ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Lon]

Orthodoxy refers to right rule and truth; heterodoxy is heresy or error; orthopraxy is right practice.

The Greek Orthodox church is not right about everything. Perhaps you mean that TRADITION is not always true (orthodoxy, by definition, should be true; this is why I talk about biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity in contrast to false cults and religions).

Again, totally agree. We can agree on much and should without inventing division. We can argue over what we actually disagree on but by all means let's not create inventions for argument. It just doesn't carry any purposeful meaning other than arguing because one enjoys arguing. For crying out loud OVers, get on the same page at least with each other.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes but all activity is within the unmovable object. Does an egg move when a chick is developing? All motion is contained.

Are you saying God is the "unmovable object" in which everything moves? What nonsense! God is active if he created the world when there was no world; God is active if he says "let there be light" when there was no light, etc.

And yes, there is movement inside the shell of the egg when a chick is developing even if the egg is standing still. Even your examples make no sense.

--Dave

 

[godrulz]

Again, totally agree. We can agree on much and should without inventing division. We can argue over what we actually disagree on but by all means let's not create inventions for argument. It just doesn't carry any purposeful meaning other than arguing because one enjoys arguing. For crying out loud OVers, get on the same page at least with each other.

Hmmm...there are a variety of views within Calvinism and various Calvinistic writers interpret verses and concepts differently. The gist of OVT is agree upon. The minor details are not the end all and be all.

Are you hyper, infra, supra, hard, soft determinist, 4 or 5 point, etc.? Calvinism has been tweaking itself for centuries, yet without consensus on various things.

 

[Lon]

Hmmm...there are a variety of views within Calvinism and various Calvinistic writers interpret verses and concepts differently. The gist of OVT is agree upon. The minor details are not the end all and be all.

Are you hyper, infra, supra, hard, soft determinist, 4 or 5 point, etc.? Calvinism has been tweaking itself for centuries, yet without consensus on various things.

I can agree with that too, but not between orthodox and heterodox. Lighthouse should be on the same page with you here but you can defend him if you want to.

 

[Lon]

Are you saying God is the "unmovable object" in which everything moves? What nonsense! God is active if he created the world when there was no world; God is active if he says "let there be light" when there was no light, etc.

And yes, there is movement inside the shell of the egg when a chick is developing even if the egg is standing still. Even your examples make no sense.

--Dave

Yes, but the point is the egg doesn't walk around. It is the immutability topic we are discussing, yes? The clock analogy? Change vs the same? Moving vs. unmoved?

I really have no hopes that we can get anywhere on this topic.
I'll say, "A clock doesn't change (barring entropy)." You'll say, "the hands move." I'll say, it doesn't vary from its course, that isn't change."
In the end, we are disagreeing because of how we understand the terms 'change' and 'move.'

So while we actually see things similar, we are committed to our end goal of Theology. It isn't that on this particular we have a major disagreement. It is only here to prop our respective views one way or the other.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes, but the point is the egg doesn't walk around. It is the immutability topic we are discussing, yes? The clock analogy? Change vs the same? Moving vs. unmoved?

I really have no hopes that we can get anywhere on this topic.
I'll say, "A clock doesn't change (barring entropy)." You'll say, "the hands move." I'll say, it doesn't vary from its course, that isn't change."
In the end, we are disagreeing because of how we understand the terms 'change' and 'move.'

So while we actually see things similar, we are committed to our end goal of Theology. It isn't that on this particular we have a major disagreement. It is only here to prop our respective views one way or the other.

We are really at an important point here, it is the law of identity that we have to apply.

Logic and the Laws of Thought
Fundamental to necessary knowledge are three laws of thought enumerated by Aristotle. They are presupposed whenever anyone thinks about anything whatever:

1. Law of identity. Any entity whatsoever is what it is and not something else. If a proposition is true, it is true. "A rose is a rose."

2. Law of non contradiction. No entity whatever can be both what it is and not what it is with the same specification. It cannot be true both that a proposition is true and also false. "A rose cannot be not a rose"

3. Law of the excluded middle. Any entity whatever is either some particular thing or it is not. "A thing is a rose or not a rose."

