ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Clete]

Well this is a rare meeting of the minds here!

Since several of us here are in agreement in regards to God's existence having no beginning and no end, I wonder if I might get some or all of you to comment on the problem of infinite regression?

If God has always existed, how did He manage to arrive at the current moment since there doesn't seem to have been enough time for an eternity to have passed yet?

Asked another way, what was the first thing God did? If you say that there was no first thing, how then could there have have been a second and a third and so on? If there is no second or third or fifty thousandth, etc then does that imply a lack of sequence to God's existence?

For those of you who are familiar with Zeno's paradox, you might notice that the paradox I've just brought up is very similar to it. Zeno, in case you don't already know, said that motion was impossible because there is an infinite number of points one must traverse in a finite period of time in order get from anywhere to anywhere else.

Zeno's paradox is resolved, or so I'm told, with the use of Calculus. I'm curious to know whether the problem of infinite regress can be tackled in a similar fashion.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I believe that is a basic flaw in your understanding. How about answering the question that I ask. We will leave aside the question of what righteousness is for the moment.

I thought I did answer the question that you asked. How does it not answer your question?

Do you believe that a Chicken clucks because it chooses to do that rather than to bark like a dog?

 

[elected4ever]

I thought I did answer the question that you asked. How does it not answer your question?

Do you believe that a Chicken clucks because it chooses to do that rather than to bark like a dog?

Because chickens are not dogs. it is its nature. What a thing is by nature determines what it does and that is not choice.

 

[elected4ever]

Well this is a rare meeting of the minds here!

Since several of us here are in agreement in regards to God's existence having no beginning and no end, I wonder if I might get some or all of you to comment on the problem of infinite regression?

If God has always existed, how did He manage to arrive at the current moment since there doesn't seem to have been enough time for an eternity to have passed yet?

Asked another way, what was the first thing God did? If you say that there was no first thing, how then could there have have been a second and a third and so on? If there is no second or third or fifty thousandth, etc then does that imply a lack of sequence to God's existence?

For those of you who are familiar with Zeno's paradox, you might notice that the paradox I've just brought up is very similar to it. Zeno, in case you don't already know, said that motion was impossible because there is an infinite number of points one must traverse in a finite period of time in order get from anywhere to anywhere else.

Zeno's paradox is resolved, or so I'm told, with the use of Calculus. I'm curious to know whether the problem of infinite regress can be tackled in a similar fashion.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I do not think that God has memory of what was before He was. So as far as God is concerned, He is the beginning and He will be the ending.

 

[baloney]

You guys you are thinking of time and the future etc. in Greek terms. These are all concepts and objects of knowledge in our minds as the Greeks thought or in other words as has been put forth in these discusssions "things". The Greeks thought about objects and concepts like time in themselves, but the ancient Hebrews never thought of these terms in themselves but how they were functional in their lives.

So when I say the the ancient Hebrews believed in a God that transcends time that is only trying to put it in modern understanding.

I'm not saying that questioning time and how it relates to God is bad.

We have to think in Greek terms today because our whole way of thinking has evolved out of Greek thought.

So unless we live like nomads and don't really think much about things but in a functional way of raising herds etc. we can never return to the ancient hebrew thinking of the world.

 

[baloney]

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/12_home.html

Here's a very good source for ancient Hebrew beliefs.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Because chickens are not dogs. it is its nature. What a thing is by nature determines what it does and that is not choice.

Animals do what they do by nature, I agree with you. Are we as human beings no different than animals? Am I, a human being, arguing against my own nature when I assert that I can act in accordance or in defiance of what ever is my "nature" as you put it. Is it in our human nature to be free to act one way or another or not? If not, and we who oppose determinism are doing so out of our nature and cannot do other wise, then why do those who are deteminists try to do the impossible and convince us that we are wrong and they are right????? :bang:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Baloney,

As I had stated earlier:

A Different View of Time and History
"the Hebrew view of time and history was essentially linear, durative, and progressive. In short, it was going somewhere; it was enroute to a goal, a glorious climax at the end of this age. The consummation of history in the age to come will see nature transformed through the removal of evil from the earth."

This quote from your link is exactly the open view, I did not see anything said about time being something that was created. Time is an aspect of something that exists, not a thing in itself. The creation of the world is in God's "past" and the "end of the age" is in His future as it is in ours.

One cannot say that "the Hebrew view of time and history was essentially linear, durative, and progressive" without inferring that God also experiences it the the same way. A "timeless" view means that God does not and therefore cannot actually enter time and history. To believe that God is timeless and still enters history and time is irrational. You can believe it to be true but this view is simply an "irrational faith."

Can you respond to this or not? I don't believe the Hebrews who experienced God in the Old Testament believed he was "timeless".

 

[godrulz]

I agree with Clete that issues of morals and character are chosen. Ontological issues like eternality, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence are not chosen.

e4e is confusing metaphysics/ontology (one aspect of God's attributes) with morals/personality/character (another aspect of who God is). The former is not chosen, the latter is.

Choice determines the nature; nature is not causative determining choices (unless you buy into evolution and B.F. Skinner's behavioralism).

