 |
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/28/2005 10:17 AM (GMT -6) |   | Corey:
It still seems plausible to me that God could be "fulfilled" in an ever-expanding way at each point along the line in God-time (if there is such a thing). Just because his fulfillment is expanded at GT+1 does not necessarily require that he is UNfulfilled at GT0. Can't we say that he's fulfilled at both GT+1 and at GT0?
Oh, I see your point. The aesthetic intensity would be indexed to the actual content of reality BECAUSE there was no ceiling. (Like Tom was saying). My idea of "fulfillment" implied a POINT of aesthetic satisfaction. If what you (and Tom) are saying is the case, then God could never be "fulfilled". God could expand God's experience of beauty...but there would never be a "that's all I need" point.
(Interestingly enough, this leads to the idea of God creating as MANY possible worlds as God could. Think about it. If God's dispositional desire for more beauty is true and there is NO ceiling for God's subjective intensity, then the more universes, the more intensity of beautiful experience. I think Tom mentioned this.)
**************************
Meph:
God would NEED a creation to increase God's experience of beauty (which God would be disposed towards doing). This would cement the necessary God/world relationship.
Corey:
Could there be any other way for God to increase his experience of beauty? How would we know if there was/wasn't another way? That would un-cement the necessary God/world relationship.
Ah, the INTP-ness. I love it! 
The "J" speaks! There are only two possible states of reality. One where there is only God and one where there is NOT only God. Now, any non-God reality would by synonomous with "world" for our purposes. If God's experience of beauty is fundamentally identified with reality...and God was unchangably "disposed" to experiencing higher and higher intensity of beauty via loving sociality...and assuming that God couldn't replicate Godself in some cloning-like way...what would be the ONLY way that God could expand God's experience of beauty? Answer: to create a NON-GOD reality.
Because it would be God's NECESSARY essential existence to experience more and more beauty, and God is omnipotent, it would follow that God WOULD (not "might" or "could" create a non-God reality to experience.
Straight up process, baby.
Cement AND concrete.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/28/2005 10:35 AM (GMT -6) | |
Corey said...
Meph:
Otherwise, God would be "fulfilled" in Godself by God's experience of triune relationality. Nope, one would have to say that God could never be fulfilled...period. God's intensity of experience is ALWAYS surpassable by God, such that God's experience of beauty is ever-increasing. If one said that, then one could say that it would be impossible for God to be fulfilled within Godself.
Corey:
It still seems plausible to me that God could be "fulfilled" in an ever-expanding way at each point along the line in God-time (if there is such a thing). Just because his fulfillment is expanded at GT+1 does not necessarily require that he is UNfulfilled at GT0, does it? Can't we say that he's fulfilled at both GT+1 and at GT0? I feel that this language of "unfulfilled" is too strong.
I think Meph Man would say that God is "unsurpassably fulfilled" at ALL points.
Corey said...
Meph:
God would NEED a creation to increase God's experience of beauty (which God would be disposed towards doing). This would cement the necessary God/world relationship.
Corey:
Could there be any other way for God to increase his experience of beauty? How would we know if there was/wasn't another way? That would un-cement the necessary God/world relationship Correct me if I'm wrong (still catching up on all these wonderful threads), but I think the Eternal One would ask why God has to expand it other than for Creation to "reflect that back." Perhaps that is what he means by "expand." Am I right D? Sorry, still catching up.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/28/2005 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
I think Meph Man would say that God is "unsurpassably fulfilled" at ALL points.
Yep.
******************************
Brandon:
Correct me if I'm wrong (still catching up on all these wonderful threads), but I think the Eternal One would ask why God has to expand it other than for Creation to "reflect that back." Perhaps that is what he means by "expand." Am I right D? Sorry, still catching up.
Yep. The whole POINT of Creation would be to give God more beautiful experience.
