ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[sentientsynth]

Lighthouse,

Are you familiar with the term "Freudian slip"?

"Who me?"



How appropriate.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Notice that deardelmar says "and hopes that your prayer will make a difference." That sounds nothing like the confident and unwavering Hope that scripture teaches. It sounds more like a wish. It's like a child who is so accustomed to being ignored or flatly told "no," but still asks and "hopes" that this time, maybe, possibly, probably not, but who knows, it might be different. That's the view of the Open Deist. He has no confidence, no joyful expection, just an empty pathetic wish. You might as well toss pennies into a fountain at the mall. And of course this follows, given the fact that the Unsettled God doesn't really do anything, except maybe secretly plants thoughts every once in a while, if someone raises enough ruckus.

Here again we have another perfect example of Jim taking an perfectly fine statement, and unnecessarily torturing it. This is very much like when Jim tried to make an issue out of Bob Hills statement that Bob felt it was "amazing" that the God of the universe repents (Bob used the word "amazing" Jim used the word "awesome" - Big deal!!!) This is also the same type of silliness Jim employed in my recent One on One with him in which I eventually asked myself... "self, why I am bothering with this guy?"

People have a way of saying things, and we all say things in our own way. Focusing in on one or two words in an entire paragraph tends to do injustice to the spirit of the overall meaning.

I think Delmar was saying he "hopes and prays" that YOU (not God) will someday believe that God can be moved by prayer.

That's the type of prayer that takes Jim Hilston's willingness to lean not on his own understanding but instead lean on God for understanding. We can only hope that you see the light because God isn't going to force you to think He can be moved.

Now....
What words will Jim use from this post to twist and destroy???? :think:

 

[Balder]

Bob, does God experience a succession of temporally real moments, of real, definite duration? Does he occupy a temporal space with definite horizons, on the other sides of which are the "already happened" and the "not yet happened"?

One more note...

It seems to me that if you imagine God "riding" the present moment just like we appear to be, with past moments receding behind him and an unknown future stretching ahead -- in other words, if you put a temporal horizon around him and his experience, and "conform" him to our commonsense understanding of time -- then you do so at a cost. Because if you put horizons on God in this way, you have to put another horizon around him as well: an ultimate beginning. If God experiences the unfolding of discrete moments, of particular temporal duration, and if God has existed forever, then he never could have "exhausted" the infinite history of such moments prior to his act of creating the universe. You cannot arrive at a particular point in time that has an eternal history of similar moments behind it. Therefore, you have to put a cap on God, and posit a beginning to his existence. To arrive at a particular point in a series, you have to be working with a finite number of such points. Otherwise, you run into the logical problems I just described.

I point this out for a number of reasons, but the main one here is this: to point to the mystery that is, I believe, irreducibly present when describing the nature of Ultimate Reality, or an Ultimate Being such as God.

I have suggested before that it may be that conventional, forward-moving, open-futured time demands the timeless (Nowness, Presence) as its context, in order to have any coherence. In other words, it may not be the case that the so-called Biblical view and the Greek philosophical view (as Open Theists frame the problem) are mutually exclusive alternatives, but rather that both are facets of a greater mystery. If God can inhabit this moment and be present "now," in spite of the fact that this moment apparently has an infinite (logically inexhaustible) series of other moments behind it, perhaps that suggests that there is some deep part of God's presence that is beyond time in this sense. A presence that transcends and transfuses all particular moments equally.

 

[Clete]

Bob, does God experience a succession of temporally real moments, of real, definite duration? Does he occupy a temporal space with definite horizons, on the other sides of which are the "already happened" and the "not yet happened"?

Loaded question.

Let me guess. :think:

Next comes the question about how God could have existed for an eternity already, right?

 

[Balder]

I just did you a favor and elaborated, Clete! It is asked in a sympathetic spirit, not an oppositional one.

 

[Clete]

One more note...

It seems to me that if you imagine God "riding" the present moment just like we appear to be, with past moments receding behind him and an unknown future stretching ahead -- in other words, if you put a temporal horizon around him and his experience, and "conform" him to our commonsense understanding of time -- then you do so at a cost. Because if you put horizons on God in this way, you have to put another horizon around him as well: an ultimate beginning. If God experiences the unfolding of discrete moments, of particular temporal duration, and if God has existed forever, then he never could have "exhausted" the infinite history of such moments prior to his act of creating the universe. You cannot arrive at a particular point in time that has an eternal history of similar moments behind it. Therefore, you have to put a cap on God, and posit a beginning to his existence. To arrive at a particular point in a series, you have to be working with a finite number of such points. Otherwise, you run into the logical problems I just described.

I point this out for a number of reasons, but the main one here is this: to point to the mystery that is, I believe, irreducibly present when describing the nature of Ultimate Reality, or an Ultimate Being such as God.

