sentientsynth
New member
Ummm.... wasn't that what Evo's entire post just explained?
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
themuzicman
Well-known member
Evo,
You went through a lot of trouble to make an argument that I've addressed many times before. The problem of infinite regress is probably the most significant rational hurdle the Open View has to deal with.
I've dealt with this issue before and don't mind doing so again but for brevity's sake (mainly because of time constraints at the moment) I wonder if I could get you to simply answer a couple of questions for me as directly as you possibly can - please.
Do you believe that the argument you presented actually does falsify open theism on rational grounds?
Have you ever heard of Zeno's paradoxes?
If not, and you don't want to bother reading that whole article to figure them out, the paradoxes deal with infinite series. Aristotle stated it briefly like this...
The point being, of course that now the half way point has become your goal and thus you must arrive the new half-way stage (1/4 of the original goal) and on ad infinitum. Thus one must accomplish an infinite number of acts in a finite period of time which cannot be done.
In short, we move through an infinite series of points in time all the time! You just accomplished an impossibility by having read this sentence (according to Zeno)! Now, with the invention of Calculus most mathematicians agree that Zeno's paradoxes have been put to bed but don't be so sure. There are still quite a number of prominent philosophers who disagree and with good reason. Either way, however, I submit that the problem of infinite regress, while a significant philosophical issue, does not prove that God could not have arrived at the present any more than Zeno proved you couldn't have reached the end of this post. It's a paradox, nothing more. And what's more its the only one that I have yet discovered within the Open View paradigm, while the Settled View, in whatever form, is chocker block full of not only paradoxes but outright blatant contradictions which are simply ignored and called antinomies to make everyone feel pious about their intellectual dishonesty.
Resting in Him,
Clete
You went through a lot of trouble to make an argument that I've addressed many times before. The problem of infinite regress is probably the most significant rational hurdle the Open View has to deal with.
I've dealt with this issue before and don't mind doing so again but for brevity's sake (mainly because of time constraints at the moment) I wonder if I could get you to simply answer a couple of questions for me as directly as you possibly can - please.
Do you believe that the argument you presented actually does falsify open theism on rational grounds?
Have you ever heard of Zeno's paradoxes?
If not, and you don't want to bother reading that whole article to figure them out, the paradoxes deal with infinite series. Aristotle stated it briefly like this...
"That which is in locomotion must arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal."
The point being, of course that now the half way point has become your goal and thus you must arrive the new half-way stage (1/4 of the original goal) and on ad infinitum. Thus one must accomplish an infinite number of acts in a finite period of time which cannot be done.
In short, we move through an infinite series of points in time all the time! You just accomplished an impossibility by having read this sentence (according to Zeno)! Now, with the invention of Calculus most mathematicians agree that Zeno's paradoxes have been put to bed but don't be so sure. There are still quite a number of prominent philosophers who disagree and with good reason. Either way, however, I submit that the problem of infinite regress, while a significant philosophical issue, does not prove that God could not have arrived at the present any more than Zeno proved you couldn't have reached the end of this post. It's a paradox, nothing more. And what's more its the only one that I have yet discovered within the Open View paradigm, while the Settled View, in whatever form, is chocker block full of not only paradoxes but outright blatant contradictions which are simply ignored and called antinomies to make everyone feel pious about their intellectual dishonesty.
Resting in Him,
Clete
God is in the process of bringing these things into a reality. All these things will come to pass when He is finished. It's like what you say about His two different wills. I forget your terms so I'll use mine. God's objective will is for all these things to be a reality. But, His subjective will is for them to exist for a season to use as tools to teach humanity the negative effects of them. Sorta like allowing your child (after 18 years of warning him not to) to stick his finger in an electrical outlet to show him why it's not the thing to do.
Talk about being glorified! Bringing everyone into conformity to Christ will bring much more glory to Him than saving only a few and frying, for all eternity, most. God would not do that to people He loves. Gripes, people wouldn't do that to people they love, much less God doing it! Not to mention, nobody chose to be born into sin, estranged from God, unable to be reconciled to Him without Him FIRST drawing them, and then supposedly choosing to be fried forever for it?
