Re: God the tinkerer

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <>
Date: Tue Aug 23 2005 - 15:13:04 EDT

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 08:22:59 -0600 Carol or John Burgeson
<> writes:
> Dave wrote, in part:
> "In contrast, God, as viewed orthodoxly, is eternal, thus not in
> time except in the incarnation, which involves his eternal purpose.
> God is also omniscient and omnipotent."
> Three points.
> I am not arguing that the concept of a "tinkering" God (better -- a
> "playful" God) is true. I don't know that, having far too little
> information. But I am pointing out that it is a "live option" that
> cannot be disproved.
> Secondly, "orthodoxy" should not be a constraint on one's thinking.
> I am not convinced that your statement "God is also omniscient and
> omnipotent." is one which is coherent (neither do I reject it).
> Thirdly, your argument says only that, given the thinking processes
> of finite humanity, one is not able to reconcile the two concepts.
> That may, or may not, be a true statement; I take no position on it.
> But assuming it is true, it is still a moot point.
> Cordially
> Burgy

First, I apologize for sending multiple copies. I got indications that
the message was not sent, so I tried again, and then rebooted to try a
third time. Only later did I discover that the message had been sent

As to your responses, I acknowledge that there are areas where human
beings cannot produce an ultimate proof. One cannot, for example, prove
theism or atheism without underlying assumptions, nor determine which of
the geometries is correct. However, within a view, one can develop a
broad outlook with one unconditional proviso: the whole must be logically
consistent. Thus, a geometer can produce theorems in absolute geometry,
without a parallel postulate, or in the Euclidean, Lobachevskian or
Riemannian versions, for adding one of the parallel postulates to those
of absolute geometry produces a consistent whole. These geometries may be
extended from two or three dimensions to any number, for there are
geometries with an infinite nymber of geometries. But it is impossible to
produce a rational geometry by adding two of the parallel postulates. Any
combination of zero, one and more than one parallel line creates

I have not been shown that a strict orthodox theology is inconsistent. I
contend that there are usually subtle inconsistencies in positions that
vary from orthodoxy. If you see it, fine. If you don't, trying to lay out
the interactions gets beyond this forum. All I can suggest is that you
consider how a timeless deity differs in "experience" from timebound
Received on Tue Aug 23 15:16:41 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 23 2005 - 15:16:41 EDT