I have suggested before that it may be that conventional, forward-moving, open-futured time demands the timeless (Nowness, Presence) as its context, in order to have any coherence. In other words, it may not be the case that the so-called Biblical view and the Greek philosophical view (as Open Theists frame the problem) are mutually exclusive alternatives, but rather that both are facets of a greater mystery. If God can inhabit this moment and be present "now," in spite of the fact that this moment apparently has an infinite (logically inexhaustible) series of other moments behind it, perhaps that suggests that there is some deep part of God's presence that is beyond time in this sense. A presence that transcends and transfuses all particular moments equally.

OH!!! I knew it!

You beat me too the punch though! :sigh:

 

[Clete]

I just did you a favor and elaborated, Clete! It is asked in a sympathetic spirit, not an oppositional one.

Reading those posts again, I realize that I sounded more ugly than I intended. It was only intended as a little jab because I could so easily tell where you were going with it. Your question is actually an interesting puzzle which I do not know the answer too. I'll be interested to see how Pastor Hill deals with the issue.

Out of curiosity, would you consider the answer "I don't know." to be a valid one?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[sentientsynth]

Balder,

I think I've heard this same dilemma worded differently.

Such that, an infinite time span is impossible to cross. So if time did not have a beginning, then we never would have gotten to "now." It was a strange argument for me to conceptualize at first, and I still have my doubts about it. It's an interesting line of thought though.

Do you think that this is an analogous, or perhaps even identical, problem?


SS

 

[Balder]

Clete, yes, I think "I don't know" is a valid answer. In fact, that's one thing I wanted to get across here: that underneath the commonsense (naturalistic) view of time, which is what the Open View seems to espouse, there is mystery and paradox. It's a good reminder of the limitations of our understanding, if nothing more.

And Sentientsynth, yes, I think that is virtually the same problem I was articulating. Just approaching it from a slightly different angle. The way Kant puts it: "Eternity can never be achieved by successive synthesis" (paraphrase).

 

[sentientsynth]

Sentientsynth, yes, I think that is virtually the same problem I was articulating. Just approaching it from a slightly different angle. The way Kant puts it: "Eternity can never be achieved by successive synthesis" (paraphrase).

Kant was a world-class philosopher. His "Critique of Pure Reason" is a tough read. I generally tend to sit up whenever I find a quotation by him.

As far as this line of reasoning goes, it as if I can grasp what he's saying here at an intuitive level. And it seems cogent. But, then again I get this gut hunch that something about it is just a little off. I should like to study up on this some more though, to know how others have handled this problem. Any articles you could provide links to?

Also, what do you think about the conclusion of modern physics: that time began at some finite point in the past? Your opinion?


Thanks.

SS

 

[godrulz]

The unique MEASURE of time began at creation (sun, moon, stars, sundials, clocks, etc.). Time itself did not have a beginning since duration/succession/sequence (time) has always been an aspect of the personal, living, triune, relational God. Without time, thinking, acting, feeling, incarnating, creating, etc. is incoherent. God is from everlasting to everlasting (endless time), not timeless (whatever that could possibly mean...'eternal now' simultaneity is a Platonic, philosophical concept...see Rev. 1:4, 8; Ps. 90:2).

 

[sentientsynth]

The unique MEASURE of time began at creation (sun, moon, stars, sundials, clocks, etc.).

Really? What about "thinking, acting, feeling"? If those things existed, in your view, then they could be used as a measure of time. Quite simple. Just measure the time from one of God's thoughts, actions, or feelings to the next thought, action, or feeling.

But then you turn right around and say...

"Time itself did not have a beginning since duration/succession/sequence (time) has always been an aspect of the personal, living, triune, relational God. ​

Time by its very nature is measurable, at least by God, godrulz. And what Balder has been addressing is the problem of spanning an infinite time-span. Would you like to weigh in on that issue?

Without time, thinking, acting, feeling, incarnating, creating, etc. is incoherent."

Only to a finite mind. We ought not project the limitations of a finite mind upon our infinite God.

 

[godrulz]

:nono:

Was uncreated Creator, creation, Fall, Moses, Isaiah, birth, life, death, resurrection, Second Coming concurrent/simultaneous for God or was there interval and duration between these? Has the Second Coming happened in God's parallel universe? What is the biblical picture (God moving in sequence with His people...this is revelation, so do not rationalize it away for speculative philosophies)? There are logical issues at stake. Do you support A or B theory of time? If you cannot answer this, you have not done enough homework to be dogmatic.

 

[sentientsynth]

Godrulz,

I asked first. Would you like to weigh in on the problem Balder has presented?

If you can't answer this question, then you haven't done enough homework to be dogmatic. The jury is still out on how much if enough though. So I'm not really sure what I'm saying. END

 

[Balder]

Kant was a world-class philosopher. His "Critique of Pure Reason" is a tough read. I generally tend to sit up whenever I find a quotation by him.