******************************
Corey:
Slight difference: at an instantaneous moment GT0, isn't it plausible that God could say "I've got all I need.... now in this moment"
You'd be positing some "plateau of satisfaction" where none was possible. That wouldn't work.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 10/28/2005 11:10 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Yep. The whole POINT of Creation would be to give God more beautiful experience.
Yes. God gets more, though that does not mean God is "lacking some." What God gets is "swallowed up" into that which God already has. And here's another thing. Could we also say that it is not so much that God needs this experience, but that Creation does? Creation is "void" and God longs for it to be "filled with his Glory."
This doesn't mean that God, ad intra, is "void" in any sense or measure OF SIGNIFICANCE. It means that God objectively knows that reality ad extra God IS.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/28/2005 2:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
Couldn't GT0 satisfy the statement "I have all I need, for now" while GT+1 also satisfies the statement "I have all I need, for now" but is of a greater intensity than GT0?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this demonstrate a way in which God can increase his experience of beauty without a necessary God/World relationship?
Nope. Why?
You'd have to affirm Doc's idea about how the intensity of aesthetic appreciation is not necessarily dependent upon variety and diversity..but THEN turn around and deny that there is an superlative instance of aesthetic enjoyment...which is an outworking of Doc's idea in the first place.
It seems like you just want to say something like this.
"God's experience of Godself just keeps getting more and more intense (without limit) every moment God has the experience...even without a creation"
...as if to affirm that there is no possible superlative instance of aesthetic experience. But Doc argues well, against Hartshorne, that there IS. And as long as there is, and the ontological and aesthetic arguments may have ANY power behind them, it must be the case that God has that superlative instance of aesthetic experience within Godself.
So, this wouldn't work. Nice thought though.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/28/2005 2:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Check it. Corey's thought is pretty much EXACTLY what Hartshorne was saying. Because God appreciates the "just-past" world and the creative synthesis of "just-past worlds" every moment incorporates more diversity and such, God always surpasses Godself in appreciating the just-past world at every moment.
This dynamic would CHANGE however, if the only reality available for God to appreciate were Godself. A plateau of intensity would occur. For God to "surpass Godself", he would NEED a world. Hence, the necessary God/world relationship.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/28/2005 8:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: (emphasis mine)
In order for God to surpass Godself, he'd need to create, yes. But he need not surprass himself. That's the point. He can if he wants to. But there's no sacrifice of relationality or love if he chooses not to.
This is underestimating the power of dispositional aim. If God's dispositional reality is aimed at experiencing more and more intensity (or highest possible level) of beautiful experience via loving sociality, God would NOT STOP until complete aesthetic satisfaction (if this is deemed possible) is reached.
Positing the "peak experience" and the possibility of complete aesthetic satisfaction is what makes way for grace.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 10/29/2005 1:54 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...Clarification Post: One only need to deny God's SELF-SUFFICIENCY, not God's SELF-EXISTENCE in order to have what most of y'all seem to want. This would affirm that God is ultimate Creator and Sustainer of all reality...and would make way for mutually-influential, interdependent loving relationships between God and Creation. Moreover, it removes all (repeat: ALL) traces of meaninglessness from the equation. God REALLY needs us to fulfill Godself in a real way. This works out to an inevitable (unto necessary) God/world relationship.
Hey Meph, thanks for the reply  Now I have (yet again...) another question that I just can't figure out... but bear with me, I don't know if I'll be able to articulate this clearly...
Ok, God's not self-sufficient, but requires interdependent loving relationships with creation, according to the view you're stating here, right?
If I got that down right, then here's the thing I don't get. We know that the creation of this world started in a fixed point in time. Before that fixed point in time, we'd say it was "sans creation", or without creation. God existed in all eternity past, so He must have had this desire for the mutually-influential interdependent loving relationship with something outside of Himself (if the Triune love is not sufficient for Him), right? So He must have created something before that in order to fulfill the need for the mutually-influential interdependent loving relationship with creation. If He created that, it must have been in some fixed point in time as well which He must have had that need even before that creation, ad infinitum.... so... well... (me wincing a bit because I think I'm still missing the bull's eye)... there could never have been a time when there was "sans creation".
ugh... Help me figure this out because I'm getting more confuuuuuséd the more I try to figure this out on my own...
