 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/26/2001 7:55 PM (GMT -6) |   |
Mephi2K
10/28/00 10:26 AM
A Mental Exercise...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't mind, I'd like to try a mental exercise. Just to make a point. Let's posit the Open-View Theism God. We will take the assumption about the crux of the matter being the nature of reality and not the omniscience of God. We will also take the Open-View implication that God cannot know the future as REALITY because it's not actual; he can only know it as possibility. In addition, to make this more poignant, I'm also not even going to posit any type of plans in the mind of God at all before the creative event. We are going to say that the ONLY deliberative cognition that God had was to create. We will not assume any divine plan or providence.
In the beginning, there was only God. No other object possessed being, reality, or existence. Just God. At this state of reality, God's omniscience would naturally contain ONLY knowledge about God, since He is the only non-possibility. Now, we posit the initiation of the big bang. Whoom! (Actually, it would be soundless, but anyways...) As a result, God's complete omniscience would encompass EVERY bit of information about that event exhaustively. The dimensions involved, the proto-matter, the velocity of the outgoing material, everything.
Let's back up a sec. Reductionist take on the scientific method. The scientific method shows that, given X amount of information about any given object A (this includes its ontology, environment under which it is studied, etc..), there should be a Y percentage of accurate predictability about Object A's behavior under certain specified conditions. Moreover, the level of Y is positively related to the amount of X. The more information we have, the more accurately we can predict.
Let's give the big bang, time=0, where the integers represent nanoseconds. If God is said to know EXHAUSTIVELY everything about reality at time=0, what is the percentage of accuracy with which God can predict what will occur at time=1? Given the scientific approach we have discussed above, He should have 100% accuracy in predicting what will happen at time=1. Let me say that again. He should have 100% accuracy in his predicting power for predicting all events in that next nanosecond!
(Digression: For the record, the uncertainty principle and such assumes that any given observer does not have completely exhaustive knowledge about reality. Hence, the problem is with observation. However, such limitations cannot be applied to any being that knows reality exhaustively, as Dr. Boyd says God does)
Hmmmm...well, how about time=2? Still the same amount. 100% Time=3? 100% This would continue onward, as long as time exists. From each previous moment in time, God should be able to predict the next moment with perfect precision.
Notice something else. If what we are saying here is true, then this would mean at time=0, God's predictability of the future would necessarily have been exhaustive, temporally speaking. "Why," you ask? Because just like scientists today, we can MAKE predictions based on our predictions, given enough reliability. And God's predictions, though not actual realities, are about as reliable as anyone could ever get. Theoretically, at time=0, God would have been able to make predictions of time=1, UPON which, he could then predict time=2, UPON which he could predict t=3, ad infinitum. Because God's mind is so vast (I assume that we would all agree on this), it is nothing to say that God has this intellectual capability to calculate predictions time=0
Given what we've stated here, there is NO way that God can have exhaustive omniscience of reality as Open View Theists describe it and still NOT have exhaustive foreknowledge of all events of the future. They are inextricably linked. We can't even say that God "chose" to be ignorant of our choices. If his omniscience really encompasses ALL aspects of reality, then he can't do that. (Yeah, I said it. God CANNOT do it) Why? Because God cannot be omniscient and NOT omniscient at the same time in the same respect. Either He is or He isn't.
So, I guess the question to ask is this: "Does Dr. Boyd believe that God knows all reality exhaustively? Here's a statement from "Breif Responses To Objections" on the Christus Victor Ministries website (Dr Boyd's website):
"I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that God is absolutely all knowing. There is no difference in my understanding of God’s omniscience and that of any other orthodox theologian, but I hold that part of the reality which God perfectly knows consists of possibilities as well as certainties. The difference lies in our understanding of the nature of the future, not in our understanding of God’s omniscience."
Now let's break this down. What is he saying? He IS saying that God knows all reality exhaustively. And he is also saying that God knows possibilities as such. I will now put my spin on this. God knows the near infinite amount of possibilities that can arise from any given situation A, and he knows those AS possibilities. However, God ALSO knows exhaustively the content and context of situation A. Therefore, God can predict with 100% accuracy the reality that will emerge from situation A. Going back to the discussion of time=0. At time=0, God would know the infinite possibilities of what COULD occur at time=1and He would know them as possibilities. On the other hand, because of God's exhaustive knowledge of reality at time=0, He knows, without doubt, what WILL happen at time=1.
Now, we see the problems that the Open-View has with a virtual "Rain-Man" God who didn't plan anything before creation. How many MORE problems arise when we posit a God who Scripturally, is said to make SOME things definite (as Dr. Boyd notes) , AND who is said to have an all-encompassing plan for reality that was formulated from the foundations of the world?
I hope my point is made. I contend that unless Open View theists are willing to completely reject the notion of God's omniscience (in ANY form), there is no rational basis for them to remain Open View theists. I would love any type of reply. I humbly ask you to deal with the concepts that I have presented, and not to bring in irrelevant material. I am open to any view if it can hold it's own under fire. I await your reply.
Regards,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
NaveySealed
10/28/00 11:36 PM
RE: A Mental Exercise...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi2K
To start with, humans are not comparable to chemicals in some mythical "big bang" posited by materialist philosophers and evilutionists. Men are made in God's image and are not solely driven by their chemical reactions.
Also, a man may be attracted equally to two or more possible choices (chinese or mexican food) so even God may not be able to predict which choice a man may make in such a situation.
And lastly, we have examples of God stating that He doesn't know for sure how the future will turn out. God says "perhaps" (Jer 26:3; 36:3; Ezek 12:3) and "Now I know" (Gen 22:12). The irrationality of sin has a strong effect on the choices that men make and I don't believe that even God can understand the irrational completely. God isn't irrational and there are some sins that are SO heinous that He never even imagined men doing them until they came about (Jer 19:5; 32:35).
