Theology Club: What is Open Theism?

[Desert Reign]

Brandon,I've never denied that God was capable of experiencing time. I've denied that He is somehow obligated to experience exactly the way we do, which is to say that I deny that God is bound by the same temporal limitations that you and I are limited by.

Time is not a limitation. Everything else you have said hinges on this false statement. Logically, you are just assuming the conclusion.

 

[Paulos]

The control freaks of the world always want to control as much as they can and then justify it with the illusion of either a God who is the ultimate control freak, ordains--or is in everything, or no God at all.

Proverbs 16:9
A man’s heart plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps.

Psalm 33:15
He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.

Jeremiah 10:23
O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.

Proverbs 20:24
A man’s steps are of the Lord; How then can a man understand his own way?

Psalm 139:16
Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.

Acts 17:27
For in Him we live and move and have our being...​

 

[DFT_Dave]

Proverbs 16:9
A man’s heart plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps.

Psalm 33:15
He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.

Jeremiah 10:23
O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.

Proverbs 20:24
A man’s steps are of the Lord; How then can a man understand his own way?

Psalm 139:16
Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.

Acts 17:27
For in Him we live and move and have our being...​

Proverbs 16:7
When a man’s ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him. 8 Better is a little with righteousness than great revenues with injustice. 9 A man’s mind plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.

Psalm 33:12
Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage! 13 The Lord looks down from heaven, he sees all the sons of men; 14 from where he sits enthroned he looks forth on all the inhabitants of the earth, 15 he who fashions the hearts of them all, and observes all their deeds. 16 A king is not saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength. 17 The war horse is a vain hope for victory, and by its great might it cannot save. 18 Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear him, on those who hope in his steadfast love,

Jeremiah 10:23
I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps. 24 Correct me, O Lord, but in just measure; not in thy anger, lest thou bring me to nothing. 25 Pour out thy wrath upon the nations that know thee not, and upon the peoples that call not on thy name;

Proverbs 20:22
Do not say, “I will repay evil”; wait for the Lord, and he will help you. 23 Diverse weights are an abomination to the Lord, and false scales are not good. 24 A man’s steps are ordered by the Lord; how then can man understand his way? 25 It is a snare for a man to say rashly, “It is holy,” and to reflect only after making his vows. 26 A wise king winnows the wicked, and drives the wheel over them.

Done of these verses say that God is controlling everything. Taken in context, they all indicate that we make our own decisions but God will guide those who trust him in the right way but will destroy those who will not trust him and in the end they will not have their way.

Any one can take verses out of context and say it mean whatever they want.

There are other posts you have not commented on, see #254. I wonder why?

--Dave

 

[Dialogos]

Can you support that with Scripture?

Yup. God is from "everlasting to everlasting." (Psalm 90:2) Are you?
God is the beginning and the end (Alpha and Omega. Are you?
God declares the beginning from the end (Isaiah 46:10) Do you?
God's glory is eternal (1 Peter 5:10) is yours?

The rest of your response is just a demonstration that you aren't given to sustained meaningful dialog.

I did find one answer particularly revealing

The sun dial.

:rotfl:

The sun dial is the most relative of all time pieces it.

So you tell me, does God experience noon Israel time, Greenwhich time, Eastern time, Mountain time...????

Or, does God experience all of them in one sense, and yet is free from having to experience noon at all?


:idea:

You might want to take a little bit to think on that one.

I've a hunch it will take you awhile to ponder.

:think:

 

[Desert Reign]

So which is the "right" rate of change? Which rate of change is too fast, or too slow?

Both are the right rate of change.

Whose point of reference is the unequivocal standard?

No standard is necessary. Unless you believe that time is an objective reality, which it isn't.

Which rate of change is God experiencing?

None. Rates of change are only relative to physical movement. God is spirit.

Oops! Your balloon is popped and it won't blow up again. You have to get a new one.

