to actualize ANY possibility.

Doc

You say, " It seems to me that the basic choice is first whether God chooses to actualize any of these possibilities or not – TO choose or NOT to choose." You then say, "Clearly one cannot attribute “evil” to either of these choices." But I'm not sure. If God choosing to be triune love is BETTER than Non-existence, then it seems it would be a LOSS if God chose not to choose. If nothingness existed without love, this would be a loss, wouldn't it? If not, aren't you saying that non-existence has the same value as existence, and non-love the same value has love?

Iconoclast

Value to whom? Value is a relational concept. It only has meaning in terms of a “whom” that is valuing.

Existence clearly has more value to God than non-existence BECAUSE He chose existence. It is the CHOICE that creates the value – NOT value the choice.

And again, it would be a LOSS to WHOM? To you? To me? To the guy who put a stumbling block in front of one of these little ones? Didn’t Jesus suggest that that guy would be better off to never have been born?

Doc

I can affirm that God "at infinity" chooses life and love -- himself -- BECAUSE he values existence over non-existence, love over non-love. But THIS presupposes that God ALREADY has a nature which chooses the more valuable over the less valuable. Hence, 'at infinity," God's choice and God's nature are one.

Iconoclast

If God’s choice was determined by His nature then it was not a choice.

If I value something but do not choose it do I really value it? Where is the “valuing?” Is it not in the choice itself? God’s choice IS His valuing. God’s choice creates His “nature” in the sense you are using it here as His “valuing”.

I agree that “at infinity,” God’s choice and God’s nature are one in the sense that God’s choice IS His “nature” – His “valuing.”

Doc

I'm not clear on the meaning of God having the possibility of choosing an inconsistent system. Would this be a system in which the laws of logic don't apply?

Iconoclast

Excerpt from “Modern Physics and Ancient Faith” by Stephen Barr

>>>>>>>>>>>
A system is called inconsistent if it is possible, using its rules, both to prove some proposition and to prove its contrary. For example, arithmetic would be inconsistent if we could prove both that (a = b) and that (a not= b). A system is called consistent, on the other hand, if no such contradictions can arise in it.

There is a very important fact about inconsistent formal systems: if any contradictory statements can be proven, then all contradictory statements can be proven. This may be surprising, but it actually follows from the rules of elementary logic.
…
Suppose I set up the rules of arithmetic (badly) so that I can prove that 1 = 0. Using that one inconsistency, I can prove all arithmetic statements, whether they are true or false. For example, I can prove that 13 = 7. To do that, I just take 1 = 0, and multiply both sides by 6, to get 6 = 0. Then I just add 7 to both sides to get 13 = 7.

In other words, a formal system cannot be just a little inconsistent; if it is inconsistent, it is inconsistent all the way, thoroughly, radically, completely. In an inconsistent formal system anything that can be stated in that system can be proven using its rules.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

A house divided cannot stand.

It seems to me that God also had the choice to create an inconsistent system and a consistent system.

Would Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness necessarily be the fundamental metaphysical categories in an inconsistent system?

Isn’t it really only necessary that Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness are the fundamental metaphysical categories in a consistent system?

It seems to me that Secondness and Thirdness arise from the choice TO choose to actualize possibilities within a consistent system.

Doc

You grant that God's "nature" is his "will." If you hold that God's WILL is to eternally live and love as the triune love that he is, should you not say that god's NATURE is to eternally live and love as the triune love that he is? If we say that "God at infinity" wills to be triune love, should we not say that "God's nature at infinity" is to be triune love?

Iconoclast

Sure, as long as this means that it was chosen.

Doc

And if we're talking about God's will and nature 'at infinity," is it meaningful to postulate a possibility "at infinity' that God would not choose this and be this?

Iconoclast

To me it is only meaningful to postulate a possibility “at infinity” for the purpose of being able to strongly affirm that God chooses to love us. Love must be chosen is a necessary metaphysical truth. To say that God's love does not need to be chosen is to introduce an inconsistency into the system which, in my view, if accepted would allow just about anything to be "proven." We might even start thinking that God ordained the torturing of Zosia.

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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 10/5/2003 5:49 PM (GMT -6)

It seems to me that "good" only has meaning from within a consistent system.

We can say that God clearly values a consistent system above an inconsistent system because He chose a consistent system. But we can't say that choosing a consistent system over an inconsistent system is "good" or "better" UNTIL we are within the chosen consistent system. But now, once this is chosen, once we are now in this consistent system framework we can call it "good." This is consistent with Peirce's notion that the meaning of something comes from a successive "interpretant." We can NOW say that God's choice to create a consistent system is good because it is perfectly valid to give it meaning FROM our new understanding. What is not valid is to take this interpretant and backcast it to the original choice that led to it and then judge THAT choice in terms of our successive interpretant.

I think this can be illustrated by the story of the man who bought his eldest son a horse which is a good thing. But then the son fell off his horse and broke his leg which is a bad thing. But then war broke out and the son did not have to go because he had a broken leg which is a good thing.

To take each successive interpretant and then say that the original choice of the man was therefore good or bad is a fallacious notion.

So what is "evil" within a consistent system? I would suggest that it has to do with introducing inconsistency into the system. "Evil" is seeking disharmony with the consistent system because it is seeking to establish its own inconsistent system. "Good" has to do with "fitting together" (back to Bohm).

For God to choose "evil" is to introduce an inconsistency into the consistent system that He chose. This would of course totally destroy the consistent system - it would make it utterly inconsistent - which contradicts God's choice of a consistent system.

Moreover, my suggestion is that for God to choose a consistent system IS for God to become triune. Thus, to choose "evil" would contradict what God has chosen to become. And why would God do this? We know that He is omniscient so there certainly could not be any new information related to His choice to choose a consistent system. God chose a consistent system with a complete "knowing" of what that entails. It is an eternal choice.

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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 10/5/2003 6:13 PM (GMT -6)

Quote from David Bohm:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This notion of fitting extends into all aspects of life, including even those that have been called “moral” or “ethical” and which have to do with “the good.” The word “good” is indeed derived from an Anglo-Saxon root (the same as that of “gather” and “together”) which means “to join.” And so it may be suggested that early notions of “the good” implied some kind of “fitting together” in all that man does. The fact that the Latin word “bene,” meaning “good,” and the word “bellus,” meaning “beauty,” are related in origin further confirms the suggestion that this is generally how people may have looked on such questions. Recalling that beauty means “to fit in every respect,” we could say that such a significance of “the good” is still relevant today. In other words, the good is that which fits, not only in practical function and in our feelings and aesthetic sensibilities, but also that which, by its action, leads to an ever-wider and deeper sort of fitting, in every phase of life, both for the individual and for society as a whole.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Notice that a consistent system "fits together" and is "beautiful" when it does so.

