FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-18-2005, 10:38 PM   #71
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Arizona
Posts: 196
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John A. Broussard
I, too, have trouble with the "omnis." To my way of thinking, to say that a given sentient being is omniscient, means that that being knows everything.

I'm quite willing to accept some other definition of the word for the sake of discussion, but I would want the postulated limits placed on the omniscient being to be very clear.

It's easy to discuss a being that knows "everything."

It's extremely difficult to discuss a being who knows everything except for some undefined "somethings."
This is the position of Open Theology:

Quote:
Finally, the omniscient God knows all that can be known given the sort of world he created. The content of divine omniscience has been debated in the Christian tradition; between Thomism and Molinism for example. In the openness debate the focus is on the nature of the future: is it fully knowable, fully unknowable or partially knowable and partially unknowable? We believe that God could have known every event of the future had God decided to create a fully determined universe. However, in our view God decided to create beings with indeterministic freedom which implies that God chose to create a universe in which the future is not entirely knowable, even for God. For many open theists the "future" is not a present reality-it does not exist-and God knows reality as it is.

This view may be called dynamic omniscience (it corresponds to the dynamic theory of time rather than the stasis theory). According to this view God knows the past and present with exhaustive definite knowledge and knows the future as partly definite (closed) and partly indefinite (open). God's knowledge of the future contains knowledge of that which is determinate or settled as well as knowledge of possibilities (that which is indeterminate). The determined future includes the things that God has unilaterally decided to do and physically determined events (such as an asteroid hitting our moon). Hence, the future is partly open or indefinite and partly closed or definite and God knows it as such. God is not caught off-guard-he has foresight and anticipates what we will do.
http://www.opentheism.info/

I find it intriguing because it corresponds to the way I live and think.
It needs to be tested against revealed theology. I have not yet done that but others have attempted it and stand against it. I know I may be on shaky ground.
mdarus is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 07:42 AM   #72
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 6,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdarus
I find it intriguing because it corresponds to the way I live and think.
It needs to be tested against revealed theology. I have not yet done that but others have attempted it and stand against it. I know I may be on shaky ground.
So you believe that an omniscient god knows the future.

Am I reading you correctly?
John A. Broussard is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 10:52 AM   #73
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Arizona
Posts: 196
Lightbulb Does God know the future?

Quote:
So you believe that an omniscient god knows the future.

Am I reading you correctly?
There are several ways that God could know the future.
  1. The ominimax version is that God is outside of time and experiences past present and future simultaneously. God absolutely knows the future experientially. This is wonderful speculation but unsupportable by the Bible. I can't imagine this type of thought in the mind of any of the biblical writers. Although it fulfills the mysteries of the Almighty, it is too fanciful for me. It fits in a category I like to think of as "Star Trek Theology." Another popular concept in this category is that heaven is a separate parallel plane of existence. It solves the "Where is heaven?" question but ends up forced.
  2. God knows enough about the past and present to accurately predict the future. This almost has to be true. However, for relationships to be meaningful, there needs to be a certain unpredictability. It is the relational piece that leads me to consider Open Theism.
  3. Open Theism says:
    Quote:
    However, in our view God decided to create beings with indeterministic freedom which implies that God chose to create a universe in which the future is not entirely knowable, even for God.

I am saying that there is part of the future that God may not know. This implies that God may be temporal in the sense that he experiences time as a sequence of events. This seems most critical in relationships . It is hard for me to conceive of a relationship without a sequence of encounters that express the relationship. The part of the future that God does not know could be these relational encounters. This enables God to experience joy when I express my love and gratitude toward him and a sense of sadness when I do something to harm myself, others, or his reputation. I am not sure if God could be awestruck but I think he is often pleasantly surprised.
mdarus is offline  
Old 12-19-2005, 06:34 PM   #74
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 6,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdarus

I am saying that there is part of the future that God may not know. This implies that God may be temporal in the sense that he experiences time as a sequence of events. This seems most critical in relationships . It is hard for me to conceive of a relationship without a sequence of encounters that express the relationship. The part of the future that God does not know could be these relational encounters. This enables God to experience joy when I express my love and gratitude toward him and a sense of sadness when I do something to harm myself, others, or his reputation. I am not sure if God could be awestruck but I think he is often pleasantly surprised.
So god is not omniscient, in that there are some things god does not know.