I'm not trying to elevate one above the other. I don't see any of His attributes that would warrant Him tormenting forever the people whom His Son suffered and died to save. But, it does seem that you are. You seem to think there is some "perfection" of God that trumps His Love. The only one anyone ever seems to think could do it, would be His Justice. But, that was satisfied by Christ at the cross. What else, sir?
Oh, you say you're not trying to elevate one above the other? Does that mean you believe tormenting forever the people, whom His Son suffered and died to save, SHOWS His love? Love toward whom? Obviously not the ones who are being tortured. How about showing His love toward His Son? 'Yes Son, I know I told you that you had to suffer and die to pay the redemption price for these people. Yes, I know you did indeed do what was required, but, I decided to torment them anyway... sorry' Please, sir, tell me which "perfection" of God is going to cause Him to negate the work of His Son!
To show how illogical your position is.
Nope.
Nope.
Haven't heard that one yet. Did you just make that up?
Care to elaborate on it? I understand the "universal" part but I don't understand the "restorationalist" part.
Actually, that's pretty funny coming from you because most people around here call me a Calvinist. Go figure.
Whatever.
So basically Zeno's paradoxes are mathematical word games?
That or it points to the fact that God, having been around for eternity has a different perspective. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1464601&postcount=47
It may very well be as you have observed.
In my experience, a person makes a change in their faith is usually going to make radical changes. Yes, I know of some that made the changes gradually, say from Catholic, to Episcopal, to Baptist or Lutheran, then to Presbyterian (or the reverse). But most I have encountered made big jumps.
I just think that a Calvinist, who had obviously embraced a very tight view of God's sovereignty would cast a very wide net when leaving and land in open theism instead of just "half way" into true Arminianism. Conversely, an open theist that had embraced such a wide view of sovereignty would, when leaving, run head long into the welcoming, and very tight, arms of Calvinism.
I once took a transpersonal psychology course, wherein the personalities of persons who believe in some form of deity is studied. There was quite a bit of discussion about what types of personalities gravitate towards certain denominations. No one was convinced that the correlations were actual causations, but there was an element of truth in some of the discussions. For example, the reason most of the well-known biblical scholars from history were Reformed, and the same is true in most seminaries today, might just be partially because the academic types appreciate the tight coherence and consequent complexities of the Reformed doctrines. It is intriguing, something that I can spend my retirement pondering some day.
Are you saying that people who tend to over analyze things tend to be Calvinists?
Evoken
New member
sentientsynth
New member
Quite right. And IIRC, even the philosophers of Zeno's time saw this. Calculus methods (analysis of converging series) have proven (mathematical definition of proven) that it's no paradox at all. If one were to take the same amount of time to cross each subsequent "half", you've got a problem. But we don't. So it ain't.
Lonster if you read my post carefully I never mentioned "us".
I am asking primarily about God Himself.
Both Nang and AMR assert that God never designed, never created (in His mind), never imagined. Our design, the design of creation and everything else simply always was.
Apparently nobody designed us, or the universe. :idunno:
themuzicman
Well-known member
Evo's argument also assumes that time moves constantly for God as it does for us. What if God's temporality were under His control, such that it stops when He wants it to stop, and goes when He wants it to go?
Muz
Muz
Are you kidding me????
Is this really where we are in this debate?
How can you trot out a completely unrelated verse such as Romans 1:19-20 and expect that we believe it somehow supports the point you are making??? Romans 1:19-20 has NOTHING, zip, zero, NADA to do with when or if God designed, created, imagined all that exists prior to His act of creation. Instead Romans 1:19-20 is about God explaining that we will all be without excuse because He has written the truth in our hearts and given us ample physical evidence to make the proper eternal choice... which of course flies directly in the face of Calvinism.
I realize you hope unsuspecting readers will be fooled by such sloppy obfuscation but you aren't going to fool anyone who is actually paying attention to what is being discussed.
themuzicman
Well-known member
(Get used to it Knight. That's her MO.)
