Theology Club: What is Open Theism?

[DFT_Dave]

What makes you so confident that God's "intrinsic" temporal experience is the same temporal experience that constitutes the time in the physical universe? If you had actually read the entirety of the Ganssle article you linked to earlier, you would realize that a number of philosophers posit that "physical" time and "Divine" time are different.

If I had actually read everything ever written on the subject of God we would still be arguing this point.

If you had actually read everything ever written on the subject of God you would be an open theist like me.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Time is the process whereby one state changes into another."

I didn't say time moves things. I said time is the name for the process of movement. The term "motion" does not have to mean going from one location to another. It can mean to reconfigure or for something to change from one state to another. Time events are change events. These "state changes" are causal, progressive and durational - which are the qualities you have given to the phenomenon "time"

God can act without changing Himself. Traditional theology holds that God acts. You philosopher does not believe it because he did not believe in the Personal God of the Bible

1. Temporal things (processes, events etc) have beginnings.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. God, however, did not have a beginning
4. God does not possess the primary property of time

God as you describe Him is ever-changing ever-evolving Being in the process of perfecting Himself a process which cannot end and which has been going on forever.

In your model God had to go through an infinite number of temporal change events (state changes) before He made the universe.

Time events are all causally related. This is as much true for interactions within God as things outside of Him. For every temporal state or event there always has to be an antecedent temporal event. If there was ever a causeless event then you would be facing the enigma of non-temporality. The big problem is that there is no antecedent cause for this hypothetical pre-creation time line. Therefore it could not be temporal in nature. It was therefore not related to temporality of any kind. Existence is grounded in God's being.

You have defined God in such a way that He can only follow a process of temporal succession. He is not "free" to choose any time to create if the number of successions is infinite. Ironically it is your temporal model that has left God immobilized.

When we define God as a temporal Being this means that His consciousness must unfold in a succession. How many temporal successions of thought, states of consciousness, interactions, must He have gone through before He created? Since He had an infinite past we must conclude that there was an infinite number - which is impossible.

This is a very common phrase. It does not mean indifference. It means doing something for someone just for their sake without self interest.

Being Three Persons does not make God an aggregate being or consortium. How they are distinct in consciousness is somewhat of a mystery. We know that they operate in separate ways to carry out One will; however God is One is essence. One being. He is not a multiple personality. Because of this there is no a division that would require Him to carry on a sequential, consecutive form of communication. As for duration...how could that possibly be conceptualized? All at once.

The whole idea of consecutive linear interaction is based on a very elementary human communication model. Even our brains do not operate that way. The brain is comprised of numerous subsystems all of which operate at once in parallel. We have a holistic way of viewing things where we grasp or intuit the whole picture at a glance without deliberation. My God is able to see everything all at once.

If I were somehow mentally linked to the mind of someone else so that I had complete access to all their memories, thoughts, perceptions, consciousness, immediate and past (while remaining myself) we would know each other completely. It would be a knowledge born directly out of union not just ceaseless mental activities. Would I need to explain anything to the other person? No I would know experientially just as they do and though the may be different they are as much a part of me as I myself am.

You show God to be an aggregate being which is not Biblical in the deepest way since it concerns God Himself.

I noticed in another post you included the Early Church Fathers among those who were in error about the nature of God (a view BTW shared by Jewish theologians ancient and modern). I was glad you admitted the lack of historicity of OT to the earliest leaders of the church. Taking the word literally apparently means accepting the doctrines of latter day theologians like Greg Boyd who calls God's word "God-breathed inaccuracies."

Time is not something external, extrinsic, to God that he must "pass through" in order to get from there to here, from past to future. If it were then I would be agreeing with you.

If God existed before he created the world he, logically, has freedom and time to act, or not to act.

If you see this is true and Biblical then you have the beginning and essence of Dynamic Free, and open, theism.

If you reject this then you have and irrational theology, which, if you truely understand what it is you believe, is a sythesis of Greek philosophy with Biblical revelation.

So, do you accept or reject Genesis 1:1, that God existed before he created the world?

Do you accept or reject the logic that this implies that God has freedom and time?

--Dave

 

[Lighthouse]

Actually, your abililty to move back and forth in space is an illusion. You may be able to go from the TV to the refrigerator and back but the TV and the refrigerator aren't in the same place. They are in the same place on the earth, but in the time it took you to go from one place to the other the earth moved, the solar system moved and most astronomers believe the galaxy moved.

Therefore, you really can't move back and forth because the exact location in space that you and the fridge and the TV occupied has been vacated by the natural movement of orbital systems.

:doh:

Are you saying that my movement through space is an illusion because I moved through space?

You do realize that even in my seat I can move my extremities within the space around me, and at the rate the Earth moves I will cover part of the same space.

Or are you arguing that on top of the movement of the planets in rotation and orbit around the sun the whole solar system, including the sun, is also moving through space; up, down, right, or left [for lack of better terms]; and is thus not in the same space it occupied five minutes ago?