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

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 10/5/2003 11:39 PM (GMT -6)

Selah:

quote:
Personally, I believe we all erect our own God to some extent anyway. Don't we spend our lives seeking so that we may find the true picture of this unseen God in all areas? We imagine (see internally) everything we know about God (even the Christ-Work). Saying it out loud can't hurt since we are already "doing" it (tainted by life experience/beliefs etc.) in the way we relate to Him every day. In my opinion, no matter how difficult the subject, synergy rules (come let us reason together) because it forces us to push back our individual presuppositions and wrestle with the concept together--hopefully inching ourselves closer to the truth. By trying to bring clarity to our picture of God, even in the midst of the presence of suffering, (in my opinion) we are also trying to more easily enter into our internal picture of the reason for our hope. I don't think we could escape that--even if we wanted to.

‘Sup.

It seems like you are talking about forming more solid theological conceptions of God via free exchange of ideas and testimonies about experiences with God and humbly acknowledge where we may need to change our ideas, in light of those various ideas and testimonies. That’s one thing. Creating a theological framework that, in point of fact, philosophically EXCLUDES other “less worthy” frameworks on primarily IDEOLOGICAL and PRAGMATIC reasons is something entirely different. And this is what I see much theodicy as largely doing.

*******************************

Selah:

quote:
Although I generally agree with those statements, if I think about them (sans questioning, wonder, and qualifications) I get a picture of a guy plugging his ears saying "nah nah nah nah nah I can't heaaaaaaaaaaarr you" to his own thoughts. (sorry)

I would agree with you…ONLY IF we did not have knowledge of 1) God’s triune love, 2)God’s loving continual sustanance of all Creation and 3) All aspects of Jesus Christ’s Work to go on. These should be evidence ENOUGH that God loves us…and that ULTIMATELY, creating elaborate and ideologically driven theodicies (in contradiction to QUESTIONING and seeking answers about God) is a waste of time…UNLESS we are going to relativize those 3 things in light of what WE can rationally justify God doing. And THAT is exactly what theodicy tries to do…and THAT is tantamount to idolatry in many cases, in my mind.

"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

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 10/6/2003 1:07 AM (GMT -6)

Starkman:

quote:
I don't think valuing love more from a contingent being who has chosen to love is fallacy; because I'm not assuming (and I'm not using [formal] logic), I'm using intuition. You yourself can't logically prove that those unpleasantries in life you noted in your "vent" post are logically unpleasant. You just know they are, and that's why you vented--you yourself did not offer anything logical in your venting, but announced your vehemency from your own intuition that such unpleasantries are wrong or abnormal, with which I much concur. In the same way, I think anyone would agree (everyone except those few, as is generally the case with any "anyone" statement) that it's pretty hard to debate the idea that love chosen is received as more valuable and more meaningful than love that is without choice.

Knowing something intuitively does not make it false. We'd be in a world of hurt in several areas if that were the case. Granted, we may challenge the intuitiveness of someone's claim that something ought to be this or that way, but challenging a claim by postulating an alternative explanation, or not giving another explanation, doesn't disprove the intuitive claim. We know this, because we live it every day, just not perfectly. But I don't think, Meph, you can produce proof that it is arbitrary to conclude that love received by one who has chosen to love is more valuable and meaningful than love received by one who has no choice about the matter. It's not a "the love from either one is as meaningful as the other" option.

Perhaps I’m not conveying this correctly. Stark, I GRANT the power of our intuitions. I would say that we ARE wired for truth in that way and that we have good reasons to follow our intutions. One could even go so far as to say that our intuitions do point to the REALITY of an open existence with morally deliberating beings. Cool.

What one CANNOT do is use those intuitions to argue from this (which is as FAR as our intuitions can lead us!) to the reason that NECESSITATES the creation of the reality that gives us our intutions! THIS is affirming the consequent of our experience BY our experience. See what I’m saying?

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/6/2003 8:34 AM (GMT -6)

Icon: Let me agree with your notion that this primordial choice God has cannot determine whether God exists or not. Let me agree that God has always existed and that God IS an agent with a "nature".
Now, what I want to say is that the nature of God is that He is an agent and that the nature of an agent is to have (or be) a "knower" and a "chooser".
So,
Primordial God = agent = knower + chooser.
Thus primal reality is ONLY a singularity (God) who is an agent who has a (is a) knower and a chooser.
The knower part of God then generates possibilities. Possibilities do not exist in any sense without there being a knower of possibilities. And possibilities can never be actualized without a chooser to actualize them. The very meaning of possibility entails a knower and a chooser.

Doc: Two points. 1) This way of putting things makes much more sense to me than talking about God’s EXISTENCE being chosen;
2) Why think that the "knower" part of God "generates possibilities". I would think the "knower" RECOGNIZES possibilities. It was an ETERNAL FACT that it was always POSSIBLE that I’d be having this dialogue with you right here and right now. An omniscient God would know this eternal fact as possible, a temporal fact if and when it comes into being.

Icon: It seem to me that it is conceivable that God could have never chosen to actualize ANY possibility.

Doc: Except the possibility of his being a knower and chooser.

Icon: Existence clearly has more value to God than non-existence BECAUSE He chose existence. It is the CHOICE that creates the value – NOT value the choice.

Doc: The value is to GOD, and if God is an eternal knower, he would eternally know that his being a loving God has more value than being anything else. So he would be an eternal loving God.

Icon: If God’s choice was determined by His nature then it was not a choice.
Doc: Why think this? If God makes a wise choice BECAUSE he’s omniscient (an aspect of his nature), is it no longer a choice? So too, if God makes a loving choice BECAUSE he is loving (another aspect of his nature), is it no longer loving?

Icon: If I value something but do not choose it do I really value it? Where is the "valuing?" Is it not in the choice itself?

Doc: Its true that you don’t value something if you do not choose it. But it does not follow from this that you value it BECAUSE you choose it. What follows is that IF you value it you WILL choose it.

Icon: It seems to me that God also had the choice to create an inconsistent system and a consistent system.

Doc: Thanks for the nice description of an inconsistent system. But on this description, I don’t see how God could have genuinely created an inconsistent system. Such a system would entail that contradictions EXIST. And there is no meaning in asserting this possibility.

