 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > God as Personal | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
SeaKayaker
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 2/21/2003 5:16 AM (GMT -6) |   | Tom,
In parts, again…
By the way, I generally identify by name the person I am primarily quoting in my responses. I just do it to recognize that person, not to exclusively address the response to that person. Anyone else should feel free to comment on the posts.
quote:
Chris: We would agree that the world is logical [and] … that God is logical…What does it really mean to say that God is logical?
Tom: We do agree that the world and God are non contra se.
God is logical. Since we are both describing the same God, lets see if we are both describing the same logic. I think that it is necessary to think of logic in the same sense in which we talk about personality. The only standard of personality is God. The same is true of logic. The only standard of logic is God. God, by his very nature, defines “logical.” This is different from saying that God, by his very nature, is logical.
quote:
I don’t have a problem with saying logic is personal in the sense that the rules of logic do not exist independently of God or constitute a law God must submit to, as if God would like to be contra se but “the rules” won’t let him.
I would even go so far as to say that God does not, by his nature, willingly and continually follow the laws of logic, but I think that you have affirmed that too. If we are going to insist that God is ultimate personality, then all his attributes must be personal. Logic is one of his attributes, hence it must be personal. From this perspective, we can try to slide around the simplicity issue.
quote:
Logic isn’t an “impersonal force” which constrains God’s actions.
That is the purpose of a reducio, to eliminate a premise. Now, lets consider the implications of saying that logic is not in any way outside of God, but that God, by his nature, defines logic. What does logic do? Logic determines possibilities. Can both P and not P be true at the same time in the same way? Logic tells us that they cannot. Logic also determines conclusions. If (if P then Q) and P, then logic tells us that Q must be true. Logic, I propose, determines everything that ever happens and ever will happen in the universe. Before accusing me of determinism, remember what we have already agreed to, namely that logic is a personal attribute of God.
quote:
What God has chosen to reveal to us cannot meaningfully be embraced or expressed by us in self-contradictory terms.
You probably have mentioned this and I guess that I would say yes and no (Sic et Non). Human logic is not a perfect representation of God’s logic, and so there are some aspects of God’s character (three and one) that appear contradictory by human logic but are not really contradictory. That is where we recognize that we are created beings, not God, and we simply echo Paul’s words at the end of Romans 11: “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!”
Soli Deo Gloria,
Chris | | Back to Top | | |
 |
SeaKayaker
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 2/21/2003 5:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
Part II
quote:
Chris: God is simple (simplicitas), is he not?
Tom: I don’t think so. To quote Bill Craig… “the notion of simplicity operative here is the polar opposite of complexity. God is said to be an absolutely undifferentiated unity…It implies…that he does not possess even distinct attributes. In some mysterious way his omnipotence is his goodness, for example. He stands in no relations whatsoever…He is not really composed of three distinct persons, a claim notoriously difficult to reconcile with the doctrine of the Trinity
You (or rather Craig) are setting up simplicity and complexity as hostile forces within God. In philosophy, this is the problem of the one and the many, or of unity and diversity. In short, I would say that God is ultimate unity and ultimate diversity. This is the teaching of the Trinity. It is possible to talk about God as one person just as we can talk about him as three persons. Both are equally ultimate in God. He is diverse through unity and united through diversity. If you would like to see my treatment on this, you can visit my site, www.geocities.com/kayakbuilder2001 , and look at the rough draft of my thesis (under the philosophy page). In it, I argue that one of the central problems of philosophy has been to bring together unity and diversity and that only the Christian Trinity can succeed in this task.
Consider 1 Corinthians 8:4-6: “Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.” When Paul wants to emphasize God’s unity, he does so by mentioning two distinct persons of the Trinity.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Chris
[Edited for URL - if it does not work, it may be necessary to copy it to your browser]
Edited by - SeaKayaker on 02/21/2003 10:33:38 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/21/2003 7:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Chris-
I’m not following you too well. It’s me I’m sure. Why don’t you boil it down and tell us a) what you think it means for God to be “personal” and b) how you think this does or doesn’t affect the discussion regarding the open view. Take me straight to your conclusions and then we’ll worry about how you got there. Maybe I’ll follow you more easily if I know where you’re going.
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeaKayaker
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 2/23/2003 1:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
quote:
What does it mean to say that God is personal?