So God, who existed throughout all eternity past, who needs this God-Creation interdependent loving relationship, created an infinite number of finite creations?
But here's my confusion: uuuuuurrggh, my blond gene is getting in the way!!!... you know the Kalam argument, right? In that whole thing, there is some explanation about past events, and there could only be a finite number of past events; there can't be an infinite number of past events...
So: eternally existing God + finite number of past events + God's needing a mutually-influential interdependent loving relationship with creation = Heather's confusion. 
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/29/2005 7:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Violin:
If I got that down right, then here's the thing I don't get. We know that the creation of this world started in a fixed point in time. Before that fixed point in time, we'd say it was "sans creation", or without creation. God existed in all eternity past, so He must have had this desire for the mutually-influential interdependent loving relationship with something outside of Himself (if the Triune love is not sufficient for Him), right? So He must have created something before that in order to fulfill the need for the mutually-influential interdependent loving relationship with creation. If He created that, it must have been in some fixed point in time as well which He must have had that need even before that creation, ad infinitum.... so... well... (me wincing a bit because I think I'm still missing the bull's eye)... there could never have been a time when there was "sans creation"
Nope. I'm not saying that God always desired a Creation/God relationship. I'm saying that God had an unquenchable dispositional "desire" to experience more and more intense beautiful experience via loving relationality. Since we are taking on the idea of God having internal loving sociality (something none of the process theologians have; it IS a trinitarian reconstruction of Hartshornean process theism, after all), then God has a source of this within Godself. Thus God wouldn't need anything outside of Godself to have some beauty via loving sociality.
However...
...without positing a possible superlative instance of God's experience of beauty within Godself, we end up with saying that in order for God to get more beauty, it would be necessary EVENTUALLY for God to create a non-God reality.
This is why positing God's "peak experience" of beauty is SO important. It is the ONLY thing that truly breaks the inevitability of God creating a world to appreciate. It's the ONLY thing that makes Creation a completely free act of grace...and not something God "needed" to do to enhance God's experience of beauty.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/29/2005 7:58 AM (GMT -6) | | JEE:
As FINITE beings, we can rightly say that there is a limit to the quantity and quality of our possible experiences, a plateau. Even so, such a limit is indeed impossible for US to truly measure.
What I don't see is how such a limit/plateau to fulfillment is necessary for God.
This is exactly what Hartshorne says. But as Doc argues against this. There's no apriori reason to say that there is no such "peak experience" for God with respect to beauty. Plus Hartshorne admits a superlative instance for EVERY OTHER virtue with God. (goodness, power, etc). In other words, Hartshone doesn't say that God has ever increasing goodness or power, but that God has the superlative instance of both. Doc rightly asserts that there's NO reason to not say this same thing about God's intensity of appreciating beauty.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/29/2005 8:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's the thing.
When I say that Doc reconstructed process ideas...he REALLY did. He went from a system that affirmed that God and non-God realities were co-eternal, God metaphysically could NOT be self-sufficient OR self-existent, God was NEVER omnipotent (in that God could never do acts in and of Godself), and grace could not exist...
to a system where God could be seen as ultimate creator of all reality, God COULD be self-sufficient AND self-existent, God was omnipotent, and grace COULD exist.
This is no small feat, to be sure. And it's not like it doesn't really work. Even other process theists don't necessarily see anything significantly LOGICALLY wrong with it, more than it just takes away all of the things the process theists want to affirm about God with respect to evolution, scientific naturalism, and the problem of evil. It makes process into a more FREE-WILL THEISM system. And they don't like that.
