Calvinism's response to open theism

[Derf]

As mentioned previously, I do want to drill down, specifically, into the full scope of Acts 17:28 ... as the actual nature of the reality we inhabit (Creation in its totality) is fundamental to weighty matters such as sequence, time, decree, and eternity.
I hope the narrow focus of my responses, in regard your broader comments (which are subject related) are not viewed as dismissive of your thought process ... that is not the case. I do intend to revisit them, and I will address the substantive matters they raise.

Taking note of that (your response) and putting it to one side for a moment (as part of a continuing thought experiment)

I will remind you that Paul was speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ) - hence we have that public discourse recorded in the scripture. I will also remind you that Paul was addressing an audience of pagan philosophers and academics who worshiped and revered and propagated the knowledge of false gods - false gods diametrically opposed to the true, living, God.

In the apostle's preamble he says - "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an alter with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."

Following that statement and after a few brief comments...

The Holy Spirit in Paul - inspired these words - "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;"

That statement demands that we view Creation itself, as internal, to Him (the True Living God) - I believe that is an inescapable logical necessity.

My question is - Do you agree? or Do you disagree?

I disagree.

 

[moonbeam]

You disagree.
Very well - I will reflect on your response and return to make enquires concerning the reason for your disagreement at a later time.
I did mention that I would revisit your broader comments and address the substantive issues raised in them, which I will do with this post.
I may have left portions unattended, but I cover substantial portions of one of your posts here, the subject matter is quite broad and diverse, and I have managed to close these comments out in such a manner that that brings your/our primary focus to the fore (sequence/time) .... having said that I will proceed.

All right.
Acts 17:28 KJV - For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
This verse tells us that apart from God, we can't exist. He supplies the life-force we need to function. We come from Him. We can compare this latter half, "we are His offspring", to this:
Luke 3:38 KJV - Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.
In some way, Adam was the "son" of God, just as Seth was the son of Adam, and all of us are descended from Adam, making us all "sons"/offspring of God. Because we are offspring of God like we are offspring of our fathers, we can say a few things about being offspring:
1. It doesn't require that we be made of the same stuff (we are offspring of God, who is not physical)
2. It results in us being in the image of the person we are offspring of...like begets like.
3. It certainly doesn't require that we remain an integral part of the person we are offsprung from.

1. It doesn't require that we be made of the same stuff (we are offspring of God, who is not physical)
Exactly... the physical is irrelevant (in this regard) ... to being offspring of God who is Spirit.

2. It results in us being in the image of the person we are offspring of...like begets like.
Exactly... we are spirit... born in the image of God who is Spirit.

3. It certainly doesn't require that we remain an integral part of the person we are offsprung from.
But it does... we are an integral part of God... we are spirit... and we are spirit eternally.

Hence the monumentally profound proposition "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;"

It helps to consider the following verse in Acts to see if it holds further gems of information for us:
Acts 17:29 KJV - Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
In other words, God is not like those things He made that are unthinking and unfeeling and unobserving...those things which are essentially "timeless", in that they don't relate to the people and creatures around them.

You have completely missed the point... which is that we are spirit... the offspring of God (the Godhead) who is Spirit... the physical is irrelevant.

Hence the monumentally profound proposition "For in him, we live, and move, and have our being;"

Again, we should consider following verses to see if they hold relevant information for our discussion.
Genesis 1:26 KJV - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
God made all the world, then put man over all the world and everything on the earth.

Now, you seem to think those verses such more than that, so would you like to explain
1. What else you think they say,
2. Why you think that extra information is there, when I must not be seeing it,
3. Why do you think such extra information bears on our conversation.

Regarding that 3rd one, I'm hoping that you will explain why "in Him we live and move and have our being" is germane to our discussion. That may seem obvious to you, but it isn't to me, at least not so far.

1. What else you think they say,
Apart from the obvious ontological distinct between the Self-Existent Living God and the wholly dependent man (regards life force)
"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" is an allusion to the fact that man is a rational spirit, and also a unique individual... which is an allusion regards the Godhead (specifically the three persons comprising the Triune God - the One God) who are also rational Spirits and unique individual Spirits, who interpenetrate each other in such a way that they are One God (the Godhead)

2. Why you think that extra information is there, when I must not be seeing it,
Perhaps more pondering upon the scripture (as a suggestion)... neither you or I or any other human knows everything... which is a great benefit derived from written debate, it gives us exposure, and the time (if taken), to consider other people's thought... you have asked many penetrating questions, which forces me to challenge my own thinking, that in itself, is exactly what I'm looking for, and the very reason I returned to these forums... and like you I enjoy it, though it is very demanding in regard mental effort and time constraints.

3. Why do you think such extra information bears on our conversation.
The logical proposition "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;" - I regard as being so incredibly seminal in its propagation of multi-faceted trains of thought, in particular the true nature of reality, that it requires extremely close and precise scrutiny, in regards how it moderates other scripture, and how itself is moderated by other scripture. I find it fascinating, in particular because I have been working on my biblical theory of everything for quite a while... just saying.

But that small circle, if I understood you correctly, doesn't intersect with the outer circle. So how could it both intersect (hypostatic union) and NOT intersect? And if we are merely made with components that are part of God, why isn't there already an intersection, even if we ignore the hypostatic union?

The scripture uses this phrase "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee." - (Proverbs 23:7)

So, we have some rational basis to conclude that, intangible thought, is at the very deepest level of true reality for the creature.

