Here are the relevant threads:

The first round is this thread:

Theism and Ultimate Meaning and Significance

http://www.opentheismboard.org/default.aspx?f=5&m=59035

The second round is the one:

Calling Mephi to the Witness Stand

http://www.opentheismboard.org/default.aspx?f=7&m=59124

Then there’s this smaller bit:

Pure Act and Maximized Aesthetic Beauty

http://www.opentheismboard.org/default.aspx?f=5&m=83999

Maybe those interested should reveiw these and then jump in.

I'm interested in Jeff's describing for us what attributes are necessarily instantiated by a the necessary being, God.

Tom

Hmmm...this is less interesting to me than it used to be.

Exousia: All I'm saying, Tom, is that NOTHING can disquiet God's fundamental peace, tranquility, and joy that is found in God's relationship with Godself. Nothing that happens TO GOD can affect that. That aesthetic satisfaction is OUTSIDE of the ability of Creation to affect. It's like the COMPLETELY UNREACHABLE part of Johari's Window. The Consequent Hypostasis is affected by Creation to be sure...by his very nature. But never to the point of having that inner joy disrupted.

Tom: I can do this, yeah.

Exousia: I really don't understand how this isn't seen. This is the SAME TYPE of joy that we talk about as Christians! There is a inner peace and joy that NO AMOUNT OF SUFFERING WE ENDURE can ever take away...and NO AMOUNT OF PLEASURE WE EXPERIENCE can ever add to...because of the truth that we live by.  A person could be TORTURED (experiencing the pain) and STILL be as full of joy and peace as she was BEFORE she was being tortured. It's possible. It's HAPPENED with mystics before, as I understand.

Tom: OK, things are different then, because this is what I earlier argued and you disagreed. I argued that God’s experience of Godself, that trinitarian loving relationality, DID know, embrace, encompass, and otherwise experience all the pain of creation but that God, like us, was able in his apprehension of Godself and the world to distinguish between these within a single divine experience. Like a married couple deep in love with each other and deep in love with their children are able to experience pain when their children suffer without any negative effect upon their love for each other. But when I argued THIS, you clearly said “No, that can’t be.” But it looks to me as if this is what you’re now describing.

What if we liken the unchangeableness of divine aseity to the unchangeableness of an infinite set. Just an analogy, OK? Take the set of all positive integers. It’s infinite. But you can remove integers and still have an infinite number of integers in the set, you just wouldn’t have ALL the positive integers in the set. Both would be true. This is like the parents whose experience of loving relationality vis-à-vis each other could be conceivably impervious to what happens to their children but at the same time the parents really do feel pain vis-à-vis their children, and that pain is experienced by the parents with the SAME rational and emotional faculties that process their unchanging love for one another, within a single experience of reality. It’s just that our faculties are complex enough to multitask. God would be the ultimate multitasker. Nothing can touch, interfere with, or have anything to do with defining God’s experience of Godself. I can fit what you say into this and still agree that the self-same God experiences pain and suffering vis-à-vis the world. But like removing integers doesn’t impact the infinity of the set of all positive integers, nothing God feels vis-à-vis the world impacts the infinity of trinitarian loving relationality. We’re still relatively meaningless to God (in that we don’t affect God’s experience of triune relational love) but God is able to freely, in grace, LET US mean something to him. It's just that our meaning to him (positive or negative) doesn't happen somewhere else, somewhere other than within God's one, undivided, singularly apprehended, field of experience.

It’s always seemed to me that you, Exousia, make this ad intra/ad extra distinction in terms of metaphysically locating them in two separate fields of experience that don't touch each other, as if God cloned himself and relates to the world through the clone. (I can hear you saying now, “That’s exactly what God does! Jesus is the clone of the Father! And Jesus suffers.] I don’t think this works. The eternal WORD is the clone of the father and stands within the ad intra world. To saying the WORD incarnates and suffers for us is just to repeat the problem, not to explain it.

I’ve always understood these categories (ad intra and ad extra) to map the existential limitations of our experience of God, not some metaphysical reality about God. In other words, I apply ad intra and ad extra categories to my relationship to EVERYBODY, including you. I don’t have ad intra relations with you, and I can’t. But I don’t take this as indicative of two different Exousias or of two metaphysically separate fields of experience in you.

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 2/5/2007 10:00:37 AM (GMT-6)

Exousia: If God is indeed the exemplification of all metaphysical truth, and reality is essentially AESTHETIC, then God would NECESSARILY have to exemplify AESTHETIC SATISFACTION of some type.

Tom: Slam dunk agreement here. Jeff agrees (I hope) that the “necessary existence” has to instantiate some “necessary attributes.” To say EVERYTHING about a necessarily existing being is contingently instantiated is contradictory. So Jeff will HAVE to come up with SOME necessarily instantiated divine attributes, attributes that cannot be temporarily set aside for any reason. It just seems that Jeff is unsure of what this attribute is (or what these attributes are). I think Doc’s thesis, Jeff, will best explain why necessary existence is aesthetic.

