 |
| 
Wislawa
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 83
| Posted 6/28/2001 10:07 AM (GMT -6) |   | ON NOVELTY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open theists have often argued that classical theists limit God by restricting Him from ever experiencing novelty. I want to explore the limits of God’s novelty under the openness paradigm.
Discovery or construction?
In the philosophy of mathematics there is a really boring debate as to weather mathematics discovers underling structures in the universe or whether it simply constructs a sort of myth to explain the universe (in reality it may be a bit of both). Those who argue for discovery would say that the Pathegerium theorem was pre-existent before Pathegerus discovered it. The Pathegerium theorem is still true for the Yali tribe of Irain Jaya even thought the tribesmembers of the Yali haven’t discovered it yet. Math is a matter of discovering things the same way that an archeologist discovers a lost tomb or something. What math is was there before we knew it was there.
The other school of thought says that math is a human language that we construct and then impose on the universe. In other words the universe may not speak the same language that we give to it. This is basically the same argument that is used in regards to anthropomorphicisms and God. Only in this case it is not God who we are speaking anthropomorphicaly but the universe. This school would say that the only people who have a right to be geologists are rocks and the only one who has a right to describe the universe is the universe itself.
So if the first school is right math is pre-existent within the universe, if the second school is right math is a novelty imposed on the universe.
So this is how this works. Under the classical paradigm there is no place for novelty (to rip off M.K. McGergor Wright). Under the openness paradigm God’s novelty consists of which possibility will become actuality. God knows all possibilities. In other words possibilities are pre-existent. No actuality could possibly be different from a possibility which as be pre-existent from all eternity within God. So I ask you: is this really novelty at all? Doesn’t it leave a little to be desired?
When we experience novelty the true joy of novelty comes from not even thinking the actual possible. This is experienced most profoundly in our experience of art. If we were to go back in time knowing the pre-existent possibility of cubism, cubism itself would not be such a surprise. The only surprise would be that it was cubism instead of something else. But the joy of cubism for its first viewers what that people never even dreamed of seeing the world in such a way as this. God could never say that if openness is correct (or incidentally if the classical view is correct). Furthermore I would argue that openness limits the human will and imagination to the imagination pre-existent in God. Why? Because the whole point of creating someone else with another will is to see what the will do. Will they love me or will they hate me? But think of two artists, one who creates the other, in which the second’s imagination is limited to the pre-existent possibilities within the first’s. Nothing could really be novel to this original artist. For God, under the openness perspective, going to the museum would be like going to the casino. He could only be surprised by which possible result became actual but could never have an actuality be a new way of thinking. In other words we cannot dream up new constructions. Isn’t this a kind of poverty for God? What kind of universe would it look like if God wanted to be surprised, not only by our actions, but by the FORM of actions we choose to create? Isn’t God powerful enough to create a world with this possibility—the possibility to experience true novelty? If he is not would He this not be a limited God?
Wislawa
P.S. This question could be rephrased to ask ‘Could any question be asked of God that God didn’t already know could be asked of Him?’ If I am right He may not have (but probably did) even know a question like this could exist.
P.P.S. What does God mean when He says ‘It did not even enter My mind’? Under an openness paradigm it most certainly did enter His mind as a possibility. Should we not take this literally? Or would an open theist cry foul just as a classical theist would because it most certainly couldn’t mean THAT in their view?
Mephi2K
06/05/01 5:56 PM
Sweet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wislawa,
You are RIGHT...ON...POINT! Be back to say more later on this and other posts of yours. Gotta bounce for now.
Meph
PS: Its "Pythagoras" and "Pythagorean" Forgive my anal-retentive behavior
Wislawa
06/05/01 8:16 PM
RE: Sweet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh so that's how you spell that! honestly i'm the worlds worst speller. If it weren't for spell check it would be impossible to decifer any of my stuff but in this case even spell check couldn't make sense of what i was trying to write.
i forgive your anal-retentiveness if you forgive my dislexia (sp?)
GregBoyd
06/06/01 5:43 AM
RE: RE: Sweet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wislawa, interesting question. I know several openness theologians who at least toy with the possibility (excuse the pun) of creation evolving genuinely "novel" (viz not previously anticipated, even by God) possibilities. Other people have attempted to resolve the dilemma you pose by suggesting that God "hides" some future facts from himself. He chooses not to know.
