 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Open Theism proves the non-existence of god | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 4:19 PM (GMT -6) |   | Page 2 >>
naturalisttruth
05/06/01 10:28 PM
Open Theism proves the non-existence of god
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thankyou open theism for proving, once again, that christianity is wrong. As an atheist, I understand that the only sound argument for the existence of god was the transcendental argument. Open theism insists that god cannot know the future free actions of humans until they are done. This makes god dependent up humans for knowledge. God is no longer independent, absolute, or transcendent. He cannot be a basis for the laws of science, logic, and morality. The transcendental argument for the existence of god is mute.
Man is the measure,
Naturalist truth
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
05/06/01 10:39 PM
RE: Open Theism proves the non-existence of god
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey punk—I doubt you’re an atheist. You sound more like a non-open theist under a thin disguise out to prove open theism wrong through guilt by association. (Flagged sarcasm –) OH REALLY open theism is a half step away from atheism. WELL THEN it must be wrong.
Your lack of understanding of the open view is blatantly obvious. I would like to see where any open theist claims God is dependent on humans for his knowledge. This is a far cry from saying God is dependent on the nature of creation which HE INTENTIONALLY created to work this way. Don’t lump us in with process folks.
Prove to me that you’re an atheist. You’re not the measure anymore. I have a little atheist ruler in my pocket. Mary Poppins is absolutely perfect in every single way. How do you measure up?
Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
boydreamer101
05/06/01 11:28 PM
RE: Open Theism proves the non-existence of god
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAHAHA! That was truly funny...Let me suggest several things to you naturalisttruth...one try reading "god of the possible" or any open theistic literature for that matter. Two I suggest that in your quest for atheism that you not delve so deeply into such complex theological areas of thought it only shows that your absolutely curious and leaves you easy prey to all of us bible "nerds!" Now you should also know that atheism is regarded among the highest of intellectuals to be "self-refuting" it leads to a weak existentialism, or at best nihilism, in which case, everything you just said has no more truth value than claiming that the average size of an object choked on is less than the size of a pack of ciggarettes!
I would like you to explain to me your "atheism" in the mean time I'm going to find your biggest hero's quotes regarding atheism and inform you of just how few people consider atheism anything more than poo!
I do not want to attack you personally...let that be heard...seriously...i don't know you, but what you said is absolutely uninformed, my guess is that your looking for a reaction or as my buddy "W" said...trying to disguise yourself as an atheist in order to show that open theism will somehow lead to whatever...don't worry your not alone in your wild attempt...i know of pastors who pray for open theists thinking that they are going to hell....If you think open theism is so mute, then why are you talking about it? My guess is that you are truly impressed with the idea, but you don't know much about it! But maybe thats what our objective will be.
In the started tradition of my buddy "w" from the disney movie "Charlie and Choclate Factory"
"Mrs. TV- "LoompaLand?!? There's no such place."
W.W- "Excuse me, dear lady.."
Mrs. TV- "Mr. Wonka, I am a teacher of geography."
W.W- "Oh, then you know all about it."
And Finally-
Mr. Salt- "I doubt any of us are going to get out of here alive.
W.W- "Oh, you should never doubt what no one is sure about."
W.W- "And Charlie, don't forget what happened to the man that suddenly got everthing he ever wanted. He lived happily ever after."
A little nonsense now and then?!
peace-adam....hehe...all questions must be submitted in writing!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
05/07/01 12:35 AM
RE: RE: Open Theism proves the non-existence of god
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps I am wrong but did you have a question to debate or something to ask or was your point simply to be rude? This is an open theism website and while that is not the only thing debated here, it is the primary thing. If you are interested in what open theism is about, then feel free to ask questions. But please do not waste the time of those who truly are seeking to debate and dialogue about various issues with your "grand" statements of "truth" or your "cute" ramblings of "wonder." I believe we are all adults here. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
trosie
05/07/01 6:16 AM
RE: Open Theism proves the non-existence of god
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
naturalisttruth writes: "Open theism insists that god cannot know the future free actions of humans until they are done."
I am wondering about the word "cannot" in the above sentence? "Cannot" actually translates to "can choose not to" God has given us humans free will to choose, hence He has CHOSE NOT TO know every decision that will be made until we actually make our choices. HOWEVER, although He chose to create humans with this type of free will, this does NOT mean that He couldn't have done it any other way or that He is limited.