You actually do. The theory of general relativity posits that time is variable and that it is affected by gravitational fields. Open Theism posits that time is common experience for all beings, including God. General relativity posits that time is variable depending on one's location relative to the force of gravity.

I thought special relativity dealt with time dilation.

You concluded your thought.

Open Theism is on the wrong end of Occam's razor....and all that.

FALSE.

The simplest, and most probable, explanations for the results of the time dilation gravitational tests are that gravity and velocity effect the movement of the atoms, thus skewing the clock readings; it has been demonstrated that this is possible.

Open Theism, insofar as I have interacted with those who believe it, make a big deal about the claim that God's experience of the passage of time, and our experience of the passage of time, are the same. The problem with infinite regression is that we experience the past as a finite number of experiences that we have traversed to get to the present. God does not have a finite number of past experiences, He has an infinite number of past experiences which presents us with the logically problem of traversing an infinite number of moments in order to get to the present since an infinity of any kind cannot be traversed.

Would you care to provide any evidence from Scripture that God has an infinite number of past experiences?

According to Einstein, there are an infinite number of points between my fingers and the keyboard, yet you are reading what I typed.:think:

 

[Shasta]

Job: 1:6[/B] Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “Whence have you come?” Satan answered the Lord, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” 8 And the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job,

"Before the Lord" would mean here in Job that God has a presence and a location in space, heavenly place, in the same way Satan has one.

In Job the Devil appears before God and this looks like it means God has a single spatial location but when you consider the whole of scripture the case breaks down. In the Old Covenant "before the Lord" meant before the Temple. Now then God actually was "there" manifesting Himself as a shining cloud; however as the ancient Hebrews learned more they saw God filling heaven and earth
ISA 66:1

Hebrews says that the tabernacle was a pattern of the heavenly places. The highest Heaven (the third), was represented by the Holy of Holies, the ark being the throne of God.You would think that if there were a single spatial location of God the Father His throne would be it but that would not be true. He might be manifested there but His presence is vast and exceeds the heavens and the heavens of the heavens. (1 Kings 8:27) God does not have to go from one part of the heavens to another. According to this He is already there.

As "Pure Actuality" God must be everywhere at all times. Biblically, God is "free" to be where he wants, when he wants. God is a spirit, God is not space, he inhabits space as a spirit, with a presence, with location. God has infinite potentiality and that's what makes him free.

 

[Lighthouse]

In Job the Devil appears before God and this looks like it means God has a single spatial location but when you consider the whole of scripture the case breaks down. In the Old Covenant "before the Lord" meant before the Temple. Now then God actually was "there" manifesting Himself as a shining cloud; however as the ancient Hebrews learned more they saw God filling heaven and earth
ISA 66:1

Hebrews says that the tabernacle was a pattern of the heavenly places. The highest Heaven (the third), was represented by the Holy of Holies, the ark being the throne of God.You would think that if there were a single spatial location of God the Father His throne would be it but that would not be true. He might be manifested there but His presence is vast and exceeds the heavens and the heavens of the heavens. (1 Kings 8:27) God does not have to go from one part of the heavens to another. According to this He is already there.

You do know no one is arguing against this, right?

 

[Dialogos]

If I had actually read everything ever written on the subject of God we would still be arguing this point.

If you had actually read everything ever written on the subject of God you would be an open theist like me.

--Dave

I don't think anyone has suggested that you need to have read everything ever written on the subject. I do think that if you cite from an article, it is at least helpful for you to have read that article.

Otherwise you are making a habit of quoting text out of context.

Perhaps that is how you arrived at an Open Theist position in the first place.

 

[DFT_Dave]

In Job the Devil appears before God and this looks like it means God has a single spatial location but when you consider the whole of scripture the case breaks down. In the Old Covenant "before the Lord" meant before the Temple. Now then God actually was "there" manifesting Himself as a shining cloud; however as the ancient Hebrews learned more they saw God filling heaven and earth
ISA 66:1

Hebrews says that the tabernacle was a pattern of the heavenly places. The highest Heaven (the third), was represented by the Holy of Holies, the ark being the throne of God.You would think that if there were a single spatial location of God the Father His throne would be it but that would not be true. He might be manifested there but His presence is vast and exceeds the heavens and the heavens of the heavens. (1 Kings 8:27) God does not have to go from one part of the heavens to another. According to this He is already there.

(1 Kings 8:27) God does not have to go from one part of the heavens to another. According to this He is already there.

“But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built!"

The earth has it's limits, as does the temple, as do the heavens, but God is "free" to go outside of and beyond them. He is free to go where ever he wants. The God who is everywhere and in everything is "not free" not to be everywhere and in everything.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I don't think anyone has suggested that you need to have read everything ever written on the subject. I do think that if you cite from an article, it is at least helpful for you to have read that article.