That solves a lot of problems faced by most theists, but it does reduce god to a kind of superman. More powerful than ordinary human beings, able to leap tall buildings, providing they aren't too tall.

Am I misrepresenting the god you believe in?

I'm looking forward to your answer.
John A. Broussard is offline  
Old 12-20-2005, 03:08 PM   #75
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 44
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobinius[INDENT
[2] It was impossible for any human that lived before Jesus Christ to believe in Jesus Christ as God and his message.

Attacking premise [2]

This one is true in virtue of the fact that Jesus did not exist as a man before he was born and no one was aware of his message because it did not exist before Jesus preached it.
I don't think you can disprove Christianity with logic because they use magic. As an example I will attack premise 2.

I was taught that everyone who lived who hasn't heard of jesus will be resurrected as themselves in physical form and then be given the opportunity to accept jesus. Obviously pro forma for old abe, moses, david and the lot. Aborted babies would be grown (in vast fields, matrix style?) to the point they could understand, muslims, taoists, zoroastrianists, etc., would be given the NT news and all would be well.
So, you see, it is possible for those who lived before jesus to believe in jesus and his message and premise 2 is false.

Can this be supported by bible verses? Don't know, although I do remember two hour services, so I'm sure they used that time to wrangle a lot of verses in support. I could probably dig up an old Herbert W. Armstrong booklet on the topic.

I just noticed you used was instead of is in premise 2. Maybe this makes my attack fail. I don't know, I took informal logic.
ddd3dturner is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 08:48 AM   #76
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Arizona
Posts: 196
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John A. Broussard
So god is not omniscient, in that there are some things god does not know.

That solves a lot of problems faced by most theists, but it does reduce god to a kind of superman. More powerful than ordinary human beings, able to leap tall buildings, providing they aren't too tall.

Am I misrepresenting the god you believe in?

I'm looking forward to your answer.
Sorry for the long delays in response but it is the holidays.

I don't think it reduces God to a superman. In my odd way of thinking, it actually makes him more powerful. Instead of having to directly control everything to make sure things turn out the way he wants, he allows unpredictable events, limits his direct control, and still achieves the ends. It seems this takes much more wisdom and power.

The biblical accounts are more in line with God responding to the unpredictable choices of people. The aquatic creature in Jonah looks like a plan B to get Jonah back on track. Jesus' ministry seemed like random personal encounters highly dependent on the faith of the people involved.

Meekness is a highly valued biblical trait. It is strength that allows itself to appear as weak. It is a father wrestling with his 5-year-old allowing himself to be pinned. There is no weakness. It is power that allows itself to be mastered because of its self-assurance. God doesn't need to know the future to know everything. He knows all that is knowable. That is enough.

If you need an omni-type explanation: God could know and experience the future but perhaps he chooses not to so that his relationships can be real, love can be voluntary, and our choices are undetermined. This makes him greater, not less than we usually think.
mdarus is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 06:18 PM   #77
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 6,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdarus
God could know and experience the future but perhaps he chooses not to so that his relationships can be real, love can be voluntary, and our choices are undetermined. This makes him greater, not less than we usually think.
This is all very strange.

Your god begins to sound like a young child at a horror movie who hides behind his hands, but peeks through every so often.

I sure can't see how god's refusal to see what is there makes him greater.

Can I have a bit more explanation?
John A. Broussard is offline  
Old 12-21-2005, 10:18 PM   #78
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Arizona
Posts: 196
Default

God is greater in this scenario because he is not required to control the details to accomplish his long range purposes. He is able work together infinite uncontrolled variables to accomplish his goals. This includes permitting harm to occur with the option to transform intended evil to good ends. A lesser god would require control over all the details to accomplish his purposes. A lesser god may even feel compelled to restrict all evil for fear of being blamed for it.

I prefer to postulate that any lack of knowledge about the future is a self-imposed limitation. This insulates the position from the charge of making God something less than omniscient or eternal. Jesus' incarnation seems to be a good illustration about how God can be self-limiting. The idea of incarnation includes the temporary suspension of the Son's independent use of his divine attributes. Jesus lived his life with the abilities of a man empowered by the Holy Spirit, not as God walking on earth. The ultimate self-limitation was being vulnerable to die. The motive for all this was for relationships.
mdarus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:42 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.