Meph: These (the cross, providence, triunity) should be evidence ENOUGH that God loves us…and that ULTIMATELY, creating elaborate and ideologically driven theodicies (in contradiction to QUESTIONING and seeking answers about God) is a waste of time…UNLESS we are going to relativize those 3 things in light of what WE can rationally justify God doing. And THAT is exactly what theodicy tries to do…and THAT is tantamount to idolatry in many cases, in my mind.

Doc: Two points.
1) How is it okay to SEEK answers but idolatry to GIVE answers?
2) How does giving answers in and of itself "relativize" the revelation of God’s love? The whole goal of theodicy, at least as I’m doing it, is to render the absoluteness of this revelation intelligible.

Meph: What one CANNOT do is use those intuitions to argue from this (which is as FAR as our intuitions can lead us!) to the reason that NECESSITATES the creation of the reality that gives us our intutions! THIS is affirming the consequent of our experience BY our experience. See what I’m saying?

Doc: If we were talking about a deductive argument, you might have a point. But if we are talking about an ABDUCTIVE argument, you don’t. We want to postulate a state of affairs that renders our world intelligible. Calling on fundamental intuitions about the nature of things is not only legitimate, but absolutely necessary, to accomplish this. What you’re objecting to, Meph, is the abductive process itself. Yet, every advance in human understanding has this process at its root. It seems to me that your basically saying that our rational capacities and drives must be called off when it comes to theology!

One final point: Meph, still waiting, with bated breath. What WOULD you say to the Calvinist who uses your line of reasoning (or non-reasoning) to affirm that Zosia’s torture was ordained by God, as was her eternal torment in hell? The Calvinist affirms that God has his reasons for such things – as you to with God taking risks in creation – yet says we can’t speculate about what these reasons are. But, they ARE ultimately "for his glory."

Talk to me bro.

Doc

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 10/6/2003 4:17 PM (GMT -6)

Doc

Why think that the "knower" part of God "generates possibilities". I would think the "knower" RECOGNIZES possibilities.

Iconoclast

My suggestion is that “possibilities” without a “knower” is like a mountain without a valley. “Generates possibilities” is probably not a good way to express this.

Doc

Icon: It seem to me that it is conceivable that God could have never chosen to actualize ANY possibility.

Doc: Except the possibility of his being a knower and chooser.

Iconoclast

My suggestion is that God (as a knower and a chooser) is THE determinate and thus never a possibility to be actualized. God is THE determinate from which all other possibilities can be actualized. And that there is no necessity to any possibilities actually being actualized.

Doc

Icon: Existence clearly has more value to God than non-existence BECAUSE He chose existence. It is the CHOICE that creates the value – NOT value the choice.

Doc: The value is to GOD, and if God is an eternal knower, he would eternally know that his being a loving God has more value than being anything else. So he would be an eternal loving God.

Iconoclast

The question is does God’s “value” FULLY DETERMINE His choice or does God’s choice actualize and thus determine (make determinate) God’s “value”.

Because we are talking in the realm of “at infinity” God’s knower “has” eternally known that He “values” being a loving God and God’s eternal choice “has” eternally (and freely) chosen to actualize this possibility. Thus, God is an eternally loving God AND He has eternally chosen this. Eternal love entails eternal choice.

Doc

Icon: If God’s choice was determined by His nature then it was not a choice.

Doc: Why think this? If God makes a wise choice BECAUSE he’s omniscient (an aspect of his nature), is it no longer a choice? So too, if God makes a loving choice BECAUSE he is loving (another aspect of his nature), is it no longer loving?

Iconoclast

What do you mean by “because?” If “because” means that God’s choice is FULLY DETERMINED by His omniscience then no it is not a choice.

When I say “determined” I mean fully determined.

In my view “God being loving” MEANS that He consistently (always) chooses to love.

If a person consistently chooses X we say that they have a character of X. If a person is born with X we do not say that they have a character of X.

Someone can be born blind. But blindness is never a character issue. We do not say that someone has a blind character. Character has to do with choice.

Doc

But on this description, I don’t see how God could have genuinely created an inconsistent system. Such a system would entail that contradictions EXIST. And there is no meaning in asserting this possibility.

Iconoclast

From a consistent system isn’t the meaning that contradictions exist really just the death of all meaning? Aren’t you presupposing that existence entails meaning? If so, I agree with this and this is why my suggestion is that for God to NOT choose OR to create an inconsistent system is equivalent to a sort of “non-existence” or “eternal death” (“eternal death” from the perspective of a consistent system).

In other words I am suggesting that our very notion of “existence” is predicated upon being within a consistent system. We think that “non-existence” must mean the total absence of EVERTHING but my suggestion is that “non-existence” really means the absence of a consistent system. What this MEANS is not really conceivable for us because the lack of a consistent system removes our very notion of meaning itself. Thus, it is a wall that we cannot really get behind with our reason except to point to it as a sort of “eternal death” or “lake of fire” or some such thing.

My thought here is that “good” is to choose to participate in God’s consistent system which entails choosing to love which is the ultimate meaning of a consistent system. Where as choosing NOT to love is to really seek to be the creator of our own system – to have the “system” be defined by us and thus be our own god. The problem is that to do so actually creates an inconsistent system for US which results in this sort of “non-existence” or “eternal death.” It is to be an eternal will within a zero-meaning system.

Is this conceivable to us? Yes and no. No because we are trying to use “meaning” to make meaning of something that is the absence of “meaning.” Yes, because we have all experienced despair in our lives to some extent or another. Despair is when we cannot find any meaning.

A young man went to the great teacher to ask him, “wherein lies my purpose?” The teacher replied, “look around you, find the need - therein lies your purpose.”

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

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 10/7/2003 6:41 AM (GMT -6)

I’m trying to get to everything. I’ll start with this:

Doc:

quote:
One final point: Meph, still waiting, with bated breath. What WOULD you say to the Calvinist who uses your line of reasoning (or non-reasoning) to affirm that Zosia’s torture was ordained by God, as was her eternal torment in hell? The Calvinist affirms that God has his reasons for such things – as you to with God taking risks in creation – yet says we can’t speculate about what these reasons are. But, they ARE ultimately "for his glory."

First of all, I’d be quite honest about something, because hopefully a sensible Calvinist would already know a considerable amount about the warfare worldview. Given the nature of the warfare worldview, I cannot say that Zosia’s torture was DEFINITELY not ordained by God, even short term. Remember that Zosia’s torture could possibly be one of those “sacrificing the rook for the queen” moments. As I have stated over and over, it is possible that certain occasions of pain, suffering, and whatnot could be “acceptable losses” to God that play into redemptive situations in a larger sphere of which we are not aware. Since that is a bonafide possibility, I couldn’t say anything against that particular aspect, except to say that Zosia’s torture would 1) NEVER be enjoyed by God and that it would 2) NEVER mean that God didn’t love Zosia. God doesn’t take “glory” in pain and suffering for its own sake or for mere amusement. The Calvinist would probably say the same thing.