Both alternatives strike me as bizzare. So far as I can see, the first is wrong by definition. If the creation evolved a "new" possibility, clearly it was possible for the universe to evolve this possibility. Hence it would be the kind of thing an omniscient being would know -- in which case it wouldn't be "new" (on this definition) at all. The second alternative strikes me as incoherent as well, on two accounts. a) How does God know what to "hide" from his omniscient mind, unless he first knows it? It's like playing hide and seek with yourself. b) What does a self-imposed epistemological limitation on God accomplish metaphyscially? Perhaps it could allow God to experience things as though they were novel... but it wouldn't ground novelty metaphysically.
For my part, it seems to me there's something amiss in your definition of "genuine novelty." Even the most "novel" and surprising art forms (to use your example) were logically possible -- obviously so, because they are now actual. What makes them "novel" is that their actuality was extremely improbable. Everyone knows Piccaso's oddly dimensioned people were possible as an art form. People have seen flounders, people squished by bulldozers, and kids drawings for centuries. But what Piccaso did with his oddly dimensioned people was surprising, jarring -- it made a statement.
So, Wislawa, it seems to me that novety is always about actuality, not logical possibility.
HOWEVER, novelty can also be about "viable possibilities" which are parasidic on actualities. Every actuality opens and closes possibilities, not in the sense of logical possibility, but in the sense of real viable possibility. For example, let us suppose (for the sake of argument) that the earth is becoming warmer due to human pollution. If this were true, it might be the case that it is now genuine possible that we could destroy the ozone layer enough so that (say) a third of the population will die of skin cancer. Our actual and (let us suppose) surprising treatment of the planet openned up this new surprising possibility. It wasn't even possible for a third of people to die of skin cancer before. It was, of course, logically possible from all eternity. Hence God knew about this and, because he is infinitely intelligient and doesn't have to spread his intelligence out over possibilities, he was infinitely attentive to and prepared for this possibility, in the unlikely event it should come to pass. But it was extremely unlikely.
(Notes: a) God could make this occurence empirically impossible by limiting corporate freedom, if he choose. But it would still be logically possible. b) The use of global warming in this essay was strictly hypothetical. I have no idea if global warming is true or not. This summer in Minnesota where we've hardly ever cracked 60 leads me to think its all bunk!
Doc
ghost-dog-girl
06/06/01 7:52 AM
RE: RE: RE: Sweet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The process understanding of novelty seems to be rooted in the passage of time itself and is necessary for their conceptualization of responsibility for either overcoming or succumbing to sinful habits of being:
n the process model there is always a wedge of novelty that entails a degree of freedom and responsibility. The degree may be great or small, and the very reason for naming the powers we have described as demonic is because they leave but small room for freedom.…[N]ovelty provided by constant change is the wedge through which the power of the past may be broken. Habit need not endure.…The dynamics of relational existence…always include novelty, or a movement beyond sheer past. (Suchocki, God, Christ, Church 17, 241, 243)
What do openness and non-openness folks make of this understanding of novelty? GDG
Wislawa
06/06/01 8:35 AM
A Fatalism of Possibilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc you said some openness folk are toying with the possibilities of authentic novelty. Which ones? Is there anyplace where I can read their attempts?
G-D-G already picked up the point that I’m about to make. Authentic novelty is not a matter of ‘if it is now actual than by definition is must have been possible,’ rather it is rooted in a philosophy of history. I’ve come to believe that not all things are possible at all times. That by interacting with history, others, God, etc. we can transform the language game we participate in. (see the choose your own adventure book analogy below for an example of this kind of language game). So if God really is in sequence we could say that this actuality was not a possibility from eternity past. Indeed it was not possible until we created the kind of lifeform out of history in which this possibility is now possible.
It also has to do with give-take relationships with genuine others. The other can surprise us because she brings to us not only foreign things but foreign ways for things to be. If we could appropriate the other and reduce her to the same, reduce her to our ego, than we would be totalitarian. Granted God has appropriated large amounts of His creation but He cannot appropriate the unmoved mover within us. It is from here we may, in my view at least, surprise God by what we come up with. Not only with what but with how as well. If this isn’t so omniresourcefulness is not that impressive. Also, I wold argue, if this isn’t so we are not really free. We exist in a sort of fatalism of possibilities. (That is either an oxymoron or a really cynical optimist or a really optimistic cynic; you decide).