Just think of what the ramifications would be if your theory was correct. God would know that Adam would disobey Him and bring great suffering into the world by eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam's disobedience would be what God wanted to happen because He knew that creating Adam in such a way would cause Adam to make the choice of listening to Eve (who was also made in such a way that God knew she would buy into the lie of the devil who himself was created in a way that would guarantee his fall and lying to Eve) and eating the fruit. And then you have me typing this post to provide evidence that God did not know when He created this cosmos that I would be typing this post or even exist for that matter. But God knew that I would type this and that my promoting a lie (that God does not have EDF) is all part of His plan. What a sick and twisted God this would be
Sealed
Jer 18:6-10
Luke 13:6-9
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
10/29/00 5:12 AM
RE: RE: A Mental Exercise...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sealed,
First of all, I thank you for your response. However, I must make some comments. I believe that in my original post, I specifically asked that we deal solely with the concepts that I had presented. I did this so that we could focus of the issue of the validity of the Open View Theism notion of omniscience and its implications. I understand that this can be quite an emotion-tugging subject. But I would ask, in the future that we deal with the validity of my "mind exercise", and not how we feel about it's implications if it is true.
Let me categorically state this. The crux of this issue is the validity and plausibility of my mental exercise. Nothing more. If we choose, we can bring in all types of other subjects that will obscure the main objective. The task is to show how my proposed model is either invalid, inconsistent, or irrelevant to the subject of Open View Theism. It seems that by your statement, you can see how damaging my exercise is the the idea of the Open View God:
<<>>
Well, sir or madam, with all due respect, the "ramifications" aren't what's on trial here. What IS on trial is whether or not Open View Theism can stand up to intellectual scrutiny. I refer to "Christus Victor Convictions", Number 1: Reason and Faith:
"Intelligence and passion are compatible. Christianity should make rational sense and should be lived passionately. The head and the heart were created by God to work together. The more rational sense a belief makes, the more passionately it can be embraced. The best argument for unbelief is incoherent theology."
Again, on the "Scientific Support for the Open View", the statement is made:
"If a position is true, every avenue of reflection ought to point in its direction."
and one more from "Philosophical Support of the Open View":
"I believe that sound philosophical arguments support the open view in which God doesn’t foreknow the future free decisions of humans. My main reasons for holding this view are biblical and theological, but since truth is one we should expect that the truths of Scripture and the truths of reason will arrive at the same conclusion—if we interpret Scripture accurately and reason correctly" (Quite Thomistic, I would say...)
I believe that Dr. Boyd and his supporters truly believe in these affirmations. Therefore, it is only right that someone take them to task when that person sees something that appears incoherent or not entirely thought through. The bottom line is this: If open-view theism is logically implausible given its own undergirding presuppositions and premises, then any person of reason must, I repeat, MUST do one of two things: 1) reject it entirely or 2) change some of the presupps or premises. From my stance, I truly believe the only way to keep any type of Open View is to renounce the notion of God's omniscience AS DR. BOYD HIMSELF UNDERSTANDS THE TERM. I believe I have cogently shown how omniscience logically leads to the notion of Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge of the future.
Thus, the gauntlet is, again, thrown down. Not in smug attempts to belittle anyone, but in genuine inquiry and a heartfelt desire to understand. Again, Sealed, thank you so much for your response. I anticipate others to be just as sincere and cordial.
Regards,
Mephi2K
Note to Other Posters: At the risk of being redundant, I will say it again. PLEASE, sir or madam, if you are specifically posting an answer to my exercise, center the brunt of your argumentation to the model detailed in the exercise without bringing in extraneous or irrelevant material. Thank you in advance for your diligence in this matter.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
10/29/00 9:54 AM
RE: A Mental Exercise...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mental exercise presented is quite irrelevent to Open Theism. Here's why:
1. No Open theist would grant the premise that none of the future is reality. Possibilities are parasitic upon actualities. You cannot have choices if you do not encounter actualized reality. The question here should be about whether "possibilities are possible."
2. Eliminating the verb "plan" from the mind of God prior to creation has the effect of actually positing the Classical diety which this Mephi2K already believes in. This is tantamount to a trick. The author of the mental exercise is basically commiting a bait and switch tactic.
3. The god proposed for this exercise is not sufficently trinitarian. The Christian God is three persons one essence and purpose. Furthermore the Christian God of Open Theism is understood to be LOVE and that eternally so that there is dynamic interaction between the three persons of the trinity through out eternity. The god proposed for the mental exercise fails to reflect this, and this failure makes the exercise irrelevent since it does not even reflect the basic understandings of the doctrine of God.
4. It is not "natural" to conclude that God's mind prior to creation would only contain knowledge about God if we believe that our God is a creative God. Mephi2K seems to think that creation is a by product of this god's existence, a sort of emination (as per Plato), but the biblical portrait of God which Open Theists appeal to is that of a God who plans and creates consciously.
5. A peculiar thing this big bang you speak of. What caused it? Why? What was God thinking just prior? It seems that this accorance reflects a posibility for God. Is this the case? If so you have lost your point. If not you are admiting that the creation is necessary. Choose your poison. Open Theists avoid both of these problems.
I believe these comments are sufficient to get things rolling...I realize that I have only dealt with the first two paragraphs, but if we can't get clear about those, then it follows that the rest which builds upon those is also irrelevent.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
10/29/00 1:04 PM
RE: RE: A Mental Exercise...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Modes,
Thanks for your reply. Here's my perception of the heart of the 5 statements you made: "The mental exercise presented is irrelevant to Open View Theism BECAUSE the God represented in the exercise is a FAR cry from the Open View Theism God. Because we are talking of two different views of God, Mephi's discussion of God cannot be relevant to Open View Theism" With all due respect, I find this line of thinking quite incorrect. Why? Because the main consideration, as I thought I made clear, is the omniscience of God. Aspects of trinity, creativity, and such are irrelevant to the subject. Statement by Dr. Boyd in "God and the Future: A Brief Outline of the Open View":
"I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that God is absolutely all knowing. There is no difference in my understanding of God's omniscience and any other orthodox theologian. But I hold that part of the reality, which God perfectly knows, consists of possibilities. The difference is in our understanding of creation, not in our understanding of God's omniscience."
In this statement, Dr, Boyd makes it clear that the MAIN distinction from his view and that of more Classicals is the understanding of creation. NOT in the understanding of God's omniscience. So, in what way does the Open View God possess omniscience? The Open View God:
1) knows all things that are actual exhaustively.
