Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ex-xian · 01-29-2003, 10:18 PM

So tell me what books, essays, journals, or web sites that you read give you the authority to declare process theology self-contradictory? That's the typical argument the xian's make against it. Also, what is your source for the Einstein remark?

Also, no less a genius than Alfred North Whitehead articulated panentheism.

Biff the unclean · 01-29-2003, 11:07 PM

So tell me what books, essays, journals, or web sites that you read give you the authority to declare process theology self-contradictory? That's the typical argument the xian's make against it.
I always find it interesting when some theists want to know who did you copy what you think from. As though if you thought for yourself it was of no worth.
What web site? Why it just so happens this web site.

Quote:

the openness theology assumes that god is both omniscient and non-omniscient, both omnipotent and non-omnipotent, both omnibenevolent and non-omnibenevolent.
---------
Didn't I just say that?

Didn't you just say that?

Also, what is your source for the Einstein remark?
Ahh, the joys of middle age. Not only don't I remember the title, I don't remember who I loaned the book to.
It was that biography of Mrs Einstein that was on the NYT best seller list about five years back. I'm sure someone on this board will jog my memory

Also, no less a genius than Alfred North Whitehead articulated panentheism
And no less a genius than his good friend Bertrand Russell said he was wrong. What's your point, that intelligent people can be fooled by theism too?

Here's some quotes from Albert himself.

Quote:

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
-- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

Quote:

Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.
-- Albert Einstein, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. Source: Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann

Quote:

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.
-- Albert Einstein, The World as I See It

Quote:

I am convinced that some political and social activities and practices of the Catholic organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and everywhere. I mention here only the fight against birth control at a time when overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet.
-- Albert Einstein, letter, 1954

spurly · 01-30-2003, 08:00 AM

My understanding of openness theology is not that it claims that God is both omniscient and not omniscient, omnipotent, and not omnipotent.

Instead it claims that God is omniscient and omnipotent, but he chooses to use his omnipotence to limit his omniscience. He chooses to limit what he will know in advance. But this does not mean that he is not both omnipotent and omniscient.

That's my understanding of where people who believe this are coming from. I am still working out where I stand on the issue.

Kevin

malpensante · 01-30-2003, 11:28 AM

if god uses his omnipotence to limit his omniscience, then in effect, he can't be, at least all the time, simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient, but this conjecture is very well backed up by many theologians. many gods are logically incosistent, but i think they are still very good awe inspirers, even for the most logically minded.

WWSD · 01-30-2003, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spurly
.

Instead it claims that God is omniscient and omnipotent, but he chooses to use his omnipotence to limit his omniscience. He chooses to limit what he will know in advance. But this does not mean that he is not both omnipotent and omniscient.

It still sounds like a convoluted attempt to explain away a major problem with the theology of the xtian god to me.

Where is the biblical basis for this?

Furthermore, if god limited his omniscience then he becomes limited to only a cerrtain amount of possible actions, therefore he is not completely omnipotent.

The whole idea is contradictory and falls flat as far as I am concerned.

Ganymede · 01-30-2003, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
That humans possess free will, and that this takes care of the problem of evil.

Hmmm - Doesent address the problem of natural evil (floods, earthquakes, famine, etc) that have no direct conection to the activities of individual people though.

G

Biff the unclean · 01-30-2003, 08:31 PM

This free will business is hysterical.

Firstly all it is, is people acting like people and making decisions for themselves without God forcing his will on them. It's not God doing something but rather an explanation of why God refrains from doing some things. So it's an ecclesiastical tap dance to keep you from noticing that a God who doesn't exist isn't doing anything. That's pretty funny.

Also, if you bother to read the Bible you find that God hates free will!
He creates people without the ability to tell difference between good & evil. That means that they lack free will, as any choice they make would, by necessity, be completely arbitrary. The talking snake helps the humans gain free will and God goes off the deep end over it. He severely punishes everybody. And He follows up by under mining free will by saddling people with law after law after law; until there are so many for every aspect of your life that no one is capable of keeping them all.

Even today no church promotes independent thought. Ministers regularly call believers sheep or their flock. They are constantly lecturing on behavior-thus over riding free will.

SecularFuture · 01-30-2003, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
I'm new to this forum- I'm not an atheist but find a lot of the arguments very intelligent and convincing. I have a question for the atheist/agnostic posters here- have you heard of a "new" idea in Christian theology involving the nature of God called openness? Basically, that God is not omniscient in the sense that it's classically been taught. That God cannot know the future b/c it is not here yet, etc. That humans possess free will, and that this takes care of the problem of evil.
I've been on a site of Greg Boyd's (one of the theologians behind this theory) and attempting to argue that this view is not accurate. I'm interested to see what an atheist reply is to this view of God's nature.
Thanks!

Wow - The God concept has been updated once again.

