 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
chiam
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 41
| Posted 11/24/2003 7:59 AM (GMT -6) |   | Just so I can understand Open Theist better:
(1) When did God know that I would exist?
(2) Does God know exactly when I will die?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/24/2003 8:23 AM (GMT -6) | | chiam: Just so I can understand Open Theist better:
(1) When did God know that I would exist?
(2) Does God know exactly when I will die?
Tom: The open view can't tell you exactly when God knew you would exist for certain. My guess is when you were conceived, or soon thereafter. But he certainly knew before creation that YOU, the you that was born, might possibily exist. And being infinitely intelligent, God has perfectly anticipated YOUR birth along with all the other trillion possible story lines surrounding your birth as if YOUR birth was the only thing he had to anticipate. So there's no real difference in terms of God's preparedeness or anticipation regarding your arrival. He's been anticipating the possibility for eternity and is quite anxious to be involved in your life now.
Does God know the exactly day and hour of your death? Possibly. If he has some purpose in scheduling it ahead of time then he can certainly do that. Is he capable of leaving the precise timing open if he wishes too? I don't see why not. It does seem that SOME of the factors that influence our life span are matters of our own libertarian free will (whether we become alcoholics, drug addicts, or life-time smokers; or whether we commit to a healthy approach to exercise and diet). Since these things DO affect our life span and since whether we do them or not is OUR libertarian choice, it would seem to me that the precisely date of our death is far more open when we're young that when we're retiring, even less open when we are very old.
Chiam, let me ask you a question if I might. If God DID eternally know that I (the ME that now exists) would certainly be born, have the experiences I've had, make the choices I've made, and die on a specific day and hour, a) how does God come by such knowledge? and b) what could God do with such knowledge if he had it? Could he use such knowledge to prevent some evil that he forsees would happen to me? Could he use such knowledge to bring about some good or blessing that he forsees? Could he make use of such knowledge to guide me to do his will? Just curious. Assuming God does know eternally that we'll be born and exactly when we'll die, what good would such knowledge do him?
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
chestertonian
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 31
| Posted 11/27/2003 5:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Surely anything that happens is determined by physical laws. One would not, equally surely, claim that God is ignorant of the physical laws. In fact, could one not state plausibly that the physical laws are part of the psychology of God? Also, God must exist outside of time, otherwise he would be subject to time and not supreme. Therefore, the question of 'when' cannot be applied to God outside the context, "When did x happen by the grace of God's will".
To say that God is anxious is inappropriate.
Also, the factors you mention as "matters of our own libertarian free will (whether we become alcoholics, drug addicts, or life-time smokers)" are in fact determined by upbringing and by genetics. Free will in the sense of 'it is actually possible for a person to choose one way or another', does not exist. One is free only in the sense that one's existence is determined by one's essence.
Regards.
C. | | Back to Top | | |
|
timlings
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130
| Posted 11/27/2003 10:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi
Just thought I would come back on some of your points chestertonian. If that's okay with you... 
quote:
Also, God must exist outside of time, otherwise he would be subject to time and not supreme.
I disagree with your presuposition. Why must God be outside of time? Where does it say that in the bible? God has been "inside time" anyway, when he became a man in the person of Jesus Christ. Hurrah.
But here's a question....what does being "outside time" look like? Or feel like? Does God experience things sequentially? Or all at once? Or however he wants? Has the second person of the trinity always had a human body? If God's "outside time", then having a profound change in the God-head due to the incarnation doesn't really make sense. It stikes me that not experiencing reality sequentially seems quite impoverished.
But that's just me.
quote:
To say that God is anxious is inappropriate.
"How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast the sum of them! Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand. When I awake, I am still with you." Psalm 139:17-18
If that's not anxious, I don't know what is! I understand what you're saying though, that God doesn't fret about us. But he is concerned about us and even loses sleep over us... ["He will not let your foot slip- he who watches over you will not slumber; indeed, he who watches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep." Psalm 121:3-4]
quote:
Also, the factors you mention as "matters of our own libertarian free will (whether we become alcoholics, drug addicts, or life-time smokers)" are in fact determined by upbringing and by genetics.
It would make life a lot easier if that were the case. Then I could do what the heck I wanted and it wouldn't be my fault, but rather my genes and parenting. But robbing of my responsibility robs me of the power or ability to change at all. If I realise that my drug or alcohol addiction is my responsibility, then I have the power to seek help to change. Like with AA or NA programmes.