All this is to say that Doc really did do something NEW when he was able to work out a way that significant aspects of a process cosmology would be compatible with a COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT view of God.
But there was a price to pay. One that process theists see very clearly. You do this, then Creation becomes "a whimsical afterthought" as one has said.
But WHAT are you gonna do if you want to say in SOME way orthodox?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/29/2005 12:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
I see your point, Meph. But what are those of us who hold to the supposed intelligibility of scripture to do with verses that seem to imply that Christ suffered SIGNIFICANTLY for the joy set BEFORE him? And that the creation is FOR both the Father and the Son. These claims taken together are hard to reconcile with the idea that creation is MERELY "a whimsical afterthought." Do you disagree? Wouldn't you agree that the orthodoxy you are arguing for seems to impy that those verses don't mean what they SEEM to mean?
Some things:
1) I wouldn't necessarily call creation a "whimsical afterthought." That's what someone else said. What I would assert is what I've already been saying: Creation was a completely free choice of God...and the ONLY significance that creation has to God is that which God GRANTS to it.
2) I don't see how the particular view I've articulated goes against what you are saying. The mantra: God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it. It goes with the idea that a) Jesus suffered significantly and b) that God found creation meaningful. What's the problem?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 10/29/2005 1:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok, good. My mind had been swirling around with all that possible infinite regress stuff these past couple of days, so then God doesn't need an extra relationship outside of the Trinity... so God's aseity still entails His being self-sufficient (at least pre-creation)?
MephEternal said......without positing a possible superlative instance of God's experience of beauty within Godself, we end up with saying that in order for God to get more beauty, it would be necessary EVENTUALLY for God to create a non-God reality. This is why positing God's "peak experience" of beauty is SO important. It is the ONLY thing that truly breaks the inevitability of God creating a world to appreciate. It's the ONLY thing that makes Creation a completely free act of grace... and not something God "needed" to do to enhance God's experience of beauty. Now here is (yes, again...) another question. The things I underlined from what you wrote above... how do these fit together? "Necessary", whether eventually or immediate, still constitutes as a "need", right? How does "eventually" fit into eternality? Is the "eventually" only reserved for "if God creates, then it's necessary..."? If it's this you mean, I can agree with that... love seeks the goodness of its object. So when God creates the object, then by His very nature, He'd seek that loving relationality with that object...seeking the goodness of the object. The things I bolded too... how can something be a completely free act of grace and have been inevitable at the same time? Are things that are inevitable a result of (libertarian?) free choice or necessity (like in a compatiblist sense, so to speak)? If we say it's a free act of grace, it doesn't make sense to me unless it's in a libertarian sense, but "inevitability" seems to mean it's in a compatibilist sense.
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism.Post Edited (Violin for God) : 10/29/2005 2:02:36 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 10/29/2005 1:31 PM (GMT -6) | | I'd have no problem in thinking that creating, when God said the words, "let there be...", could have been a "whimsical afterthought" AT THAT TIME the WORDS were uttered, but as soon as there WAS creation, *poof!* it was no longer whimsical but deeply significant because of God's nature of being loving. Creating can be whimsical, but the LOVE (that immediately followed the act) turned creation into something extremely significant to Him.
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism.Post Edited (Violin for God) : 10/29/2005 1:35:37 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/29/2005 2:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Violin:
Now here is (yes, again...) another question. The things I underlined from what you wrote above... how do these fit together? "Necessary", whether eventually or immediate, still constitutes as a "need", right? How does "eventually" fit into eternality? Is the "eventually" only reserved for "if God creates, then it's necessary..."? If it's this you mean, I can agree with that... love seeks the goodness of it's object. So when God creates the object, then by His very nature, He'd seek that loving relationality with that object...seeking the goodness of the object.
The things I bolded too... how can something be a completely free act of grace and have been inevitable at the same time? Are things that are inevitable a result of (libertarian?) free choice or necessity (like in a compatiblist sense, so to speak)? If we say it's a free act of grace, it doesn't make sense to me unless it's in a libertarian sense, but "inevitability" seems to mean it's in a compatibilist sense.