As far as her being eternally tormented in hell. I couldn’t argue against this possibility philosophically. I’d have to do so on other grounds.

Is this what you wanted?

*********************************

quote:
Meph: What one CANNOT do is use those intuitions to argue from this (which is as FAR as our intuitions can lead us!) to the reason that NECESSITATES the creation of the reality that gives us our intutions! THIS is affirming the consequent of our experience BY our experience. See what I’m saying?

Doc: If we were talking about a deductive argument, you might have a point. But if we are talking about an ABDUCTIVE argument, you don’t. We want to postulate a state of affairs that renders our world intelligible. Calling on fundamental intuitions about the nature of things is not only legitimate, but absolutely necessary, to accomplish this. What you’re objecting to, Meph, is the abductive process itself. Yet, every advance in human understanding has this process at its root. It seems to me that your basically saying that our rational capacities and drives must be called off when it comes to theology!

My problem is not with the process of abduction. My problem is that your abductive argument is based on ideological bias! Part of the “intelligibility” that you are looking for is answering the question WHY God created an open Creation with morally deliberating sentient beings…if it is true that God didn’t HAVE to. It is unintelligible to YOU why God would create an open Creation with morally deliberating beings, all the while KNOWING the ramifications and risks of such a decision. And YOU feel the need to know this, for some reason. If it weren’t for this, your abductive process would not LEAD to what you say necessarily!

What you want to do is take our intuitive notions about the “genuineness” of agent action that comes DIRECTLY from our experience of our universe…and say that this DIRECTLY translates to metaphysical truth in that even GOD must feel the same way. But it’s quite obvious that the ONLY reason that you do this is because it’s the ONLY way to answer the “WHY” question the way you want it answered.

And so, I thought about it. Why in the WORLD is Doc so latched onto this PARTICULAR why question? What is the ultimate benefit? And that became quite clear. To allow God THIS particular “why” question would philosophically allow for CALVINISTS to have THEIR own “why” questions to be attributed to divine wisdom. And you just couldn’t have THAT, now could you Doc? Big Smile

By using the abductive method to answer the “why did God create an open Creation with morally deliberating sentient beings” with a METAPHYSICAL answer…you philosophically knocked Calvinism out of the box even as a possibility.

So, you see, Doc. I don’t have a problem with the abductive method as much as I have a problem with the way that it’s being used in your case. It appears that there is no DEDUCTIVE way (given your view of God’s essential existence and the nature of sentient, contingent beings) that you can argue for a METAPHYSICAL answer against Calvinism. So you go the abductive route for generating this metaphysical answer, based on our experience. But THIS shows how ideologically driven this whole thing really IS. I feel like you’re saying…

There must be NO PHILOSOPHICAL LEEWAY for Calvinism to be theologically justifiable. Thus, it’s better to ABDUCT a metaphysical law “solution” that explains how there is no philosophical leeway for Calvinism…than to not have such a “solution”

That’s what it SEEMS like to me. Like you take the old slippery slope, give-them-an-inch-they’ll-take-a-mile type of thought. And this troubles you. If it’s NOT this way, please show me how.

Nuff for right now.

Evil

Tiggers
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219

Posted 10/8/2003 7:07 AM (GMT -6)

Hey Meph,

You assert, “you cannot say that Zosia’s torture was DEFINITELY not ordained by God, even short term. Remember that Zosia’s torture could possibly be one of those ‘sacrificing the rook for the queen’ moments… Zosia’s torture would 1) NEVER be enjoyed by God and that it would 2) NEVER mean that God didn’t love Zosia. God doesn’t take “glory” in pain and suffering for its own sake or for mere amusement.”

Ok, let’s say that this was one of those “sacrificing the queen moments” with still holding to the warfare theodicy (i.e. all the theodicy holds with regards to the solution). Couldn’t God’s omnipotence have been self limited in order to allow for libertarian free will; thus, this seems to be qualifying enough for God’s not wanting this event to happen at all, thus, not ordaining it. It seems different to say (as Calvinist) that God ordained and planed for this atrocity to happen to bring out a greater good, than as an open warfare theist might say, that God may have, at best, sacrificed the queen for the greater good. You see, in a Calvinist framework God ordains/determines (I understand this as Hasker’s defined as the “prior cause” being a sufficient condition for the “proximate cause” in his Metaphysics), and in a warfare stance God’s self limited power she/he had to allow for it to happen. You see, if God’s power is not limited, as the Calvinist posits, I don’t see why in the world God uses evils (e.g. Zosia’s torment) as a means to such higher goods Evil

! To this end, I concur with Mackie, that is, “it is incompatible with the doctrine that he [God] is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie, The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God).

Meph asserts,
Thus, it’s better to ABDUCT a metaphysical law “solution” that explains how there is no philosophical leeway for Calvinism…than to not have such a “solution”

Tigger’s reply,
But what if the warfare theodicy solution is correct?

Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers

“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie).

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/9/2003 6:32 AM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast: My suggestion is that "possibilities" without a "knower" is like a mountain without a valley. "Generates possibilities" is probably not a good way to express this.

Doc: I’m in agreement with you here. This is a form of the ‘epistemic argument" for God’s existence. And I agree that "generates possibilities" isn’t a good way to express this relationship between knower and possibilities. God simply KNOWS them.

Icon: My suggestion is that God (as a knower and a chooser) is THE determinate and thus never a possibility to be actualized. God is THE determinate from which all other possibilities can be actualized. And that there is no necessity to any possibilities actually being actualized.

Doc: So, if I’m understanding you correctly, you’re agreeing that God as knower and chooser is not a possibility to be actualized. If so, then do you agree that God as knower and chooser is an eternal actuality? (What else could he be?). If so, I am much less confused with your position than I was when you were speaking of God choosing whether he’d "exist" or not.

Icon: If a person consistently chooses X we say that they have a character of X. If a person is born with X we do not say that they have a character of X.

Doc: I don’t think its quite this clear cut. PART of our character is GIVEN to us, is it not? Some people are BORN with at least a strong tendency toward a sweet or ornery character. Now, of course, our free choices bend this predisposition in various ways. But I can’t agree that we ONLY apply "character" to self-chosen aspects. Its just that we can’t attribute moral culpability to those aspects that weren’t chosen. (But, because we are not omniscient, we can never know with any certain what aspects ARE and ARE NOT chosen… hence the commandment not to judge.)