Determinism is what the enemy whats us to believe in, because it means we stay trapped. Occult knowledge is extremely dangerous, firstly because it is from the evil one, but also because it makes us think that the future is already determined.
quote:
Free will in the sense of 'it is actually possible for a person to choose one way or another', does not exist. One is free only in the sense that one's existence is determined by one's essence.
Regards.
Ok, I respect your opinion. Can you demonstrate that that is true?
love in Christ
timlings | | Back to Top | | |
|
chestertonian
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 31
| Posted 11/27/2003 10:17 PM (GMT -6) | | If something happens, it is either caused or it is random. This applies to all events, and thus to one's 'free choice'. If one makes a choice based on the influences on oneself, or if the choice is caused by one's nature, it is not freely chosen, in that a person with that particular nature could not do differently. If one's choice to do something is random, I don't see how it can be free.
In response to your claim that one's genes and parenting mean that something is not your 'fault', I would say that what you do is determined by what you are, that is, alcoholism is the fault of 'what you are'. That does not seem to me to allow one to shift the blame. While you have the power to seek help to change, you must also be provided with the occasion to seek help to change, that is, something must happen to set off the action of seeking. It cannot happen in a vacuum.
Incidentally, that verse of psalms doesn't claim that God loses sleep, just that he doesn't sleep.
Your question 'Did the second person of the Trinity always have a human body?' applies more to the beginning of John than to my point. Christ existed before people did, in some sense. It isn't possible for a person to understand how it is to be outside of time; I don't think that knowing and being the full pattern of the universe sounds impoverished myself, but each to his own.
God has indeed manifested himself within time, and that was his great sacrifice, to be limited and human. Nonetheless he was also in heaven making sure providence was working, otherwise very bad things would have happened. As there is only one God, there must be a part of Him that is as it were the logical ground of the universe. Surely the logical ground of any system must exist outside it?
Please let me know what you think.
Regards,
C. | | Back to Top | | |
|
chestertonian
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 31
| Posted 11/28/2003 5:11 AM (GMT -6) | | When I say quote:
Surely the logical ground of any system must exist outside it?
I mean that if one has a system of some kind, there must be a principle or set of principles which
1. Cause it to be that system and not another
2. Are logically prior to that system (though not necessarily temporally prior to it).
For example take chess. One has a chess game. This comprises a set of pieces which move about. It also has, usually, two people who play the game, though this is not necessary. However, it most importantly has rules. These rules are logically prior to the specific game of chess, that is, you have to have the rules to have the game, but even if no one actually played chess, the game 'chess' would still exist, because the rules exist.
Similarly, one has a universe. Again we have a set of pieces that move about (called particles or people, depending on what level we're talking about). And again, the most important thing about the universe, which allows it to exist, are the rules. In this case the rules are called the laws of physics. Now one must say that the laws are logically prior to the universe. One must therefore, theologically, say either:
a: that the laws of physics are part of God;
b: that God is a result of the laws of physics.
I don't think that the second option is really acceptable. And I suspect that if one accepted it one would thus be obliged to back down from any true monotheism. One would have no real defence against a charge of gnosticism.
Obviously I may be wrong about any or all of this. Please tell me what you think.
PS: Doesn't open view theism lead inevitably to pantheism, given general relativity? I may have misunderstood.
I think I'm going to like it here... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 11/28/2003 12:53 PM (GMT -6) | | chestertonian: Surely anything that happens is determined by physical laws.
Alan: Really? If that's strictly true then God's creating was determined by physical laws. And if it's not true with respect to God's creating, then why can't it be false in other cases?
chestertonian: Also, God must exist outside of time, otherwise he would be subject to time and not supreme.
Alan: Your claim assumes that time is like a box that God is either "in" or not in. This view is not accurate (for an excellent discussion of this general issue see William Lane Craig's book "Time and Eternity"), and at any rate it is not the view of time that is at issue in the philosophical and theological discussions of God's relation to time. The main issue there is whether God can change in nonessential aspects of his being, or whether he cannot change in any respect. Most theologians and Christian philosophers now think the former is the case.
chestertonian: The factors you mention as "matters of our own libertarian free will (whether we become alcoholics, drug addicts, or life-time smokers)" are in fact determined by upbringing and by genetics. Free will in the sense of 'it is actually possible for a person to choose one way or another', does not exist. One is free only in the sense that one's existence is determined by one's essence.