Let’s grant the truth of openness for a second. If openness is true than God already knows every possibility creation can spit at Him, and He already must have planned out what His counter-move will be, and so on until the end of time. God doesn’t need to be resourceful in this model. God can put creation on autopilot so to speak. He’s just waiting around for the show to end, which by the way He already knows what all the possible endings must be. How boring is that? If God wanted to do something about this could He? Could creation be different than this? If not is God not less than glorious?
To expand on one of Doc’s analogies lets take the ‘chose your own adventure’ books. God knows each of the possible paths so there can be no real fun for Him in seeing us get surprised by the pre-existent endings. But what if instead we are in a chose your own adventure book wherein we not only make decisions within perimeters but also get pencils and paper to write in some of these perimeters ourselves, thereby allowing for new possibilities that did not even enter God’s mind, and making the show more enjoyable (and dangerous) for all. In this paradigm God’s omniresourcefulness is truly glorious because He finds Himself in a real fight. He has to be ready for anything. Not only does He need to know what the possibilities are but He has to be able to deal with spontaneous actualities. This ups the risk factor but it also ups the glory factor (right Ware? Sorry I couldn’t find anyway to make Ware’s name into a funny word ).
So the problem with this as I see it is how to proceed without falling into pitfalls. On one side there is the pseudo-novelty of openness and on the other side is the abyss of cosmic anarchy wherein God’s plans actually failing is a real possibility. But then again in order for the game to be real it has to be possible to lose according to St. Clive. Of course when he wrote that he was talking about human salvation not cosmic war. Still I think it retains its truth in this context.
Wislawa
TGB
06/06/01 9:30 AM
RE: A Fatalism of Possibilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wislawa-
Speaking of novelty...and Picaso...what in heaven's name is that art(?) under your name?
Tom
Wislawa
06/06/01 9:51 AM
RE: RE: A Fatalism of Possibilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a peice by Duchamp. I don't know to much about it, not even its name. I just wanted a peice by Duchamp that would fit in that narrow space and wouldn't crowd the text. I was hoping to find a small pic of "The Large Glass" but wouldn't ya know it they only come in large pics. All I know is that if I eternally knew that art like Duchamps could exists it would detract from them greatly
GregBoyd
06/07/01 6:54 PM
Logical and Viable Possibilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wislawa: "Doc, you said some openness folk are toying with the possibilities of authentic novelty. Which ones? Is there anyplace where I can read their attempts?"
Doc: No one has published their thoughts on this just yet, and until they do I don’t feel free to "out" them. [Actually, I’m trying hard to convince them the notion is incoherent, unbiblical – to say nothing of practically and theologically disastrous! In short, I hope they never publish their ideas on this!
Wislawa: "I’ve come to believe that not all things are possible at all times. That by interacting with history, others, God, etc. we can transform the language game we participate in. (see the choose your own adventure book analogy below for an example of this kind of language game). So if God really is in sequence we could say that this actuality was not a possibility from eternity past. Indeed it was not possible until we created the kind of life-form out of history in which this possibility is now possible."
Doc: Okay okay… got ya. You’re talking about viable possibilities, not logical possibilities. LOGICAL possibilities are eternal. Viable, or empirical possibilities [things that are genuinely possible here and now, given the actual state of affairs] fluctuates in time and is parasitic on the actual. In this sense possibilities can come into being and go out of being. Still, these viable possibilities were first merely logical possibilities, and were therefore eternally known and perfectly anticipated as such.
More later
cool questions
Doc
GregBoyd
06/07/01 7:06 PM
Surprise and Possibilities and a Cross Dressing Spy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wislawa says: If openness is true than God already knows every possibility creation can spit at Him, and He already must have planned out what His counter-move will be, and so on until the end of time. God doesn’t need to be resourceful in this model.
