ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[sentientsynth]

Like me, you may have a hard time seeing "silliness" in Hilston's posts.

Yeah. I looked and looked, and to no avail. If any of those posts is silly its the very last one. Knight accusses Jim of twisting his words. Frankly, Jim gave Knight all the rope he needed to hang himself with. And a nice, neat job of it he did too.

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 stabbed himself with his own Mormon analogy. And then, when Jim used his own "going through the motions" analogy against him, Knight saw that it was time to pull the plug. Can't say I blame him. There was no extricating himself from that one. Not that there was any extricating himself from the Mormon analogy. But that second wave of irony was just too much, and Knight's self-preservation mode kicked in, albeit unconsciously, repressed.

Abbreviated indeed. Before the damage became too severe.

But, Rutabaga, it's nice to hear of at least one other person who thinks like me.

You're not an Arminian are you? kidding



SS

 

[godrulz]

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.

I found that debate hard to follow and gave up (more heat than light at times).

 

[Balder]

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.

I'm interested, too; I hope he responds. I know I've talked with you and Godrulz about it before, but I think the puzzle remains.

Here is one attempt to resolve God's relation to eternity and time, by William Lane Craig, but I think it has a number of problems.

Best wishes,

Balder

 

[godrulz]

I'm interested, too; I hope he responds. I know I've talked with you and Godrulz about it before, but I think the puzzle remains.

Here is one attempt to resolve God's relation to eternity and time, by William Lane Craig, but I think it has a number of problems.

Best wishes,

Balder

Craig espouses Molinism/'middle knowledge'. He believes that God is timeless before creation, and temporal after creation (I agree with the latter). I do not believe Molinism resolves all the issues. In my mind, Wolterstorff (unqualified divine temporality) has the most biblical, logical view:


http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0830815511/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-3642675-6705650#reader-link

(click next page for contents)

 

[Bob Hill]

Balder,

When we read the Bible, we see that God operates in time. We also see that He knows all things. Further, we see that He knows some things in the future because He determines they will happen. We also see that some things He said would happen, did not happen because He changed His mind. His power and comprehension of things is so beyond our capacity that He, in our reality, is almost inscrutable. Therefore, I don’t even think the way you are presenting your questions, I see no horizons around God. I’m very glad that He loves the ones He created and wants us to be with Him forever. He does not tell us much about heaven, probably, because we wouldn’t understand it at all. I have the same answer for your final paragraph.

I do think we have some idea of His love and care for us when we see the life of His Son, Jesus Christ, and the way they communicated in the Bible.

Thanks for asking,

Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Balder,

Here are some of the things my God did that show me His love and compassion.

1 Chr 21:1,15 Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. 15 And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it. As he was destroying, the Lord looked and repented of the disaster, and said to the angel who was destroying, It is enough; now restrain your hand. And the angel of the Lord stood by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.
Psalm 90:13 Return, O Lord! How long? And [repent concerning] Your servants.
Psa 106:45 And for their sake He remembered His covenant and repented according to the multitude of His mercies.
Jer 4:28 For this shall the earth mourn and the heavens above be black because I have spoken. I have purposed and will not repent, nor will I turn back from it.
Jer 15:6 You have forsaken Me, says the Lord, You have gone backward. Therefore I will stretch out My hand against you and destroy you; I am weary of repenting!
Jer 18:7-12 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. 11 Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus says the Lord: Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good. 12 And they said, That is hopeless! So we will walk according to our own plans, and we will every one obey the dictates of his evil heart.
Jer 20:16 And let that man be like the cities Which the Lord overthrew, and did not repent; Let him hear the cry in the morning And the shouting at noon,
Jer 26:2,3,13,18 Thus says the Lord: Stand in the court of the Lords house, and speak to all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lords house, all the words that I command you to speak to them. Do not diminish a word. 3 Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may repent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings. 13 Now therefore, amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God; then the Lord will repent concerning the doom that He has pronounced against you. 18 Micah of Moresheth prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, Thus says the Lord of hosts: Zion shall be plowed like a field, Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins, and the mountain of the temple like the bare hills of the forest. 19 Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah ever put him to death? Did he not fear the Lord and seek the Lords favor? And the Lord repented concerning the doom which He had pronounced against them. But we are doing great evil against ourselves.
Jer 42:10 If you will still remain in this land, then I will build you and not pull you down, and I will plant you and not pluck you up. For I repent concerning the disaster that I have brought upon you.
Ezek 24:14 I, the Lord, have spoken it; It shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not hold back, Nor will I spare, Nor will I repent; According to your ways And according to your deeds They will judge you, Says the Lord God.