 

[Desert Reign]

So you tell me, does God experience noon Israel time, Greenwhich time, Eastern time, Mountain time...????

Or, does God experience all of them in one sense, and yet is free from having to experience noon at all?

You might want to take a little bit to think on that one.

I've a hunch it will take you awhile to ponder.

:think:

You don't get it do you? If you are standing with half your body on one side of the date line and half on the other side, do you feel that you are an impossible paradox? Do you experience being in two days at once? ROFL! Balloon popped. Try a new hunch as well.

 

[Dialogos]

Both are the right rate of change.

Agreed.:up:

No standard is necessary.

Right again.

Unless you believe that time is an objective reality, which it isn't.

I believe that time is a nonstandard, non-absolute measurement of the rate of change in matter and energy. It is necessarily bound up in the physical universe.

None. Rates of change are only relative to physical movement. God is spirit.

Right, and even more to the point, God is Spirit Who is free to know how finite beings experience the rate of change of matter and energy at any and all points of reference while Himself being exempt from the necessary limitations that naturally come from being matter or energy.

That's what makes God unique in regards to "time" He is free to observe, experience, know, what have you... time as humans experience time at any velocity, at any gravitational point, at any place on the globe while we are always limited to a single frame of reference.

That's a big philosophical problem for the OV because it needs God to experience "absolute" time (the absolute standard rate of change) and God would need to experience that as an objective reality. Yet you have already argued that time is not an objective reality.

 

[Desert Reign]

The clock in the plane ticked slower than the clock on the ground.

More proof that you have completely misunderstood the science. The clocks ticked at exactly the same rate (at least to within millionths of a second per million years.) That is why they choose such clocks. Because they are so reliable.

You really don't understand the science. You try to use the science to prove a theological point. That's never a good idea. If you have the truth it should speak in its own terms.

 

[Dialogos]

You don't get it do you? If you are standing with half your body on one side of the date line and half on the other side, do you feel that you are an impossible paradox?

Doesn't noon come only once per every 24 hours at the international date line, just like everywhere else?

So where do you think God experiences noon?

Does God even have to experience noon?

I don't think you get it. Every temporal measurement we have is tied to the physical universe.

Doesn't that suggest something about the nature of time itself?

 

[Desert Reign]

I believe that time is a nonstandard, non-absolute measurement of the rate of change in matter and energy. It is necessarily bound up in the physical universe.

That's an illogical belief. It doesn't need any physical evidence because it's self-defeating. The very concept of measurement implies arbitrary standards. It's like saying you believe in a round square. The rest of your post makes no sense with that wrong belief.

 

[Desert Reign]

Doesn't noon come only once per every 24 hours at the international date line, just like everywhere else?

So where do you think God experiences noon?

Does God even have to experience noon?

I don't think you get it. Every temporal measurement we have is tied to the physical universe.

Doesn't that suggest something about the nature of time itself?

You are trying to say that because God is spirit, he does not experience change. Every sentence of the Bible refutes you. Including the ones you will quote out of context. Here's an analogy: I bought my son a certain toy. I don't experience life as my son does and I don't get any joy from owning such toys. Does that mean that I am unable to share his joyful experience? You're really making something out of nothing.

It is only logical that our temporal measurements are tied to the physical universe because measurement, as I previously said, is an arbitrary standard and that standard must be shared and available to all. If you were the sole person on Earth you wouldn't need such a standard, it would be irrelevant. But that wouldn't mean that you cannot experience change. You're really barking up the wrong tree.

 

[godrulz]

Ps. 90:2; Rev. 1:4, etc. shows that God experiences duration, not timelessness, whatever that means for a personal being. Endless time, not eternal now!

 

[Dialogos]

More proof that you have completely misunderstood the science.

I'm sure you are right. Me, and Einstein, and pretty much everyone who has taught physics since Einstein, we all fundamentally misunderstand the science. You , Lighthouse, Clete and Bob Enyart have dis-proven the theory of special relativity and shown the whole world that time is a constant regardless of gravity or velocity.