Exousia: Both Hartshorne and Greg seemed to say this idea, I believe. Where Hartshorne and Greg differed was in saying that God's aesthetic satisfaction was function of the amount of DIVERSITY in reality to acheive this satisfaction. Therefore, God NEEDED the world to give God the requisite diversity of experience to produce such aesthetic satisfaction. Greg countered by saying that this was not so...that INTENSITY of experience could produce aesthetic satisfaction...an UNSURPASSABLY INTENSE experience. And THIS lead the way to saying that God could experience complete aesthetic satisfaction WITHIN GOD'S OWN TRIUNE SELF...without positing a necessary God-world relationship.

Tom: Right. But you know, once you posit the Trinity, don’t you also have all the essential DIVERSITY as well?

Tom

Post Edited (Exousia) : 2/5/2007 10:02:19 AM (GMT-6)

Exousia: Well, let me say this. The Primordial Hypostasis is the ONLY ONE with PRIMARY EXISTENCE. Everything else (the Begetting of the Son, the Procession of the Spirit) is DERIVATIVE from that primary existence.

Tom: No objections, but DERIVATIVE doesn’t mean CONTINGENT. The Son and Spirit are as NECESSARY as the Father, as constitutive of whatever ad intra might mean, and absolutely constitutive of loving relationality.

I’m cool with divine energies and creation being a contingent expression of God. What I DON’T see is that whatever there is of divine experience in this contingent expression, it’s somehow inaccessible to non-contingent divine experience, that ad intra and ad extra are affectively inaccessible to one another.

Hope I didn’t ruin your EO party.

Tom

Post Edited (Exousia) : 2/5/2007 11:09:05 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Exousia) : 2/5/2007 1:04:24 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (TGB) : 2/5/2007 2:20:01 PM (GMT-6)

Exousia: If God is indeed the exemplification of all metaphysical truth, and reality is essentially AESTHETIC, then God would NECESSARILY have to exemplify AESTHETIC SATISFACTION of some type.

---

 

Post Edited (Exousia) : 2/5/2007 3:31:55 PM (GMT-6)

OK, I’ve calmed down after the fireworks!

Jeff: I just think that aesthetic satisfaction is satisfaction conditioned by a certain perspective.

Tom: Right.

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

Jeff: I can [A] enjoy the simple pleasure of sociality with another. I can also [B] enjoy it aesthetically by attending to the harmony of the several relations of that sociality. [My A and B]

Tom: Does “aesthetically” apply to BOTH A and B or just to B?

Jeff: Since God is inherently relational, He always experiences both of these perspectives simultaneously.

Tom: It sounds like you’re saying God has the choice between the sorts of perspectives through which he relates to creation. Is that it? Can you clarify these TWO perspectives for me. I’m not following. I seems like the two perspectives are:

A = “enjoying the simple pleasure of sociality with another”

B = “enjoying the same sociality but aesthetically by attending to the harmony of the several relations of that sociality”

So aesthetics is part of B but not of A. I’m having trouble picturing just what these distinctions are if both of them amount to “enjoying relationality.”

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

Jeff: But this doesn't rule out a capacity of have the intensity of God's satisfaction diminished by creation.

Tom: What do you think of the infinite set analogy, Jeff? There is real diminishment IN A SENSE if you remove SOME integers from the set of all positive integers. But in spite of this, the number of integers constituting the set are STILL INFINITE and UNDEMINISHED.

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

Jeff: Christ really DID suffer during his incarnation. This cannot but affect the Father's intensity of intra satisfaction.

Tom: I’d feel much more comfortable if you would commit to some clear definition of what aseity amounts to. What is that about God which constitutes the necessarily divine experience?

I also think we’ve got different understandings of ad intra and ad extra going on. That’s gonna hurt the convo if we don’t agree on what we’re talking about. Do we want to reserve AD INTRA for that about God which is necessarily instantiated and which we cannot penetrate? If not, what?

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

Jeff: What I think creates the problem is saying God creates FOR US. He creates for Himself and Christ. We have extrinsic worth ONLY with respect to that temporal end of creation which we must volitionally contribute to.

Tom: So the divine interest in us is PURELY utilitarian? This salvages perfect love? That’s the problem I’m having.

Jeff: This, to me, is how to salvage perfect love. God is CONSTRAINED for the sake of Christ's inheritance of that which he was intended to get from creation. God loves us as much as is possible within that constraint.

Tom: This may be a more fundamental difference, because loving as much as is possible within the sort of constraints you’re describing (or perhaps ANY constraints at all) completely undermines love in my mind. It seems to entail God’s saying “Well, I’m loving you as much as I can given the circumstances; I could love you more were the constraints different, but hey, I didn’t create THAT kind of world.”