Doc: Wislawa, you're reasoning is intriguing, but odd. Planning ahead is usually what we mean by being resourceful. Now you're turning this on God's head and saying that because he is perfectly resourceful, he doesn't need to be resourceful! Wislawa: God can put creation on autopilot so to speak. He’s just waiting around for the show to end, which by the way He already knows what all the possible endings must be. How boring is that? Doc: Not very. Suppose you're watching a suspense movie. You know the killer could be The lover, the husband, the bulter, or (outside chance here) the cross-dressing grandma who is actually a grandpa who is actually a russian spy ). You know the possible guilty parties, but there is genuine suspense because you don't know who actually did it. [the cross dressing spy stuff was just thrown in to break up Waslawa's bordem. He/she? is obviously bored easy (:
Wislawa: If God wanted to do something about this could He? Could creation be different than this? If not is God not less than glorious?
Doc: Could God be less than omniscient? Could God hide possiblities from himself? Belizikian suggests yes (Christian 101). So did Adam Clarke in the 19th century. A few other evangelicals have moved in this direction.
I must for my part simply confess that a) I do not see what it gains, philosophically; b) I do not see how it is intelligible, philosophically; c) I do not see why its necessary, exegetically.
I must say, however, that you have an interesting twist Wislawa. Thanks
Doc
Mephi2K
06/07/01 7:43 PM
Quick Stuff
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wislawa: "Doc, you said some openness folk are toying with the possibilities of authentic novelty. Which ones? Is there anyplace where I can read their attempts?"
Doc: No one has published their thoughts on this just yet, and until they do I don’t feel free to "out" them. [Actually, I’m trying hard to convince them the notion is incoherent, unbiblical – to say nothing of practically and theologically disastrous! In short, I hope they never publish their ideas on this!
Meph:
I think that they are just trying to be fully consistent. They must realize, like Wis and GDG, that the Whiteheadian concept of novelty is a FAR cry from what human relationship dynamics consider "novelty" I'd LOVE to see their work...
Off the chain,
Meph
PS: One time, I went to this AIDS benefit where they had this gay crossdresser who impersonated Barbara Streisand. Honestly, he was much better looking than Streisand herself. Heh.
Wislawa
06/08/01 3:46 AM
On the possibility of creative novelty (a.k.a. the impossible)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the possibility of creative novelty (a.k.a. the impossible)
Introduction
Like Doc I had one of those nights, and like Doc I decided to theologize for free Unlike Doc I’m not nearly as clear of a thinker which is why I created (if creativity is possible) this mess of a post. I think I beat Mephi on the longest post contests so instead of trying everyone’s patience I decided to break up this LONG post into five interrelated ones. That way people don’t have to look at all of them . isn’t this thoughtful of me? The second one begins where the first one ends and so forth so it might get confusing if you jump into a middle post, but I think they are for the most part self-contained. Some of these questions may end up in Doc’s class of ‘interesting but odd’ others might actually hold H2O but I think at least parts of this (most likely most of it) is nonsensical. But hey it was worth a shot.
Post #1
Doc said:
No one has published their thoughts on this just yet, and until they do I don’t feel free to "out" them. [Actually, I’m trying hard to convince them the notion is incoherent, unbiblical – to say nothing of practically and theologically disastrous! In short, I hope they never publish their ideas on this!
Wislawa says in the here and now:
I can appreciate your loyalty. Still it makes me curiouser and curiouser.
Okay I finally get your drift on the difference between viable and logical possibilities. Stupid Stupid Stupid Wislawa. Thanks for being patient with this slow mind of mine. I like philosophy but I’m not that good at the kind that gets closer to abstract reasoning or the kind that gets strangely math-like. I like the philosophy that gets closer to literature or art. Which brings me to my main point. I like art I like creativity. It seems to me that if all logical possibilities are eternal than creativity is impossible, since no one can ever create anything that didn’t already exist in God’s mind.
Also this is the part of experiencing art I enjoy the most: the part where I experience something that came from someone else’s mind and could never have come from my own. I like experiences that BLOW MY MIND and make me think in new ways. In fact this is the only thing that gets me out of bed in the morning—the possibility of encountering things of this sort. But it seems to me that God could never have one of these experiences. When you ask what would be gained by genuine novelty this is what I have in mind (no pun intended). Everything that exists in our minds also exists in God’s. So while I find you cross-dressing story funny, and a mildly exiting way to experience history, it still leaves me cold. Given the option I would rather be a part of the cross-dressing spy story than be in God’s position above it. It seems to me that the mind-blowing experiences are something that humans can have that God cannot. This makes the human experience richer than the divine experience. In short I’m glad I’m not God because if I was I wouldn’t have any reason to live anymore. It would make me sad to be God. In fact I actually feel a little sorry for the poor fellow, He’s missing out on the best part of life, (short of love but hey some people are missing out on that too and this is all they have left).