I am trying to better understand this issue, but I see it as the difference between a computer and a person. Beyond that, I have only a sense of what personality is, but I do not think that I could construct a philosophical or theological definition of personality aside from an appeal to emotions.
quote:
How does this affect the open view?
God can only be absolutely personal if he is absolutely sovereign over creation. Now, I am currently just proposing this for discussion. Because there are plenty of people here to argue the other view, it will take this position, even if I am not exactly of where I personally (!) stand on this issue.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Chris | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/23/2003 3:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Chris: I see it [viz., what it means to be personal] as the difference between a computer and a person. Beyond that, I have only a sense of what personality is…
Tom: OK, fine. Spell out for me what you sense the difference between a person and computer is. Don’t worry about constructing a philosophical/theological definition of personhood, just say what you’re thinking. Spit it out Chris. You must have SOME conception of what it means to be a person. You assume to know enough to conclude that God’s being a person entails and excludes certain things (viz., about atemporality, simplicity, absolutely sovereignty). So you’re operating with some commitment to what it means for God to be a person, or at least how OUR being persons cannot apply to God being a person.
Chris: I do not think that I could construct a philosophical or theological definition of personality aside from an appeal to emotions.
Tom: On the contrary, you appear to be assuming a great deal about God, personhood, personal relationships, and sovereignty, and you have yet to appeal to emotions.
Chris: God can only be absolutely personal if he is absolutely sovereign over creation.
Tom: See? You're doing it now. 
Unpack this claim some, Chris. If by absolutely sovereign you mean exhaustively determining, then I’d argue (and have up till now) that this would entail that we are less than persons and it would suggest, I think, that God is less than personal.
Now, in spite of your claims to the contrary, you’re operating with a very clear sense of who you think God is and what you think it means for God to be personal. And until you explain your underlying understanding here, I don’t know how to interact with you. I for one honestly have no idea what “absolutely personal” means. And I’m wondering how, if you claim to have very little sense of what “personal” means, you’re able to speak so clearly of God as “absolutely personal” and conclude even that unless God is “absolutely sovereign” (as you understand sovereignty) God cannot be “absolutely personal.” I want to say, Why in the world believe that? But until you explain that some I’m not sure what it even means.
Chris: Now, I am currently just proposing this for discussion. Because there are plenty of people here to argue the other view, it will take this position, even if I am not exactly [sure] of where I personally (!) stand on this issue.
Tom (smiling!): I’ve lost exactly what it is you’re proposing for discussion, what the “other” view is that you think most of us will argue, and what position it is that you’re taking in spite of not knowing were you stand on the issue.
Give it some thought. Lay it out—1, 2, 3, and then post it. Until then, I’m lost.  I'm also tired 'cause it's 4:15 AM where I live! 
On my denying “simplicity”...
Chris: You (or rather Craig) are setting up simplicity and complexity as hostile forces within God.
Tom: I don’t think so. I think you and others who embrace the medieval doctrine of simplicity do this.
Chris: In short, I would say that God is ultimate unity and ultimate diversity.
Tom: So would I. So forget simplicity, Chris. God is one God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We don’t need the doctrine of simplicity as classically argued by Aquinas to affirm this.
Tom 
Edited by - TGB on 02/23/2003 8:13:14 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/24/2003 9:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Chris-
One more thought. You said:quote:
Logic also determines conclusions. If (if P then Q) and P, then logic tells us that Q must be true. Logic, I propose, determines everything that ever happens and ever will happen in the universe. Before accusing me of determinism, remember what we have already agreed to, namely that logic is a personal attribute of God.
Just some ideas. This does look very much like determinism to me. I think you realize this too. I wouldn’t “accuse” you of it. It’s not a crime, right? If it’s what you believe, embrace it.
Secondly, there’s nothing illogical about— If P then either Q, R, or S. P obtains, so logic tells us that either Q, R, or S is true.
Logic determines conclusions, but conclusions may often be diverse and open-ended. I’m no scientist, but I believe chaos theory and quantum mechanics would give you more detailed examples of the logic of the genuine openness that exists in the universe.
Take care Chris,
Tom
Love never ends
Edited by - TGB on 02/24/2003 2:07:25 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 31 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:00 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 |
|
|