2) knows all possibilities exhaustively.
3) knows all possibilities AS possibilities.
Now let's look at my posited view of God. Look at it very closely. Does my hypothetical God:
1) exhaustively know all things that are actual? Yep.
2) exhaustively Know all possibilities? Yep
3) knows all possibilities AS possibilities? Indeed, yes. The fundamental concern we have in our discussion is God's omniscience, which according to Dr. Boyd, Open view theists and classicalists agree on. God's omniscience is, unquestionably, our common ground. Any and ALL other factors are irrelevant. If you will closely notice, my exercise needs God to have no type of personality whatsoever. This is because it is centered on the notion of omniscience, NOT personality or creativity. From what I understand, God's omniscience is the ONE thing that will not be surrendered by Open View Theism. But that is the very thing, I feel that sabotages it as a viable theological position.
Having said all this, I hope that you can know understand why I posited the assumptions that I did. There is no tricking and/or trapping going on at all, or anything like that. I was just trying to take out ALL the non-sequitors that keep getting brought into this debate. You said this: "I believe these comments are sufficient to get things rolling...I realize that I have only dealt with the first two paragraphs, but if we can't get clear about those, then it follows that the rest which builds upon those is also irrelevent." I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of laying foundations for discussions. I certainly hope that this HAS cleared up everything, so that we can get on the the real issues. Again, thanks for your reply. I'm expecting great things out of this.
Regards,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
10/29/00 3:55 PM
RE: RE: RE: A Mental Exercise...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi, you have not understood me fully, it seems. Your summary statement does not do justice to the force of my criticisms of your experiment. More on this latter...
Mephi states: "the main consideration, as I thought I made clear, is the omniscience of God. Aspects of trinity, creativity, and such are irrelevant to the subject." This is a strange claim, it seems that you would have us believe that the nature of God, God's very ontology, is irrelevant to God's attributes? If in fact, God is a God who experiences sequentially from eternity to eternity, then the metaphysical/cosmological difference that this makes to God's omniscience is indeed relevant to our conversation. Again, we assert that it is an ontological difference that is behind our varying understandings of God's omniscience. The ontology you set up in your experiment was that of the Classical view. This sets you up nicely to affirm the view of omniscience that would follow from that metaphysical perspective.I can see that I will have to be more specific in my response to your first two paragraphs with regard to why the experiment is irrelevant.
Here goes:
Mephi states in the fourth sentence, first paragraph: "We will take the assumption about the crux of the matter being the nature of reality and not the omniscience of God."Now Mephi states: "I find (Modes) line of thinking quite incorrect. Why? Because the main consideration, as I thought I made clear, is the omniscience of God."Clearly, Mephi has not made it clear whether we are discussing Ontology or Theology. And furthermore seems to think that one has no implications for the other. As we have said, let us be clear on the initial assumptions. For this experiment to be worthwhile in its attempt to refute Open theists, it will have to bear semblance to the Open View understanding of God AND REALITY.
Mephi states in the fifth sentence, first paragraph: "We will also take the Open-View implication that God cannot know the future as REALITY because it's not actual; he can only know it as possibility." and follows this with further qualifications that God does not plan or deliberate or offer any providence other than the impulse to create. This leads squarely back to my second criticism which was not answered adequately. If Open Theists understand God's nature itself to be relational in its very eternality, and if this includes for Open Theists, God's providence and plans for creation (as it does), to eliminate these from the experiment is tantamount to undoing the very stuff which God knows. The experiment claims to pose a god who knows possibilities as possibilities but has not demonstrated how the classical ontology it proposes can sustain such a claim. Mephi sounds as though it is simplifying the matter to not posit any type of plans or intentions in the mind of this god, but it again serves the experimentor only, not the refutation of Open Theism.
Continuing on, God is posited in the Classical formulation of purus actus: "God's omniscience would naturally contain ONLY knowledge about God, since He is the only non-possibility." This would mean, that this god of no possibilities knows no possibilities (vs. #3 of your posited god). This is not the God of Open Theism. We do not believe in purus actus, we leave that to Greek speculation. This then refutes the claims of the rebuttal where Mephi states that his experimental god knows possibilities as such.
Mephi, does the god of your experiment experience sequential passage or is it an atemporal/non-sequential existence? This is absolutely critical to get clear on for the relevance of this test.
Furthermore, why does your test need god to have no personality whatever? What is the link between personality and omniscience which you wish to avoid? Granting you this need would be tantamount to denying the personal nature of God. This leads us right back to the problems we have seen above-you'd like to say that this discussion of omnipotence (creation? reality?) is independent of metaphysics. This is simply not the case, as you said in your first presentation, the crux is the view of creation itself which is at issue. Not theology. Therefore, you are also quite wrong in asserting that: "From what I understand, God's omniscience is the ONE thing that will not be surrendered by Open View Theism." As we have said, this is not about omniscience, but creation.
Here are some other things that will not be surrendered by OT:
1. The final authority of Scripture
2. The deity of Christ
3. The necessity of the Cross and resurrection
4. The aseity of God
5. A robust recognition of the Trinity
6. The intimate relationship God has chosen with creation/history
7. The universal presence and sustaining power of the Spirit
8. The omnipotence of God
9. The goodness of God
10. The faithfulness of God
11. God's universal Love for all
12. God's mission to pursue all
And the list could go on and on... Please do not insult us further with statements like the one I quoted from you above. I assume that you know better. If not, spend some time reading this website.
I too hope for great things out of this, but we will have to get clear about the following:
1. What are the ontological assumptions being made? Are they relevant? Are they agreeable?
2. What is this about? Omniscience? Ontology? Metaphysics? Cosmology?
3. Do you realize that personality and creativity ARE metaphysical/Ontological/Theological categories for Open Theists? They are not dismissable! They are rather, constituitive of the very being of God who is relational (both internally/eternally and externally with regard to creation) and more specifically Love, as Scripture demands us to recognize.