(Speaking of which I could still use some pastoral care on my response to Mephi on the Moral Outrage thread. But people are probably really sick of reading all my posts!!! i promise to cool it for a few days)
So “The Brother’s Karamazov” was not a novel novel to God (hehe). In fact all novels pre-existed in God’s mind ahead of time. That whole infinite monkeys on typewriters metaphor is going on in God’s head right now. Nothing new can ever come under the sun (which by the way is one of Qohelet’s arguments that life is meaningless) even for God. He is right now reading all the future Pulitzer Prize winning novels and the only real excitement He can have is finding out which ones will actually get written and which ones will remain forever alone for Him to ‘enjoy.’ Omniscience has disenfranchised artists! Dostoyevsky didn’t invent the brothers, he discovered them hidden always already in the mind of God. Why create anything? And why would God create anything? He could daydream all the possibilities and enjoy them just as well as creating actualities. The only reason I could see in creating significant others is to be surprised by genuine novelty that arises within them.
Let me quote from Arthur Danto who was the one who got me thinking historically about art. In this passage he is discussing the linguistic theories of Wittgenstein and J.L. Austin. Wittgenstein defines words by their use, where as Austin points out limitations to this method.
“Beyond this, it seems to me the Instrumentalist Theory of Language misrepresents our relationship to language completely, treating it virtually as a set of sentences whose use we learn to master, much as a stranger to a language learns to master the phrases in a phrase book. No doubt you would say to a stranger something like; ‘If you need to have a meal, tell the natives something like, J’ai faim or Je veux manger.’ It treats the sentences of the language very much as we would spontaneously treat the words of a language. Beyond question, we can imagine a complete dictionary for a language, one in which every word is included, together with its definition. And new definitions get added as new words get introduced and the dictionary requires updating. But can there even in principle be a reference work containing all the sentences of a language? [Let me call attention to the phrase ‘even in principle.’ If it is possible than it would be located in God would it not?] It has been recognized, since the great work of Noam Chomsky, that the primary mark of linguistic competence is the capacity to create new sentences and to understand sentences one has never heard before. [!!!!!!!!!!] It is quite imaginable that the reader of the book has encountered not a single sentence the book contains before reading it. [Every reader, that is, except God]”
--Arthur C. Danto, “Connections to the World.” (New York: Harper & Row, 1989), page 81.
Margaret Miles coins the term ‘language-users’ to describe those people who not only write new sentences but also create new forms, or new ways of using language. Under openness it is hard for me to understand how anyone could be a language user, even God. He and we are bound to the fatalism of logical possibilities as I have said before. (In my mind I thought that sentence was really clever, in fact almost language-userly .)
Wislawa
P.S. In the next post I use some quotes I found in Sanders to chip away at God’s wisdom and human freedom under openness.
Wislawa
06/08/01 3:38 AM
On wisdom and the fatalism of logical possiblitites
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On wisdom and the fatalism of logical possibilities
Post #2
Why do I think openness collapses into a fatalism of logical possibilities?
Like I said in another post, if we use the God as a chess player analogy than God already has each and every move and counter move planned in his head. He cannot be surprised by any of the possible endings because He already knows what they are, He can only be surprised by which game His mate chooses to play. Doc has used this analogy to highlight God’s infinite wisdom. I want to show that it actually limits just how wise God is and suggest that it would take an even wiser God to play a chess game which might evolve into say a Muculaka game (which doesn’t even exist until language-users create the new language game called Maculaka). Follow me for a while:
The number of possible chess games that God could play with us is fixed (whether the sum is finite or infinite it is fixed by the laws of pre-existent logical possibilities) thus creating a total sum of possible chess games in a sort of data bank in God’s mind. Is this wisdom? According to Sanders it is not.