As far as this line of reasoning goes, it as if I can grasp what he's saying here at an intuitive level. And it seems cogent. But, then again I get this gut hunch that something about it is just a little off. I should like to study up on this some more though, to know how others have handled this problem. Any articles you could provide links to?

Also, what do you think about the conclusion of modern physics: that time began at some finite point in the past? Your opinion?

Thanks.

SS

Kant made that comment about eternity, but he was also uncomfortable with it. He found problems both with the idea that the universe began a finite time ago, and with the idea that it has always existed. However, even though he rejected both of these common conceptions, he did not have a solution to propose.

Concerning the conclusion of modern physics, that time began at a finite point in the past, the jury is still out on that, as far as I know: some versions of string theory suggest that the universe (and time) pre-existed the big bang. These theories are closer to the Buddhist view, cosmologically: universes continually expanding and collapsing, out of what Buddhism calls "virtual point-instant singularities." However, Buddhism also agrees with aspects of modern relativitistic theories, inasmuch as both consider time to be a relative construct, not an "absolute."

Recognizing this is an Exclusively Christian room, I certainly don't mean to start a conversation on Buddhism here. I was just commenting (a little) on how my views relate to your question about modern physics.

I've done some papers on time; I'll check their bibliographies for any online resources on time and eternity. I do know the current issue of Scientific American is about time; I was flipping through it in the bookstore a few days ago

Just on logical grounds, I think you have a conundrum on your hands if you conceive of God as existing (and acting) eternally on an infinite, forward-stretching timeline. I fully agree with your comments to Godrulz: even if human measures of time clearly have a "beginning," there are certainly other ways to conceive of "measuring" God's eternal existence (if you think of him as many Open Theists do, or even many other Christians): If God has thought and acted for an eternal span of time, then you still have an infinite "set" or series on your hands. And you still have the logical problems that follow from that.

The idea that an aspect of God is "outside of" or transcends this infinite series, as timeless Presence, may be one way around this. But if you think about it, it may apply to us as well. For us to be able to be here, at this "point" in eternity, suggests a necessary intimacy with eternity. Perhaps our own presence is implicated in God's. Might this be what is meant by the Biblical claim that God put eternity in the heart of man?

 

[Lighthouse]

Lighthouse,

Are you familiar with the term "Freudian slip"?

"Who me?"



How appropriate.

Yes, I have heard the term. And your post was not such. It was a pun. And I misquoted you, to make a joke.

 

[Lighthouse]

Time is nothing more than a concept.

 

[godrulz]

Godrulz,

I asked first. Would you like to weigh in on the problem Balder has presented?

If you can't answer this question, then you haven't done enough homework to be dogmatic. The jury is still out on how much if enough though. So I'm not really sure what I'm saying. END

I was not paying attention to his inquiry.

 

[Rutabaga]

Here again we have another perfect example of Jim taking an perfectly fine statement, and unnecessarily torturing it. This is very much like when Jim tried to make an issue out of Bob Hills statement that Bob felt it was "amazing" that the God of the universe repents (Bob used the word "amazing" Jim used the word "awesome" - Big deal!!!) This is also the same type of silliness Jim employed in my recent One on One with him in which I eventually asked myself... "self, why I am bothering with this guy?"

People have a way of saying things, and we all say things in our own way. Focusing in on one or two words in an entire paragraph tends to do injustice to the spirit of the overall meaning.

I think Delmar was saying he "hopes and prays" that YOU (not God) will someday believe that God can be moved by prayer.

That's the type of prayer that takes Jim Hilston's willingness to lean not on his own understanding but instead lean on God for understanding. We can only hope that you see the light because God isn't going to force you to think He can be moved.

Now....
What words will Jim use from this post to twist and destroy???? :think:

It's surprising that Knight alludes to the One on One discussion he had with Hilston regarding Calvinism and immutability. I encourage anyone who hasn't done so already to head over there and evaluate it for him or herself. Like me, you may have a hard time seeing "silliness" in Hilston's posts. I don't mention this to defend Hilston--he seems capable of that himself; rather, that One on One is a sort of 'Greatest Hits' of TOL Open View argumentation, revealing many of its most glaring weaknesses--in both style and content--in one brief (and abbreviated?) discussion.

 

[Delmar]

It's surprising that Knight alludes to the One on One discussion he had with Hilston regarding Calvinism and immutability. I encourage anyone who hasn't done so already to head over there and evaluate it for him or herself. Like me, you may have a hard time seeing "silliness" in Hilston's posts. I don't mention this to defend Hilston--he seems capable of that himself; rather, that One on One is a sort of 'Greatest Hits' of TOL Open View argumentation, revealing many of its most glaring weaknesses--in both style and content--in one brief (and abbreviated?) discussion.

Knight stands behind what he said. Why does that surprize you?