Icon: I am suggesting that our very notion of "existence" is predicated upon being within a consistent system. We think that "non-existence" must mean the total absence of EVERTHING but my suggestion is that "non-existence" really means the absence of a consistent system. What this MEANS is not really conceivable for us because the lack of a consistent system removes our very notion of meaning itself. Thus, it is a wall that we cannot really get behind with our reason except to point to it as a sort of "eternal death" or "lake of fire" or some such thing.

Doc: DAS NICHTEGE?

Icon: My thought here is that "good" is to choose to participate in God’s consistent system which entails choosing to love which is the ultimate meaning of a consistent system. Where as choosing NOT to love is to really seek to be the creator of our own system – to have the "system" be defined by us and thus be our own god. The problem is that to do so actually creates an inconsistent system for US which results in this sort of "non-existence" or "eternal death." It is to be an eternal will within a zero-meaning system.

Doc: DAS NICHTEGE!

Meph: My problem is that your abductive argument is based on ideological bias! …. What you want to do is take our intuitive notions about the "genuineness" of agent action that comes DIRECTLY from our experience of our universe…and say that this DIRECTLY translates to metaphysical truth in that even GOD must feel the same way. But it’s quite obvious that the ONLY reason that you do this is because it’s the ONLY way to answer the "WHY" question the way you want it answered.

Doc: Wrongo bucko. I don’t CONCLUDE that love must be chosen BECAUSE it’s the only way to answer the question as to why God made us free. I take the intuition that genuine love for humans must be chosen as fundamental. I then take this as the clue as to why God gave us free will. Now, one of the confirmations that love must be chosen is that it renders intelligible the fact that God made us free choosers.

Meph: I thought about it. Why in the WORLD is Doc so latched onto this PARTICULAR why question? What is the ultimate benefit? And that became quite clear. To allow God THIS particular "why" question would philosophically allow for CALVINISTS to have THEIR own "why" questions to be attributed to divine wisdom. And you just couldn’t have THAT, now could you Doc?

Doc: Dude, like I’m going to construct an entire metaphysical system simply to refute the Calvinists! It’s a wee bit deeper than that, I hope! I’m trying to reconcile the horror of this world with the vision of God given in Jesus Christ. True, I believe that unless there are wills other than God that have "say-so" in the world, no reconciliation is possible. And true, I therefore think that any view that construes all the horrors of the world as aspects of GOD’S will is unsuccessful in reconciling the God revealed in Christ with the horrors of the world. So, yes, in this sense, my proposition is against the Calvinist perspective. But it hardly follows from this that I CAME UP WITH the idea that love must be chosen simply to refute Calvinism!

later

Greg

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 10/9/2003 11:09 AM (GMT -6)

Doc:

quote:
Dude, like I’m going to construct an entire metaphysical system simply to refute the Calvinists! It’s a wee bit deeper than that, I hope! I’m trying to reconcile the horror of this world with the vision of God given in Jesus Christ. True, I believe that unless there are wills other than God that have "say-so" in the world, no reconciliation is possible. And true, I therefore think that any view that construes all the horrors of the world as aspects of GOD’S will is unsuccessful in reconciling the God revealed in Christ with the horrors of the world. So, yes, in this sense, my proposition is against the Calvinist perspective. But it hardly follows from this that I CAME UP WITH the idea that love must be chosen simply to refute Calvinism!

I didn’t say that your ENTIRE THEODICY (or TWT 1 in said theodicy) is an attempt to refute Calvinism. I’m saying that your ABDUCTIVE, ad hoc attempt to keep TWT 1 afloat after the failure of the Tatian argument to stand up to scrutiny seems LARGELY based upon your aversion to Calvinism. Read some of your posts. You’re definitely not doing it on any METAPHYSICAL or LOGICAL grounds.

********************************

Doc:

quote:
I don’t CONCLUDE that love must be chosen BECAUSE it’s the only way to answer the question as to why God made us free. I take the intuition that genuine love for humans must be chosen as fundamental. I then take this as the clue as to why God gave us free will. Now, one of the confirmations that love must be chosen is that it renders intelligible the fact that God made us free choosers.

From Doc’s earlier post on page 18 of this thread. Read carefully…

-------------------
Okay, Meph is absolutely right in flushing out the implications of TWT1 going down. Indeed, I think its much worse than the picture he painted. If TWT 1 goes down, then not only are we no longer able to render intelligible why God made us FREE (hence why he made a world where evil was possible), we also are no longer able to offer a philosophical reply to those who would say God didn't make us free and did make a world where evil was certain.

…

Alternatively, one might reason something like this:
Since I know God in JC,
and since I know God has a perfect love for everyone,
and since I know God is perfectly good,
and since I see in Scripture and experience that God doesn't always get his way,
and since I see in Scripture and experience that God detests evil,
and since I see in Jesus' ministry that God is against suffering,
and since I see in Scripture and experience that agents are FREE
and since I am given and reason which is wired to try to make sense out of reality,

THERE must be a metaphysical reason why God created THIS kind of a world....

and (I humbly submit) the best reason on the table so far is that love for created beings requires choice. Its intuitively true (see the microchip analogy) if not logically true (the necessary/contingent argument).

In other words, we can work at this problem from one of two directions.

We can go DEDUCTIVELY where we first try to establish the premise of what "love itself" is (for both God and us) and then deduce the implications ---viz. that there is no theodicy.

Or, we can go at this ABDUCTIVELY where we take a puzzling piece of data (the risk of evil in the world) and postulate a state of affairs which, if true, explain the piece of data.

The main argument for the plausibility of the postulated state of affairs is how well it explains the data. I submit that the TWT 1 (and the five postulates that follow from it in SPE) explain the data. And this itself is an argument favoring their plausibility. Meph's counterproposal rejects TWT 1 but results in explaining nothing.

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

By your arguing the way you do above, you ARE saying that it is the only way plausible to you answer the question as to why God made us free. How can you deny this?

Evil

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/13/2003 5:51 AM (GMT -6)

Meph: I didn’t say that your ENTIRE THEODICY (or TWT 1 in said theodicy) is an attempt to refute Calvinism. I’m saying that your ABDUCTIVE, ad hoc attempt to keep TWT 1 afloat after the failure of the Tatian argument to stand up to scrutiny seems LARGELY based upon your aversion to Calvinism.