Alan: You need to give an argument to support these bald assertions.
chestertonian: If something happens, it is either caused or it is random. This applies to all events, and thus to one's 'free choice'. If one makes a choice based on the influences on oneself, or if the choice is caused by one's nature, it is not freely chosen, in that a person with that particular nature could not do differently. If one's choice to do something is random, I don't see how it can be free.
Alan: OK, here we have an argument. The argument is flawed, however, for it assumes that someone's choices are either deterministically caused or are random. There is a third option, namely, that the person is an agent cause of their own choices. Thus, I (an agent) can cause my hand to go up. If my raising my hand is free, as I maintain, then it is not deterministically caused by my nature or by the causal history of the universe, but by me (period). My action is not random, for I cause it; nor it is deterministically caused by antecedent events, for there are not antecedent events in the same causal chain. That agent causation is a coherent concept is illustrated by God's creating the universe.
chestertonian: The most important thing about the universe, which allows it to exist, are the rules. In this case the rules are called the laws of physics. Now one must say that the laws are logically prior to the universe.
Alan: I agree with you that a universe (at any rate one with multiple beings in it) cannot exist without rules, but these rules are not, I submit, fundamentally rules of physics, but rather rules freely imposed by God. That is, God has chosen to create a world in which, say, an inverse-square law of gravity and the second law of thermodynamics are true. He need not have created such a world. And if he chooses to suspend a particular law on a particular occassion, that is, perform a miracle, he is free to do so. So I would not say that physical laws are logically prior to the universe except in the sense that God intended in creating to make a world governed by those laws.
chestertonian: One must therefore, theologically, say either:
a: that the laws of physics are part of God;
b: that God is a result of the laws of physics.
Alan: These are not exhaustive options, for we can say that the laws of physics are grounded not in God's essence, but in his sovereign and free choice to create the kind of world that he has.
chestertonian: Doesn't open view theism lead inevitably to pantheism, given general relativity?
Alan: Open theism implies nothing with respect to general relativity. While it implies that God experiences sequentiality it does not imply that God is "in" time or space-time, as though in a 4-D container. The "time" that applies to God on the open view is not the same as that in the "space-time" of general relativity. So open theism does not lead to pantheism.
God bless,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 11/28/2003 9:11 PM (GMT -6) | | The Moral Government of God
A crucial distinction must be made between the physical and the spiritual, otherwise stated as the material the immaterial. If this distinction is not made, a mechanistic view of morality is the inevitable result.
While God does in fact govern the physical/material world by means of physical law such as gravity, inertia, etc., it is also very important to keep in mind that God governs the moral/spiritual/immaterial universe by means of the moral law.
The following is taken from Finney's Systematic Theology, 1878 edition, Lectures I and II.
Moral Government
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Charles G. Finney
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lecture I
Law, in a sense of the term both sufficiently popular and scientific for my purpose, is a rule of action. In its generic signification, it is applicable to every kind of action, whether of matter or of mind whether intelligent or unintelligent whether free or necessary action.
Physical law is a term that represents the order of sequence, in all the changes that occur under the law of necessity, whether in matter or mind. I mean all changes whether of state or action, that do not consist in the states or actions of free will. Physical law is the law of the material universe. It is also the law of mind, so far as its states and changes are involuntary. All mental states or actions, which are not free and sovereign actions of will, must occur under, and be subject to, physical law. They cannot possibly be accounted for, except as they are ascribed to the law of necessity or force.
Moral law is a rule of moral action with sanctions. It is that rule to which moral agents ought to conform all their voluntary actions, and is enforced by sanctions equal to the value of the precept. It is the rule for the government of free and intelligent action, as opposed to necessary and unintelligent action. It is the law of liberty, as opposed to the law of necessity of motive and free choice, as opposed to force of every kind. Moral law is primarily a rule for the direction of the action of free will, and strictly of free will only. But secondarily, and less strictly, it is the rule for the regulation of all those actions and states of mind and body, that follow the free actions of will by a law of necessity. Thus, moral law controls involuntary mental states and outward action only by securing conformity of the actions of free will to its precept.
"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 | | |
|
chestertonian
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 31
| Posted 12/3/2003 1:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Alan, I'll shortly be defining and defending my determinism in the "Open View and its Critics" forum. Until then, I'll just briefly respond to some of your points. Sorry I took so long.