My prayer is that you might come to meet our AWESOME God in a real and intimate way!
trosie
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Proverbs23_23
05/07/01 2:27 AM
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Proverbs23_23
05/07/01 2:24 AM
Willie Wonka.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think of it like this:
Atheism, Nihilism, Humanism, Naturalism, Anythingism, are all 'tickets' in the chocolate bars of life. Whereas, the Triune God, is the precious GOLDEN 'ticket'. Few find it, but when they do, they are given abundantly more than they could ask or imagine.
ok, I'm off to the video store...
*Proverbs*
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Geebob
05/07/01 9:00 PM
RE: Open Theism proves the non-existence of god
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, for an atheist, you sure know what God is like. You sound more like the victum of anti-openness rhetoric than an atheist.
Hmmm obviously, you figured out what God must be like based on pure reason, just like the greeks and deists.
you know, if God is personal, we are pretty much dependent on him to reveal himself and reason isn't all that helpful.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
naturalisttruth
05/08/01 5:38 PM
RE: RE: Open Theism proves the non-existence of god
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open theists:
You have resorted to name-calling and ad hominem fallacies rather than addressing the proposition under discussion. I have been called a punk, a liar, an uninformed person, a victim of anti-open theist rhetoric, a pure reasoner, and a lumper. I will not address these comments for they have nothing to do with the proposition under discussion. Though, I might add that those comments really hurt.
Neither were we discussing the supposed insufficiencies of atheism. That discussion deserves another thread and another time. We were discussing the insufficiencies of open theism, and I don’t think this discussion is a waste of your time. Now that this is understood, let us move on to more fruitful discussion.
I would like to refer to your greatly revered “God of the Possible.” On page 120, the question is asked, “Why do you think God can’t foreknow future free action? The most compelling reason for Bible-believing Christians to think this.” On page 126, Boyd says, “he (god) can’t know it.” So I would have to conclude that, even in your nomenclature, you believe that god can’t know future free actions; this is quite clear. Granted in your system, god could have predetermined everything, but he didn’t. So what.
The question at hand was not whether god allowed his dependence on man or whether open theists describe their god as dependent. The question was ‘Is god dependent in your worldview?’ Dependence is the state of being conditional or contingent on something; natural or logical sequence. In the open theist model, god needs a human to act before he can know what would happen. Furthermore god needs humans to pray: “God… needs us to pray. (God of the Possible, pg. 95). This concept is also implied on page 63 in Boyd’s exegesis of Ezekial 22:30-31. All of this predicates contingency, and you cannot rationally deny this fact. In addition, according to open theism, man is intertwined in god’s natural and logical sequence.
If transcendence is to be above and independent of the material universe, than I must conclude that consistency in your worldview, confesses that god is not transcendent;
And if your god is not transcendent, then you cannot logically use the transcendental argument for his existence.
Reductio ad absurdum,
Naturalisttruth
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
05/08/01 8:26 PM
RE: RE: RE: Open Theism proves the non-existence of god
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome Naturalist truth. Sorry you’ve had a rough initiation to our board. Well, if it’s any consolation, doc took a lot of heat too when his bluff was called.
Naturalist truth seems to be interested in testing her/his thesis (by masquerading as an atheist) that open theism undermines the Christian witness because it logically compromises God’s transcendence. Now that we have expressed our opinions about Naturalist truth’s method, anyone care to address her/his argument? GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
05/08/01 9:03 PM
A disguise of a disguise of a disguise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear GDB, I'd love to address his/her "argument" -- but I can't find it. Sorry. Don't mean to be rude, but its hard to find any logic in the posting at all. I don't think naturalisttruth knows what a reductio ad absurdum argument is.
There seems to be some kind of ill formed classicalist assumption operating in her posting (viz. God must be utterly independent from the world to be God; the future must be entirely settled and known by God as such, for God to be God, etc... ). And since Open Theist thinks God's knowledge of the world is conditioned by the world and thinks that the future is partly open, God must not exist. But one can hardly call it an "argument." It's just an assertion. It sounds a bit like R.C.Sproul's position (Not a Chance) that God must by definition control every molecule in order to be God. (And this is offered in defense of God's absolute sovereignty!!! -- one "maverick molecule could fell him!) Naturalistruth's "argument" has the same degree of logical plausibility. It really is simply an odd assertion.
This lack of coherence is why I suspect the participants on this board diagnosed this posting as an angry classical theist futily trying to discredit Open Theism by posing as an atheist who thanks it. I rather suspect she's an Open Theist having fun posing as an sacrastic atheist so obviously unconvincing that people think shes actually a classical theist disguised as an atheist trying to discredit open theism. Clever.