“Moreover, in some understandings, omniscience is seen as a sort of data bank; all is simply known, with little if any role for divine wisdom.” (Sanders “The God Who Risks” page 187.)
In the context Sanders was arguing against understandings of omniscience that dealt only with a data bank of actualities, but does adding possibilities to this dada bank change anything? All is still simply known in terms of these possibilities and God’s counter-moves are known as contingent certainties. What is to stop God from putting the world on autopilot? Is this autopilot-like God even personal anymore? Richard Swinburne “questions whether a God who ‘preresponds’ to everything renders the divine-human relationship impersonal” (Sanders 323 n119 cf). If God has fixed these preresponses, as openness would seem to suggest, than Markus Barth’s comment would seem to apply to openness as well, “A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die.” The only differences are that what is fixed is contingent on a drastically limited number of responses by ‘free’ beings. Simply rig the world up to a mechanism that sets into motion pre-programmed responses to a pre-programmed set of chooses and God becomes as impersonal as a choose your own adventure book. After all, this book we speak of is not personal at all. (By the way I ripped a lot of this off from Sanders book.)
In the end God’s wisdom and our freedom are still at issue under openness.
Wislawa
P.S. In the next post I respond to Doc’s claim that by doing this I’ve turned God’s resourcefulness back onto God in such a way that He no longer needs to be resourceful.
Wislawa
06/08/01 3:39 AM
On resourcefulness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On resourcefulness
Post #3
Doc said:
Wislawa, you're reasoning is intriguing, but odd. Planning ahead is usually what we mean by being resourceful. Now you're turning this on God's head and saying that because he is perfectly resourceful, he doesn't need to be resourceful
Wislawa speaketh:
I didn’t know you were defining resourcefulness in this way. If planing ahead is the highest or only form of resourcefulness than the God of open theism is truly resourceful!!! But why define resourcefulness like this? I was thinking of resourcefulness in McGiver-like (sp? say: mic-guy-ver) terms. That is making do with less, ingenuity, imaginatively, especially in difficult situations. In openness I don’t see how God or anyone else for that matter could be imaginative. So I would argue that a God who is less than omniscient or less than omnipotent (or less than any other omni attribute) but could still accomplish all His purposes would be a more resourceful God than one who was dependant on these other attributes. Now I’m not suggesting that God isn’t omniscient or omnipotent or any of that. What I am suggesting is that possessing or at least exploiting these attributes diminishes His omniresourcefulness.
An example: Two gods face of in a McGiver (sp?) type situation. They both have to explode a safe to rescue the cross-dressing spy locked inside. God #1 [that’s way to impersonal. Let’s call him Emil after a great theologian] god Emil is given a sock, some rubberbands, toothpaste, chewing gum, and a third grade education. God #2 [named Karl after another great theotype] is given some dynamite, detonators, the whirlwind from Job, the entire stock of NRA firearms, a university education in explosives, and by the way omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. Karl blows up the safe in Hollywood style with lots of flair. Very impressive, the crowd cheers. Emil works, works somehow, works miraculously and throws his homemade sock grenade at the safe. It explodes; a much smaller explosion than Karl’s, but pops the safe nonetheless. Both rescue the cross-dressing spy. Now I ask you, who was more resourceful? And I summit to you that Emil was the more resourceful because it was more difficult and he had less RESOURCES. So planning ahead is PART of resourcefulness but I would argue that making due with less resources and still accomplishing the task is what we usually mean by resourceful.
Like I said before, if God exploits all of his attributes it diminishes His omniresourcefulness and omnicompetence. God most certainly is omniscient and everything else; the question is how He works out the tensions between possessing all these attributes. These attributes crowd each other out. Most people have a hierarchy of attributes and would not let God budge on something like omniscience but by doing so you force Him to sacrifice omniresourcefulness. What if God wanted to maximize, or at least increase, His display of resourcefulness? Could He make some more space by hiding things from Himself? Granted you point out some problems with this, like playing hide and seek with yourself. But I would suggest you have the same internal problems by crowding out God’s resourcefulness. If you provide Him with all the tools in the world He no longer has to be resourceful. Does this make sense? I would suggest that God compromises in a way that is wise between His conflicting attributes to maximize His glory. If God can beat Satan with one hand behind His back just for show I think He’d do it. In fact I think He does this by letting us, the weakest things around, finish Satan off just to spite Him. If God can do all this by tying half His brain behind His back I think He would go for this too. It all makes for a greater show of coolness on His part. But is this Biblical? I find a few examples in the Bible, such as in Elijah’s face off with Baal in 1 Kings 18. Here God seemed to stack the deck against Himself just to show off. Why not do the same epistemologically?