Doc: a) My "abductive" approach is only ad hoc if all abductive reasoning is ad hoc, and I don't think you want to argue that.

b) I don't concede the "failure" of Tatian's argument, if you mean by "Tatian's argument" the argument that there's a contradiction in affirming that contingent beings could love or be morally responsible NECESSARILY. You agree with Tatian on moral responsibility, but not on love. Which leads me to the conclusion that our disagreement really isn't about Tatian's argument as such, but on our understanding of the nature of love. My contention is that love for contingent beings is the essence of our moral responsibility. Love must be chosen for the same reason that virtue must be chosen -- for love is the supreme virtue. And

c) this isn't constructed as an ad hoc attempt to avoid Calvinism. Its abducted as an abductive attempt to make sense out of reality (viz. why God made us free and risky). Now, insofar as I recard Calvinism to embody THE PROBLEM needing explaining rather than a solution to the problem, its true to say that my line of thought has "an aversion" to Calvinism. But its not a personal thing against Calvinism. I feel the same way about any theological system that intensifies rather than solves the problem of evil.

cabesh? Evil

Meph: By your arguing the way you do above, you ARE saying that it is the only way plausible to you answer the question as to why God made us free. How can you deny this?

Doc: Why would I deny this? Do you think I'd strive for an implausible way of answer the question as to why God made us free? Of course I'm looking for a plausible answer!

And I've found it

in TWT1. Smile

love and kisses

Doc

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 10/14/2003 6:05 AM (GMT -6)

Doc:

quote:
I don't concede the "failure" of Tatian's argument, if you mean by "Tatian's argument" the argument that there's a contradiction in affirming that contingent beings could love or be morally responsible NECESSARILY. You agree with Tatian on moral responsibility, but not on love. Which leads me to the conclusion that our disagreement really isn't about Tatian's argument as such, but on our understanding of the nature of love. My contention is that love for contingent beings is the essence of our moral responsibility. Love must be chosen for the same reason that virtue must be chosen -- for love is the supreme virtue.

Then what about GOD? You would want to say that God is supremely virtuous…even though God cannot choose whether or not to love. THAT’s where things keep breaking down. Tatian’s argument centers on two things: 1)He thought it was NOT conceivable that a contingent being could be UNCHANGABLE with respect to moral goodness and be considered a truly CONTINGENT being. This was Tatian’s smuggled assumption:

Moral virtue is the one aspect that must be changeable in order for human beings to be “contingent” in a developmental sense.

Not only does “virtuosity” hang in the balance, but also the very CONTINGENCY of the created being. But this doesn’t work. First of all, we’ve already seen how having a sentient, created being with an unchangably loving nature would NOT negate it’s contingency, either ontologically or developmentally. Morever, a being being “virtuous” does NOT rely on there having moral deliberation…before GOD doesn’t have moral deliberation. According to your view, Doc, God CANNOT be a morally reponsible being. God can be and is a MORAL being. I’m been saying that contingent beings are not METAPHYSICALLY BOUND to being morally responsible beings. They can be MORAL beings just like God. The necessary/contingent thing doesn’t work for this.

*************************

The reason that I say that I think your use of abduction is ad hoc is because it seems to me to be PRETTY OBVIOUS that there is no METAPHYSICAL or LOGICAL reason that TWT 1 obtains. And you seem to be saying that this doesn’t matter. That we should just ABDUCT TWT 1 being a metaphysical reality BECAUSE it is the more plausible answer to the question of WHY God created such a risky world. But this isn’t how you started off. In SATPOE, you relied mainly on 1) Tatian’s argument and 2) our experience. You didn’t rely on abduction PRIMARILY. But I felt that since both of these things have been seen to be more problematic, that now you DO work on abduction primarily.

Evil

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 10/14/2003 9:03 AM (GMT -6)

This application, worked backwards, can serve as a sandbar-buoy:

quote:
The Freedom to be Formed and Transformed

Much of contemporary evangelism has also been premised (unconsciously of course) on false Enlightenment assumptions. The notion that we each must make a single untrammeled individual decision to accept Jesus as Savior and then follow him as Lord ignores the traditional Christian conception of freedom. Virtually the whole Christian tradition has iterated, with relentless consistency, that to be free is not to make autonomous choices akin to purchasing an automobile or joining a civic club. To be free is to conform our lives to the will and way of God. And while this freedom may begin with a sudden conversion, it cannot be sustained apart from a lifelong participation in the communal life of the people of God. To do evil, by contrast, is the really solitary and autonomous act. It is not to exercise freedom, but to abandon the life of the self-giving love of God for our own idolatrous purposes.

The choices that matter most, it follows, are not blithely unfettered but blessedly encumbered. Decisions that form our character are laden with aims and attachments that we have not chosen for ourselves; they have been graciously given to us. We are called to respond gladly to the gifts we have so generously received, from our parents and communities, from our friends and neighbors, from our schools and nation—but supremely from the self-giving God of Israel, Jesus Christ, and the church.

The Enlightenment idea of the independent, all-sovereign self therefore contravenes the fundamental Christian conviction that we are covenantal rather than contractual creatures. The triune God has revealed himself to be a community of persons who has pledged to bring us into his own life through the communal life of his people. There is thus no such thing as a solitary Christian having a purely private relation to Jesus Christ, but then joining with other Christians only for the sake of worship, missions, and other common purposes. To be "in Christ," as Paul endlessly emphasizes, is to be permanently transformed by our life in the Body of Christ called the church.

This individualist conception of Christian existence has devastated our academic life, stanching all attempts to unify the disciplines within a common discourse. The call for such dialogical unity is dismissed as authoritarian, while teaching and learning are conceived in descriptive and supposedly neutral terms. Professors "objectively" disseminate information from their various disciplines, students personally collect and perhaps even assimilate it, and then they make up their own minds about its possible bearing on their personal lives. Our unwitting aim becomes the making of our students into good consumers. Gone almost entirely is the communal idea of education—shared by Greeks and Romans, by Jews and Christians alike—as a moral and religious exercise in the formation of character.

Baylor Reaps the Enlightenment Whirlwind
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/140/21.0.html

The definition you choose for what constitutes Freedom matters exponenditally. A false definition of human freedom slowly creeps back into the creation of a definition of who/what God is -- making him not even in our image, but in the image we make of ourselves for ourselves.

I'm not pointing fingers; just pointing our an ever present danger for Evangelicals!

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/14/2003 3:29 PM (GMT -6)

Meph: Then what about GOD? You would want to say that God is supremely virtuous…even though God cannot choose whether or not to love.