Now, when you are receiving your Nobel prize? Because that would be among the single most notable discoveries in the history of modern science!

Go back and read "Einstein's Theory of Relativity for Dummies" and
actually learn what the theory teaches before you start telling us all that we "misunderstand the science."

The clocks ticked at exactly the same rate (at least to within millionths of a second per million years.) That is why they choose such clocks. Because they are so reliable.

And at the conclusion of that experiment, they accounted explanation for why two incredibly reliable clocks that were synchronized before the experiment but were no longer in sync after was what?

You, who understand the science, please explain?

You really don't understand the science.

Well I am waiting for you to explain it then. It seems to me that a whole lot of physicists account for the difference in recorded time by appealing to the theory of time dilation which is a function of Einstein's theory of special relativity - which states that - time isn't a constant, the speed of light is.

You try to use the science to prove a theological point. That's never a good idea. If you have the truth it should speak in its own terms.

You think that truth and science are somehow mutually exclusive?

 

[Desert Reign]

I'm sure you are right. Me, and Einstein, and pretty much everyone who has taught physics since Einstein, we all fundamentally misunderstand the science. You , Lighthouse, Clete and Bob Enyart have dis-proven the theory of special relativity and shown the whole world that time is a constant regardless of gravity or velocity.

Now, when you are receiving your Nobel prize? Because that would be among the single most notable discoveries in the history of modern science!

Go back and read "Einstein's Theory of Relativity for Dummies" and
actually learn what the theory teaches before you start telling us all that we "misunderstand the science."


And at the conclusion of that experiment, they accounted explanation for why two incredibly reliable clocks that were synchronized before the experiment but were no longer in sync after was what?

You, who understand the science, please explain?


Well I am waiting for you to explain it then. It seems to me that a whole lot of physicists account for the difference in recorded time by appealing to the theory of time dilation which is a function of Einstein's theory of special relativity - which states that - time isn't a constant, the speed of light is.



You think that truth and science are somehow mutually exclusive?

I don't care who you are. 'time' dilation is not dilation of an objective thing called time. The theory is about the perception of relative change. If you want to call that 'time' then fine, as most people do. But it's still just a convention. Time is not a dimension of the universe, it's a construct for social purposes. The clocks didn't reveal a 'difference in recorded time'. Only that one them appeared to have ticked over more than the other one had. The clocks are not measuring anything, just doing what they're supposed to do.

 

[Shasta]

Dave;3387693 Infinite regress is a series, or chain, of events in a cause and effect relationship. Aristotle wrote, "There is, then, something which is always moved with an unceasing motion, which is motion in a circle; and this is plain not in theory only but in fact. Therefore the first heaven must be eternal. There is therefore also something which moves it. And since that which moves and is moved is intermediate, there is something which moves without being moved, being eternal, substance, and actuality--The Unmoved Mover.

All sequential changes are temporal events no matter if they are material phenomena in the universe or the internal activity going on within the Trinity. Temporal events (i.e., that are not experienced all at once and occur sequentially) which have no beginning are the very definition of the infinite regress.

Since nothing moves itself, but is moved by something else, there must be that which is a "cause of movement" that does not move and therefore prevents an infinite regress. But you have to understand that Aristotle logically said that the things moved are as eternal as the thing that is the cause their movement and that pure actuality, Unmoved Mover, cannot enter the world of movement, change, and time.

I do not know of any mainstream thinkers who advocate a pure Aristotelian view. Apologists and theologians have used certain parts of his system because they believed they were reasonable and consistent with the Bible. Merely stamping "Aristotelianism" on their arguments does not invalidate them.

I could also argue that because Greg Boyd’s denial of certain major doctrines as: the inerrancy of the Bible, eternal punishment, and the immortality of all human souls, effectively refutes his teaching on Open Theism but that too would be avoiding the issue.