Not only internally, as an individual spirit (person) - being evinced by the intangible thoughts and intentions of the heart... (that only the Mind of God knows being The Spirit)

But also, externally in regard to tangible material physical effects in the world - those being evinced by the elicited eating and drinking of another individual spirit (person) in the example from Proverbs.

The absolute primacy, of intangible thought, within, and over, the physical material created order (Creation) is succinctly illustrated by these two scriptures in conjunction.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." - (Gen 1:1)

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." - (Isa 55:11)

Now.... coalescing those thoughts and bringing them to focus on the issue of the hypostatic union of the divine nature and human nature... and why in the Venn diagram illustrating a superset and subset, that the God Man Jesus Christ (God in the flesh) is only a component of the subset and is absolutely excluded from the superset.

The principle logical reason is the ontological distinction between the divine nature and the human nature... which can never be dissolved.

Though Jesus Christ is in hypostatic union with the human nature... that human nature remains human... and can only be a component of the Creation.

The question than is raised... How is that NOT a contradiction recognizing the logical restraints imposed by a Venn diagram? (a good question)

There is NO contradiction when you view (perceive) the entire Venn diagram (both super & sub) as the Thought of God, or to put that another way, the Mind of God.... which is the correct application of the proposition "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;"

There may be a further objection raised (in reference to the Venn diagram) ... "God is omniscient and knows all thing as one thought, therefore what is in one portion of His mind, is logically present in the other portion of His mind, therefore you have presented a contradiction."

There is NO contradiction (in reference to the Venn diagram) when you view (perceive) that the Mind/Thought of God is omniscient and knows all things as one thought, therefore what is in one portion of His mind, is logically present in the other portion, as intangible and tangible (For so it seemed good in His sight)

It does, if the material God made us all out of is really part of God, and remains part of God (Venn diagram), then the ontological distinction is somewhat blurry.

God did not make as out of material (matter or stuff) - God made us out of His thought (His will) - intangible thought (manifesting) into tangible thought - usually described as by fiat (from nothing ... which is a reasonable descriptor for intangible thought)
The ontological distinction is clearly and irrevocably defined.

Right, the small circle is within the large circle. So if the large circle includes everything that has those attributes of God, then the small circle also has those attributes.

Correct - in regard to the communicable atributes of God - they are innately in man.
Correct - in regard to the incommunicable attributes of God - they are innately in the divine nature of Jesus of Nazareth (Jesus Christ)
Incorrect - in regard to the incommunicable attributes of God - they are not inate in the human nature of Jesus of Nazareth (Jesus Christ)

The objection may be raised - "There is a contradiction in that you have described Jesus of Nazareth, as having, and NOT having, the incommunicable attributes of God? (a good question)

There is NO contradiction - the distinction is determined on ontological lines - the hypostatic union maintains the distinction of both natures - within the one (singular) Person.

Again, I've offered reasons why I don't think that is so, at least according to the Venn diagram illustration.

I think my further elaborations help to bring a little more finesse and clarity regards my illustration (Venn diagram)

Well, yes, I agree. And what can we learn from that? I suggest that one of the things we can learn from that is that at one time God's Son was not "God-man", and then later He was. Do you see how that forces us to consider that God has a sequence/time characteristic?

Your response here regarding my phrase ... "it doesn't say "in the beginning the God - man created the heavens and the earth" requires a worthy response.

No one is denying that God has a "sequence/time characteristic" - in His mind... in His thought.
No one needs to be forced to consider that reality - it is obvious by innumerable scripture references.

I think the contention that arises in regards those matters is a failure to appropriately define the correct sphere of their applicability, which may be singular or multiple. Hence, I believe it is essential, at least helpful, to grapple with the scriptural evidence which may give us some insight into the true reality of the creation we inhabit. I believe if we can form in our minds, with some reasonable degree of clarity, that fundamental paradigm, that that will be off enormous benefit, personally and collectively.

In Venn diagram terminology, the small circle would have ALL of the attributes of the larger circle, plus some additional attributes that are lacking, or that set the members apart from the larger circle. For instance one can imagine a Venn diagram that contains in a large circle all of the even numbers, and a smaller circle that contains all of the even numbers that are also prime numbers (consisting only of the number 2).

I think I have sufficiently answered your comments here in previous response, so I won't repeat myself again here... apart from saying that my Venn diagram illustrating the super/subset relationship was specifically tailored to capture, in illustrative form, the inescapable logical necessity (implications) of Acts 17:28 in particular.

In regard to another illustration (Venn diagram) I would use to emphasis the absolute ontological distinction between the Creator and the creature (Creation) than I would employ two separate circles completely separate and apart from each other (Disjoint Set) - this illustration helps to emphatically deny Pantheism.

My illustration (super/subset) does achieve the same purpose (a denial of Pantheism) but by a different route... just thought I would mention that.

Ok, but what does that mean in terms of physical creation?

Both of which are intriguing, but neither of which actually defines matter in some way that we can use in our discussion.

Your comment here is in response to my use of the scripture - "Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD" (Jeremiah 23:24)
And also, the scripture - "Upholding all things by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3)

Which I have used in support of Acts 17:28 to help bring additional clarity to the concept that the physical material Creation (matter itself) is in fact Gods intangible thought, manifest, that is to say, tangible - The entire Creation is the Thought of God, (or) the Mind of God made tangible.