1: 'If that's strictly true then God's creating was determined by physical laws";
No, because my point is that the physical laws are part of his nature: just as, when he created man in his own image, he had to create something manlike, or it wouldn't have been in his image, so when he was creating a universe, his nature shows in its construction: just as when I draw a picture it shows something of the kind of person I am.
2: 'The main issue there is whether God can change in nonessential aspects of his being, or whether he cannot change in any respect';
Yes, but leaving aside the question of how one determines what His 'non-essential aspects' are, I would argue that while God is different at different times, just as he is different in different places, both of these variant sets are determined by the Divine Nature.
3: You ask for 'an argument to support these bald assertions' (i.e. the determined nature of addictive personality);
I would have thought that the fact that their aetiologies are discussed very widely in the soft-science community would be sufficient to have provided you with why they are caused. I'll see if I can scare up some internet evidence if you feel my point is unsupported though.
4: 'Thus I (an agent) can cause my hand to go up...it is not determined by my nature or by the causal history of the universe, but by me (period)";
There have been experiments demonstrating that if you ask a person to watch a clock with a fast hand, and raise his finger when he wants to, and note where the clock hand is pointing when he 'decides' to raise his finger, the nerves controlling the finger will actually be firing before his decision. So there is actually a causal system (the physical structure of the brain) causing the 'free decision'. I can't see how this allows for the existence of a primary will.
5: '[God] need not have created such a world. And if he chooses to suspend a particular law on a particular occasion, that is, perform a miracle, he is free to do so.';
I find it hard to believe that God is such a bodger that He can't organise His Universe to do what He wants it to without altering the mechanism. If I built a machine that wouldn't do what I wanted unless I took it apart and moved the parts myself, I would be laughed to scorn.
God bless you and keep you, and strengthen your hand if I am wrong (which is quite likely).
Regards,
GK. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 12/3/2003 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the reply, chestertonian. Some brief responses:
chestertonian: My point is that the physical laws are part of his nature: just as, when he created man in his own image, he had to create something manlike, or it wouldn't have been in his image, so when he was creating a universe, his nature shows in its construction: just as when I draw a picture it shows something of the kind of person I am.
Alan: I agree that God's nature is reflected in creation (Rom 1:20 and Psalm 19:1-4 state as much), but it does not follow that everything in creation follows purely from his nature and that nothing in creation is due, even in part, to his sovereign and free decisions. For one thing, Christians have adamantly insisted from the beginning, against the neoplatonists, that creation itself was God's free choice, that his nature, being perfect and complete in itself, did not require or necessitate his creating. And if you say that physical laws are part of God's nature, then you imply that God could not have created a universe with different physical laws than he in fact has. But why couldn't God have done so? Why couldn't he, for example, have created a world in which the force of gravity was just a little bit stronger (or weaker)? Or one in which water froze at 2°C (at STP)? Or one in which there were no, say, giraffes? My point is there seems to be innumerable ways in which God could have created a different world than he in fact has, so it is utterly implausible to attribute all the details of creation to physical laws and to say that the particular physical laws that exist follow from God's nature.
chestertonian: I would argue that while God is different at different times, just as he is different in different places, both of these variant sets are determined by the Divine Nature.
Alan: If you are correct, then God is at every moment (and at every place) exactly as he had to be by nature. My contention is that this is not at all a plausible way to think about God. At any rate, this is not a Christian God that you are describing, but something more like Spinoza's God. You describe a world in which everything is ultimately determined by God's nature. Thus no being, not even God, has the freedom to do or be otherwise in any respect than is in fact the case. This is a far more radical determinism than even hyper-Calvinists and Muslims countenance. It amounts to the thesis that there is only one metaphysically possible world--a thesis that almost no one in history has thought plausible mainly because it seems so patently obvious that many things could have been different than they are.
chestertonian: You ask for 'an argument to support these bald assertions' (i.e. the determined nature of addictive personality). I would have thought that the fact that their aetiologies are discussed very widely in the soft-science community would be sufficient to have provided you with why they are caused.
Alan: Nothing in the soft-science community comes even close to establishing the extreme determinism that you propose. In fact, I don't see how any scientific results could in principle establish such a strong conclusion. At best research can show that some human actions are completely determined and that all human actions are partly determined. But that's not incompatible with my saying that some human actions result, at least partly, from free choices, such that we could in the very same circumstances have done otherwise than we did. What you need to show is that all human actions are completely determined. But no results of soft or hard science show that to be the case. If some researchers talk as if it were true, that's because it reflects their metaphysical biases, and not because the empirical data require that conclusion.
chestertonian: There have been experiments demonstrating that if you ask a person to watch a clock with a fast hand, and raise his finger when he wants to, and note where the clock hand is pointing when he 'decides' to raise his finger, the nerves controlling the finger will actually be firing before his decision. So there is actually a causal system (the physical structure of the brain) causing the 'free decision'. I can't see how this allows for the existence of a primary will.