Otherwise you are making a habit of quoting text out of context.

Perhaps that is how you arrived at an Open Theist position in the first place.

If you had actually read the entirety of the Ganssle article you linked to earlier, you would realize that a number of philosophers posit that "physical" time and "Divine" time are different.​

I'm not debating those other philosophers who posit that "physical" time and "Divine" time are different.

I'm debating you, so if you can address my argument then do so, if you can't, say so.

I have read more then enought articles to handle you and those other philosophers. Argue your point not the man.

--Dave

 

[Dialogos]

:doh:

Are you saying that my movement through space is an illusion because I moved through space?

I'm suggesting that your criterion is faulty. If you are arguing that one must be able to move back and forth through a potential dimension in order for it to be proved dimensional, then your argument fails because you can't actually prove that you can move back an forth through space. In fact, a good argument can be made that you can only move forth through space and it is entirely likely that the space you occupy in one moment can never be occupied again given the reality of the movement of the earth, solar system and galaxy through space. Relatively we are fine talking about fixed points on the earth, in reality, there are no fixed points because all of those fixed points are in motion.

You do realize that even in my seat I can move my extremities within the space around me, and at the rate the Earth moves I will cover part of the same space.

You do realize that not only is the earth moving in rotation (at a rate of about 1000 Miles per hour near the equator), it is also in elliptical orbit around the sun. Compound these fact with the reality that the solar system is also in motion and so is the Galaxy wherein our solar system is clustered.

But just take the rate of the rotation of the earth into consideration and you can see that your example is based on a faulty understanding of the earth's rotation. No one traveling on a highway at a mere 60 miles per hour would claim that they can occupy the same space relative to the earth for more than a fraction of a second. Imagine traveling at 10 times that speed.

Or are you arguing that on top of the movement of the planets in rotation and orbit around the sun the whole solar system, including the sun, is also moving through space; up, down, right, or left [for lack of better terms]; and is thus not in the same space it occupied five minutes ago?

Or in the same space it occupied .5 seconds ago.

I thought special relativity dealt with time dilation.

You are mistaken on a good many things, this just happens to be one of them.

The simplest, and most probable, explanations for the results of the time dilation gravitational tests are that gravity and velocity effect the movement of the atoms, thus skewing the clock readings; it has been demonstrated that this is possible.

You seem to assume that "time" is somehow a non-physical, yet universal constant which is an assumption that you cannot defend if you argue that time is the measurement of the rate of change. If the rate of change is subject to the intensity of gravitational fields and all persons and objects within that specific frame of reference relative to the gravitational field are so affected, then time itself has been affected.

In short, if everything that "time" measures is slowed, then "time" itself is slowed.

Now, you could argue that God's experience isn’t affected by gravity, but that only begs the question. How can we say that God's experience is totally immune from the effects of gravitational fields and at the same time argue that God experiences time just as we do?

You can’t.

The experience of time of all corporeal beings is bound up in the physical universe. God’s exemption from the constraints of the physical universe necessarily exempts Him from our experience of time.

Would you care to provide any evidence from Scripture that God has an infinite number of past experiences?

God is eternal. Deuteronomy 33:27. By definition, an eternal being cannot have a finite number of past experiences nor a finite number of future experiences. All beings with a finite number of past experiences have a beginning and God is without beginning. Do you dispute this? Are part of some cult that believes that God is a created being?

According to Einstein, there are an infinite number of points between my fingers and the keyboard, yet you are reading what I typed.:think:

According to Einstein or according to Lighthouse?

There is a hypothetical infinity between any two points. Every distance between two objects can be hypothetically divided. However, there is a great deal of research suggesting that not all hypothetical infinities accurately represent the physical universe look up Planck units for an understanding of this. Nevertheless it is wholly counterintuitive to suggest that all distances are infinite distances just because one can hypothetically divide those distances in half infinitely. We all know that there really isn’t aren’t infinite miles between New York and Chicago even if you could hypothetically divide any two miles between the two in half ad infinitum. The reality is that there is a clear point of origination and a clear point of destination. However, God’s existence isn’t a hypothetical infinity like the distance between your fingers and the keyboard, God’s existence an actual infinity. There is no point of origination for the existence of God. There is no point in time when God “started” changing so the notion that God experiences “time” (the measurement of the rate of time) is nonsensical.

Really, the implications of open theism on the nature of God are disturbing. To assume that God “grows” or “learns” over time assumes that God had an imperfect understanding of Himself or His creation the moment before he “learned” or “grew.”

In that sense, open theism and process theology share the same philosophical flaw, that God is imperfect.

 

[Dialogos]

I'm not debating those other philosophers who posit that "physical" time and "Divine" time are different.

I'm debating you, so if you can address my argument then do so, if you can't, say so.

You aren't really debating at all. You are shotgun posting without interacting with the vast majority of the points that I have made.