These laws cannot be proved or disproved. In order to demonstrate them they must be assumed. To deny them is self-contradictory

You are making examples that two different things are the same thing; the shell of the egg is not the same thing as the yoke inside the egg. I'm not familiar with your clock example. I have defined what is meant by "movement". Augustine said he could not define time but he knew that God could not experience it. I don't know how anyone could say anything about God and time if they "confessed" they didn't know what it was they were talking about. Time is not a thing in itself; it is an aspect of what does exist, moves or changes.

--Dave

 

[Lighthouse]

Orthodoxy refers to right rule and truth; heterodoxy is heresy or error; orthopraxy is right practice.

The Greek Orthodox church is not right about everything. Perhaps you mean that TRADITION is not always true (orthodoxy, by definition, should be true; this is why I talk about biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity in contrast to false cults and religions).

That is what I meant. In today's society many people equate orthodox with tradition.

 

[Evoken]

Augustine said he could not define time but he knew that God could not experience it. I don't know how anyone could say anything about God and time if they "confessed" they didn't know what it was they were talking about. Time is not a thing in itself; it is an aspect of what does exist, moves or changes.

Hi Dave

It is alright if you disagree with St. Augustine but at least try to give an accurate characterization of his views. You seem to be taking a single sentence from Chapter 25 of Book XI of the Confessions and then ignoring both, the nature of the statement (which is rather Socratic in character) and everything else he said. It is as if you stopped reading his Confessions at that point. Here is what he went on to say after the sentence where he says that he is ignorant as to what time is.

Chapter 25: ”And I confess unto You, O Lord, that I am as yet ignorant as to what time is [...] Or is it, perchance, that I know not in what wise I may express what I know? [...] You shall light my candle; Thou, O Lord my God, wilt enlighten my darkness.“

Chapter 26: “Whence it appeared to me that time is nothing else than distention; but of what I know not. It is wonderful to me, if it be not of the mind itself.”

Chapter 27: “Persevere, O my mind, and give earnest heed. God is our helper; He made us, and not we ourselves. Give heed, where truth dawns. [...] In you, O my mind, I measure times [...] In you, I say, I measure times; the impression which things as they pass by make on you, and which, when they have passed by, remains, that I measure as time present, not those things which have passed by, that the impression should be made. This I measure when I measure times.”

Chapter 28: “But how is that future diminished or consumed which as yet is not? Or how does the past, which is no longer, increase, unless in the mind which enacts this there are three things done? For it both expects, and considers, and remembers, that that which it expects, through that which it considers, may pass into that which it remembers.”

So as you can see, he did come to a definition of time. He makes a progression from chapter to chapter and also says, like you seem to do, that there can be no time without there being a changeable creature (Chapter 30), but time also is not the motion of a body (Chapter 24).

Here is a note on Chapter 26 of the Confessions: “Augustine begins to formulate his definition of time. It is an activity of the mind, whereby the mind is not merely extended into the past, as in memory, or into the future, as in anticipation, but is distended, so as to hold things as present.” (The Confessions, John K. Ryan, pp. 411).

Also, “time presupposes change, and change is a kind of death. But in it's nature time is a dimension of the mind, a psychological condition attaching to being creaturely.” (Augustine: A Very Short Introduction, pp. 76).

In short, “time is a being of reason with a foundation in things which through becoming offer to the mind the concept of time as past, present, and future.” (The Philosophy of St. Augustine).

As I said, it is alright if you disagree but at least try to give an accurate presentation of that which you disagree with


Evo

 

[tetelestai]

2. Law of non contradiction. No entity whatever can be both what it is and not what it is with the same specification. It cannot be true both that a proposition is true and also false. "A rose cannot be not a rose"

What about this proposition: “This statement is false”

Keep in mind that a proposition is a sentence that declares something as being either true or false--but can't be both, or can it? If “this statement is false” is false, that would mean that the statement is true. Likewise, if it is true, that would mean that the statement is false.