Where God simply speaks His Thought in to being... i.e. the familiar phrasing of Genesis - "And God said.... and it was so" (Genisis 1:24)

How does the nature of matter impact the discussion regards sequence/time? (good question)

Time is a derivative of creation... "Let there be light... and God divided the light from the darkness... and the evening... and the morning etc. etc."

What's going on? ... For what purpose?

I contend that the entire purpose of the physical material tangible Creation, and these few examples above are sufficient for a sample, is to provide an environment for the manifestation of the laws of logic.

The law of identity.
The law of non-contradiction.
The law of excluded middle.

For the benefit of the rational creature.... this is where Time began... that is to say... the Perception of Time began... that is to say the awareness of Sequential Memories of Rational Creatures.

.

 

[moonbeam]

In regard your earlier response - "I disagree"

Do you have a logical basis for that assessment?

 

[Derf]

You disagree.
Very well - I will reflect on your response and return to make enquires concerning the reason for your disagreement at a later time.
I did mention that I would revisit your broader comments and address the substantive issues raised in them, which I will do with this post.
I may have left portions unattended, but I cover substantial portions of one of your posts here, the subject matter is quite broad and diverse, and I have managed to close these comments out in such a manner that that brings your/our primary focus to the fore (sequence/time) .... having said that I will proceed.

1. It doesn't require that we be made of the same stuff (we are offspring of God, who is not physical)
Exactly... the physical is irrelevant (in this regard) ... to being offspring of God who is Spirit.

2. It results in us being in the image of the person we are offspring of...like begets like.
Exactly... we are spirit... born in the image of God who is Spirit.

3. It certainly doesn't require that we remain an integral part of the person we are offsprung from.
But it does... we are an integral part of God... we are spirit... and we are spirit eternally.

Hence the monumentally profound proposition "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;"


You have completely missed the point... which is that we are spirit... the offspring of God (the Godhead) who is Spirit... the physical is irrelevant.

Hence the monumentally profound proposition "For in him, we live, and move, and have our being;"


1. What else you think they say,
Apart from the obvious ontological distinct between the Self-Existent Living God and the wholly dependent man (regards life force)
"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" is an allusion to the fact that man is a rational spirit, and also a unique individual... which is an allusion regards the Godhead (specifically the three persons comprising the Triune God - the One God) who are also rational Spirits and unique individual Spirits, who interpenetrate each other in such a way that they are One God (the Godhead)

2. Why you think that extra information is there, when I must not be seeing it,
Perhaps more pondering upon the scripture (as a suggestion)... neither you or I or any other human knows everything... which is a great benefit derived from written debate, it gives us exposure, and the time (if taken), to consider other people's thought... you have asked many penetrating questions, which forces me to challenge my own thinking, that in itself, is exactly what I'm looking for, and the very reason I returned to these forums... and like you I enjoy it, though it is very demanding in regard mental effort and time constraints.

3. Why do you think such extra information bears on our conversation.
The logical proposition "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;" - I regard as being so incredibly seminal in its propagation of multi-faceted trains of thought, in particular the true nature of reality, that it requires extremely close and precise scrutiny, in regards how it moderates other scripture, and how itself is moderated by other scripture. I find it fascinating, in particular because I have been working on my biblical theory of everything for quite a while... just saying.


The scripture uses this phrase "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee." - (Proverbs 23:7)

So, we have some rational basis to conclude that, intangible thought, is at the very deepest level of true reality for the creature.

I'm not sure I agree with that completely, but I'll let it slide for now. The more important part is that you've given reason why we are not an integral part of God...because what is in our hearts is not always in agreement with what is in God's heart. "His thoughts are not our thoughts." And God can "destroy" people. He can't destroy Himself. If we are an integral part of Him, then He can't be Himself without us, so our destruction would be tantamount to self-destruction for Him.

Not only internally, as an individual spirit (person) - being evinced by the intangible thoughts and intentions of the heart... (that only the Mind of God knows being The Spirit)

God may know the intentions of our hearts, but we do, too.

But also, externally in regard to tangible material physical effects in the world - those being evinced by the elicited eating and drinking of another individual spirit (person) in the example from Proverbs.

The absolute primacy, of intangible thought, within, and over, the physical material created order (Creation) is succinctly illustrated by these two scriptures in conjunction.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." - (Gen 1:1)

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." - (Isa 55:11)

Now.... coalescing those thoughts and bringing them to focus on the issue of the hypostatic union of the divine nature and human nature... and why in the Venn diagram illustrating a superset and subset, that the God Man Jesus Christ (God in the flesh) is only a component of the subset and is absolutely excluded from the superset.

The principle logical reason is the ontological distinction between the divine nature and the human nature... which can never be dissolved.

Though Jesus Christ is in hypostatic union with the human nature... that human nature remains human... and can only be a component of the Creation.

The question than is raised... How is that NOT a contradiction recognizing the logical restraints imposed by a Venn diagram? (a good question)

There is NO contradiction when you view (perceive) the entire Venn diagram (both super & sub) as the Thought of God, or to put that another way, the Mind of God.... which is the correct application of the proposition "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;"

There may be a further objection raised (in reference to the Venn diagram) ... "God is omniscient and knows all thing as one thought,

That wouldn't be my objection. God has "thoughts", not "thought".
[Isa 55:8 KJV] For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
[Isa 55:9 KJV] For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

therefore what is in one portion of His mind, is logically present in the other portion of His mind, therefore you have presented a contradiction."