Bob Hill

 

[Balder]

Thank you for responding. I notice you have avoided actually answering the question. But if your answer is simply, "I don't know how this can be," then I accept that. What else to say, if you don't know?

Best wishes,

Balder

 

[Clete]

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.

Do you see the paradox as the result of an error of the open view (i.e. a logical contradiction or some other fallacy), or would you concede that it may merely be the result of a lack of available information about the nature of God's existence relative to our own?

In my view, the paradox presents no more of a problem for the open view than Zeno's paradox presents for the notion that we are able to move. It's a puzzle to be sure, but it presents no more trouble for open theism (or any other theological system for that matter) than Zeno presents to the physical sciences.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Bob Hill]

I would like to know what the question was.

Originally Posted by Clete

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.


I'm interested, too; I hope he responds. I know I've talked with you and Godrulz about it before, but I think the puzzle remains.

Here is one attempt to resolve God's relation to eternity and time, by William Lane Craig, but I think it has a number of problems.

Best wishes,

Balder

Please let me know.

Bob

 

[Clete]

I would like to know what the question was.



Please let me know.

Bob

As Christians, and as open theists in particular, we acknowledge that God has always existed; that He had no beginning; that the history of His existence extends eternally into the past.

There doesn't seem to have been enough time for an eternity to have passed yet so the question is, how could God have existed for an eternity prior to the present?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Why not? Endless time is more coherent than timelessness.

J.R. Lucas in "A treatise on time and space" deals with philosophical, mathematical, logical issues relating to time vs eternity. I think the chapter on instants/intervals might be relevant to this discussion.

 

[Clete]

Why not? Endless time is more coherent than timelessness.

J.R. Lucas in "A treatise on time and space" deals with philosophical, mathematical, logical issues relating to time vs eternity. I think the chapter on instants/intervals might be relevant to this discussion.

Want to give us the gist of it?

 

[Balder]

Do you see the paradox as the result of an error of the open view (i.e. a logical contradiction or some other fallacy), or would you concede that it may merely be the result of a lack of available information about the nature of God's existence relative to our own?

In my view, the paradox presents no more of a problem for the open view than Zeno's paradox presents for the notion that we are able to move. It's a puzzle to be sure, but it presents no more trouble for open theism (or any other theological system for that matter) than Zeno presents to the physical sciences.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I think that, to the degree that the Open View rejects any idea of there being a dimension to reality (or God's nature) that is somehow beyond time, that perhaps transcends it while including it (as some theologies and religious traditions posit), then the Open View does have a problem that is unique to it. In the Open View, as you have explained it to me, God "moves" through history as we do, occupying a bounded present moment, with the past receding behind him and the future open ahead. This means that, at some point in this eternal forward motion of his stream of present moments, he decided to make the world, and that's where the problem enters that we've been discussing.

One way beyond this is to suggest that God transcends time somehow, perhaps as the consciousness of a dreamer transcends the time in a dream. Consciousness can generate hours or days or weeks of experience for a "dream character" in just a few moments. This metaphor is limited because it still takes time for the brain to create the appearance (and experience) of more time, but perhaps there is a way that God "does" this from a point that is beyond change, even while being the author of change and individual experience and "extended" time.

Best wishes,

Balder

 

[Clete]

I think that, to the degree that the Open View rejects any idea of there being a dimension to reality (or God's nature) that is somehow beyond time, that perhaps transcends it while including it (as some theologies and religious traditions posit), then the Open View does have a problem that is unique to it. In the Open View, as you have explained it to me, God "moves" through history as we do, occupying a bounded present moment, with the past receding behind him and the future open ahead. This means that, at some point in this eternal forward motion of his stream of present moments, he decided to make the world, and that's where the problem enters that we've been discussing.

One way beyond this is to suggest that God transcends time somehow, perhaps as the consciousness of a dreamer transcends the time in a dream. Consciousness can generate hours or days or weeks of experience for a "dream character" in just a few moments. This metaphor is limited because it still takes time for the brain to create the appearance (and experience) of more time, but perhaps there is a way that God "does" this from a point that is beyond change, even while being the author of change and individual experience and "extended" time.

Best wishes,

Balder

Well the limitation of your analogy is just the problem with any such view. While there is a paradox present for the open view, there is an outright contradiction implied in any view that posits that God is somehow outside of time. In other words you only trade one problem for another which is far worse. You cannot even discuss the concept of being outside of time without contradicting yourself inside of one sentence (not just you personally but anyone who discusses it) because a state of being implied duration and duration implies time.

I do not believe it is necessary to believe that God transcends something that doesn't exist in order to get rid of a minor paradox any more than it is necessary to believe that we somehow transcend motion in order to get around Zeno's paradox. It seems clear to me that just as there is something about the nature of motion which we do not understand and which will explain Zeno's paradox (without contradiction) once we do understand it, the same is true with your paradox. It lets us know that there is some important piece(s) of information that we do not have, nothing more. It certainly is not an excuse to reject rational thought and insist that God exists outside of something that isn't even there to begin with.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Balder]

Are you saying time and duration do not exist?

Also, I wouldn't say the limitation with the linear temporal view is a "minor paradox" compared to other solutions. If the premises of a model render impossible something which is actually happening, then I would say that that model has major flaws.

The view that God transcends time (as we understand/experience it) while also including it is not an invitation to reject rational thought, by any means. Admittedly, it forces you to speak paradoxically (once you get to the "ultimate" level of a God's eye perspective), acknowledging paradox at the heart of the picture -- rather than brushing it under the rug and ignoring it, for all practical purposes, which is apparently what the Open View does.

 

[Clete]

Are you saying time and duration do not exist?

Yes.

They do not exist ontologically. They are ideas. Time is duration and sequences. It is not a place or a thing which can be existed outside of (or within for that matter). As long as there is duration and/or sequences there is time.

Also, I wouldn't say the limitation with the linear temporal view is a "minor paradox" compared to other solutions. If the premises of a model render impossible something which is actually happening, then I would say that that model has major flaws.

Would you say then that the physical sciences has major flaws because of Zeno's paradox? I'll bet not.

I don't mean to minimize the problem to the point of completely dismissing it. It is a problem, but it is not one which is debilitating to open theism any more than Zeno paralized Newton from formulating the laws of motion.

The fact is that regardless of how we got here, we are in fact here in the present moment and while God's eternal existence presents us with a puzzle, it does not present us with a contradiction like the idea of being outside of time definately does.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Balder]

Hi, Clete, I just edited my last post, so you may have missed some of what I was saying.

 

[Bob Hill]

I have no reason to believe that God is in such a thing that is called time. Time is just before, now, and next. Not profound at all. Those theologians who say He is outside of time have no biblical basis for saying that, and I say that after holding to that belief for about 5 years after I was saved in 1951. I don't see how this is derogatory when we believe He is in time or out of time. We certainly see Him in time, according to the Bible. I see no basis for Him being outside of time.

Bob Hill

 

[sentientsynth]

Zeno's Paradox Resolved

Zeno's Paradox Resolved

Zeno's paradox assumes that an infinite series will not converge. Using the methods of calculus, we can prove that it can.

Before an object can travel a given distance d, it must travel a distance d/2. In order to travel d/2, it must travel d/4, etc. Since this sequence goes on forever, it therefore appears that the distance d cannot be traveled. The resolution of the paradox awaited calculus and the proof that infinite geometric series such as sum_(i==1)^(infty)(1/2)^i==1 can converge, so that the infinite number of "half-steps" needed is balanced by the increasingly short amount of time needed to traverse the distances.

Souce​

Therefore a finite distance may be crossed.

An infinite distance is a different box of crackers.


SS

 

[Delmar]

Zeno's paradox assumes that an infinite series will not converge. Using the methods of calculus, we can prove that it can.

Before an object can travel a given distance d, it must travel a distance d/2. In order to travel d/2, it must travel d/4, etc. Since this sequence goes on forever, it therefore appears that the distance d cannot be traveled. The resolution of the paradox awaited calculus and the proof that infinite geometric series such as sum_(i==1)^(infty)(1/2)^i==1 can converge, so that the infinite number of "half-steps" needed is balanced by the increasingly short amount of time needed to traverse the distances.

Souce​

Therefore a finite distance may be crossed.

An infinite distance is a different box of crackers.


SS

The fact that you can't cross (come to the end of) an infinite distance does not mean that you are stuck in one place.