Muz
Muz
Philetus
New member
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.[/INDENT]
She is serious, and it is hard to take her seriously!
This entire passage flies in the face of Calvinism. Over and over again Paul describes the downward spiral that begins with suppression of the truth about God and exchanging it for lies and untruths. No where in this passage does it even hint that God ‘caused’ the departure from the truth and emphases that God only gave them up to (over to) all sorts of deprived thinking and activity, which is a far cry from God authoring confusion, lies and sin. This passage tells us that we ourselves are creative in a sinful way, which is an affront to the god Calvinism preaches. Romans 1 tells us that mankind is the author of sin … not God … and that we ourselves are always inventing new ways of sinning and passing out prizes to the best (worst) sinners. God allows us to exercise even in disobedience the freedom He has given.
Thankfully, God also has graciously provided the means and the help needed to return to the truth about Himself as revealed to all humanity
Kidding? She is DEAD serious. And as you know, that is why this debate is so important. She can't even read scripture (or posts) any longer without her Calvinistic filters. It no longer matters what scriptures actually say, what matters is how she can force them into her preconceived doctrine.
:up:
Nang
TOL Subscriber
You betcha, this is an important debate, and I am quite serious.
God did not create the world to see what mankind would do or would not do with it. God knew exactly what created beings would do and what they would fail to do. He is God! He is uncreated by nature, and neither His foreknowledge, His wisdom, His powers, nor His intents depend upon anything He has made.
God created the world to accomplish Divine Purpose, to manifest His will, to evidence the Godhead in tangible form, and to glorify Himself.
Every revelation in the Holy Scriptures touches upon one or another of these Godly motivations, and if you truly would desire to know God your Maker, you would throw yourselves into (humble) study of His Word, rather than (pridefully) inventing ways to bring God Almighty down to your level of thinking and understanding.
Have a nice day . . .
Nang
Philetus
New member
Ota.
Philetus
On second thought who the heck are you to tell me and God what kind of day to have?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You need to take your own offered advice. You have not read carefully what I have written. I take a long time to write my posts because "language lawyers" like yourself will pick at a word or two and miss the entire message contained in my posts. Your comment below is ample evidence of this behavior. Slow down.
Nang can speak for herself. As for my previous posts, I have never implied a "was"; instead I have explicitly implied a "now". Your ending comment should read "simply always is" or "is eternally present in God's mind".
Moreover, I have carefully stated that God decrees, and He acts in the temporal continuum He has created. Sitting transcendentally above this continuum He sees it all "equally vividly", or if you prefer, "in the eternal now". If you are going to summarize what I have stated, then I humbly ask that you either quote my own words or you carefully interpret them in your own words. It is these same sort of knee-jerk generalizations that have contributed to the non-orthodox doctrines that the open theist clings to as a rationale for their beliefs.
Philetus
New member
:jazz:
The amazing thing is I did and do and before I ever heard of Open Theism, I was one. God does in fact lead us to truth through the help of His Holy Spirit. Ain't God Good. ANd Thank God He ain't as far away from us as Calvinism wants to keep Him.
What's amazing to me is that even after the fact you guys are still trying to keep Jesus out of the neighborhood because His presence shows your false humility up for what it really is: suppression of the TRUTH about God.
:rotfl:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Again, Nang can comment. But I will interject that I think the relevance of the verse is seen from all the arguments for the existence of God. The verse states that in God's general revelation, His created universe, the question is clearly begged by anyone, whether they have heard the Gospel message or not, that the universe had to have been created. From this point, the theologians and philosophers, have started with the examination of exactly "how" did the universe come to be. Hence, the various cosmological, ontological, teleological, and moral arguments spring forward. Contained within these and other arguments, if they are to withstand scrutiny, are the requirements that God possesses certain attributes, else the arguments themselves would not stand. My point is that we cannot discuss the fact that the universe was created without also discussing the attributes of its Creator. I think the verse clearly is relevant in this context.
Philetus
New member
- Status