I've pointed out that your argument that God can be either "in time" or "out of time" is a false dilemma, arguing that God is free to move within our timeline and experience our timeline without being bound to the constraints of our timeline. Your responses have been underwhelming to say the least. I've even pointed out that the article you cite from shows exactly why your position is a false dilemma.

I have read more then enought articles to handle you and those other philosophers.

Good for you. Perhaps we will see some of that research come through in some of your subsequent posts. Up to now, your mastery of those philosophical issues has not prevented you from tossing out false dilemmas.

Argue your point not the man.

I am sure you are a great guy Dave. I'm not advancing arguments against your person, I'm suggesting that your position presents us with a false dilemma that can easily be resolved by a number of the philosophical positions that are described by Greg Ganssle in the article that you cited from.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm suggesting that your criterion is faulty. If you are arguing that one must be able to move back and forth through a potential dimension in order for it to be proved dimensional, then your argument fails because you can't actually prove that you can move back an forth through space. In fact, a good argument can be made that you can only move forth through space and it is entirely likely that the space you occupy in one moment can never be occupied again given the reality of the movement of the earth, solar system and galaxy through space. Relatively we are fine talking about fixed points on the earth, in reality, there are no fixed points because all of those fixed points are in motion.

You do realize that not only is the earth moving in rotation (at a rate of about 1000 Miles per hour near the equator), it is also in elliptical orbit around the sun. Compound these fact with the reality that the solar system is also in motion and so is the Galaxy wherein our solar system is clustered.

But just take the rate of the rotation of the earth into consideration and you can see that your example is based on a faulty understanding of the earth's rotation. No one traveling on a highway at a mere 60 miles per hour would claim that they can occupy the same space relative to the earth for more than a fraction of a second. Imagine traveling at 10 times that speed.

Or in the same space it occupied .5 seconds ago.

Do you realize that:

1. None of this is relevant to the point.
2. The space from my fridge to my couch remains the same space within itself, even if not the same space in the universe.

I can move from home to work and back; I cannot move from 17:30 yesterday to now and back. That's the point.


Now stop obfuscating and deal with the issue, you coward.

You are mistaken on a good many things, this just happens to be one of them.

If you could see my face you'd see my "I don't care" face.

You seem to assume that "time" is somehow a non-physical, yet universal constant which is an assumption that you cannot defend if you argue that time is the measurement of the rate of change. If the rate of change is subject to the intensity of gravitational fields and all persons and objects within that specific frame of reference relative to the gravitational field are so affected, then time itself has been affected.

The rate of change is not affected.

In short, if everything that "time" measures is slowed, then "time" itself is slowed.

And that which time measures is not slowed, nor is it sped up.

Now, you could argue that God's experience isn’t affected by gravity, but that only begs the question. How can we say that God's experience is totally immune from the effects of gravitational fields and at the same time argue that God experiences time just as we do?

You can’t.

The experience of time of all corporeal beings is bound up in the physical universe. God’s exemption from the constraints of the physical universe necessarily exempts Him from our experience of time.

Translation:

My argument is that time is immune from gravity.

God is eternal. Deuteronomy 33:27. By definition, an eternal being cannot have a finite number of past experiences nor a finite number of future experiences. All beings with a finite number of past experiences have a beginning and God is without beginning. Do you dispute this? Are part of some cult that believes that God is a created being?

Eternal does not, by definition, mean having no beginning.

According to Einstein or according to Lighthouse?

:AMR:

There is a hypothetical infinity between any two points. Every distance between two objects can be hypothetically divided. However, there is a great deal of research suggesting that not all hypothetical infinities accurately represent the physical universe look up Planck units for an understanding of this. Nevertheless it is wholly counterintuitive to suggest that all distances are infinite distances just because one can hypothetically divide those distances in half infinitely. We all know that there really isn’t aren’t infinite miles between New York and Chicago even if you could hypothetically divide any two miles between the two in half ad infinitum. The reality is that there is a clear point of origination and a clear point of destination. However, God’s existence isn’t a hypothetical infinity like the distance between your fingers and the keyboard, God’s existence an actual infinity. There is no point of origination for the existence of God. There is no point in time when God “started” changing so the notion that God experiences “time” (the measurement of the rate of time) is nonsensical.

I'm still waiting for the verse stating God is infinite.

And to believe that God never changes just makes you an idiot.

Really, the implications of open theism on the nature of God are disturbing. To assume that God “grows” or “learns” over time assumes that God had an imperfect understanding of Himself or His creation the moment before he “learned” or “grew.”

No one said God "grows," but the ability to learn does not equate to a less than perfect understanding. You assume definitions too often.

In that sense, open theism and process theology share the same philosophical flaw, that God is imperfect.

God's being open is a byproduct of His perfection.

You're going to run out of fuel if you keep burning straw men.

 

[Dialogos]

Now stop obfuscating and deal with the issue, you coward.