The same with the proposition “I always tell a lie”

Dave, for some reason you insist on confining God to man’s finite laws of logic, philosophy, dimensions, theories, science, etc. when in fact there are gaps and holes in all of these finite understandings.

I am open to the possibility that God can create spheres with square edges in a dimension that I cannot comprehend while I am alive on planet earth. I’m ok with the fact that this may be contrary to every human rule of logic, philosophy, and science.

The only way open theists can convince anyone that open theism is truth, is to strip God of every Divine attribute He has, and confine him to finite human logic, philosophy, etc.

 

[Lon]

We are really at an important point here, it is the law of identity that we have to apply.

Logic and the Laws of Thought
Fundamental to necessary knowledge are three laws of thought enumerated by Aristotle. They are presupposed whenever anyone thinks about anything whatever:

1. Law of identity. Any entity whatsoever is what it is and not something else. If a proposition is true, it is true. "A rose is a rose."

2. Law of non contradiction. No entity whatever can be both what it is and not what it is with the same specification. It cannot be true both that a proposition is true and also false. "A rose cannot be not a rose"

3. Law of the excluded middle. Any entity whatever is either some particular thing or it is not. "A thing is a rose or not a rose."

These laws cannot be proved or disproved. In order to demonstrate them they must be assumed. To deny them is self-contradictory

You are making examples that two different things are the same thing; the shell of the egg is not the same thing as the yoke inside the egg. I'm not familiar with your clock example. I have defined what is meant by "movement". Augustine said he could not define time but he knew that God could not experience it. I don't know how anyone could say anything about God and time if they "confessed" they didn't know what it was they were talking about. Time is not a thing in itself; it is an aspect of what does exist, moves or changes.

--Dave

I've already addressed this Dave, repeatedly.

 

[Lon]

We know that God is uncreated. He has no beginning and end. We cannot comprehend a self-existent being like this with our finite minds, so we stand in awe, wonder, and worship Him without exhaustive understanding.

I applaud you for being the only OVer I've met who acquiesces this without fear or constraint.

I wish a few of us traditional theists had POTD powers. This one gets my vote.

:second:

 

[Lon]

I applaud you for being the only OVer I've met who acquiesces this without fear or constraint.

I wish a few of us traditional theists had POTD powers. This one gets my vote.

:second:

Just because it is really important and other OVers need to take note.

 

[Delmar]

I applaud you for being the only OVer I've met who acquiesces this without fear or constraint.

I wish a few of us traditional theists had POTD powers. This one gets my vote.

:second:

You could remedy the situation by buying a subscription.

 

[Lon]

You could remedy the situation by buying a subscription.

Oh, had no idea, thanks.

 

[Lon]

We are really at an important point here, it is the law of identity that we have to apply.

Logic and the Laws of Thought
Fundamental to necessary knowledge are three laws of thought enumerated by Aristotle. They are presupposed whenever anyone thinks about anything whatever:

1. Law of identity. Any entity whatsoever is what it is and not something else. If a proposition is true, it is true. "A rose is a rose."

2. Law of non contradiction. No entity whatever can be both what it is and not what it is with the same specification. It cannot be true both that a proposition is true and also false. "A rose cannot be not a rose"

3. Law of the excluded middle. Any entity whatever is either some particular thing or it is not. "A thing is a rose or not a rose."

These laws cannot be proved or disproved. In order to demonstrate them they must be assumed. To deny them is self-contradictory

You are making examples that two different things are the same thing; the shell of the egg is not the same thing as the yoke inside the egg. I'm not familiar with your clock example. I have defined what is meant by "movement". Augustine said he could not define time but he knew that God could not experience it. I don't know how anyone could say anything about God and time if they "confessed" they didn't know what it was they were talking about. Time is not a thing in itself; it is an aspect of what does exist, moves or changes.