There is NO contradiction (in reference to the Venn diagram) when you view (perceive) that the Mind/Thought of God is omniscient and knows all things as one thought, therefore what is in one portion of His mind, is logically present in the other portion, as intangible and tangible (For so it seemed good in His sight)


God did not make as out of material (matter or stuff) - God made us out of His thought (His will) - intangible thought (manifesting) into tangible thought - usually described as by fiat (from nothing ... which is a reasonable descriptor for intangible thought)

If you are correct, then the bible is wrong, for it tells us He formed man out of dust, into which form He breathed life.
[Gen 2:7 KJV] And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The ontological distinction is clearly and irrevocably defined.

Thus you should rethink your position, seeing how it conflicts with the bible.

Correct - in regard to the communicable atributes of God - they are innately in man.
Correct - in regard to the incommunicable attributes of God - they are innately in the divine nature of Jesus of Nazareth (Jesus Christ)
Incorrect - in regard to the incommunicable attributes of God - they are not inate in the human nature of Jesus of Nazareth (Jesus Christ)

Right, which should tell you that your small circle of all creation CANNOT be placed within the large circle of God.

The objection may be raised - "There is a contradiction in that you have described Jesus of Nazareth, as having, and NOT having, the incommunicable attributes of God? (a good question)

There is NO contradiction - the distinction is determined on ontological lines - the hypostatic union maintains the distinction of both natures - within the one (singular) Person.


I think my further elaborations help to bring a little more finesse and clarity regards my illustration (Venn diagram)


Your response here regarding my phrase ... "it doesn't say "in the beginning the God - man created the heavens and the earth" requires a worthy response.

No one is denying that God has a "sequence/time characteristic" - in His mind... in His thought.
No one needs to be forced to consider that reality - it is obvious by innumerable scripture references.

I think the contention that arises in regards those matters is a failure to appropriately define the correct sphere of their applicability, which may be singular or multiple. Hence, I believe it is essential, at least helpful, to grapple with the scriptural evidence which may give us some insight into the true reality of the creation we inhabit.

Yes, grapple we must. But we need to be careful not to grasp, in our grapplings, some concept that we might first think, and assume it to be the correct way of thinking. Scripture most certainly helps, but if we focus more on our particular way of thinking about the scriptures, we potentially distort God's intention for them.

I believe if we can form in our minds, with some reasonable degree of clarity, that fundamental paradigm, that that will be off enormous benefit, personally and collectively.


I think I have sufficiently answered your comments here in previous response, so I won't repeat myself again here... apart from saying that my Venn diagram illustrating the super/subset relationship was specifically tailored to capture, in illustrative form, the inescapable logical necessity (implications) of Acts 17:28 in particular.

Yeah, but since you didn't convince me, can you really say it is "inescapable"? Perhaps you are unable to escape it, but that doesn't make it correct, does it?

In regard to another illustration (Venn diagram) I would use to emphasis the absolute ontological distinction between the Creator and the creature (Creation) than I would employ two separate circles completely separate and apart from each other (Disjoint Set) - this illustration helps to emphatically deny Pantheism.

Good. I appreciate the clarification.

My illustration (super/subset) does achieve the same purpose (a denial of Pantheism) but by a different route... just thought I would mention that.

Well, only by denying also the normal use of Venn diagrams.

Your comment here is in response to my use of the scripture - "Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD" (Jeremiah 23:24)
And also, the scripture - "Upholding all things by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3)

Which I have used in support of Acts 17:28 to help bring additional clarity to the concept that the physical material Creation (matter itself) is in fact Gods intangible thought, manifest, that is to say, tangible - The entire Creation is the Thought of God, (or) the Mind of God made tangible.

Where God simply speaks His Thought in to being... i.e. the familiar phrasing of Genesis - "And God said.... and it was so" (Genisis 1:24)

Therefore, since it requires God to "speak", we are not only "thoughts of God", but thoughts that He acted upon, producing physical creation. I think you've argued yourself out of your position.

How does the nature of matter impact the discussion regards sequence/time? (good question)

Time is a derivative of creation... "Let there be light... and God divided the light from the darkness... and the evening... and the morning etc. etc."

Light is not Time, else time would stop during the darkness. Light and darkness are separate things, thus they can't be Time, either. The best we can say using these verses, as well as the ones where God sets the Sun to govern the day and the moon and stars to govern the night, is that one can tell time by those manifestations, but those manifestations are not Time.

What's going on? ... For what purpose?

I contend that the entire purpose of the physical material tangible Creation, and these few examples above are sufficient for a sample, is to provide an environment for the manifestation of the laws of logic.

The law of identity.
The law of non-contradiction.
The law of excluded middle.

Meaning that without physical material tangible Creation, God is contradictory and doesn't act or think logically? That's a rather astounding suggestion, don't you think?

And if you're not saying that, then for whom was creation manifesting the laws of logic? He certainly didn't need such a manifestation, since He knew how to use logic already. Therefore, the manifestation of laws of logic, as you propose, was merely for man, who was himself part of the manifestation itself. So I think either way you look at it, you have not actually discovered the purpose of the physical...Creation.

For the benefit of the rational creature.... this is where Time began... that is to say... the Perception of Time began... that is to say the awareness of Sequential Memories of Rational Creatures.

