kmoney

I have some sympathy with the idea that the future does not exist and thus it is not knowable in principle, an omniscient being would only be able to know potential future states. Of course, if God experiences time, it is hard to claim that he does not change, because the contents of God's experience would change. However, I do think there is a difference in claiming that God changes in terms of the content of his experience and the idea of change that was classically opposed. Even process theology rejects the idea that God's character changes in any way, it is rather that God prehends the process of the world and "responds" according to that and God's character. In that view, the future does not exist. However, it would be wrong to say that the past is gone, the past partially constitutes the present and the potentials for the future.

:e4e:

The course covers several aspects of criticism. Moral criticism, criticism from scientists, feminist criticism and criticism of Islam. The texts include the classical "masters of suspicion", Marx, Nietzsche, Feuerbach and Freud. There is a text by Dawkins and Hume as well. The other writers are less known. Should be interesting, first lecture today.

In what sense do you think God's relationship to contingent beings becomes problematic if God exists outside of time? Is it because it becomes a one sided relationship and the only change that results from the relationship takes place in the one relating to God?

This semester I'm doing mostly practical theology. However, I am taking a course on modern criticism of religion on the side.

How are things?

:e4e:

I heard that, and that leaves on trees were already turning back there in some places.

Backatcha. Hope you're doing well. Summer's winding down, although the temp's been hovering around 100 the last week and I'm getting really tired of it. Ready for fall.

:chuckle: I guessed both of those things but I felt too ridiculous telling you he was jpii. I thought you'd figure it out.

I've watched the first two and the last one--soon I will post on the last one. Are you a big xmen fan?

Censorship tends to have that effect. It may have just been an attempt to get Grosnick to stop whining about it.

I watched Sandel's first lecture. I might try to get through them, as they're quite easy to listen to and entertaining to boot. I finished Justice and started reading Wojtyla's Love and Responsibility. Although it's philosophically dense, I am really enjoying it so far. The translator points out how strongly it supports Humanae Vitae before the fact, thus avoiding the polemics and entrenched arguments. I think the same thing can be said about the way it preceded no-fault divorce, the sexual revolution, the pill, etc. It seems particularly on point against the errors of Ayn Rand's Objectivism. You might like it at some point, but I would finish Sandel first. Political philosophy serves as a great intro to classical ethics. :e4e:

A thought that gives me a rather large measure of enjoyment... :chuckle:

Re: Your rep: I'm sure that would be the consensus of some... :chuckle:

Yeah, I would have to try to find a used copy. I'll try to watch some too, but I may not have time for all. Let me know if you find any really good ones. :e4e:

You know, I was thinking a bit about political philosophy with respect to the TOL community. It is probably one of the most "hands-off" Christian forums in existence. Knight's thread about URANTIA signaled a small shift though. :think:

...

Awwww.... thanks, kmo.

Had a good day with Jack hiding from the weather. Getting ready for his half day in kindergarten starting next week and the beginning of me getting back into the writing saddle. So life is good, if melancholy today.

Could be. :thumb: I'm interested in his more in-depth criticism of Rawlsianism, but it's been quite a few years since I've read Rawls. In any case, I would be interested in reading a more academic book on contemporary political philosophy. George has written some such books as well. The only problem is that they're so expensive.

Part 3:

Whitehead's dipolar theism is more radical, it would not claim that prehension of God's essence is impossible in principle, it would probably be more accurate to say that a limited actual entity such as ourselves is incapable of fully grasping God. Although it is not clear whether Whitehead claimed that God was temporal or atemporal. Or to be more exact, he says God is atemporal, but some of his followers (including Griffin) claims this breaks with some of Whitehead's metaphysical principles. I do not think process philosophy would claim that God experiences time the way we do at any rate though. The God of process philosophy fiully prehends all other actual entities with an experiental synthesis that would be unimaginably more rich than ours.

What are your thoughts on God's relationship to time? It is not exactly an easy issue

:e4e:

part 2:

I think that is taking the concept of energies too far for eastern orthodoxy at least. They would say that the energies of God is the activity of God. They use an analogy which I'm not sure is entirely successful, namely by likening God to the sun and the energies of God to the light that radiates from the sun. I do not think that is successful, because the light of the sun is not really distinct from the sun itself.

My weekend was alright. Did some more driving, getting there now. A few obligatory courses and the theory exam and I am ready to take the final driving test. And yes, I am on break until next week.

I think what he would say is that while you can understand the existence of a thing by reference to its physical causes, the thing in question is still absolutely contingent in another sense. It is contingent in the sense that for example a cat is held in existence by other contingent realities, the cat depends on organs, which depends on cells, which depends on biochemical molecules, which depends on the fundamental entities of chemistry and so on until you reach the level of fundamental physics, which themselves seem to be contingent realities. So there are in a sense two axis of causality, the horizontal axis of causation (the particular cat had a mother and a father) and the vertical axis (the continuing existence of the cat always is constituted by participating in other physical realities, which ultimately must be terminated in a necessary existence, existence itself, which is the classical definition of God).

It would be my pleasure to fix you some french toast. Thank you for the rep.

part 2:

I sincerely doubt that Dawkins read the book :chuckle: I really do not understand what people see in Dawkins' comments on God and religion, they are so utterly banal and uninformed and he has really become insufferable lately. It is a shame, I still enjoy his more recent book on evolution (The Greatest Show on Earth), even if I do not particularly care for his gene reductionism.

As for your earlier question. It is not so easy to answer without knowing more of what Hart said. If you could note the pages next time, that would be helpful. I think his critique of the deistic conception of God as simply starting the universe is based on Aristotelian/Thomistic insights: Namely that there must be a prime mover/a reality that is pure actuality at all times, that God serves as the ground of being for all things at all times so to speak, because whatever exists only exists through participation in existence itself, which is God. I think he is right about that.

:e4e:

To be perfectly honest. When it comes to relativity, I do not feel that I know the physics well enough to have a definite stand on that. I am skeptical of the "block universe" insofar as it implies complete determinism though, and I think that our experience of time is real, but I do not have any complete views on how that experience of time relates to the physical conception of time. I do think that the idea of God being outside of time in some sense is correct though. On the other hand, I do insist on a rather close relationship between creation and creator. As it stands now, I would say that I hold a view that is quite similar to the eastern orthodox view, a form of panentheism where creation exists within the energies of God, but not his essence.