People usually resort to name-calling when they have realized that they can't overcome an argument using intellect.

If you could see my face you'd see my "I don't care" face.

LOL, what makes you think I would want to see your face regardless of the expression?

The rate of change is not affected.

Clearly you don't understand special or general relativity. You are just wrong here.

And that which time measures is not slowed, nor is it sped up.

What in the blue blazes did you think "time dilation" was?
Time dilation has to do with how gravity and velocity both affect the rate of change or “time.”
But beyond that now you are contradicting yourself. Before you had argued that the "time" didn't speed up or slow down, you argued that gravity and velocity affected "atoms." What you don't seem to be able to do is connect the dots here. If the rate of change is affected at the atomic level, and that rate of change is experienced by all things within a particular frame of reference, then "time" has been affected since time is nothing more than the rate at which things change.

Now you appear to be arguing that gravity and velocity don't affect the physical processes that we use to measure time whatsoever.

So either your opinion changed, or you are trying to define time completely independently of the physical universe. In the case of the former I wonder what caused you to change your opinion, in the case of the latter I wonder what exactly you think time measures.

Translation:

LOL. The more juvenile you act, the more sophomoric you appear.

My argument is that time is immune from gravity.

...and Einstein is just wrong, and the world is really flat, the sun rotates around the earth, and the earth is at the physical center of the universe....

Making shallow arguments against sound scientific theories only makes you look like a :dunce:

Eternal does not, by definition, mean having no beginning.

Actually, that is, by definition, exactly what eternal can mean.

Eternal:
without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing ( opposed to temporal ): eternal life.

But let’s cut to the chase. Either you think that God had a beginning or you don’t. Make your case. If you think that God had a beginning then please explain who or what caused God to come into existence. If you think that God has no beginning and as always existed in eternity past, then - unless you really are just too thick to connect even the simplest of concepts - you and I can agree that God eternality means He has no beginning.

And if God had no temporal point at which He started changing, then we can all agree that He has always been omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.
To believe otherwise would make you, or anyone, an idiot.
Nevertheless, you continue to demonstrate that you are willing to indulge such idiocies as the following.

No one said God "grows," but the ability to learn does not equate to a less than perfect understanding. You assume definitions too often.

The necessity to “learn” anything presupposes a less than perfect understanding of whatever it is that must be learned. One “learns” about science precisely because they have an imperfect understanding of science. You define terms in obscure and absurd terms far too often.
And the fact that you continue to posit that God must “learn” about His own creation, whether it be about their present actions or about their future actions, demonstrates that you are creating God in your own image rather than acknowledge that His ways are not your ways, and His thoughts are not your thoughts.

 

[Lighthouse]

People usually resort to name-calling when they have realized that they can't overcome an argument using intellect.

At least you're consistent; still avoiding the issue.

LOL, what makes you think I would want to see your face regardless of the expression?

And again.

Clearly you don't understand special or general relativity. You are just wrong here.

Prove it.

What in the blue blazes did you think "time dilation" was?
Time dilation has to do with how gravity and velocity both affect the rate of change or “time.”

I know what it is; I'm saying such is not affected. That which is physical only effects that which is physical.

But beyond that now you are contradicting yourself. Before you had argued that the "time" didn't speed up or slow down, you argued that gravity and velocity affected "atoms." What you don't seem to be able to do is connect the dots here. If the rate of change is affected at the atomic level, and that rate of change is experienced by all things within a particular frame of reference, then "time" has been affected since time is nothing more than the rate at which things change.

If what used to take one minute now takes two, or vice versa, then time has not changed: one minute is still the same length and rate as it ever was.

Now you appear to be arguing that gravity and velocity don't affect the physical processes that we use to measure time whatsoever.

No, I'm saying we shouldn't use physical processes because they are affected by such things.

So either your opinion changed, or you are trying to define time completely independently of the physical universe. In the case of the former I wonder what caused you to change your opinion, in the case of the latter I wonder what exactly you think time measures.

It is the latter. And time measures nothing; time is measured.

LOL. The more juvenile you act, the more sophomoric you appear.

Now who's name-calling? Hypocrite.

...and Einstein is just wrong, and the world is really flat, the sun rotates around the earth, and the earth is at the physical center of the universe....

1. He was, about this.
2. It's not.
3. Nope.
4. I don't actually know.

Making shallow arguments against sound scientific theories only makes you look like a :dunce:

Hypocrite.

Actually, that is, by definition, exactly what eternal can mean.

Can mean? Yes. Must mean? No.

But let’s cut to the chase. Either you think that God had a beginning or you don’t. Make your case. If you think that God had a beginning then please explain who or what caused God to come into existence. If you think that God has no beginning and as always existed in eternity past, then - unless you really are just too thick to connect even the simplest of concepts - you and I can agree that God eternality means He has no beginning.

Having a beginning does not equate to having a cause.

And if God had no temporal point at which He started changing, then we can all agree that He has always been omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient.