I hope you agree that these issues must be clarified before we can move forward with your experiment. The last time I replied to you, you dismissed my contribution with a short (one sentence!!) summary of my argument in YOUR words. That summary was very simplistic and failed to address substantive criticisms of your experiment. Besides that, you put it in quotes which could have the effect of other readers thinking that you words were in fact mine. Clearly they were not. My further engagement in this conversation is contingent on your taking my responses more seriously and letting them stand as stated rather than rewording them in such a way that disarms their effect.
Blessings...
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
sparkleylight
10/29/00 5:16 PM
RE: RE: A Mental Exercise...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NICELY PUT, I CONCUR.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
sparkleylight
10/29/00 5:29 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: A Mental Exercise...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to clarify by saying I am in agreement with modesofthought. I am also very thankful that he/she replied and did ALL that typing before I had to
God bless all in the Body
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
10/29/00 5:37 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: A Mental Exercise...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Modes,
Thanks, again, for continuing the convo. Some preliminary things. First of all, thank you for being more specific with this last response. It's very helpful for me to be more specific. Secondly, I didn't think anyone would mistake my speech for yours, with reference to the second sentence of my previous writing. I thought that my prologue would have made that quite clear that it was merely a summation of what I perceived was the underlying message:
<<>>
Obviously, I was not as clear as I had hoped. Duly noted. Henceforth, I shall make every effort to make my statements as unambiguous as possible. Most importantly, I sincerely apologize if there was offense taken at my statement:
<<>>
There was never any pejorative intent with that statement. I just meant to affirm that God's omniscience was bedrock to Open View Theism's foundation. Nothing more. I can see how my emphasis on the word "one" could lead a reader to believe that I was insinuating that Open View Theists basically cast aside essential doctrines of the Christian faith, except for that one. I humbly assure you that was surely not my intent. So, on that score, please except my apologies for any misunderstanding. My bad Hopefully, we both understand that this exercise is not for insulting, but for illumination, and we can both keep this in mind, first and foremost, if we perceive anything that is said to be pejorative in further correspondence.
Moving on...
1A) What are the ontological assumptions being made?
On God:
The ontological assumption being made in my model is that God (as I posit Him) is not a timeless being, in the concept of Classical Theism. Basically, my God "experiences" time as it happens, from the initiation of creation onward. I state categorically that my God in the model does "experience" sequential time. This is essential because if this is not posited, then it fails to truly take into account the cosmology of the Open View theism God. Also, I will assume that we both agree on the concept of omniscience, being that God:
1) knows all things that are actual exhaustively.
2) knows all possibilities exhaustively.
3) knows all possibilities AS possibilities.
Moreover, because there is obviously a lot riding on the other attributes of God mentioned by Modes, I will go ahead and accept them. These include:
--The triune nature of God
--The aseity of God
--The omnipotence of God
--The goodness of God
--The faithfulness of God
--The universal love of God
--The intimate relationship that God has chosen with creation
--The universal presence and sustaining power of the Spirit
--The necessity of the Cross, etc...
--The omniscience of God
Essentially, this will transform my "Rain Man" God to the God more adequate represented in Scripture.
What will this change?
--There will be a plan for creation
--There will be a "personal" creator who is relational within himself (the trinity), even before the Creative event.
--God's creation was be in accordance with God's plan
--God can and does indeed act in history.
This is all fine. I don't see that this will in any way be a problem to my model. If this serves to bridge the gap that we are facing, so much the better.
On Creation:
Creation took place ex-nihilo by the deliberative will of God. Our universe in no way emanates from God or any such thing. Creation, thus, is distinct from its creator. Our universe is such that it is made up of actualities and possibilities. (More to be said on this later) For the intents of this discussion, I will affirm that both actualities AND possibilities are within our universe. I do not affirm a necessarily mechanistic model of the universe. There is indeterminancy for finite observers.
(Now, on this score, I must make this very clear. The principles of indeterminacy and the possibility of acausality are made in mind with the assumption that there are NO ideal observers who know exhaustively everything there is to know about everything. Thus, even though the universe is by NO means directly mechanistic, the subject of indeteriminacy in this universe is directly applicable for finite observers, not necessarily the omniscient god)
1B) Are they relevant?
As these new qualifications really bring my posited God much closer to the Open View Theism God, I believe so.
1C) Are they agreeable?
You have to be the judge on that.
2) What is this about? Omniscience? Ontology? Metaphysics? Cosmology?
I personally believe this is about God's omniscience and it's corresponding implications. This is not to say that the rest of God's attributes are not important, in and of themselves. But I feel the omniscience of God is what really sells my model. Moreover, the omniscience of God is the essential ingredient that feeds my model. Without it, it does not and cannot work.
3) Do you realize that personality and creativity ARE metaphysical/Ontological/Theological categories for Open Theists?
Indeed, I do. However, it is my humble opinion that they do not at all really affect the thought and outcome behind the model. Therefore, I thought those ideas irrelevant. However, if it is indeed irrelevant with regard to the model, then adding those categories should not matter a whit to the outcome. So let's see how much they matter...
On Actuality and Possibility:
In "Philosophical Support for Open View Theism", Sec. 4:
"P1) The fundamental distinction between possibility and actuality is that of indefiniteness and definiteness."
Later, the question is asked:
" If the distinction between actuality and possibility is not that of definiteness and indefiniteness, then what is it?"
It is here I wish to insert my 2 cents. I personally disagree with the P1 presented. I believe it leaves much to be maybe just a tad vague. Here's my defs:
Actuality: Anything that possesses the ontological elements of being, reality, and existence as is.
Possibility: Anything that possesses the CAPACITY for the ontological elements of being, reality and existence, yet lack actualization.
In short, actuality talks about "What IS" Possibility asks the question "What IF?" If this is what is meant by "definiteness" and "indefiniteness", then I'm cool with it, somewhat.
It is my ardent hope that these statements will prove to be the foundations for which you are looking. If not, then let's keep plugging away at it. We're getting there, mon ami. Slowly, but surely, we're getting there.
Regards,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
10/29/00 5:41 PM
RE: RE: RE: RE: A Mental Exercise...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes,
Sorry. The quotes I put in the << >> keep getting lost in the transmission. First one:
" Here's my perception of the heart of the 5 statements you made:.."
Second one:
" From what I understand, God's omniscience is the ONE thing that will not be surrendered by Open View Theism."