Whatever.
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
05/08/01 9:29 PM
RE: A disguise of a disguise of a disguise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, Naturalisttruth,
in case you are for real, (which I seriously doubt), I'm sorry for how harsh we have treated you. If you really are an atheist, and really believe Open theism helps your case, and if you want to continue, why not start by explaining what you mean by "the transcendental argument." The version you seem to assume in your "reductio ad absurdum argument"-- the one you think Open Theism refutes -- seems utterly unlike anything I've ever seen. And could you spell out -- if indeed you are serious -- how it is that the denial that the future is exhaustively settled refutes this "transcendental" argument. Perhaps if you do this clearly and persuasively some participants might engage in more serious discussion with you.
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
naturalisttruth
05/08/01 9:31 PM
RE: A disguise of a disguise of a disguise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! I brought out the big gun: gregboyd:
Obviously you think you can argue for the existence of god on other grounds than the transcendental argument. You are an evidentialist, and I am not concerned with this naive assumption. My question is does open theism wreck the transcendental argument? The definition of transcendence is utter independence. You just admitted that your god is not utterly independent. Don't you think this wrecks the transcendental argument?
Naturalisttruth
P.S. A Reductio ad absurdum is a form of argument in which, rather than directly proving a conclusion, the arguer reduces the contrary conclusion to an absurdity. Hence it is also called "indirect argument" or "argument from the impossibility of the contrary."
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
naturalisttruth
05/08/01 9:54 PM
RE: RE: A disguise of a disguise of a disguise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gregboyd:
I read the TAG as:
1.) Atheists hold to certain laws, in particular some or all of
the following: laws of logic, laws of science, and moral
absolutes.
2.) Such laws cannot be justified in a naturalistic wordlview,
they can only be justified in a supernaturalist worldview
(this is very similar to one line of reasoning employed by
William Lane Craig, the "moral argument").
3.) Therefore, atheists demonstrate that they find the atheistic
worldview untenable (thus betraying a deep seated knowledge
that God exists).
4.) Therefore the only tenable worldview must be ANY
noncontradictory supernaturalistic worldview.
If god's knowledge is constantly changing, then what's to say that these laws of science, morality, and logic won't change. This would show itself in the material world as an inconsistency; but this has not happened.
naturalisttruth
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
05/08/01 11:26 PM
RE: RE: A disguise of a disguise of a disguise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
naturalisstruth
I admire your resilience. several points in response
a) thanks for the "big gun" compliment, but my ability to get on this site is indicative only of how relatively free I am at a given moment. I had some free time, so I'd thought I'd check in.
b) where do you get that I'm an evidentialist? I certainly wouldn't categorize myself in this fashion. (Broad Foundationalist with Rationalistic Inclinations is perhaps more appropo.)
c) you gave your definition of transcendence, naturalisttruth, but not your "argument" from transcendence. I'm wondering what you mean by "transcendent argument." The standard argument from transcendence in the philosophical literature has nothing to do with anything you've talked about so far on this thread.
d) why do you conclude that the Open View denies that God is utterly independent? In contrast to Process thought, we believe God is "utterly independent" as to his inner eternal existence. He chooses to create a world in which humans and angels have the power to affect him. But this affirms God's transcendence. It does not deny it. (It would really be a denial of transcendence if you or someone were to claim that God can't create this kind of world. [By the way, I think some Calvinists [like Sproul] undermine God's transcendence for this very reason. In order to defend sovereignty as control, they end up limiting God to one course of action.].
f) You suggest that Open Theists deny God's transcendence because in our view God doesn't know with exhaustive definiteness what is going to come to pass. This would follow only if the exhaustive settledness of the future was a logically necessary aspect of God's perfection -- a virtual attribute of God! But why think this? Classical theists often assume this, but there's no logic behind it. (The fact that you assumed it as well is, I suspect, what tipped people off that you were really a closet classical theists trying to discredit open theism with this disguise).
Its this simple. The nature of created reality is one thing. The nature of God is another. Whether possibilities exist or not (viz. whether the future is partly open or not) is about the nature of created reality, not God. Affirming that God knows the future as partly open or that he knows it as exhaustively settled has nothing to do with whether God is omniscient or transcendent -- all agree on this: it has to do with what kind of world did the transcendent God create.
God bless
uhr... I mean, good luck buddy.