I never said His attributes ever changed. But I challenge you to provide verses stating these are his attributes.

To believe otherwise would make you, or anyone, an idiot.
Nevertheless, you continue to demonstrate that you are willing to indulge such idiocies as the following.

Name-calling again? That's the third time since you stated:

People usually resort to name-calling when they have realized that they can't overcome an argument using intellect.

:think:

:idea:You can't overcome my arguments with intellect!:idea:

The necessity to “learn” anything presupposes a less than perfect understanding of whatever it is that must be learned.

Only if you assume such presuppositions.

One “learns” about science precisely because they have an imperfect understanding of science.

Clearly not even scientists have a perfect understanding of science.

You define terms in obscure and absurd terms far too often.

I hope you looked in the mirror and said this to yourself.

And the fact that you continue to posit that God must “learn” about His own creation, whether it be about their present actions or about their future actions, demonstrates that you are creating God in your own image rather than acknowledge that His ways are not your ways, and His thoughts are not your thoughts.

1. God says He learns.
2. His ways and thoughts are higher than mine, not lower; He is not less than me, unable to do what I am.

 

[DFT_Dave]

You aren't really debating at all. You are shotgun posting without interacting with the vast majority of the points that I have made.

I've pointed out that your argument that God can be either "in time" or "out of time" is a false dilemma, arguing that God is free to move within our timeline and experience our timeline without being bound to the constraints of our timeline. Your responses have been underwhelming to say the least. I've even pointed out that the article you cite from shows exactly why your position is a false dilemma.

Good for you. Perhaps we will see some of that research come through in some of your subsequent posts. Up to now, your mastery of those philosophical issues has not prevented you from tossing out false dilemmas.

I am sure you are a great guy Dave. I'm not advancing arguments against your person, I'm suggesting that your position presents us with a false dilemma that can easily be resolved by a number of the philosophical positions that are described by Greg Ganssle in the article that you cited from.

"If you had actually read....

"You are making a habit of quoting text out of context...

"You aren't really debating at all. You are shotgun posting without interacting...

These are your ad hominem comments.

Please, put down one of those arguments you are referring to, I will be happy to address it.

Do you believe God has his own "time line"?

--Dave

 

[Dialogos]

Lighthouse,

Your most recent response proves that you are confused about a great many things. You are clearly very confused about both general and special relativity. That became very clear to everyone when you mixed the two up in previous posts, and now you continue to demonstrate your confusion when you address the issue of time dilation.

Regarding time dilation, you said:

I know what it is; I'm saying such is not affected. That which is physical only effects that which is physical.

It appears that you are arguing that time isn't a physical construct but is rather a non-physical construct. This appearance is strengthened by comments such as the following.

No, I'm saying we shouldn't use physical processes because they are affected by such things.

First, this isn't at all harmonious with the theory of relativity and you admit as much when you comment on Einstein’s theory and say he was wrong about how it affected time.

So at least we have made some progress. Open theism, or at least the kind of open theism you espouse, is inconsistent with both general and special relativity. As such, open theism, or at least the kind of open theism you espouse, runs cross-ways with the most current scientific research regarding time that we have.

You appear to want to argue that time isn’t physical at all, and therefore isn’t affected by physical forces such as velocity and gravity. If that is the case, then I think it is fair to ask you to define what non-physical unit of time you use to measure time.

That is, what you said, remember.

And time measures nothing; time is measured.

So what non-physical units measure time?

We can’t measure time in minutes (or fractions of minutes) because minutes themselves are fractions of hours which are fractions of days which is the time it takes for the earth to make a full rotation which is a physical process. We also can’t use any kind of clock to measure your non-physical understanding of time because all of our clocks use consistent physical processes to measure time. All of them.

In fact, I challenge you to give us both a definition of time that does not appeal to the physical creation and a unit of measurement that is not dependent on some physical process.

Now, on to the issue of God being eternal. For the life of me I have no idea why you continue to argue this point. Open Theism, as I understand it, does not argue that God has a beginning, it gains nothing by arguing that God has a beginning, and you gain nothing by making nonsensical statements that just show that you are eager to argue even if you can’t actually make a cogent point in doing so.

Here are perhaps the most notable example to date

Having a beginning does not equate to having a cause.

You could not have thought too very long before writing this. Actually, it’s my hope that you wrote this in haste, otherwise you demonstrate that you just don’t have the capacity for critical thought that is necessary to carry on a meaningful interchange on issues of this complexity.

I think the best thing for you to do at this point is admit that your statement was made in haste. Otherwise, I have to press. Give us a single example of something that clearly has a beginning but clearly has no cause.

All this comes to bear on how we understand the term “eternal” in Deuteronomy 33:27. I am convinced that it means that God is eternal, and that He has no beginning, and therefore has an infinite number of past experiences. I am similarly convinced that most open theists would agree, and I am convinced that you only want to argue this point for the sake of arguing unfortunately this only serves to make you look both foolish and heretical.