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Regards,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
10/29/00 7:01 PM
RE: A Mental Exercise...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi2k's mental exercise only demonstrates that an omniscient being would (or would HAVE to) know the future exhaustively IF we presuppose that all future states are determined by past and present states. If this is true (but only if this is true) then of course God would know all future states, for he exhaustively knows all present states. If humans are self-determining, however, then future states are NOT exhaustively determined by present states. Also, against Mephi2k's claim, most quantum theorist today do not suppose that quantum indeterminacy is merely epistemological. Causes do not necessitate ONE effect. A range of effects are possible, at least on a quantum level.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
10/29/00 8:59 PM
RE: RE: A Mental Exercise...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Beso,
Welcome to the discussion. Glad to hear from you
My friend, you seem to have hit the nail on the proverbial head:
"Mephi2k's mental exercise only demonstrates that an omniscient being would (or would HAVE to) know the future exhaustively IF we presuppose that all future states are determined by past and present states. If this is true (but only if this is true) then of course God would know all future states, for he exhaustively knows all present states."
Bravo! You captured it, in a nutshell
Now to the other remarks...
You said:
" If humans are self-determining, however, then future states are NOT exhaustively determined by present states"
What is a self-determining human? In "Philosophical Support of Open Theism", sec. 3:
"P1) Self-determination means that the self determines its actions, or it has no clear meaning. Regarding any genuinely free act, in other words, by definition the free agent ultimately determined that an action within the category of possibilities (“possibly this or possibly that”) would become something within the category of actualities (“certainly this and certainly not that.”)"
How do you explain this psychologically? Are we truly saying that a human being can make a decision as a pure act of will with NO antecedent thoughts, feelings, dispositions, or events in some ways bringing forth said decision? If we want to get into the notion of "free will", as you seem to be describing it, then we would have to say that human acts of will can literally originate from nothing at all. But, I think that modern psychology has long since proven that untenable. ALL actions and decisions made by humans are in SOME way affected by their past experiences and states of being. (See Sigmund Freud, Erik Erickson, Albert Bandura, and William James) What has been described in P1 seems to me to be the concept of agency or, as Bandura would call it, "self-efficacy" Self-efficacy and "free will" are two completely different concepts. People that hold to EDF can and do believe in self-efficacy and human agency. The only way that your statement holds up is if you affirm the existence of "free will", which is very hard to maintain. (Incidentally, many try to use quantum physics to bolster the idea of "free will" in human beings)
Next, you said:
"Also, against Mephi2k's claim, most quantum theorist today do not suppose that quantum indeterminacy is merely epistemological. Causes do not necessitate ONE effect. A range of effects are possible, at least on a quantum level."
About the quantum level...I have never said that any given cause only necessitates one effect. I agree that a range of effects are possible. What I am asking is this: Does indeterminancy truly apply to an omniscient being? Are we really saying that a being that knows all things exhaustively about quantum event A (100% knowledge of all things involved) cannot make a 100% reliable prediction FROM event A? We need to understand how deep this goes. This is basically saying that even omniscience cannot truly comprehend quantum events. If this is the case, the omniscience, as we understand it, cannot truly exist. The Being to whom we attribute "omniscience" must necessarily be agnostic with regard to the most fundamental building blocks of the universe. Is this really the case? This is something on the Heisenburg Principle (also refered to as the uncertainty principle):
The non commutative, mathematical discovery by Heisenburg and
quantum physics, that matter on the fundamental level is unpredictable - we can never ascertain both a subatomic particle's momentum and location - literally this is because knowledge of one effects/deters knowledge of the other. This is because the great discovery of quantum physics shows us that all existence (light, energy and matter) have a dual and "complementarity" nature as both particles and waves. Knowing one precludes a clear knowledge of the other.
As I see it, this whole thing is assuming finiteness of understanding and observational capacity. But how can this apply to an omniscient God? Are we saying that God cannot know both a subatomic particle's momentum and location at the same time? If he cannot, then let's not call him omniscient. If he can, then it seems that makes ALL the difference. I contend that uncertainty in creation only truly exists for non-omniscient beings. Bottom line: Quantum events seem to form the basis of all matter and energy. If God EXHAUSTIVELY knows the wild and wooly ways of quantum events, then it stands to reason that God and God alone can predict future states with complete accuracy from past and present events.
Example. Some say the mathematics of quantum physics
show that particles can possibly appear from nothing, go back in time, and cause their own creation. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this is true. (Wow. This would kill William Lane Craig's "from nothing, nothing comes", eh?) Would you say that God had little to no knowledge of how that entire process worked or the existents involved? Or would you say that God's omniscience means that He knew the process and existents exhaustively? If you said the latter, this would mean that the wierdness of the event itself is irrelevant. God would still know the outcome of the event, from start to finish, because He knows the situation exhaustively. This is why I continuously state: I'm dealing with God's omniscience. If God's omniscience extends to quantum events, then certain implications follow.
Again, thanks for joining in.
Regards,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
10/29/00 10:47 PM
RE: RE: RE: A Mental Exercise...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Mephi2K:
Bravo to you too. You clearly understood my point. We at least agree that the issue surrounds free will. If free will (as self-determining) exists, then the Open view is perfectly consistent with omniscience. (Indeed, Open Theists claim it is the only truly consistent view with omniscience and free will). If you are correct, and no such thing as free will exists, then of course Open Theism is not necessary (though we'd still have to account for the passages Open Theists put forth). I'm wondering, however, if you think GOD has free will. For in your previous essay, you seemed to suggest it was an unintelligible concept. And an unintelligible concept doesn't suddenly become intelligible when its applied to the surpeme being. So, do you think GOD was determined by antecedent causes to (say) create the world, become a human being, etc...?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
10/30/00 8:25 AM
Reply to Exercise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Beso,
Great Question! Glad you asked.
I believe that God is the only true "free" being in the strictest sense of the term. God is the arbiter of all reality and existence! I don't believe that anything antedates God, He was the sole creator of all reality. Moreover, I believe that God is the foundation on which being itself relies (This is not exactly the same as Paul Tillich's "ground of all being". I don't take his radical idea of immenence) We could call God the Unmoved Mover, or something like that but that would not truly do the concept justice. Because God is the very foundation on which being itself IS, God's aseity is almost a foregone conclusion.