Doc: God is not in his essential nature A CONTINGENT BEING. I don't believe he chooses to be God and thus is to be regarded as virtuous for being God. Hence I say "FOR CONTINGENT BEINGS." Insofar as God's love is unnecessary -- e.g. his gracious love for sinners -- he DOES choose this in a libertarian fashion. (This goes as far as as Trinity and Process/)

Meph: Tatian’s argument [presupposes that] Moral virtue is the one aspect that must be changeable in order for human beings to be “contingent” in a developmental sense.

Doc: Yes, BY DEFINITION. If humans are contingent in a morally significant "developmental sense," their moral character cannot be BUILT INTO THEM in a necessary fashion. DUDE, how can you not see this?

Meph: Not only does “virtuosity” hang in the balance, but also the very CONTINGENCY of the created being.

Doc: No, you could have genuine contingent beings who had a necessary perfect character -- but there would be nothing "virtuous" about them. Their "virtue" would be given to them. The virtuous acts they did would reflect the virtue of the one who made them virtuous, not their own virtue. The "virtue" of their acts would not reflect anything ABOUT THEM. THEY didn't originate it. Unlike God, THEIR CHARACTER WAS GIVEN TO THEM. And THAT is the problem. Unless WE ORIGINATE the act, the act doesn't reflect the virtue of OUR choices.

Meph: we’ve already seen how having a sentient, created being with an unchangably loving nature would NOT negate it’s contingency, either ontologically or developmentally.

Doc: They could be contigent in all respects save this one: they necessarily love. But this means their LOVE is not THEIR love: they just contingently express GOD'S love, God's virtue, God's character. They would be mere contingent conduits by which God expresses who GOD is. Hence God would not be loved BY THEM. They would simply be another means by which God loves himself (recall my wife analogy) and by which God loves others. If God wants PERSONAL BEINGS who LOVE him in a way that is not simply he loving himself (he already has THAT in the Trinity), then he must create them ORIGINATORS of love and virtue.

DUDE, HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS??? You're monster smart.!!!! Come on. Big Smile

You see it, don't you?

Meph: Morever, a being being “virtuous” does NOT rely on there having moral deliberation…GOD doesn’t have moral deliberation. According to your view, Doc, God CANNOT be a morally reponsible being.

Doc: God's SElF-DEFINING LOVE requires no virtue or moral deliberation. True. So, God isn't to be regarded as being virtuous FOR BEING GOD. But he IS to be regarded as virtuous for his CHOOSING to love when he didn't have to -- e.g. his "unnecessary" grace toward us. THIS IS CONTINGENT. He didn't HAVE to create the world or die on Calvary to be the God he is.

Meph: I’m been saying [tight'n up the grammer good bud Wink

-- like I should talk!] that contingent beings are not METAPHYSICALLY BOUND to being morally responsible beings. They can be MORAL beings just like God. The necessary/contingent thing doesn’t work for this.

Doc: I agree that contingent beings are not "metaphysically bound" to be morally responsible beings. God could create any type of contingent beings he wanted. But IF HE WANTS TO CREATE MORALLY RESPONSIBLE beings, he HAS to create them FREE... free to be moral or not. NOW, I grant that God could have created beings who reflect HIS character necessary, and in a trivial sense they'd be morally "good" -- they would, like God, contrast with all possible (hypothetical) "bad" beings. But THEY WOULD NOT BE VIRTUOUS for being as God made them to be. They are only virtuous if THEY distinquish themselves as good WHEN THEY COULD have been bad. (So loving vs. unloving).

Meph: The reason that I say that I think your use of abduction is ad hoc is because it seems to me to be PRETTY OBVIOUS that there is no METAPHYSICAL or LOGICAL reason that TWT 1 obtains.

Doc: It seems to me PRETTY OBVIOUS that there is a metaphysical and logical reason that TWTI pertains. Viking

Meph: And you seem to be saying that this doesn’t matter. That we should just ABDUCT TWT 1 being a metaphysical reality BECAUSE it is the more plausible answer to the question of WHY God created such a risky world.

Doc: It does matter. But you can come at this logic and experience and/or from the plausibility abductive argument. If something is true, ALL lines of reasoning should point to it. The logical and metaphysical considerations argue for the plausibility, and the plausibility argument argue for the logical and metaphysical. Which one gets emphasized in any moment depends on what a particular individual is having trouble with. IN our case, you ain't gett'n the logical/metaphysical shtick, so I'll leverage the plausibility/abductive deal.

Meph: But this isn’t how you started off. In SATPOE, you relied mainly on 1) Tatian’s argument and 2) our experience. You didn’t rely on abduction PRIMARILY.

Doc: My good friend, read the INTRODUCTION. I postulated that all six theses are an atttempt AT ABDUCTIVE REASONING. Bandit

Meph: But I felt that since both of these things have been seen to be more problematic, that now you DO work on abduction primarily.

Doc: They are "more problematic" TO YOU, so I have appealed to the ABDUCTIVE dimension primarily.

You getting my drift here? You crazy smart friend, but you have a stronghold of demonic blindness in this area that I right now REBUKE in Jesus name! just having fun with you

love ya like crazy

Greg

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 10/15/2003 5:13 AM (GMT -6)

Doc:

quote:
Meph: we’ve already seen how having a sentient, created being with an unchangably loving nature would NOT negate it’s contingency, either ontologically or developmentally.

Doc: They could be contigent in all respects save this one: they necessarily love. But this means their LOVE is not THEIR love: they just contingently express GOD'S love, God's virtue, God's character. They would be mere contingent conduits by which God expresses who GOD is. Hence God would not be loved BY THEM. They would simply be another means by which God loves himself (recall my wife analogy) and by which God loves others. If God wants PERSONAL BEINGS who LOVE him in a way that is not simply he loving himself (he already has THAT in the Trinity), then he must create them ORIGINATORS of love and virtue.

This was on the Prism thread too.

I would agree that IF God wanted an open Creation where OTHER ORIGINATING SOURCES OF LOVE besides Godself existed, then morally deliberating sentient beings would have exist.

But that’s the issue. WHY would God want this? If God were so FULLY SATISFIED with Godself that Creation really WAS a contingent expression of God’s love that God could have done without…then WHY would it be so darn IMPORTANT for God to have other originating sources of love. God sure seemed to enjoy God’s OWN unchangably loving interactions just fine. Why think that it would be NECESSARY for God to want something diffferent from Creation?????

Moreover, this just shows that TWT 1 is a metaphysical OUTCOME of God making the CHOICE to create an open Creation where OTHER originating sources of love exist. TWT 1 does NOT determine the ONLY WAY that God could create sentient, contingent creatures in ANY POSSIBLE WORLD. That’s extremely important.