So if you actually believe that God has a beginning, then have the intestinal fortitude to say so outright and then explain to us when you think God had His beginning, how you think God began, and who you think is responsible for His creation. Otherwise, stop clowning around with heresy.


Finally, lets tackle whether or not God’s “learning” assumes that He had an imperfect understanding prior to His learning. There really are two issues to be discussed here. One is the general understanding of open theism which teaches that God knows all that is knowable but does not know the future because the future is unknowable. I would argue that this is in error, largely because it is scripturally demonstrable that God does, in fact, know the future, but it doesn’t go to the lengths to prove the absurd that you have undertaken on this thread. You have not only argued that God does not know the future, you have argued that God doesn’t know the present. In previous posts you have argued that God was unaware of the wickedness of Sodom and needed to come down out of heaven to see for himself whether or not the outcries against Sodom were really true. You rebuffed any appeals to show you that such understandings (A) didn’t fit the actual text in Genesis 18-19, (B) it can’t be harmonized with other clear teachings of scripture that speak of God’s exhaustive knowledge of all men’s ways (like Proverbs 5:21 and Proverbs 15:3).

Therefore, if you really do believe that God had a beginning and you really do believe that God doesn't even know the present exhaustively, then I don’t think it is really even fair to the open theists to call you an open theist. It’s not fair because believing that God had a beginning makes you a heretic and believing that God doesn't know the present makes you a hyper-open theist.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You have not only argued that God does not know the future, you have argued that God doesn’t know the present. In previous posts you have argued that God was unaware of the wickedness of Sodom and needed to come down out of heaven to see for himself whether or not the outcries against Sodom were really true. You rebuffed any appeals to show you that such understandings (A) didn’t fit the actual text in Genesis 18-19, (B) it can’t be harmonized with other clear teachings of scripture that speak of God’s exhaustive knowledge of all men’s ways (like Proverbs 5:21 and Proverbs 15:3).

More tellingly, it means the God of Abraham knew less than the God of Moses, David, John the Baptist, Paul, and so on. God just seems to be getting more knowledgeable with each passing day.

Then there is the whole problem of God not knowing who will be born nor what manner of malfeasance these autonomous folks will be up to down the road. So God is always engaged in playing catch up, always trying to Outwit, Outplay, and Outlast His creatures--a probabilistic Survivor<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]-->® God of sorts apparently capable of outmaneuvering folks who thwart His plans at every turn.

Then again, you will have the odd openist who will argue that some things about the future are known. So for these folks, e.g., godrulz, God must just will Himself amnesia about all other future factuals. After all, one cannot know the future about one item and not know them all. Then again, to do so would necessarily imply God knew what He was willing to forget. Starts to get very head-spinning messy logically at this point. Just sayin'.

AMR

 

[Lighthouse]

Your most recent response proves that you are confused about a great many things. You are clearly very confused about both general and special relativity. That became very clear to everyone when you mixed the two up in previous posts, and now you continue to demonstrate your confusion when you address the issue of time dilation.

Regarding time dilation, you said:

It appears that you are arguing that time isn't a physical construct but is rather a non-physical construct. This appearance is strengthened by comments such as the following.

First, this isn't at all harmonious with the theory of relativity and you admit as much when you comment on Einstein’s theory and say he was wrong about how it affected time.

So at least we have made some progress. Open theism, or at least the kind of open theism you espouse, is inconsistent with both general and special relativity. As such, open theism, or at least the kind of open theism you espouse, runs cross-ways with the most current scientific research regarding time that we have.

You appear to want to argue that time isn’t physical at all, and therefore isn’t affected by physical forces such as velocity and gravity. If that is the case, then I think it is fair to ask you to define what non-physical unit of time you use to measure time.

That is, what you said, remember.

So what non-physical units measure time?

Seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, etc. are not units of time; they are units of measurement. And in the end, they too are not physical.

We can’t measure time in minutes (or fractions of minutes) because minutes themselves are fractions of hours which are fractions of days which is the time it takes for the earth to make a full rotation which is a physical process. We also can’t use any kind of clock to measure your non-physical understanding of time because all of our clocks use consistent physical processes to measure time. All of them.

And there it is; these units of measurement aren't actually measuring time, but rather physical actions by which we know time has passed.

In fact, I challenge you to give us both a definition of time that does not appeal to the physical creation and a unit of measurement that is not dependent on some physical process.

Time is a concept, as are all measurements of it. None of them are dependent upon the physical as even if the physical actions ceased time would continue passing.

Now, on to the issue of God being eternal. For the life of me I have no idea why you continue to argue this point. Open Theism, as I understand it, does not argue that God has a beginning, it gains nothing by arguing that God has a beginning, and you gain nothing by making nonsensical statements that just show that you are eager to argue even if you can’t actually make a cogent point in doing so.