Doc
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
05/09/01 12:32 AM
RE: RE: RE: Open Theism proves the non-existence of god
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
natural: a couple of points I thought might help...first, we don't bring out the "big gun." While I cannot speak for Doc, I can say this is a posting place off of his ministry and he patrols it, like he said, when he has time. Not, as you seem to imply, because we need him to answer you (not that I didn't like the answer Doc...). This is a bulletin board for all who wish to debate on many subjects of faith and, if you stick around long enough, you'll see that while it is a sight for open theists, it is also a sight for all Christians to come, share and openly discuss their doubts and questions. Got off to a rough start? Join the club. Sometimes feelings get hurt. I, for one, am sorry. So I apologize to you. But I encourage you to stick around. There is much of interest, even if you don't agree.
Many on this sight are not open theists, as you will soon learn.
"In the greatly revered..." such talk, when used as sarcasism doesn't score points with others. You want to debate the issues, fine. But try tact. Stick with the issues. Such statements simply come off as rude. John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
naturalisttruth
05/09/01 12:31 PM
RE: RE: RE: A disguise of a disguise of a disguise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gregboyd: Don't take this so lightly. Only true theism or atheism is truly philosophically defensible; not just any version of theism. You say that the God of open theism is "utterly independent as to his inner eternal existence." Would you say that all actions of moral beings (such as God's) have to be either morally good or bad? I think you would say yes. Now in your interpretation of when God made Saul king, I think you would say that God thought that making Saul king was the right thing to do when he did it. But later God changed his mind and decided it was the wrong thing to do. Now if all actions are either morally good or bad, I would have to say that originally God thought that making Saul king was the morally good thing to do, and upon gaining further knowledge, he decided that it was a wrong action. If it was a wrong action, it seems that it was immoral also. Thus "absolute" morality isn't so absolute in open theism afterall. naturalisttruth
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
05/09/01 12:52 PM
Meph Briefly Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me try to spit game.
For TAG to work, as I understand it, one must say that God is SUFFICIENTLY transcendent such that God can set all the things that naturalisttruth mentions by some variation of DIVINE FIAT or ORDINATION. This includes morality, logic, etc. If it can be shown that the WILL OF GOD and/or the NATURE OF REALITY is not such that this is possible, then TAG has absolutely no leg to stand on. Am I correct on this, Naturalisttruth?
Meph
PS: By the way, Michael Martin and John Frame had a debate on TAG and TANG (Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God) LONG ago. Go to
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/
on the Secular Web if you want to read the "debate". I don't think that Frame did too hot myself.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
boydreamer101
05/09/01 5:56 PM
RE: Open Theism proves the non-existence of god
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Atheist friend says: "Only true theism or atheism is truly philosophically defensible; not just any version of theism."
If you are an atheist, then this debate does not concern you, there is no value in the assertion of a god, for someone who holds to this, you seem to be awfully involved in the pursuit of the truth here...not to say that an atheist couldn't be, but rather it just seems odd to me that an "atheist" is trying to "evangelize" to christians to believe in "not believing." Just a sidenote as well...you might better convert people in your crusade by not picking on one theological issue. And you should know that you dipped your atheistic wand into a vat of people that will never become atheists, my question in short is "what is your point?" I've followed your questioning, I've followed the response, but you continue to dance around legitimate questions. This leads me to believe that you are hiding the fact that you are simply a non-open theist, disguising yourself...You also suggest that the open view proves that christianity is wrong, I would like to suggest that very few christians would argue that christianity is capable of objective sorts of proof. I would also suggest to you that the "transcendental" argument is but one of many ways to defend the faith. If you are interested in more, then by all means lets talk about those! If you are not in fact an atheist, you are certainly not doing much for your cause!
I do apologize for my wit and the comments from the disney movie..it was only used to illustrate a point..but if they were hurtful I do apologize. Do not let those comments be another weak excuse to dismiss christianity!
The name naturalistic truth seems to imply a contradiction if you are in fact a naturalist...i'm assuming you believe that everything operates in a system of cause and effect, kind of an elementary argument, but isn't this self refuting...is not everything your arguing for simply an effect of a cause and so on? It seems to suggest that what you say can have no real "truth" value as most would understand it.
Very few people believe that "atheism" is defendable...especially philosophically...most of the worlds greatest philosophers would suggest that it is "self-refuting."
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
05/09/01 7:25 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: A disguise of a disguise of a disguise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only true theism is defensible...not just any version of theism. According to who...who judges what is true theism and what is not? You. Please...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Go To Page 2 >>
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:53 AM (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 |
|
|