God's "Free Will"
Here's my take on God's free will (This is from another work I have done):
The creation of our existence began with an act of will from God, the most free creative act of God. I contend that this creative act was according to what we would call a divine intention, which operated a divine plan. This "plan" was not only eternal, but it is God's plan alone. I also believe that God's plan can be accurately described as the infinite range of possibilities of timelines that help comprise God's omniscience. This means that the divine intention to actualize one of those possible realities can be viewed as the primal "free choice" of God. With that choice, God made effectively certain (though not necessary) what would occur in reality. This is what makes God's sovereign and predestining will possible.
(Digression on infinite timelines: Have you ever seen the science fiction show "Sliders" It's based on the concept that there are infinite parallel universes IN ACTUALITY such that one can travel from one to the other. The thing i find important is the concept. The reason that we are able to say "infinite" parallel universes is because two of those universe may possibly only have literally ONE difference. No more. Example. In one universe, at 10:30 am, I am in class and choose to blink my left eye. In another universe, I perform the same action, only with my right eye. In other words, there are are many realities as there are possible actions and decisions in time. It is my perspective that these infinite parallel universes were not ACTUAL, but a conceptual part of God's omniscience before the creative event.)
What does this mean? Well, first of all, it is in no way analogous to the Platonic idea of "reals." The timelines have no reality outside of the comtemplative "mind" of God. They are possibilities that have yet to be actualized (I refer you to my definitions of actuality and possibility in one of the 10/29/00 05:37pm writing) God's "free choice" (which I call the primal choice) is God's choice of what reality to actualize. Because of what I've told you before, we know that God's omniscience gives Him predictive ability such that God can, using the "specs" of the the initial creative event along with his knowledge of what his OWN interactions can do in time, predict exhaustively every event that will happen in the future. When God chose which of the infinite possible realities to actualize, he made a deliberative choice against which possible realities would NOT become actualized. This concept is close to what William James calls a "forced" aspect of a "genuine option" A forced option is when NOT choosing something has the same consequences as a negative choice against said thing. In other words, by God choosing which reality to actualize (and not choosing the others), He effectively decided AGAINST any other reality being actualized. In sum, God "free" choice, as the freest being around, consists of his deliberative action in the creative event.
On Free Will for Humans
You are absolutely right. I don't believe that humans can possess "free will", in the strictest sense of the term. What I DO believe humans have is 1)the power of volition and 2)agency. What does this mean? It means that human beings CAN make choices by will, though those choices have NECESSARY constraints (i.e. past experiences, dispositions, internal motivation, physical limitation, etc.) This is the power of volition. Human beings also CAN make efficacious actions on their own behalf that does affect and "create", as it were, there future. It should be noted that this is a far cry from the philosophical notion of fatalism, where there is not link between cause and effect.
(Note: The notion of acausality can be a double-edged sword. Self-efficacy and agency DEMAND that a cause/effect relationship predominate reality. If not, then human agency would wane under the capricious actions of a capricious universe.) The loss of "free will" should not be seen as a disaster though. Think about this pragmatically. Can human beings ask for anything more than the power of volition and agency? Not really. The only thing that matter to us, as Bandura and James would agree, is that we are truly enabled to make our own choice and percieve rightly that those choices can impact our environment and our situations. To me, the notion of "free will" is often used as an escape of God's knowledge. I have actually heard it said "A person's will is not truly free unless no one knows what that person will do next. Not even GOD." Whoa.
On the Distinction between Actualization and Pan-causality
I wish to make this perfectly plain. God actualizing our reality is not, I repeat, NOT the same thing as pancausality. In pan-causality, God is seen as the DIRECT causal agent of every movement or thought. With this view, human situation have no real link to human cognition, and human cognition has NO real link to human action. God just "causes" everything. Also, with pan-causality, self-efficacy and agency are not possible. Why? Because the self can never be efficacious in any meaningful sense of the word. This is micromanagement, par excellence. On the other hand, with the idea of God actualizing a reality, God is seen as the mastermind ultimately behind every movement and thought. Human cognition does have a real link to human action. And self-efficacy and agency are maintained. I've heard the statement "Well, it works out the same way. God is ultimately behind all we do. Therefore, we have no true freedom." I refer back to what I said above. Are we truly saying that freedom is contingent upon God's inability to know what we are going to do next? If so, then we REALLY need to discard God's omniscience. Summation: In pancausality, the statement "God MADE me do it" has true meaning and any moral culpability is truly lost. With the other view, the same statement does not have true meaning, as God did not "make" anybody do anything.
A HEAVY Example of How this All Works Out
Hmmm...things may get a little tense, so if anyone is offended, I humbly apologize in advance. Let me use an example surrounding little Zosia. In reading Dr. Boyd's work, I seem to see the name a lot. And I can understand why. This terrible situation is where the "rubber meets the road" of our views. An example of primal evil. Thus, I will use it here. Taking my idea of God, before the creative event, in the mind of God, there were many potential realities where little Zosia did NOT get her eyes put out. In one of them, God's angel got to the situation in time, was able to thwart the leading demon, and somehow stopped it from happening. In another, the Nazi with the knife happened to drop his knife, and after dropping it, saw something that caught his attention, causing him and his fellow soldier to hurriedly leave Zosia. In another, God shines a light into the Nazis' hearts by whatever means, and they all decide, mysteriously, to just let her go. In another, the lead Nazi present decides at the last minute NOT the put Zosia's eyes out they are such beautiful eyes (instead of taking them out because they are beautiful, as the story is told) ,but to simply make her a sex slave for the troops. However, God did NOT choose to actualize any of those realities. He chose the one where she suffered horribly that day of August 15, 1943. This is not to be in any way profane the horrible act that took place or anything like that. But it IS to make some very needed points:
1) Even the context of warfare, with battling demons and angels, is under God's complete control.
2) We have to admit that God is at least indirectly responsible for what ACTUALLY happened to Zosia. In choosing this reality to actualize instead of one where she was spared, God made the deliberative choice to concretize a reality where Zosia WOULD (not MUST) be killed.