--Dave

P.S. you know these are from Aristotle and not Augustine, right?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Hi Dave

It is alright if you disagree with St. Augustine but at least try to give an accurate characterization of his views. You seem to be taking a single sentence from Chapter 25 of Book XI of the Confessions and then ignoring both, the nature of the statement (which is rather Socratic in character) and everything else he said. It is as if you stopped reading his Confessions at that point. Here is what he went on to say after the sentence where he says that he is ignorant as to what time is.

Augustine confesses he cannot define time

While saying he cannot tell us what time is, Augustine, nevertheless, gives us two aspects of time; time as past, present, and future, and time as duration.

Augustine: "For what is time? Who can easily and briefly explain it? Who can even comprehend it in thought or put the answer into words? Yet is it not true that in conversation we refer to nothing more familiarly or knowingly than time? And surely we understand it when we speak of it; we understand it also when we hear another speak of it.

What, then, is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks me, I do not know. Yet I say with confidence that I know that if nothing passed away, there would be no past time; and if nothing were still coming, there would be no future time; and if there were nothing at all, there would be no present time.

And I confess to thee, O Lord, that I am still ignorant as to what time is. And again I confess to thee, O Lord, that I know that I am speaking all these things in time, and that I have already spoken of time a long time, and that "very long" is not long except when measured by the duration of time. How, then, do I know this, when I do not know what time is?"

From my website. I guess I did read a little more then you thought.

http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/Augustine.html

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

What about this proposition: “This statement is false”

Keep in mind that a proposition is a sentence that declares something as being either true or false--but can't be both, or can it? If “this statement is false” is false, that would mean that the statement is true. Likewise, if it is true, that would mean that the statement is false.

The same with the proposition “I always tell a lie”

Dave, for some reason you insist on confining God to man’s finite laws of logic, philosophy, dimensions, theories, science, etc. when in fact there are gaps and holes in all of these finite understandings.

I am open to the possibility that God can create spheres with square edges in a dimension that I cannot comprehend while I am alive on planet earth. I’m ok with the fact that this may be contrary to every human rule of logic, philosophy, and science.

The only way open theists can convince anyone that open theism is truth, is to strip God of every Divine attribute He has, and confine him to finite human logic, philosophy, etc.

The phrase "This statement is false" refers to something else, not to itself. For example, "This statement is false, Tetelestai is a very rational person".

I don't know of any divine attributes that I have stripped away. You've done away with divine rationality along with your own.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

P.S. you know these are from Aristotle and not Augustine, right?

Read more carefully.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

Logic and the Laws of Thought
Fundamental to necessary knowledge are three laws of thought enumerated by Aristotle.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I've already addressed this Dave, repeatedly.

As I said then, you made too many points which makes it difficult to address all at once. Any one of them at a time is easy to address.

--Dave

 

[godrulz]

I applaud you for being the only OVer I've met who acquiesces this without fear or constraint.

I wish a few of us traditional theists had POTD powers. This one gets my vote.

:second:

I would hope most of us would admit this since we are finite and God is infinite.

This does not mean we should believe incoherent things about God or assume we can know little about God. He gives revelation for understanding and intimacy. So, just because OVT attempts to understand God's attributes, character, and ways from Scripture free from traditional trappings that are unduly philosophical, does not mean we are humanizing God or trying to understand mysteries that are not revealed. I believe we can have a biblical or unbiblical understanding of sovereignty and omniscience since God reveals truths about these things. I believe we can say God is triune without being able to fully understand or explain it (He is unique and we have no temporal frame of comparison for this).

In some things, there is more philosophical speculation needed. We can take the biblical evidence, but must also think through how time and eternity relate for an eternal being. Those who rely on theoretical physics (Einstein) should not be any more dogmatic than those who assume 'eternal now' timelessness without strong biblical or logical support.

This is why the existence of God, monotheism, Deity of Christ, etc. are essential, core truth, while timelessness vs endless time, models of providence/sovereignty, determinism vs free will, etc. are not salvific, but debatable.

I appreciate your good mind and heart and trust iron will sharpen iron. It is frustrating when our arguments are not persuasive, but I believe the evidence ultimately will stand for OVT vs Calvinism/classical theism in general.