ex-xian

I think most of the problems raised here are perfect example of the problems with classic supernaturalistic theology. Alfred North Whitehead (Russel's buddy) came with what he called Process Theology, also known as Panentheism. This view solves a lot of the problems.

What is everyone's view about Whitehead's solution?

Infinity Lover

From <a href="http://www.dtl.org/article/process.htm" target="_blank">http://www.dtl.org/article/process.htm</a> (An online article about process theology)
LOL; I unintentionally re-invented panentheism.

I nontheless mantain my postion, that existence by no means has to be the product (or an aspect) of a creator. It would be sheer imposibility for existence to non-exist anyway.

ex-xian

(disclaimer: i'm typing while being extremely sleep deprived...if it seems incoherent, i'll probably edit it when i've had the chance to get some needed REM time)

Isn't it cool when stuff like that happens?
But it isn't impossibility for existence to be potential at one time and actual at another time. This is one of the great things about process theology (PT). God isn't the universe...God is the universe and a whole lot more. PT says that reality/God has two "seemingly" opposite poles. God is potentiality on one pole, but also has the ability to actuate things that are absent from current reality.

Infinity Lover

I.L. says so what?

To me it's an interesting train of thought to toy around with, (and a somewhat acceptable answer to the hypothetical question of the origial post) but one of the "if God existed" kind. And when push comes to shove you either believe that or not... I don't.

On a sidenote; it surprises me a bit, that you take such interrest in panetheism, considering PT doesn't mix with the whole trinity idea, God being in controll of things, or Jesus being the incarnation of God from a virging birth for that matter.

But with all due respect I'll leave it at that, before this thread heads off topic. Thx for the heads up though, learned something new I guess.

ex-xian

Well, I guess if you start with the presupposition that God doesn't or cannot exist, this is only an interesting philosophical excercise. Nothing wrong with that.

I do believe that God exists (most of the time anyway), and I like to delve into that nature of that existence. Classical theism is filled with too many logical holes to be a viable alternative, imo. That's why I'm a panentheist.
Well, don't read too much into my handle. I really am a Christian seeker. I seek after true statements and propositions and if that leads me away from Christianity, then so be it. Also, a philosopher, Gregory Boyd, did his doctoral dissertation on Whitehead's "Reality and Process." It was a critique entitled "Trinity in Process" in which he attempts to reconcile some of Christianity's problems using a process theology. Needless to say, most Christians consider him a dangerous, heretical person (ie, he thinks for himself).

[ December 22, 2002: Message edited by: xianseeker ]</p>

ex-xian

In response to the original post:
One answer would be that God is not Being, but is Becoming. That is, it is the nature of pure Reality to be superabundant. It's not that God volitionally chooses to create, it is that the nature of pure actuality to bring potentiality into being.

Demosthenes

You know... when people talk about perfection and perfect beings. I just wonter, how do they define perfection. What is that perfect beings have in order to be perfect? When used in an absolute and objective sense, perfection seems to be a nonsensical term.

ex-xian

Could you explain how exactly perfection is nonsensical?

phaedrus

Try answering the following questions, maybe it will be apparent -

When you call something "perfect", on what basis are you calling it that?

Do you have a set of parameters which the thing has to satisfy to be called perfect?

How did you develop these parameters? They came out of vaccum or were they defined by your interaction with the society and its culture?

Are these parameters static and never change? (something like when you were a kid, you think a perfect day would be "this" and when you grow your definition of perfect day changes)

Do you think the "whole" society agrees to these parameters ? (as in not just the society that you live in, but in a pluralistic sense)

Hugo Holbling

Kinda makes me wonder if anyone has read Parmenides on Being...