.

So, I think you're saying that time perception started early in creation for the creatures God hadn't formed yet, though He had already thought of forming them. "Perception" requires a perceiver, yet only God was there that early to perceive. You've made my point for me...that the timeframe we observe in is governed by the things in creation, but there's no reason to suggest that a different timeframe doesn't exist in God's mind and environs. And He tells us that in His word:
[2Pe 3:8 KJV] But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

 

[moonbeam]

.

The speckled hen​

by Totton Linnet


This story is true
it happened to me
a squaubbling of sparrows
commotion in the tree​

I opened my window
and there I saw
a pretty blue budgerigar
in the middle of it all​

Those dowdy sparrows
were out to kill
a fellow with coat so bright
did not at all fit their bill​

I put out my finger
and a wonderous thing
he flew straight to me
and lighted, wee darling​

Now I have told you
did you believe?
'tis a tale I assure you
quite beyond me to weave​

It was some years after
that I was to learn
the thing is written
in God's book we discern​

Our heritage in the world
if to God we are true
will be just as troubled
as my wee budgie blue.

*
Jeremiah. ch. 12. vs. 9.
Mine heritage is unto me as a speckled hen, the birds round about are against her​

.

 

[moonbeam]

I disagree.

Do you have a logical basis for that assessment?

 

[Derf]

Do you have a logical basis for that assessment?

Yes, already provided.

 

[moonbeam]

Yes, already provided.

Ok I remember that was on your post number 36.

What does it mean to be "in" someone? Isn't Christ "in" us? And doesn't Christ "in us" live, move, and have His being here on this earth?

It seems to me that we live and move and have our being in Him by
1. Having His breath of life
2. Having a world to live in
3. Not having Him take those things away from us.

I've reproduced those quotes above just to acknowledge that earlier response.

As you are aware (on the other forum) I have a couple of things going on and will have to concentrate on those developments and so thought I would close out our interaction on this thread.
But I have enjoyed the engaging conversation and appreciate the fact that you respond in a thoughtful and thought-provoking manner.

In light of that... I stumbled upon a 10-page formal Treatise last night that I thoroughly enjoyed reading and I'm certain you will find it not only enjoyable but very informative as well... (it is extremely well written)

I don't know how to send links etc. on this forum but if you type in this exact phrase (that follows) in Google it will bring up this Treatise... I have checked and it works.

The Essence of Knowledge is Simulation and Logical Construct by Yong Duan

 

[Derf]

Ok I remember that was on your post number 36.


I've reproduced those quotes above just to acknowledge that earlier response.

As you are aware (on the other forum) I have a couple of things going on and will have to concentrate on those developments and so thought I would close out our interaction on this thread.
But I have enjoyed the engaging conversation and appreciate the fact that you respond in a thoughtful and thought-provoking manner.

Ok. Thanks for engaging. Since we really only talked about tangential things (or so it seemed to me), maybe sometime you would like to come back and talk about the topic of the thread itself.

In light of that... I stumbled upon a 10-page formal Treatise last night that I thoroughly enjoyed reading and I'm certain you will find it not only enjoyable but very informative as well... (it is extremely well written)

I don't know how to send links etc. on this forum but if you type in this exact phrase (that follows) in Google it will bring up this Treatise... I have checked and it works.

The Essence of Knowledge is Simulation and Logical Construct by Yong Duan

You should be able to copy the text in the URL field in your browser, then paste it into here, and it will present it as a clickable link, sometimes with a little bit of the website represented...like this:

https://webofproceedings.org/proceedings_series/ART2L/ETMHS%202022/WHCP22029.pdf

I read through the first part, including the abstract. It isn't something I want to pursue right now, but thanks.

 

[moonbeam]

Ok. Thanks for engaging. Since we really only talked about tangential things (or so it seemed to me), maybe sometime you would like to come back and talk about the topic of the thread itself.

Well as you are probably aware as you post there (your home base) - the Administrator + Super Moderator on that forum called JudgeRightly - more like Judge UN-Rightly - has banned me whilst in the middle of a live interaction with himself and Clete.

But what was most egregious was he did so without even sending a warning as per the forum rules... Nothing... and I was in live debate with him!

I can't even challenge this totally unjustified decision because I can't even log in to my username "moonbeam"

You can follow the discussion and Judge Rightly for yourself... pun intended.

It's in the Creation Science forum the thread is called "Time doesn't exist" - I started posting at post #160 challenging the Open Theism perspective of time - I think I have discovered a novel destructive argument against Open Theism.

I was developing that destructive argument while debating against Clete primarily... but the developing destructive argument - was abruptly terminated by the [Live] imposition of the Administrator by instant banning without any warning - do you get the picture - pathetic behavior.

Anyways - now I'm able to continue with the discussion here as per your enquiry.

I thought one way we could do that is if you lead the discussion into new territory that we have not covered.

Something not so tangential from your perspective?

 

[Derf]

Well as you are probably aware as you post there (your home base) - the Administrator + Super Moderator on that forum called JudgeRightly - more like Judge UN-Rightly - has banned me whilst in the middle of a live interaction with himself and Clete.

But what was most egregious was he did so without even sending a warning as per the forum rules... Nothing... and I was in live debate with him!

I can't even challenge this totally unjustified decision because I can't even log in to my username "moonbeam"

You can follow the discussion and Judge Rightly for yourself... pun intended.