Not once have I argued that God has a beginning.

You need to pay attention.

Here are perhaps the most notable example to date

You could not have thought too very long before writing this. Actually, it’s my hope that you wrote this in haste, otherwise you demonstrate that you just don’t have the capacity for critical thought that is necessary to carry on a meaningful interchange on issues of this complexity.

I think the best thing for you to do at this point is admit that your statement was made in haste. Otherwise, I have to press. Give us a single example of something that clearly has a beginning but clearly has no cause.

Non sequitur. Outside of God and His attributes everything has a cause; and God is the first cause, yet this does not disprove my statement.

All this comes to bear on how we understand the term “eternal” in Deuteronomy 33:27. I am convinced that it means that God is eternal, and that He has no beginning, and therefore has an infinite number of past experiences. I am similarly convinced that most open theists would agree, and I am convinced that you only want to argue this point for the sake of arguing unfortunately this only serves to make you look both foolish and heretical.

I am simply asking you to show your argument from evidence that supports itself. I am not actually arguing anything, except that the passages upon which you are relying do not support your position.

So if you actually believe that God has a beginning, then have the intestinal fortitude to say so outright and then explain to us when you think God had His beginning, how you think God began, and who you think is responsible for His creation. Otherwise, stop clowning around with heresy.

If I believed that I would say it; I don't believe that.

Finally, lets tackle whether or not God’s “learning” assumes that He had an imperfect understanding prior to His learning. There really are two issues to be discussed here. One is the general understanding of open theism which teaches that God knows all that is knowable but does not know the future because the future is unknowable. I would argue that this is in error, largely because it is scripturally demonstrable that God does, in fact, know the future, but it doesn’t go to the lengths to prove the absurd that you have undertaken on this thread. You have not only argued that God does not know the future, you have argued that God doesn’t know the present. In previous posts you have argued that God was unaware of the wickedness of Sodom and needed to come down out of heaven to see for himself whether or not the outcries against Sodom were really true. You rebuffed any appeals to show you that such understandings (A) didn’t fit the actual text in Genesis 18-19, (B) it can’t be harmonized with other clear teachings of scripture that speak of God’s exhaustive knowledge of all men’s ways (like Proverbs 5:21 and Proverbs 15:3).

These passages do not say what you claim, and you have yet to provide a passage showing that God definitively knows the future, let alone exhaustively.

Therefore, if you really do believe that God had a beginning and you really do believe that God doesn't even know the present exhaustively, then I don’t think it is really even fair to the open theists to call you an open theist. It’s not fair because believing that God had a beginning makes you a heretic and believing that God doesn't know the present makes you a hyper-open theist.

Again, I don't believe God had a beginning.

And as for my degree of OV, I am in the majority of the OV crowd on this site when it comes to that particular position.

 

[Shasta]

Time is not a physical, tangible, thing. It is not a dimension, outside of theoretical thought. It is, solely because God is. It is an attribute of His existence. Time exists only because God experiences it.

Unlike you I will give a clear definition of time. Time is the process whereby one "thing" (or state) changes and becomes another. Even in your own paradigm - that time is the interactions within the Trinity are defined this way. In Open Theism this is the mechanism by which God continually changes.

Your attempt to define "time" in such a way as to divorce it from material events and make it an attribute of a divine consciousness is truly a step backwards into mysticism.

You can argue theological theory but the universe itself testifies against you. The process called time has been shown experimentally to arise from physical processes. In fact the integration of time-space-matter-motion is the very fabric of creation.

 

[Lighthouse]

Unlike you I will give a clear definition of time. Time is the process whereby one "thing" (or state) changes and becomes another. Even in your own paradigm - that time is the interactions within the Trinity are defined this way. In Open Theism this is the mechanism by which God continually changes.

Your attempt to define "time" in such a way as to divorce it from material events and make it an attribute of a divine consciousness is truly a step backwards into mysticism.

You can argue theological theory but the universe itself testifies against you. The process called time has been shown experimentally to arise from physical processes. In fact the integration of time-space-matter-motion is the very fabric of creation.

Even if nothing existed moments would still pass.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Unlike you I will give a clear definition of time. Time is the process whereby one "thing" (or state) changes and becomes another. Even in your own paradigm - that time is the interactions within the Trinity are defined this way. In Open Theism this is the mechanism by which God continually changes.

Your attempt to define "time" in such a way as to divorce it from material events and make it an attribute of a divine consciousness is truly a step backwards into mysticism.

You can argue theological theory but the universe itself testifies against you. The process called time has been shown experimentally to arise from physical processes. In fact the integration of time-space-matter-motion is the very fabric of creation.

Is there nothing in you that is non-material?

If so, then there is no soul or spirit and no God. If there exists as part of us that which is non-material, spirit or soul, then your whole argument breaks down.

If there is movement in God, movement of spirit, then there is also time in God.

--Dave