As I asked on the other thread, you have to explain WHY God would want other originating sources of love…all the while knowing that…

1) Creation was NOT necessary
2) Creation of morally deliberating sentient beings was NOT necessary
3) Sin and evil were INEVITABLE ramifications of creating morally deliberating sentient beings.
4) There were IMMENSE possibilities of death, destruction, and mayhem that could happen because of #3

I would wager that the only answer that you would be able to come up with is the one that ALL greater good people do: God’s made this wise choice and it was “worth it” to God, all things considered!

In this, you would be NO DIFFERENT from the Calvinist.

Your view of God drives this problem, Doc. Once you say that God can accept UNCHOSEN love as being genuine, then all bets are off. And the triune love is UNCHOSEN. And since there is no solid metaphysical reason that God couldn’t create unchanably loving sentient, contingent beings, there is NO REASON to think that God wouldn’t accept their UNCHOSEN love as genuine too!

I got you, Doc. Betta admit it. Say uncle. Big Smile

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 10/15/2003 7:08 AM (GMT -6)

Meph: I would agree that IF God wanted an open Creation where OTHER ORIGINATING SOURCES OF LOVE besides Godself existed, then morally deliberating sentient beings would have exist.

But that’s the issue. WHY would God want this? If God were so FULLY SATISFIED with Godself that Creation really WAS a contingent expression of God’s love that God could have done without…then WHY would it be so darn IMPORTANT for God to have other originating sources of love.

Starkman Perhaps the issue isn't just why is it so important to God--as if God is the only one or thing that can be of interest here--to have other originating sources of love; it might be, in view of the high value of being able to orginate love, that God finds it important that a sentient being have the ability to choose to love or not to love. This is the only way God (other than within His Trinitarian essence) is going to receive love in the same way He loves; the created must be able to choose to love.

So, it's not just a God-centered issue; it's a God-in-relationship-with anything-else-but-Himself issue. I trust that God values the love He is able to choose to demonstrate. I trust, too, that God values reciprocal love demonstrated to Him out of choice. God doesn't "need" this, but He probably thinks it's the most butt-kickin' value and treasure He can give a creation, if, that is, He wants both Himself and His creation to have a the most valuable kind of relationship there can be: love expressed to another by choice. So God says, "I gotta share this treasure with my creation."

I can't see anymore need of an explanation than this in regard to why God created us with the ability to choose to love in order to justify God having created us the way we are without resorting to it being a mystery or unexplained. And in view of the need for a creation to be able to love by choice in order to reciprocate God's choosing to love us, I can't see how this explanation doesn't satisfy the question in general.

Starkman

markporter
Fire over Oxford

Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263

Posted 10/29/2003 2:31 AM (GMT -6)

Right, I have only read the first half of this discussion, so what I'm going to say may have already been dealt with, I just don't have the time to read the next 10 pages now.

My personal view is that personhood requires libertarian freedom. It is also my view that God cannot choose not to love. Why? because for him to choose not to would involve a contradiction, something like me choosing not to think my thoughts.

anti-love (I think I heard the term earlier in the thread) in my opinion is the choice to put oneself above others. Inside the Trinity, I don't think that this possibility arises, why? Because each member's being is grounded in the others through its grounding them. It is only through giving to the others that it's own self is there. So if the father chooses to put himself first, it must be done through choosing to give to the son and holy spirit.

I suspect my wording of this is somewhat vague and dodgy, I'm a music student, not a philosopher, but perhaps Greg or someone could grab hold of the idea and make something of it.

markporter
Fire over Oxford

Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263

Posted 10/29/2003 2:57 AM (GMT -6)

perhaps another way of defining love could be as giving. If each of the members of the Trinity necessarily gives the others the ground of their existence then that is giving. If God creates, then that is giving. What can give that is not just giving back? A free choice.

Now, I'm not sure if I like this argument and I'm not sure whether it sits alongside what I just said, but it occured to me, so I thought I should post it.

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 10/30/2003 8:06 PM (GMT -6)

Meph: I would wager that the only answer that you would be able to come up with is the one that ALL greater good people do: God’s made this wise choice and it was "worth it" to God, all things considered! In this, you would be NO DIFFERENT from the Calvinist.

Doc: Not all "greater good" defenses are equal. Here’s one way they’re not. Calvinist must say that each and every evil contributes to a greater good. The Open/ Warfare view does not. God gave us free will because it was worth it. But having said THAT, we don’t have to look for divine reasons behind evil creaturely actions. This is hardly "no different from the Calvinists.

Starkman: This is the only way God (other than within His Trinitarian essence) is going to receive love in the same way He loves; the created must be able to choose to love….I can't see anymore need of an explanation than this in regard to why God created us with the ability to choose to love in order to justify God having created us the way we are without resorting to it being a mystery or unexplained. And in view of the need for a creation to be able to love by choice in order to reciprocate God's choosing to love us, I can't see how this explanation doesn't satisfy the question in general.

Doc: Starky slam dunks it!

MarkPorter: What can give that is not just giving back? A free choice.

Doc: Welcome to the site Mark. Great point. If God determines the love we have, he is simply repeating what you already has. If he wants to "expand" , as it were, the loving community – and this is "worth" creating – then he HAS to give free choice.

Doc

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

markporter
Fire over Oxford

Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263

Posted 10/30/2003 9:46 PM (GMT -6)

Another thing which occured to me whilst reading the early posts was that Iconoclast made the choice life vs death, existence vs non-existence. I don't think that this is what the choice is, I think that the choice is self vs. others. and in the case of the Trinity, these two choices are identical since the self of any one member is entirely dependent on it's love for the others.

In our case the choices aren't identical, and the choice for self cannot be removed without adding something that is not us to the way in which we make decisions, effectively removing our personhood from that aspect of our lives.

markporter
Fire over Oxford

Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263

Posted 10/31/2003 2:55 AM (GMT -6)

A little analogy to go with my post.....say that you had a choice either to go to a friend's house, or to go to your home, to force you to do one rather than the other would be a restriction of your freedom. However, if your friend happened to live at the same house as you then there is no choice, but your freedom is in no way restricted.

markporter
Fire over Oxford

Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263

Posted 11/3/2003 8:29 AM (GMT -6)

Another way of looking at it, is that the lack of love is taking without giving....now is it possible for a member of the Trinity to do this? It would seem not, as all they take is dependant on them giving in the first place.

Anyway, what I'm trying to do is show that there are possible metaphysical necessary/contingent being distinctions that could provide useful ways of looking at things. It all depends on how you define 'Love' really.

400 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:27 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual