ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[sentientsynth]

Of course not. It means you are always walking, and never getting any closer.

 

[Delmar]

Of course not. It means you are always walking, and never getting any closer.

Sounds a little like a song I know. When we've been there 10,000 years... we've no less days to sing God's praise then when we've first begun.

Time is passing, but an unlimited number of days remains.

 

[sentientsynth]

Exactly. Now look at it in the reverse direction: projected into the past. If we were to travel a billion gozillion years into the past, how much closer would we be to the beginning? Not a moment. We'd never reach the beginning of eternity past, just like we'll never reach the end of eternity future. In fact, having travelled all those years into the past, we'd still be infinitely far away from the beginning. Of course, there is no beginning to eternity past, just as there is no end to eternity future. And that's just the point.

 

[Balder]

If God (or God's experience) is imagined as a point traveling along a line called "temporal duration," then it is indeed hard to explain how God could have arrived at a particular point on that line (say, the pivotal point of Creation), given the infinite distance he has to cross in order to do so.

I believe I've touched on this with Clete before, but a God understood in these terms must also be understood to be getting older, and thus also being subject to learning, development, and evolution. God is now 6,000 to 10,000 years older than when he created the world. The Open View God, if he truly does not know the future, and if he truly has given mankind free will, is a God who is capable of being surprised and of therefore learning, with the potential for growth and maturation (or confusion ?) that those things also entail. I'm not saying these things are necessarily wrong, but they raise some interesting questions.

 

[sentientsynth]

If God (or God's experience) is imagined as a point traveling along a line called "temporal duration," then it is indeed hard to explain how God could have arrived at a particular point on that line (say, the pivotal point of Creation), given the infinite distance he has to cross in order to do so.

I agree. Even a "bare-bones" definition of time such as "before, now, and next" leads to this quandry. Balder, it appears to me that you have a fine grasp of this problem.

I believe I've touched on this with Clete before, but a God understood in these terms must also be understood to be getting older, and thus also being subject to learning, development, and evolution. God is now 6,000 to 10,000 years older than when he created the world.

Wouldn't he be infinitely old, no matter at what particular point you determined to determine his age? Not denying that he would "get older." But he would be infinitely old already, wouldn't he?

I'm not saying these things are necessarily wrong, but they raise some interesting questions.

The atemporality of God raises interesting questions as well, I think.

Balder, you've read Kant. Do you agree with Kant that time is a precondition to experience as we, finite creatures understand it? I agree with him. To me, a state of timelessness is inconceivable, that is, incomprehensible, to us. Do you agree with this?


SS

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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.

And that is what you get for attempting to befriend Jim Hilston. It was a mistake on my part. I should have known better after-all it is Jim's MO.

I thought (silly me) that Jim and I could engage in a friendly discussion without name calling, insults, twisting context, pulling three words out of a sentence to attack etc. etc. etc....

Maybe just maybe... we could have a fun friendly discussion and perhaps even form some sort of bond or friendship.

Jim, is not interested in that type of a discussion. And anyone who reads that thread can see for themselves that I was being as friendly as possible and wasn't trying to be argumentative.

And hey, that's cool. There is a word for people like Jim and it starts with a "J" and ends with a "K". Jim is much like Freak or Z Man... blasting through the discussion like a bull in a china shop paying little to no attention to the spirit of the discussion. Much like Freak and Z Man, Jim re-posts the same stuff over and over acting as if I am ignoring him. It's just so childish. Jim is more interested in sounding "intellectual" than actually having a friendly discussion and possibly understanding what others are really saying. When I asked Jim to the One on One I specifically told him I wanted to have fun friendly discussion. :hammer: I blame my own optimism for even trying such nonsense.

Open View argumentation, revealing many of its most glaring weaknesses

What an odd thing to say since we really weren't discussing the Open View at all. [rhetorical question alert] Why would you say such a thing? [/rhetorical question alert]

 

[Balder]

Wouldn't [God] be infinitely old, no matter at what particular point you determined to determine his age? Not denying that he would "get older." But he would be infinitely old already, wouldn't he?

Yes, that's a good point.

The atemporality of God raises interesting questions as well, I think.

I agree. Timelessness and eternal temporality are both hard to grasp. I personally think they are both aspects of a larger picture, rather than representing a necessary either/or choice.

Balder, you've read Kant. Do you agree with Kant that time is a precondition to experience as we, finite creatures understand it? I agree with him. To me, a state of timelessness is inconceivable, that is, incomprehensible, to us. Do you agree with this?

Yes, I agree with him that "time" is a fundamental precondition to experience as we know and understand it. It is so essential, in fact, that our logic, which is predicated on cause and effect and sequentiality (which are both implicated in "time") breaks down when we try to imagine going beyond it. If we say time "began," that immediately implies a prior state or condition, which brings time into the picture again; if we say that time has infinite extension, or that events have always been happening, that makes the present state of affairs hard to grasp, since it has an infinite history behind it which presumably could not have been exhausted yet.

The idea of an eternal Present has been posited in a number of religious systems, including some traditions of Christianity. When God calls himself "I AM," that suggests an abiding Presence. This Present is not the same as James' "specious present," which evaporates under examination and cannot be found. It is, phenomenologically, the context for those conventional "moments" we call before, now, and not-yet. A number of Christian teachers and saints have described being absorbed so fully into the Presence of God, in a condition of silence, stillness, and fullness, that the notion of time becomes meaningless for them. Phenomenologically, there is no sense of anything passing, no feeling of coming or going, just a completeness and rest that is very real but ultimately indescribable. I believe that such experiences in prayer and contemplation form part of the "ground" for the suggestion that God's being somehow transcends time, rather than it being merely a philosophical invention or a Greek importation.

Best wishes,

Balder

 

[seekinganswers]

Time is just before, now, and next.

This is not how time is defined in the Scriptures. Time in the scriptures is defined by two bounds. Firstly, the language of rosh in the Hebrew and kephale in the Greek is the way in which we talk about the "Beginning" (lit. the head, as you probably know very well). Time in this sense is grounded in God, for it is Christ who is equated to the kephale and the rosh. There are numerous places throughout the scriptures that speak of Christ as the head of Creation. Secondly, there is the telos. This speaks of a culminative drive for events. Events are grounded in a source (the kephale or rosh) and are moving towards a purpose or culminative "end." Christ is also equated with this "telos" or "end." So in Reveation when God is the "Alpha and the Omega" and when the lamb at the end is referred to as the "Alpha and the Omega" we have image of God as the one in whom all events are grounded. There is no neutral space in which things just happen; events must be grounded in a head or source and must also have a purpose and cumulative end. There is nothing that resides outside of God.

Peace,
Michael

 

[Clete]

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

Thank you for proving my point. I don't expect you to understand how you did so but c'est la vie!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Balder]

Thank you for proving my point. I don't expect you to understand how you did so but c'est la vie!

Resting in Him,
Clete

I understand why. You expect that this problem with eternity will be resolved eventually, just as Zeno's Paradox was. As SS points out, it is a somewhat more difficult problem than Zeno's Paradox. It has puzzled the best minds out there, in science as well as philosophy and theology. But I agree with you -- that doesn't mean it can't be resolved.

To me, however, the problem is significant enough that we should not be surprised if its resolution takes more of a radical shift in understanding than the resolution of Zeno's Paradox did.

 

[Clete]

I understand why. You expect that this problem with eternity will be resolved eventually, just as Zeno's Paradox was. As SS points out, it is a somewhat more difficult problem than Zeno's Paradox. It has puzzled the best minds out there, in science as well as philosophy and theology. But I agree with you -- that doesn't mean it can't be resolved.

Nice. :up:

To me, however, the problem is significant enough that we should not be surprised if its resolution takes more of a radical shift in understanding than the resolution of Zeno's Paradox did.

Nor should we be surprised if it does not. The point being we don't know whether we'll be radically surprised or not and in the mean time we are bound by honor and intellectual honesty to go with that which is the most logically coherent world view available. Whether or not that world view is or is not open theism remains a point of debate but this paradox of yours, by your own admition, certainly does not falsify open theism and rejecting open theism on the basis of this paradox is only a matter of trading one problem for a another worse one (I say worse because without open theism you not only have to explain what timelessness means but you also have to redefine justice, love, righteousness, etc.).

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[themuzicman]

Is there something wrong with God being in control of His OWN temporality? When God moves, there is before and after. When God does not move, time stands still.

Is there a problem with God creating a universe that has its own time, and continues to come into being as that time moves foward, determined by the laws of the universe God created, God's will, and the will of the free will agents He created?

Because if there isn't, then God is not bound by time, neither ours nor His, and yet the future has not yet knowable, because future moements have not yet come to exist.

Are the rest of you saying that this is too hard for God?

Michael

 

[godrulz]

Are you confusing time with motion/movement? Time is simply succession/duration/sequence independent of physical issues (except a subjective measure of time for our purposes). The triune God relationally experiences duration from all eternity as a personal being. There is no need to drag in physical/creation issues when talking about God's eternality/temporality. After creation, He still only experiences the present (presentism vs eternalism/simultaneity) and correctly distinguishes present reality from the fixed past in memory or the potential future in possibilities/probabilities/thought.

 

[Balder]

Our experience of what constitutes a moment is contingent upon the speed at which we process information. If the experience of time passing is relative -- and I believe that it is -- then do you think that God occupies the same essential "present moment" as us, or does he encompass the many micromoments of creation within a different temporal context? Just as a thought experiment, it is possible to imagine a creature which processes information at a much different rate than we do. Say it can meaningfully attend to changes in its environment at a far greater speed, perhaps registering changes in terms of many fractions of a second, such that one second for this creature would constitute 9000 consecutive moments of meaningful experience. At the human level, if a moment constitutes one to three seconds, the creature would experience anywhere from 9000 to 27000 moments for a single one of ours.