It's in the Creation Science forum the thread is called "Time doesn't exist" - I started posting at post #160 challenging the Open Theism perspective of time - I think I have discovered a novel destructive argument against Open Theism.

I was developing that destructive argument while debating against Clete primarily... but the developing destructive argument - was abruptly terminated by the [Live] imposition of the Administrator by instant banning without any warning - do you get the picture - pathetic behavior.

They seem to be a little trigger-happy, but I don't usually get to know the reasons they ban someone.

Anyways - now I'm able to continue with the discussion here as per your enquiry.

I thought one way we could do that is if you lead the discussion into new territory that we have not covered.

Something not so tangential from your perspective?

I've already presented arguments that I believe support Open Theism. I can repeat them, but the thread isn't too terribly long, and I would generally just be reposting from earlier posts. I think you read some of those, so if you have disagreement with them, let's discuss.

Additionally, why don't you present your "novel destructive argument against Open Theism" here, since it is not tangential to the OP. But spell it out rather than ask me to guess where you're going with it. Or, if you prefer to focus on your argument against OT, start a thread and tag me using the @ username (no space) format. I'm looking for good arguments against OT, and I haven't found any yet.

 

[moonbeam]

Additionally, why don't you present your "novel destructive argument against Open Theism" here, since it is not tangential to the OP. But spell it out rather than ask me to guess where you're going with it. Or, if you prefer to focus on your argument against OT, start a thread and tag me using the @ username (no space) format. I'm looking for good arguments against OT, and I haven't found any yet.

Bouncing of that intriguing thought...
I will post 4 posts in sequential order (3 of mine + 1 of Clete) so as to have a reasonably concise body of material to work with in regards developing the destructive argument (firstly) - before probing it for weakness (secondly) to determine its robustness.

1 - My initial post entering the debate.
2 - The post where I have formed the most coherent outline up to that point, in interaction with the primary defenders of OT on that forum - (JudgeRightly and Clete)
3 - Clete's response to that post - so to give some indication of their tactics and strategies in their defense of OT (they are both potent debaters)
4 - My response to that post of Clete's which I was unable to post (the next morning) because of being banned.

But first I have to go down the local coffee shop to use their internet to copy and paste because - I think they have blocked my IP address or laptop because (I can't even use Google to look at that forum at all because it just comes up with a window saying "ooops we're run into a problem spammer returning")
.

 

[moonbeam]

Post - 1

Clete said
The ontological existence of time is literally a logical impossibility.

moonbeam said
I was thinking about what you said (typed)... the first thought was quite simple really it was just...... ( interesting ) ...... singular ....... kind of like one of those old steam locomotives chugging along... steam and fumes billowing... but as it went chugging on by (across my mind)... I perceived other carriages (thought)... which had been obscured by all that billowing steam... there was a whole line of them... each one dragging the next into view and so on... now my thought was no longer singular.... it was like....... ( that is very interesting indeed how intriguing ) ....... than I thought in retrospect (reflected)...... how multitudinous the thought that thought propagates....

It was then I noticed the time.... I had been mulling on that for ages and ages.... or so it seemed.

But the noise of the kettle whistling meant it had only been a few minutes.... anyways time for a cup of tea and biscuit.... and a little time to ponder on the perception of time... does time exist ontologically? or is it actually the perception of the person who does exist ontologically? - and if it is perception does that mean that time actually does exist?
.

 

[moonbeam]

Post - 2

moonbeam said
The Father (God) possesses a logical mind, and so a conceptual mind.

JudgeRghtly said
Time does not exist outside of a thinking mind.

moonbeam said
"For in him we live, and move, and have our being;" - so time does exist for us ontologically.

Ok let's break it down a little...

Firstly... the phrase "Time does not exist outside a thinking mind." - I'm reasonably comfortable with as it stands, and I want to utilize that phrase (logical construct) as somewhat of a template to overlay the scripture reference (Acts 17:28)... to overlay in the sense of imposing its logical constraints upon that particular scripture.

Having said that... naturally I (and I hope you) consider the logical propositions found in scripture as having the preeminent position (ascendency) as they are of Devine Inspiration... but that scriptural understanding does not preclude the examination of scripture by logical constructs (propositions) of our own devising as we seek to explore the full scope of scripture (via thought experiments).

So, I will copy below a post from a discussion I am having with Derf on another forum... with the intention of laying out my thought regards that particular scripture - "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;" (Acts 17;28 KJV) - and its relation to the issue of whether the concept of time (time) is an ontological feature of Creation (imbedded in Creation).


I will remind you that Paul was speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ) - hence we have that public discourse recorded in the scripture. I will also remind you that Paul was addressing an audience of pagan philosophers and academics who worshiped and revered and propagated the knowledge of false gods - false gods diametrically opposed to the true, living, God.

In the apostle's preamble he says - "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an alter with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."

Following that statement and after a few brief comments...

The Holy Spirit in Paul - inspired these words - "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;"

That statement demands that we view Creation itself, as internal, to Him (the True Living God) - I believe that is an inescapable logical necessity.


For those who may find that objectionable, for one reason or another, consider the following breakdown of that scripture reference.