Alan: Of course, because we are psychophysical beings, any decisions will achieve their effects through the nervous system. What I question in your example is whether the actual decision occurs precisely when the person says it does, and even whether the decision itself occurs at a precise instant. From introspection on myself in trying this experiment, it seems to me that I decide ahead of time to "move my finger when the pointer gets to time t", in which case it is not surprising that there should be neural firing just prior to the actual physical action.
chestertonian: I find it hard to believe that God is such a bodger that He can't organise His Universe to do what He wants it to without altering the mechanism. If I built a machine that wouldn't do what I wanted unless I took it apart and moved the parts myself, I would be laughed to scorn.
Alan: The question is not whether God can create such a universe that does what he wants without altering the mechanics. I agree that he can. The question is whether a deterministic, mechanistic universe is the kind of universe that he wants to create. God would only be a bodger if he created a world system that he wanted to be a certain way and then couldn't manage to bring it about. What if he wanted to tinker with the world from time to time by performing a miracle? What if he wanted to create a universe with significantly free beings in which not all of the variables are settled ahead of time? In such cases God is not a bodger, but a free and sovereign creator who gets what he most fundamentally wants.
God bless,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
chestertonian
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 31
| Posted 12/4/2003 4:36 AM (GMT -6) | | I'll respond soon. Those are some good points, even if I don't agree with them. Have flu at the moment, which is making thought rather difficult. Sorry I'm being so slow.
Adam. | | Back to Top | | |
|
chestertonian
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 31
| Posted 12/4/2003 4:45 AM (GMT -6) | | | PS How does one distinguish between a Calvinist and a hyper-Calvinist? | | Back to Top | | |
|
chestertonian
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 31
| Posted 12/4/2003 5:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Ah. No, not really. Although you can have God existent without a manifestation of the physical laws, that is, if there was nothing else, there would still be God. Is that what you were asking?
PS. Alan, you say quote:
Christians have adamantly insisted from the beginning, against the neoplatonists
like they're incompatible. I direct your attention to Augustine, Aquinas et al. Or are they not Christians to you?
[edited for stupid coding error] | | Back to Top | | |
|
chestertonian
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 31
| Posted 12/4/2003 5:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Yes, but.
Those laws are, as it were, implicit. I'm not saying God is caused by the physical laws. I am saying that if HE were to make a universe then it would have these laws. As indeed He did, and it does.
(That's not my argument for what Alan calls my one metaphysically plausible world however, which in fact a lot of people do think is fairly sensible, for reasons I'll give when I post properly). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/4/2003 6:29 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by chestertonian
Yes, but.
Those laws are, as it were, implicit. I'm not saying God is caused by the physical laws. I am saying that if HE were to make a universe then it would have these laws. As indeed He did, and it does.
(That's not my argument for what Alan calls my one metaphysically plausible world however, which in fact a lot of people do think is fairly sensible, for reasons I'll give when I post properly).
If those laws are so tightly coupled with God, they are God, imho.
But go work on your post. Pictures are nice, too, throw in some pictures.
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
chestertonian
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 31
| Posted 12/4/2003 10:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Yes. Exactly. The laws of physics are part of the nature of God.
Thank you for understanding.
Pictures sound hard. I'll try though. Whether they're relevant is another question entirely.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 12/5/2003 3:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Chestertonian,
Hope that you get over the flu, it's never fun when you're sick. I am really hoping to try to understand your position a little better, so I'm looking forward to reading your detailed post. But just a passing observation. Alan said quote:
Christians have adamantly insisted from the beginning, against the neoplatonists, that creation itself was God's free choice, that his nature, being perfect and complete in itself, did not require or necessitate his creating.
and you replied quote:
I direct your attention to Augustine, Aquinas et al. Or are they not Christians to you?
I do not think that Augustine or Aquinas believed that creation was necessitated from God's nature. Augustine was greatly influenced by neoplatonic thought, but he disagreed on some significant points. The God whom you describe sounds much more like Spinoza's God (as Alan has alrady pointed out) than the God of Christian Theism.
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:33 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 |
|
|