At what "rate" do you think God processes information? How far down can he narrow his attention? Presumably, he could attend to events at the quantum level if he wanted to; he could observe phenomena at the level of a Planck unit. But I imagine he could also expand his attention significantly as well, such that a human year would be just a blip for him. If he expands his attention enough, do you think he would be able to encompass the whole of human history in a flash? Or is there a limit to how far out God can open the window of his attention and process information?

 

[Clete]

Is there something wrong with God being in control of His OWN temporality? When God moves, there is before and after. When God does not move, time stands still.

Yes, becasue the word "when" in your last sentence implies time. Do you see how you beg the question by saying "When God does not move, time stands still."?

Is there a problem with God creating a universe that has its own time, and continues to come into being as that time moves foward, determined by the laws of the universe God created, God's will, and the will of the free will agents He created?

Yes because being implies duration and sequence (i.e. time).

Because if there isn't, then God is not bound by time, neither ours nor His, and yet the future has not yet knowable, because future moements have not yet come to exist.

Are the rest of you saying that this is too hard for God?

Indeed it is too hard for God. God cannot do the logically obsurd. He cannot be in a place that does not exist, like outside of time, for example. Indeed the very notion of existing outside of time is self-contradictory because, as I said, being implies time.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

This can get rather technical (A vs B theory of time, etc.). Those who uncritically accept 'eternal now' or timelessness or simultaneity need to understand alternate views that are more biblical and cogent.

Ps. 90:2; Rev. 1:4, 8 supports Clete's tensed concepts. Creation, incarnation, before creation, resurrection, Second Coming, new heavens/earth obviously are not simultaneous. A personal being experiences duration, whether God or us. Endless time in no way limits the infinite God. Timelessness is a specious, philosophical concept. Apart from tradition, I am not sure why everyone clings to it. I suspect a credible defense of alternate views is not common knowledge except in academic circles (where there is a wealth of debate and information).

 

[Bob Hill]

Getting back to the topic of this thread, Open Theism, or whatever someone may call it, is the view about God that I believe the scriptures support the most. It is about the God of the Bible, and His ability to have feelings, passion, remorse, anger, expectations, sorrow, and even disappointment.

Open Theism theology is based strictly on the Bible’s statements about our glorious God. It is the biblical theology that shows that God gave man enough freedom to believe God when God said he may be saved by believing in Jesus Christ as his Savior because He died for him.

We Open Theists also believe God has the ability to change His mind or repent about something He said He would do. He usually does this when man has done something to cause God to either repent from harm that He said He would do, or repent from something good that He said He would for man, but because man sinned, He now changes His mind and says He will not do it.

It is also the answer to the Calvinistic view that God predetermines everything that has happened and will happen. We have much material on this subject on my site, biblicalanswers.com.

I learned about this position a little over 45 years ago. At that time, I knew of no one who believed it. That has dramatically changed in the last 25 years.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[lee_merrill]

... and His ability to have feelings

Calvinists believe God has feelings! And anger, and sorrow.

... remorse ...

Would that be regret for what he had done? Wouldn't that be falling short of an intent, though? And missing the mark? Isn't that "harmartia," the Biblical definition of sin?

Not all sin need be deliberately doing wrong, I would say, it also would seem to be setting out aiming for the best, and to miss it, "He who knows good he ought to do, and doesn't do it [not doesn't attempt it!], to him, it is sin" (James 4:17).

... and even disappointment.

Isaiah 49:23 "Then you will know that I am the Lord; those who hope in me will not be disappointed."

Now if God can be disappointed, how can those who hope in him not be disappointed sometimes, too?

Open Theism theology is based strictly on the Bible’s statements about our glorious God.

It is actually based on a number of examples, which have other interpretations, which are then used to overturn plain general statements in Scripture! I'm sorry to say.

Open Theism is not based on general statements, but rather on disputable examples, "Those who hope in me will not be disappointed" is overturned by "I regret", which can also mean grieved, and the OV interpretation in the example is not required...

We Open Theists also believe God has the ability to change His mind or repent about something He said He would do. He usually does this when man has done something to cause God to either repent from harm that He said He would do...

So then why did God send Jonah, and spoil his own plan, since he later (Open Theism does tell us) had to change his mind, when the Ninevites repented? Now God can act in such a way as to spoil his own plan himself...

It is also the answer to the Calvinistic view that God predetermines everything that has happened and will happen.

This Calvinist doesn't believe that God makes every decision, there might be freedom to choose, within God's will, and thus God would remain in complete control, and yet there would be freedom.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Calvinists believe God has feelings! And anger, and sorrow.

Blessings,
Lee

I thought Calvinists (at least hyper-Calvinists) affirm God's absolute immutability and impassibility. The passages that open theists take literally to show that God changes in some ways and has feelings are taken anthropomorphically by Calvin and others.

 

[Lighthouse]

The bottom line is that only now exists.

Time is not a dimension. I can make my own decisions.