3) It is not mandatory that we like every aspect of God's deliberative plan to admit that it IS His plan.
4) Moral repugnance of ramifications or any such things cannot be allowed to discredit or disavow logically binding implications of given premises.
Do I get any bit of satisfaction in my view that God, for whatever reason, chose to actualize a reality where a little girl's eye got put out. Certainly not. I don't understand it. At all. But, at the same time, I personally cannot escape the implications of God's omniscience, as you and I understand it, Beso. Again, I hope this last part wasn't too graphic for you, but I want to make it plain that I am willing to accept all of the ramifications that my view necessitates, AND I am willing to wrestle with the moral dimensions of this view, just like anyone else.
Thanks for the reply.
Regards,
Mephi2K
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
beso
10/30/00 6:23 PM
RE: Reply to Exercise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Mephi:
I am happy to see you are willing to follow your thoughts through to their logical conclusion. This is admirable. You admit that among all the options, God CHOOSE Zosia to have her eyes plucked out. That is not an easy pill to swallow.
Still, I have three questions: 1) Does your view not make God completely responsible for evil (not just "partially responsible" as you say). Would you hold that every possible timeline God chooses was the BEST from among the options? Is this the "best of all possible world," in other words.
2) How can we humans say that God is "the only true 'free' being" (as you say) unless we have SOME small measure of that same freedom? If we have NOTHING like self-determining freedom, then we can't supply the term "free" with any meaning when we apply it to God. And, if we can speak meaningfully of GOD's freedom -- and mean by this something like "the ability to act without being exhaustively determined by previous states of affairs" -- then your previous point that this notion of freedom is unintelligible is refuted.
And 3), If we are not "free" to transcend previous causes, then how can we say of any human being "you should have done otherwise"? And if we can't say that they should have done otherwise, how can we hold them morally responsible for what they do?
Nice talking with you. (I hope we haven't lost all other readers, however. Are you tracking with me and Mephi out there?)
BESO
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
10/30/00 7:48 PM
RE: RE: Reply to Exercise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Beso,
Your accolades are appreciated. My thanks.
Now to your questions...
1A) Does your view not make God completely responsible for evil (not just "partially responsible" as you say).
Response:
Let me clarify something, first of all. I didn't say "partially responsible" I said...
"We have to admit that God is at least INDIRECTLY (emphasis mine) responsible for what ACTUALLY happened to Zosia."
What I meant by this statement is that we cannot say that God is directly responsible for Zosia's death. That would imply either pan-causality or God DIRECTLY doing something to bring about Zosia's death (like smiting her with a bolt of lightning or something) What is the case is that God, by his choice of actualizing, made it such that Zosia's death took place. Lemme put it in more colloquial terms. If this were a "who dun it" mystery case, God wouldn't be considered the one who "pulled the trigger", therefore not being the actual killer. God WOULD be considered the mastermind who facilitated the circumstances that led to the killing. Under such considerations, when asked "Who killed person A in the mystery case?", we would say "Well, God didn't pull the trigger, so he's not directly responsible, but He is ULTIMATELY responsible for the death."
I wholeheartedly affirm that God is FULLY, though indirectly, responsible for evil. There is no escaping that. Actually, there is no need to do so. God, being the arbiter of reality, is responsible for ALL good and evil that we see. How could it be otherwise?
1B)Would you hold that every possible timeline God chooses was the BEST from among the options? Is this the "best of all possible world," in other words.
Response:
I think the best possible worlds thing is unconvincing. It is almost ludicrous to think that out of an INFINITE amount of potential universes to choose from that this is the "best possible choice" to fulfill God's purposes. More importantly, the best possible world scenario really doesn't even solve the problem of evil, in my view. I think that God chose this reality, for reasons that will only be known to Him. I think we will never find that out. And maybe we don't need to find it out, anyways. Let God deal with that, is what I say.
2) How can we humans say that God is "the only true 'free' being" (as you say) unless we have SOME small measure of that same freedom?
Response:
First of all, let's look at our respective environments. "In the beginning, God.." God didn't have any type of external milieus constraining his decisions, nor any type of emotional deficiencies or limitations to hinder his decision. In the beginning, God was ALL. We can't even begin to imagine this type of environment for human beings. We are continuously conditioned by our environments and our inadequacies. There's no way that we could even TOUCH God's level and understanding of freedom, due to those differences. But don't we already have a small measure of what's important? The WILL. The ability to determine and decide. I think this is one of the main ingredients (at least functionally) of the Imago Dei. Think about it. Without the will, freedom means very little. But with the will, freedom is always possible. Look at how Viktor Frankl discovered what he called "the last of human freedoms" after his time in Auschwitz as a prisoner. The constraints on the will are not as important as the power of the will itself.
3A), If we are not "free" to transcend previous causes, then how can we say of any human being "you should have done otherwise"?
Response:
Ok. HERE's where I think that many people get mixed up. There is a very important distinction between something being "certain" and something being "necessary", with regard to determinism. If the determinism that we posit was truly of necessity, then we would have to posit only ONE possible effect for each set of causes. But this is, by no means, what is being posited. What we are saying is that, though other options are geniunely available, the outcome that will emerge is certain in the mind of God. This view allows for a multiplicity of effects for each set of causes.
To what shall I liken this? I know! Let's say that you have a lab mouse. In scenario 1, you place the mouse in a glass cage that only has ONE opening that leads into another self-contained room. That room is empty. You then make the point of observation to be the mouse exiting the cage. You surprising note that when the mouse wants to exit the cage, it comes out of the one exit! (GASP) Well, there's no big find there, now is it? It was NECESSARY that the mouse go through that particular exit. It was the only one. Now, let's take a second scenario. Another glass cage, but this time it has 4 exits, on four the four sides of the cage. Each of these exits lead into other self-contained rooms. This mouse, due to prior conditioning and past experiences, has a developed irresistible urge for limburger cheese. The mouse recognizes it by sight and smell. In one of the rooms is placed a plate of limburger cheese, in a position where the aroma drifts into the main room with the mouse, and where the mouse can see it? Where is the mouse going to go? Hmm..it's a pretty good conclusion that the mouse will head straight for the room with the cheese. Now, COULD the mouse have gone to any of the other three rooms. Certainly. All the exits were open to the mouse. So, how can we know with such relative surety that the mouse will go the the room with the cheese? Because we have some very important knowledge about the mouse and his past, and we knew that the mouse's conditioning would make it fairly certain, though not NECESSARY, that the mouse would head for the room with the cheese.