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

Jeff: When our VOLITIONAL (i.e., LFW) role with respect to the temporal end is complete, we no longer have extrinsic worth. God can graciously (because He is competent to, and hence desirous thereto) make us INTRA. I can't overemphasize the importance, in my approach, of the finality of the temporal end of the creational project. It is at the heart of the language of desert AND the explanation of UR.

Tom: Interesting.

I think we agree that God’s embracing us into theosis is a final and eschatological event. And we agree that LFW constraints the achieving of this end. But we disagree over the nature of the constaint. You limit LFW’s role to providing some pleasure Christ gets on a continuum of loving relationality (creaturely love of God via no libertarian becoming is less pleasing to Christ than creaturely love of God via libertarian becoming).

Let’s start backwards. Theosis is the goal, right? God wants, within his experience, created beings who experience his love, love him back, love one another, and reflect it all through the created order. THAT’S why God creates. OK. If we’re agreed on this much, then the question then becomes, What are the metaphysical constraints that must direct how contingent, creaturely, sentient beings can come to stand in such a relation to God? And it’s on THIS that I think you (Jeff) and I disagree, for I claim that it is metaphysically impossible for God to create (from the get-go) compatibilistically loving creatures; that is, creatures who love compatibilistically without having to BECOME so. That’s out of the question to my mind. Contingent creatures can only come to stand in such a compatibilistically loving theotic relationship to God by BECOMING into that position, and THAT means LFW. There’s no other way God could get what he wanted. So there’s no continuum of loving relationality (less loving if created to love compatibilistically from the get-go but more loving if created to become compatibilistically loving via LFW).

So for me, yes, creation is FOR Christ, but it’s for Christ’s experience of creaturely love and worship and glory. But that makes it for us as well. I’m not going to split hairs here. I think BOTH aspects define the ONE reality—the creating and loving God. And I agree that the end goal of theosis commits us to some finality with respect to LFW. I just would never suggest that the reason God went the LFW route is because Christ gets more pleasure from a diverse sort of loving creation (via LFW) as opposed to just creating us by nature compatibilistically loving and so getting some other less loving creation. No, for me God gets a lovingly relational creation via LFW or God doesn’t get a lovingly relational creation at all.

And in my mind this HELPS with theodicy. It better grounds the risk God takes in metaphysical demands rather than the contingent pleasure of Christ. Why would a perfectly happy and contented being take risks FOR HIMSELF? See? But if the risks are taken (in some significant sense at least) FOR US, then it makes sense for a perfectly contented being to create.

Exousia?

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 2/5/2007 5:33:21 PM (GMT-6)

Exousia: None of this has ANYTHING...not ONE THING, Jeff...to do with the amount of love God has for any particular being. God loves ALL BEINGS the same. The Father loves Satan JUST AS MUCH AS HE LOVES CHRIST!

Jeff: I agree. None of it has ANYTHING to do with the amount of love God HAS for any particular being. But God is CONSTRAINED as to how much of God's love for us can be experienced by us. Since God experiences unsurpassable intensity of sentient satisfaction from compatibilistic love, I need an explanation as to why all this suffering and conditionality buys Him anything. I've explained in previous posts how I think the creational project was about providing Christ the sentient satisfaction occasioned by the volitional adoration of loving subordinates. This is what the Son occasions for the Father.

If THIS is the explanation of the existence of LFW (with its attendant side-effects), THEN God is CONSTRAINED by that. Then, the conditionality of the degree to which we experience God's love is explicable without positing that God requires this conditionality for His OWN sentient satisfaction. Then, this conditionality expires when the role of LFW in the implementation of the goal has reached its expiration date, so to speak. After that, compatibilism is just FINE with the Father. LFW is FOR THE SON--and only temporally, at that.

That's my distinction. It's how I get around trying to explain why God needs or wants FOR HIMSELF something other than compatibilistic bliss. And it is simultaneously the best theodicy solution I can think of. It literally kills both birds with one stone, all the while being quite parsimonious. What am I missing?

What is important to my view is one particular aspect of the diversity of the godhead. It is GOD the FATHER out of whom are all things--NOT the Son. Since it's His plan, perfect love requires that ALL He does and plans is FOR ANOTHER--though constraints are inherent IN the plan. That is to say, there are things He would LIKE to do for us that He can't, because it would diminish the sentient satisfaction the Son receives. Does this means He only loves the Son, and not us? Not at all. It means that ends entail FITTING means. It's just final cause metaphysics. We exist FOR the Son. Not the other way around. It has nothing to do with love, per se. It only has to do with the conditioning of the experience of love. THAT'S the difference I see.

Let me say it like this. Insomuch as we exist FOR Christ, Christ's maximal sentient satisfaction trumps ours when the two are in conflict. But that doesn't necessarily mean that God loves Christ more than us in the most fundamental sense of loving INTEREST. But it DOES mean that God loves Christ more than us in the sense that Christ's interest in creation trumps ours when the two conflict because of the metaphysics of final cause implementation. To say otherwise entails the blueprint view of divine providence, to my mind.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 2/5/2007 4:44:57 PM (GMT-6)