Infinite regress is not involved in a God who freely, without something else causing him to do so, creates a world that never existed before he created it. The God of openness freely actualizes his own unlimited potential. God can do more than one thing at a time, but he does not do everything all at once. He does as much, or as little, as he wants to do when he wants to do it.

We can talk about God "freely" choosing to do this or that but what He is not free to do is to act contrary to His own definition. It is not that something ELSE is CAUSING God to do anything. He is limited by the temporal mode of existence. If you call God temporal you have to live with all the problems posed by that definition.

There is no "train of time", no such thing as events waiting to happen for us or for God. We move through "space", from place to place, not a thing called time from preordained event to event. In this world we measure the duration of movement and call it time. That duration is in relationship to the movement of our planet around the sun. God's duration would not require a measurement, his activity would be intrinsic to the sequence of activity within the Trinity.

I understood that you were defining time in a particular way as a process of sequential change without any reference to measurements, duration or other physical events.

As for the train analogy, my point was not that it inevitably was proceeding towards a preordained end or that something real was out there "waiting to happen." If anything I was focusing more on the past. Still you cannot dismiss a discussion of the future because you do not believe in the concept. Part of abstract thinking is being able to work with ideas that may not exist in the present or in the material world. about the future because you do not believe it exists. If Einstein had not done his thought experience I doubt that he would have made any discoveries.

 

[Shasta]

I don't care who you are. 'time' dilation is not dilation of an objective thing called time. The theory is about the perception of relative change. If you want to call that 'time' then fine, as most people do. But it's still just a convention. Time is not a dimension of the universe, it's a construct for social purposes.

What are you saying - that because you cannot directly observe something it is not real?

Abstract terms are used to understand things not readily ascertainable. Internal models are representations, hopefully of something that exists but they are not invalid because they must be coded this way or because different cultures use different language to express it.

That relativity theory IS a dimension of the universe has been validated mathematically, observationally and experimentally for the last 50yrs. The evidence is not affected by social convention or my own opinion - or yours. I think these idiosyncratic of time are abstract constructs engineered to support a novel theological position.

 

[Desert Reign]

What are you saying - that because you cannot directly observe something it is not real?

I'm not sure what you mean. Especially by 'directly'. Observation is by nature something direct. If it is impossible by any means to observe something then I don't see how you can argue that it is real. It might as well be something only in your imagination.

Abstract terms are used to understand things not readily ascertainable. Internal models are representations, hopefully of something that exists but they are not invalid because they must be coded this way or because different cultures use different language to express it.

Again, I'm not sure what exactly you mean. But you seem to have grasped well that what things are are mediated by what we think they are. So if different cultures have different words for something, it might mean that they, as a culture, have a different relationship with that thing. So for them it is something different to what it is to another culture. You can't say that it has existence in itself only. Its existence consists of the relationship it has with everything else. And that relationship is not fixed so it might be something different depending on the culture or thing that it is in relation with.

That relativity theory IS a dimension of the universe has been validated mathematically, observationally and experimentally for the last 50yrs.

Well, time certainly hasn't. Relativity theory has been corroborated by a lot of evidence but that doesn't mean that time is a dimension of the universe. That's not what the theory says.

The evidence is not affected by social convention or my own opinion - or yours. I think these idiosyncratic of time are abstract constructs engineered to support a novel theological position.

The evidence is indeed not affected by social conventions. But the evidence doesn't tell you that time is a dimension of the universe. It just tells you that change is perceived relatively.

 

[Lighthouse]

Yup. God is from "everlasting to everlasting." (Psalm 90:2) Are you?

What do you think everlasting means?

God is the beginning and the end (Alpha and Omega). Are you?

Beginning and end of what?

And I thought your argument was that He has no beginning or end.

God declares the beginning from the end (Isaiah 46:10) Do you?

It's "declares the end from the beginning."

He declares the end of what [x] from the beginning of what [x]? Solve for x.

God's glory is eternal (1 Peter 5:10) is yours?

Seeing as how the only glory I can have is actually His... yeah.