This also relates to our being in the image of God. Our spiritual and personal image (spirit, will, intellect, emotions) are not chosen, but character and moral issues are (love is a choice, not simply a nature we are born with).

 

[godrulz]

Clete: Others have brought up the infinite regression issue. I am confidant that it is a weak objection and that Open Theists and philosophers have answered it adequately. I agree that the Zeno thing (you understand it better than I do) is similar. Obviously the arrow reaches the target despite what the navel gazing philosophers say.

This is a difficult, technical read, but a definitive work on the subject. He objects to eternal now and affirms that a personal God cannot be timeless. His chapter differentiating intervals vs instants seems to be a key resolution of infinite regression objections. His mathematics and logic are not possible for me to reproduce off the top of my head, but I know the resolution exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lucas_(philosopher)

A Treatise on Time and Space by J.R. Lucas

 

[baloney]

Dave, look at my post above #6126. The link there provides a whole different view of time for the Hebrews. Then we'll talk.

 

[Clete]

Because chickens are not dogs. it is its nature. What a thing is by nature determines what it does and that is not choice.

Then I ask you again, how does my answer not answer your question?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, look at my post above #6126. The link there provides a whole different view of time for the Hebrews. Then we'll talk.

I read it and took the quote from it, how could you have missed that?

 

[Lighthouse]

Yeah, I didn't think any of you settled viewers wanted to answer my question. Cowards.

 

[baloney]

Dave this is a differen link. It describes how the hebrews saw time as circular.

 

[Lon]

Yeah, I agree with a lot of what you said. Being once a S.V.'er and seeing what I knew about God then compared to after researching the O.V., I must agree there is more understanding.

If it is true that we only use 10%, then the O.V.er's brain is 4.9% closer than the S.V. is. No offense. I would consider you closer than that because you reject calvinism so much when we were talking there a while back.

That is not to say we love God more, per-say. I think we give him more honor than many in the S.V. camp because we don't say he does crazy stuff to, as you put it, fit God into our view.

The O.V. doesn't really do that. We just say this is what God does and what he doesn't, based on what he tells us in his word. The well-read S.V.er adds on to scripture to say he does more than he ever admitted, then they must mold their vision of him so it fits.

Both to you and Clete, The OT Hebrews did believe in an Omniscient God who has Exhaustive foreknowledge. It is written in ancient commentaries well before Plato or Aristotle influences. I had to varify and so went to a Hebrew scholar friend. He's looking up the references for me (He is Jewish, not messianic). Where does that leave your argument?

Patman, the link I provided was about ancient Hebrew beliefs not modern jewish beliefs.

If open theism is based on this false representaion of old Hebrew thinking than it fails by the very base of its argument.

After this, I also saw Baloney's post:

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/12_home.html

Here's a very good source for ancient Hebrew beliefs.

In Him,

Lonnie

 

[Lon]

It looks to me like he nailed the point to the wall! Are you suggesting that Aristotle believed that the gods did not transcend time?

Have you ever read the Westminster Confession of Faith? It's argument for the immutability of God is taken straight out of the mouth of Aristotle. If God is immutable then He must also be timeless. The two go together like flies and cow dung.

Resting in Him,
Clete

My only point here is what Greek philosophy is about. No one can deny Plato's, Aristotle's, and Plotinus' infuence on those who followed: Jewish; Philo and Maimonides. Islamic; Faylasufs and Averroes. Christian; Origin, Augustine, Aquians, and Calvin.

But that wasn't his point at all. Reread it. He is saying these two were in 'opposition' to the Greek philosophical movement in these views. It was the 'opposite' that is all he was saying.

You guys were retorting probably to the next thing he 'might' have said afterwards, but neither address his actual point.

In Him

 

[elected4ever]

Then I ask you again, how does my answer not answer your question?

It does not answer the question because you side stepted the issue. A chicken barking is not a decision a chicken can make.

 

[baloney]

http://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm

Dave, not only do they believe God is transcendant of time and know the future perfectly, they believe God created evil as well.

 

[Clete]

It does not answer the question because you side stepted the issue. A chicken barking is not a decision a chicken can make.

Precisely. That was the whole point of my asking the rhetorical question, "Do you believe that a Chicken clucks because it chooses to do that rather than to bark like a dog?".

Your answer to that question is no, as is mine.

Therefore when you asked...

"Would you agree that God is righteous because of who He is verses what He does? For example, Is a chicken a chicken because it clucks or does a chicken cluck because a chicken is a chicken? Does the nature of a thing define the thing or does the thing define its nature?"​

and I answered...

The term righteous is meaningless without choice, thus God chooses to be righteous or He is not righteous at all.​

Your question should have been answered quite nicely.

God being righteous is not like a chicken clucking. A chicken does not choose to cluck and therefore there is no moral implication in its clucking all day every day because that which is not chosen is not moral in nature.

To say that God does not choose his actions is to say that God is amoral. One cannot be both righteous and amoral. Thus, God chooses His actions, which have consistently been in the best interests of others and thus it is meaningful to say that God is righteous.

Resting in Him,
Clete