Re: God's history (Was God the interactor)

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Wed Sep 07 2005 - 15:15:46 EDT

Don't take my word for it. Read what Augustine says about Exodus 3:14 in
/On the Good/, 19.

You say I have not explained my reasoning. I've tried, but the problem
may be that there are some things that have to be "seen," the "Aha!
reaction." Your suggestions require a mutable deity. This fits with
process theology, pantheism, and polytheism. But note that the ancient
Greek and Roman philosophers all declared that /creatio ex nihilo/ is
impossible. It requires a changeless deity to create time. Omniscience
(true omniscience, not the knowing everything up to the present moment
kind of process and open theology) also requires total comprehension
outside of the temporal sequence. There is an absolute difference between
the way God knows, timelessly, and the only way we can know.
Dave

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 03:59:14 -0700 (PDT) Bill Hamilton
<williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> writes:
> This is going nowhere. As long as you spout conclusions and fail to
> explain
> your reasoning, it will continue to go nowhere. When you first
> claimed that
> (words to the effect that) "for God to tinker with the creation
> implies he
> couldn't get it right the first time" I was interested in your
> reasoning. I
> first pointed out that "tinker" didn't fit, because like you I
> acknowledge
> God's omniscience and his omnipotence. Then you stated that for a
> timeless
> being to enter time was illogical. Don Winterstein and I have both
> tried to
> point out in different ways that in a restricted sense God may be
> able to enter
> time -- in part anyway. But I see your responses as bluster. I'd
> like to have a
> meaningful discussion, but I guess it's not possible.
>
> --- "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > This assumes that God's awareness must be like our awareness. All
> our
> > knowledge is in time. All our communication involves one word
> following
> > another in time. Even God's communication to us is a step by step
> process
> > at our end. This is not a restriction on omniscience. Indeed, your
> > approach requires pitting omnipotence against omniscience, which
> is
> > incoherent.
> > Dave
> >
> > On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 09:31:22 -0700 (PDT) Bill Hamilton
> > <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >
> > "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
> > If
> > I am shown a contradiction in my effort, then I'll go back to the
> drawing
> > board.
> > It seems to me that you are omitting consideration of God's
> omnipotence.
> > If God can create time, then it must be possible for him to in
> some way
> > experience it. Not because he needs to, but because it pleases him
> to
> > experience it.
> >
> >
> > Bill Hamilton
> > William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> > 586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
> > "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
> >
> >
> > Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
>
>
> Bill Hamilton
> William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> 586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
> "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
> http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
>
>
Received on Wed Sep 7 15:20:27 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Sep 07 2005 - 15:20:31 EDT