I hope this makes my point well. With regard to human decisions, there are MANY choices that we can make per decision. But because God knows our entire past, our biological functioning, as well as our mental states (conscious and subconscious), he knows which decision that we will make and he knows that with absolute certainty. This doesn't eliminate our power of choice, as you can see.
3B)And if we can't say that they should have done otherwise, how can we hold them morally responsible for what they do?
Response:
I want to make it clear that my view is not that same thing as naturalistic materialism. Far from it, I believe in a dualism in human constitution in a conditional unity. (This is the best explanation to me of the phenomenon of consciousness and self-transcendence) If I were propounding a system of naturalistic materialism, that would relegate all thoughts, feelings and compulsions to functions of either biology or environment. THEN, moral responsibility, in the sense in which you are speaking, would be impossible. The key is the position of an immaterial part of the human constitution that facilitates the "mind" (though in a conditionally unified manner with the brain) This breaks away from the radical behaviorism that materialism enforces. Genuine accountibility and capacity to choose morally is possible.
I hope that this has answers your questions somewhat. It has been a pleasure talking with you too, my friend. Be well, always!
Warmest regards,
Mephi2K
PS: I'm with Beso. How about we get some more respondents up in here? LOL
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
10/30/00 11:00 PM
huffing and puffing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, Mephi, Modes, and Beso, I like a challenge, but I'm not too proud to admit that I'm having a hard time keeping up with this little mental exercise of yours. Can you come up with another, slightly more comprehensible mental exercise so some of the rest of us can get in on the action?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
10/31/00 5:15 AM
New Exercises Per Request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ghost-dog-girl, your wish is your humble servant's command.
Love, peace, and hair grease,
Mephi2K
Exercise 1:
There exists a large square that is composed of 1000 little squares. Each of the little squares has either a "1" or a "0" on it. There is no particular order to the distribution of the 1s and 0s. There also exists a person, Ms. X, who knows exhaustively the positions of all the 0s in the large square. She knows the positions of the 0s exhaustively because, before seeing the actual square, she has memorized a map that details exactly where all the 0s are to be placed. The map ONLY shows the 0 squares.
Question:
Is it possible for Ms. X to claim ignorance about the location of the 1s in the cube? If so, why?
If not, why not?
Exercise 2:
Person A wants to wishes to have an elaborate 3 story building built in exactly 2 years. Person A has a general plan of how she wants the building to look (number of floors, hallways, etc), but it is not exhaustively detailed. One of the few particulars that this building is to have is a 4X4' plaque with the words, "I was here" to hang in the 3rd room of the 3rd hall on the 3rd floor of the building. Person A wants this done exactly 10 days, 3 hours and 50 mins before the grand opening of the building. She has employed her construction team well. Half of her builders are infallible, programmed androids who fulfill every order with perfect execution. The other half are normal human beings who are very diligent in their work, but not infallible.
Question:
Is is possible for Person A, before construction has begun, to know WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that her wishes for the plaque will be accomplished on schedule?
If so, why?
If not, why not?
PS: these do have something to do with the Open View thing...if indirectly.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
10/30/00 11:09 PM
I thought Rubix cubes were hard...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Exercise 1 (aka the Mephi-cube): Mephi, I assume you have set up the particular details of your scenario very deliberately, so I would like to clarify a few things.
I'm confused by the mixture of dimensions--i.e. the three-dimensional cube made up of two-dimensional squares. Speaking of dimensions, we have plenty of space in this exercise, but we seem to be short on time. So at this point I will answer that if Ms. X has always known the location of all the 0s, or if Ms. X is outside of time, or whatever, then she cannot be ignorant of the location of all the 1s, even if she wanted to--and why would she want to anyway? But, If Ms. X experiences sequence, then she cannot know the location of all the 1s until she has learned the location of all the 0s. I think that you forgot to mention that if Ms. X needs to know whether any particular square is a 0 or a 1, she can test it to find out. And she is also very very clever so she probably has other ways of knowing or being almost certain that we haven't thought of. Oh yeah, and Ms. X wants all the 0s to be 1s and she made a way so they can, so she is giving them all a chance to convert. Since Ms. X is also very powerful, she can make a 0 into a 1 if she wants to, but she'd rather let them work it out on their own, because she also happens to be very loving and empowering. Ms. X is one swell gal!
I hope you're not too irritated at me for making up my own rules for your Mephi cube...I never could solve Rubix cubes, but I sure could tear them apart!
Until next time...ciao
p.s. I'm all for Love and Peace, but you can keep the hair grease. Thanks anyway.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
10/30/00 11:20 PM
RE: I thought Rubix cubes were hard...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just read your rejoinder to Sealed in which you state:
"Note to Other Posters: At the risk of being redundant, I will say it again. PLEASE, sir or madam, if you are specifically posting an answer to my exercise, center the brunt of your argumentation to the model detailed in the exercise without bringing in extraneous or irrelevant material. Thank you in advance for your diligence in this matter."
Oops...I don't think you'll be very happy with my reply to your exercise--which you graciously created per my request. I hope you don't think I'm an ingrate. I did the best I could.
Could my additions to your exercise count as a rethinking of its presuppositions?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Go To Page 2 >>
Up to Msg List | Send to a Friend | Help << Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Community Moderators: adiaphora
Site-Specific Moderators: springs
Jump To: cdearmond's Forums Christus Victor Ministries
Christus Victor Ministries
This site is part of the Christus Victor Ministries Community
GET A FREE MESSAGE BOARD. CLICK HERE.
Add This Forum to Your Site | Get a Free Message Board | Browse Other CoolBoards
What is CoolBoard? | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | ©1999-2000 CoolBoard.com
Copyright © Christus Victor Ministries, 2000, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:53 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 |
|
|