The rest of your response is just a demonstration that you aren't given to sustained meaningful dialog.

I did find one answer particularly revealing

:rotfl:

The sun dial is the most relative of all time pieces it.

It was a joke.

So you tell me, does God experience noon Israel time, Greenwhich time, Eastern time, Mountain time...????

Why do you assume we believe God uses the same "hours" we do? Or that He would use an Earth time zone?

But time is measured in Heaven: "When He opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour." [Revelation 8:1]

Or, does God experience all of them in one sense, and yet is free from having to experience noon at all?

Well, He is omnipresent.

:idea:

You might want to take a little bit to think on that one.

I've a hunch it will take you awhile to ponder.

:think:

Nope. No time at all.

 

[DFT_Dave]

All sequential changes are temporal events no matter if they are material phenomena in the universe or the internal activity going on within the Trinity. Temporal events (i.e., that are not experienced all at once and occur sequentially) which have no beginning are the very definition of the infinite regress.

I do not know of any mainstream thinkers who advocate a pure Aristotelian view. Apologists and theologians have used certain parts of his system because they believed they were reasonable and consistent with the Bible. Merely stamping "Aristotelianism" on their arguments does not invalidate them.

I could also argue that because Greg Boyd’s denial of certain major doctrines as: the inerrancy of the Bible, eternal punishment, and the immortality of all human souls, effectively refutes his teaching on Open Theism but that too would be avoiding the issue.

We can talk about God "freely" choosing to do this or that but what He is not free to do is to act contrary to His own definition. It is not that something ELSE is CAUSING God to do anything. He is limited by the temporal mode of existence. If you call God temporal you have to live with all the problems posed by that definition.

I understood that you were defining time in a particular way as a process of sequential change without any reference to measurements, duration or other physical events.

As for the train analogy, my point was not that it inevitably was proceeding towards a preordained end or that something real was out there "waiting to happen." If anything I was focusing more on the past. Still you cannot dismiss a discussion of the future because you do not believe in the concept. Part of abstract thinking is being able to work with ideas that may not exist in the present or in the material world. about the future because you do not believe it exists. If Einstein had not done his thought experience I doubt that he would have made any discoveries.

No "mainstream thinkers", that you know, "advocate a pure Aristotelian view" because that would refute their views and your view.

The logical conclusion that God is eternally immovable, changeless, and timeless is that he cannot enter (incarnate) the world of movement, change, and time, because, as you say, "what He is not free to do is to act contrary to His own definition.

The creation of the world by God, logically, requires movement, change in activity, and presumes that God existed "before" he created it which is time in God.

Everything else you have said is non sequitur.

You want to accuse us of having a wrong view of God because it contradicts your view of a "God of contradiction" as being the right one. :rotfl:

--Dave

 

[Dialogos]

What do you think everlasting means?

Eternal.

Beginning and end of what?

Everything.

And I thought your argument was that He has not beginning or end.

It doesn't say He has a beginning and and end, it says He is the beginning and the end.

God is bigger than time.

It's "declares the end from the beginning."

No, its "...declaring the end from the beginning."

He declares the end of what [x] from the beginning of what [x]? Solve for x.

He declares from ancient times things not yet done. That's what the text says. He does what the mute and dumb idols can't do, he can tell the future.

Why do you assume we believe God uses the same "hours" we do? Or that He would use an Earth time zone?

I don't. I'm the one who holds to a theory of timelessness remember. You are the one arguing that time is constant and God is variable. I argue that God is constant and time is variable.

But time is measured in Heaven: "When He opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour." [Revelation 8:1]

Yes, Heaven has elapsed time. God is bigger than heaven.

Well, He is omnipresent.

Yes, which means that God can experience time in any and all inertial frames of references.

Conclusion: Einstein is probably right, you, Desert Reign and Bob Enyart are probably wrong. Time is relative (not constant) and God is able to experience all temporal fluctuations due to his omnipresence which means that God is not limited by time.