Wislawa
P.S. in the next post I suggest that part of being other than God entails having a space to hide from God and develop our own culture of thought.
Wislawa
06/08/01 3:41 AM
On God and significant others
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #4
All open theist folks have no problem in granting incompatiblistic freedom to human beings. Classical theists, however, see this as threatening God’s omnipotence. In their view if any POWER is off limits to God than He is no longer omnipotent. If you can understand how open theists get around this, and if it doesn’t strike you as troubling, than I think you will be able to understand what I’m about to do by applying the same technique to omniscience.
Just as God grants us some space to call our own in terms of control without Him interfering, I’d like to open up the possibility that he might open us some space for us to think without Him interfering. Just as with omnipotence this would be a self-limitation which God sovereignty chooses to take on for the sake of novelty. So, Mephi, maybe I’m changing my mind and might say that God can’t read our minds because He has entered into a sort of ‘covenant of intellectual non-interference.’ Doc asks how God could know what not to know without first knowing what it is He is supposed to not know. This is a little bit (but not quite) like asking how does God control what it is He is not supposed to control without first controlling it? If I where to attempt to solve this I might do so in spatial terms. Sort of like setting up a voting booth for each of us to hide in. A personal vial of ignorance that we can step behind, only this time it is God not we who would be ignorant. When I was little I had my own treehouse that was just mine and now one would interfere. This is a cosmic treehouse.
This, to me, is as essential to personhood as free will is. After all, Mephi and I have agreed that the will and the mind interact somehow, and there is such a thing as free-thought. If we don’t have an independent creative mind then our identity ends up collapsing into a mere extension of God’s.
This has the added benefit of securing our place as others. Part of relating to the other, according to Levinas, is the experience of foreignness. If God’s omniscience appropriates all knowledge than He cannot experience foreignness, we have no space to develop our own culture; God is reduced to a cosmic epistemological dictator, and we are no longer other than Him. If, on the other hand, we do have a place to hide from God, then we can compose genuinely new music, write genuinely new novels, and paint genuinely new paintings. Then we can step out from this hiding place and share them with God and maybe, just maybe, we can blow his mind. In this view God could experience things that did not already originate within His mind. Does this threaten omniscience? No more than significant otherness threatens His omnipotence.
Wislawa
P.S. This is the last real post. The next one is just some random questions I have related to this junk. Thanks for humoring me. I hope I’m not annoying anyone, especially Doc.
Wislawa
06/08/01 3:43 AM
4 nonsensical questions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 random but related questions (mostly nonsensical ones)
Post #5
1. Could logic itself be historically contingent? Granted I don’t think I want to say that logic is merely a human construction but I would like to say that at least part of it is. Would the part that is be limited by the part that is not?
2. Does God always act in accordance with probability? Restated: Does God ever bet against the odds? Let’s say God really really really wants action A to be actualized. If God positions subject S1 in a position to choose action A lets say there is an only 60% chance they will choose to do action A. But if God positions subject S2 in the position to choose action A there is a 40% chance they will choose to do action A. Would God ever opt for S2 over S1 to do action A? In other words, does God ever take larger risks than He needs to just for the thrill of risk taking?
3. Which sounds more exiting to you, the opportunity to experience the possible, or the opportunity to experience the impossible? (Is this nonsensical?)
4. I can’t make sense of (i.e. render meaningful) how God can be said to know that which is infinite, such as the set of all whole numbers. The only way I can make sense of this is symbolically or temporally, as in a God who is continually counting. I know that people have already settled this ages ago but its one of those abstract-math-philosophy type questions that I’ve never been good at. I flunked Algebra II three times. Can anyone help me out?
A test of emotiolons:
.) =the one eyed pirate smiley face. Ahrrrrrrrr.
-Wislawa | | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:56 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 |
|
|