I'm not being clear enough. Forgive me. What I'm intending to say is this:
The idea of an God having an "unsurpassably intense" experience of beauty is a CRITICAL idea to Creation being an act of freedom and grace. This is because this "peak experience" (experienced by God in Godself) both 1) satisfies God's dispositional "need" for the maximal instance of experienced beauty and at the same time 2) ensures that God doesn't need to create any non-God reality to meet that dispositional need.
If this "peak experience" is not posited, then there is nothing to satiate God's dispositional "need" for more and more intensity of beautiful experience via loving socialiy. God would HAVE TO go outside of Godself to get this "need" met. So, it would be inevitable that God would create a non-God reality (complete with sentient creature) to increase God's own qualitative state of beautiful experience.
Does this help?
*************************************
Violin:
I'd have no problem in thinking that creating, when God said the words, "let there be...", could have been a "whimsical afterthought" AT THAT TIME the WORDS were uttered, but as soon as there WAS creation, *poof!* it was no longer whimsical but deeply significant because of God's nature of being loving. Creating can be whimsical, but the LOVE (that immediately followed the act) turned creation into something extremely significant to Him.
When I hear "extremely significant", I hear "internally relevant". If something is "extremely important" to me, then it has central and essential meaning to me. It is in no way peripheral or superfluous.
Now...
I'd say that God's love ensures that God will value Creation positively and relate to it in a loving manner. But I would say that this is distinct from saying that Creation was inherently "extremely significant" to God simply because of it's existence. Creation would be "significant" to God in being an object of God's loving attention, sure. But this "significance" would in no way trump God's internal relationality and the aesthetic SATISFACTION from that relationality. Creation would only be "very significant" to God in ways that God had purposed for it. Creation was made FOR God, anyhow. Right?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 10/29/2005 9:01 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
I'm not being clear enough. Forgive me. What I'm intending to say is this:
The idea of an God having an "unsurpassably intense" experience of beauty is a CRITICAL idea to Creation being an act of freedom and grace. This is because this "peak experience" (experienced by God in Godself) both 1) satisfies God's dispositional "need" for the maximal instance of experienced beauty and at the same time 2) ensures that God doesn't need to create any non-God reality to meet that dispositional need.
If this "peak experience" is not posited, then there is nothing to satiate God's dispositional "need" for more and more intensity of beautiful experience via loving socialiy. God would HAVE TO go outside of Godself to get this "need" met. So, it would be inevitable that God would create a non-God reality (complete with sentient creature) to increase God's own qualitative state of beautiful experience.
Does this help?
Hey Mephi,
I really appreciate your patience with explaining this. I was completely following what you were saying (read it over about 5 times) until the last sentence. Are you saying that the last sentence would be true if God had not been experiencing "peak experience" within Godself sans creation,... but in order for creating to have been an act of freedom and grace (not out of necessity), you believe He already was experiencing "peak experience" sans creation?
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 10/29/2005 9:09 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...When I hear "extremely significant", I hear "internally relevant". If something is "extremely important" to me, then it has central and essential meaning to me. It is in no way peripheral or superfluous. Now... I'd say that God's love ensures that God will value Creation positively and relate to it in a loving manner. But I would say that this is distinct from saying that Creation was inherently "extremely significant" to God simply because of it's existence. Creation would be "significant" to God in being an object of God's loving attention, sure. But this "significance" would in no way trump God's internal relationality and the aesthetic SATISFACTION from that relationality. Creation would only be "very significant" to God in ways that God had purposed for it. Creation was made FOR God, anyhow. Right?
Right. I agree. woo hoo!!!
If you're going to be skeptical, be fair and be skeptical of skepticism. | | Back to Top | | |
| 336 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:22 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 |
|
|