The one question, I believe, everyone should stop and ask themselves before any other is - "Is there any reason or evidence to believe in a God?" Before we start enhancing and refining a concept, we should first try to see if the concept is true.

malpensante · 01-31-2003, 09:32 AM

wwsd:
the bible does show a god who appears to be ignorant of at least some aspects of the future (for example, when he reacts with surprise or anger to someone's deeds, or when he needs to see some patriarch about to kill his son in order to believe that the patriarch is willing to do it for his faith).
some say he actually mimics that partial ignorance about the future in order to be a better moral teacher. i prefer the theory that he is mutably omniscient (clifford pickover's concept). imagine a guy called max, created by god. can max do something that only max knows he did it? if god is omniscient, no. but if god is mutably omniscient, there is no paradox that an omniscient can not create max, for god could have been omniscient when he created max(but perhaps uncurious about some specifical act by max), and become mutably omniscient, or ignorant, about max's deed when max performs it. some say that the power of omniscience is not the same as actual omniscience. that god can choose to know something, doesn't mean he has to have all that can be known in mind all the time.

ganymede:
according to dr joseph fulda, in "the mathematical pull of temptation" (which clifford pickover discusses at the end of this book "the paradox of god"), there is a mathematical formula, a parameter of which (a), is controled by the potential sinner, and the other parameter (b), is controled by the nature of the potential sinner's exposure to a temptation. the formula describes the probability for the sin to be committed. mathematically speaking, since the formula "a to the b" has an outcome whose size is more dependent on b than on a, and if a is individual free will and b is nature controled by god, then, no matter how strong we are, god does really constrain our free will.
(an example, if "a" states that you don't commit the sin 99 out of 100 times, and "b" states that you will be exposed to the sin a million times, then you are certain to commit the sin).

spurly · 01-31-2003, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SecularFuture
Wow - The God concept has been updated once again.

I think this comment is interesting. So are you sayign that if people have ministerpreted God in the past, we are stuck with that misinterpretation instead of looking for the truth about God?

I will readily admit that men have made errors in the past when trying to give definition to God. And men are making mistakes today doing the same thing. But does this discount the fact that God exists, or does it just mean that men, in our fallen nature, have a hard time getting hold of God.

I am one who wants to search for the truth. Sometimes that truth has been there all along, but has been hidden for centuries by people who didn't realize it was there.

Kevin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-29-2003, 10:18 PM	#31
ex-xian Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: :noitacoL Posts: 4,679	So tell me what books, essays, journals, or web sites that you read give you the authority to declare process theology self-contradictory? That's the typical argument the xian's make against it. Also, what is your source for the Einstein remark? Also, no less a genius than Alfred North Whitehead articulated panentheism.

01-30-2003, 08:00 AM	#33
spurly Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Oklahoma City Posts: 710	My understanding of openness theology is not that it claims that God is both omniscient and not omniscient, omnipotent, and not omnipotent. Instead it claims that God is omniscient and omnipotent, but he chooses to use his omnipotence to limit his omniscience. He chooses to limit what he will know in advance. But this does not mean that he is not both omnipotent and omniscient. That's my understanding of where people who believe this are coming from. I am still working out where I stand on the issue. Kevin

01-30-2003, 11:28 AM	#34
malpensante Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: bogota, colombia Posts: 91	if god uses his omnipotence to limit his omniscience, then in effect, he can't be, at least all the time, simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient, but this conjecture is very well backed up by many theologians. many gods are logically incosistent, but i think they are still very good awe inspirers, even for the most logically minded.

01-30-2003, 08:31 PM	#37
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	This free will business is hysterical. Firstly all it is, is people acting like people and making decisions for themselves without God forcing his will on them. It's not God doing something but rather an explanation of why God refrains from doing some things. So it's an ecclesiastical tap dance to keep you from noticing that a God who doesn't exist isn't doing anything. That's pretty funny. Also, if you bother to read the Bible you find that God hates free will! He creates people without the ability to tell difference between good & evil. That means that they lack free will, as any choice they make would, by necessity, be completely arbitrary. The talking snake helps the humans gain free will and God goes off the deep end over it. He severely punishes everybody. And He follows up by under mining free will by saddling people with law after law after law; until there are so many for every aspect of your life that no one is capable of keeping them all. Even today no church promotes independent thought. Ministers regularly call believers sheep or their flock. They are constantly lecturing on behavior-thus over riding free will.

01-31-2003, 09:32 AM	#39
malpensante Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: bogota, colombia Posts: 91	wwsd: the bible does show a god who appears to be ignorant of at least some aspects of the future (for example, when he reacts with surprise or anger to someone's deeds, or when he needs to see some patriarch about to kill his son in order to believe that the patriarch is willing to do it for his faith). some say he actually mimics that partial ignorance about the future in order to be a better moral teacher. i prefer the theory that he is mutably omniscient (clifford pickover's concept). imagine a guy called max, created by god. can max do something that only max knows he did it? if god is omniscient, no. but if god is mutably omniscient, there is no paradox that an omniscient can not create max, for god could have been omniscient when he created max(but perhaps uncurious about some specifical act by max), and become mutably omniscient, or ignorant, about max's deed when max performs it. some say that the power of omniscience is not the same as actual omniscience. that god can choose to know something, doesn't mean he has to have all that can be known in mind all the time. ganymede: according to dr joseph fulda, in "the mathematical pull of temptation" (which clifford pickover discusses at the end of this book "the paradox of god"), there is a mathematical formula, a parameter of which (a), is controled by the potential sinner, and the other parameter (b), is controled by the nature of the potential sinner's exposure to a temptation. the formula describes the probability for the sin to be committed. mathematically speaking, since the formula "a to the b" has an outcome whose size is more dependent on b than on a, and if a is individual free will and b is nature controled by god, then, no matter how strong we are, god does really constrain our free will. (an example, if "a" states that you don't commit the sin 99 out of 100 times, and "b" states that you will be exposed to the sin a million times, then you are certain to commit the sin).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.