[ For ] preposition; intended to be given to.
[ in ] inside a container, place, or area, or surrounded or closed off by something.
[ him] personal pronoun; referring to God - so we can capitalize that [Him].
[ we ] generic pronoun; referring to people in general.
[ live ] verb; to be alive or have life.
[ and ] conjunction; used to join two words, phrases, parts of sentences, or related statements together.
[ move ] verb; to (cause to) change position.
[ and ] conjunction; used to join two words, phrases, parts of sentences, or related statements together.
[ have ] auxiliary verb; [ + past participle] used with the past participle of other verbs to form the present perfect and past perfect.
[ our ] determiner; the possessive form of we, used before a noun.
[ being ] verb; to (cause to) change position.

An analogy would be something akin to a woman who is with child, pregnant.
The child (creation) within her lives, and moves, and has it's being encapsulated within the sphere of her womb internally.
The ontological analogy is similar; the mother is the life giver [external sphere] the child is absolutely dependent [internal sphere] and receives its life force from the mother.

The logical construct we have in view in this discussion namely - Time does not exist outside of a thinking mind - supports the notion that time [the concept of time] must be, and is in fact, an intrinsic ontological element imbedded in Creation itself, because we know God does not possess a body, but he does possess a mind [intellect] and logic is the architecture of Gods mind, it is how he thinks [logically]... the entire Creation is internal to God... you could say the entire Creation is in Gods mind. Therefore, we could say time does exist as an ontological element imbedded in Creation and is an intrinsic element of Creation and does exist ontologically.

Which is exactly what Gods word say - "For in HIM we live, and move, and have our being;" (Acts 17;28)
.

 

[moonbeam]

Post - 3

moonbeam said
The Father (God) possesses a logical mind, and so a conceptual mind.

Time does not exist outside of a thinking mind.

"For in him we live, and move, and have our being;" - so time does exist for us ontologically.

Clete said
This would seem to suggest that we are merely concepts within God's mind. I just don't get it.




moonbeam said
Ok let's break it down a little...

Firstly... the phrase "Time does not exist outside a thinking mind." - I'm reasonably comfortable with as it stands, and I want to utilize that phrase (logical construct) as somewhat of a template to overlay the scripture reference (Acts 17:28)... to overlay in the sense of imposing its logical constraints upon that particular scripture.

Having said that... naturally I (and I hope you) consider the logical propositions found in scripture as having the preeminent position (ascendency) as they are of Devine Inspiration... but that scriptural understanding does not preclude the examination of scripture by logical constructs (propositions) of our own devising as we seek to explore the full scope of scripture (via thought experiments).

So, I will copy below a post from a discussion I am having with Derf on another forum... with the intention of laying out my thought regards that particular scripture - "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;" (Acts 17;28 KJV) - and its relation to the issue of whether the concept of time (time) is an ontological feature of Creation (imbedded in Creation).


I will remind you that Paul was speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ) - hence we have that public discourse recorded in the scripture. I will also remind you that Paul was addressing an audience of pagan philosophers and academics who worshiped and revered and propagated the knowledge of false gods - false gods diametrically opposed to the true, living, God.

In the apostle's preamble he says - "For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an alter with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."

Following that statement and after a few brief comments...

The Holy Spirit in Paul - inspired these words - "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;"

That statement demands that we view Creation itself, as internal, to Him (the True Living God) - I believe that is an inescapable logical necessity.

Clete said
I literally see nothing in what you've presented here that even suggests that we exist "internally to God". Creation isn't God and God did not create Himself.




moonbeam said
For those who may find that objectionable, for one reason or another, consider the following breakdown of that scripture reference.

[ For ] preposition; intended to be given to.
[ in ] inside a container, place, or area, or surrounded or closed off by something.
[ him] personal pronoun; referring to God - so we can capitalize that [Him].
[ we ] generic pronoun; referring to people in general.
[ live ] verb; to be alive or have life.
[ and ] conjunction; used to join two words, phrases, parts of sentences, or related statements together.
[ move ] verb; to (cause to) change position.
[ and ] conjunction; used to join two words, phrases, parts of sentences, or related statements together.
[ have ] auxiliary verb; [ + past participle] used with the past participle of other verbs to form the present perfect and past perfect.
[ our ] determiner; the possessive form of we, used before a noun.
[ being ] verb; to (cause to) change position.

An analogy would be something akin to a woman who is with child, pregnant.
The child (creation) within her lives, and moves, and has it's being encapsulated within the sphere of her womb internally.
The ontological analogy is similar; the mother is the life giver [external sphere] the child is absolutely dependent [internal sphere] and receives its life force from the mother.

Clete said
The problem here is that the baby is LITERALLY inside the mother! That isn't an analogy, that's the literal truth, right?!

Paul was not speaking literally as if we are inside God. It's that we are identified or considered by God as if we were "in Him". He is our spiritual covering but that is meant as an analogy not a literal statement as if we are physically enveloped inside God as you are inside your shirt. If I take a friend to lunch and the waitress brings the bill and I say that "I've got you covered!", I'm not saying that I'm going sit on my friend or throw a sheet over his head. I'm telling my friend that I'm going to pay the whole bill and that, therefore, his debt is "covered". It's a very intuitively understood figure of speech.

And in no sense would any of that apply to the concept of time which is purely a mental abstraction.




moonbeam said
The logical construct we have in view in this discussion namely - Time does not exist outside of a thinking mind - supports the notion that time [the concept of time] must be, and is in fact, an intrinsic ontological element imbedded in Creation itself, because we know God does not possess a body, but he does possess a mind [intellect] and logic is the architecture of Gods mind, it is how he thinks [logically]... the entire Creation is internal to God... you could say the entire Creation is in Gods mind. Therefore, we could say time does exist as an ontological element imbedded in Creation and is an intrinsic element of Creation and does exist ontologically.

Which is exactly what Gods word say - "For in HIM we live, and move, and have our being;" (Acts 17;28)

Clete said
I'm sorry mb, but the highlighted portion of your comment here is simply heresy. The creation does not exist within God! The creation is fallen and evil. Satan is a created being. Do you believe that Satan exists within God too? Surely not!

I could see if you want to say that God permeates the creation in some way but even that you'd have to hold at arms length because you'd be speaking of things well outside our human existence. You couldn't be precise, never mind dogmatic, about precisely what such an idea means any more than a mathematician can precisely explain to you the concept of a seven dimensional cube. Not because the concept is irrational or otherwise false but because we have no frame of reference for such a comment and thus no way to formulate a meaningful vernacular by which to communicate such ideas. We are, therefore, left with the ability to make somewhat vague, while still accurate and meaningful, statements like "For in HIM we live, and move, and have our being".

The bible expresses several such things, by the way. The most prominent of which is easily the Triune nature of God, where there is One and ONLY One God within Whom exists three Persons. And doesn't even begin to touch the concept of "seven Spirits of God" that are spoken of in Revelations 4 & 5.

In short, God's existence transcends our own by a long way and we should be careful about being too bold with our interpretations of such passages.
.

 

[moonbeam]

Post - 4

Clete said
This would seem to suggest that we are merely concepts within God's mind. I just don't get it.

moonbeam said
Does not thought preceed action, creative action?
What else could we have been prior to being created but an idea, a concept, in the Mind of God?
What else could the entire creation have been before being spoken into existence by the Word of His power but an idea, a concept, in the Mind of God?

Does not thought precede action, creative action? - This scripture affirms it [case closed]
"Even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were." - Romans 4:17





Clete said
I literally see nothing in what you've presented here that even suggests that we exist "internally to God". Creation isn't God and God did not create Himself.

moonbeam said
Do you have eyes to see and ears to hear?

The word of God says this .... "FOR - IN - HIM ... we live + and move + and have our being;"

What is it that prevents you from seeing that?




Clete said
Creation isn't God and God did not create Himself.

moonbeam said
Correct - creation is not God - that would be Pantheism.

Correct - Jesus is NOT a created BEING!

Jesus's flesh is created and imbedded in the creation (that temple of blood, water, bone and cartilage)

But the SPIRIT that enlivens and energizes that fleshly temple - is The SPIRIT and PERSON who is The Second Person of The Triune God [the ONE God]

So, we agree - Creation isn't God and God did not create Himself.




Clete said
The problem here is that the baby is LITERALLY inside the mother! That isn't an analogy, that's the literal truth, right?!

moonbeam said
Correct - I was using the LITERAL truth as an ANALOGY - isn't that how you use an analogy to reveal the truth?




Clete said
Paul was not speaking literally as if we are inside God. It's that we are identified or considered by God as if we were "in Him".

moonbeam said
Why is Paul NOT speaking literally?

The alternative is that the creation is OUTSIDE of God? - Where does the scripture say that?

What can be, or what is, OUTSIDE of God? ...... NOTHING ....... and Nothing - is NO THING by definition - which can NOT exist.

Do you understand now?




Clete said
He is our spiritual covering but that is meant as an analogy not a literal statement as if we are physically enveloped inside God as you are inside your shirt.


moonbeam said
In the case of the indwelling of the Spirit it is NOT an analogy - it is the LITERAL Truth... Correct?

In the case of the unregenerate person their unenlivened spirit [which is of God - who IS Spirit] - IS INTERNAL - that's NOT an analogy it is the LITERAL Truth... Correct?




Clete said
If I take a friend to lunch and the waitress brings the bill and I say that "I've got you covered!", I'm not saying that I'm going sit on my friend or throw a sheet over his head. I'm telling my friend that I'm going to pay the whole bill and that, therefore, his debt is "covered". It's a very intuitively understood figure of speech.


moonbeam said
It is INTUITIVELY understood - and also a Literal fact.

Why can you not see that? Do you have eyes to see?






Clete said
And in no sense would any of that apply to the concept of time which is purely a mental abstraction.


moonbeam said
But you agree that time does EXISTS.... so, a purely mental abstraction does exist... INSIDE a Thinking Mind which God possesses [pre-eminently]




Clete said
I'm sorry mb, but the highlighted portion of your comment here is simply heresy.

moonbeam said
No need to be sorry Clete you have made an ERROR because you DON'T understand the scripture... its ok... your correction follows... keep reading.

Pantheism is a heresy because it teaches that the TOTALITY of GODS BEING is the Creation... in an all-encompassing ontological sense with NO distinction between God and the creation... the Creation and God are ONE ONTOLOGICALLY.

That is NOT the biblical model represented by the LITERAL understanding of the scripture - "For in HIM we live, and move, and have our being;"

How so?

Because the ontological distinction between God and the creation is established in the very first [God breathed] scripture which says - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

That statement emphatically DENIES Pantheism and ANY ANALOGOUS interpretation of Acts 17:28 by establishing an ONTOLOGICAL - DISTINCTION.

An ontological DISTINCTION that permeates the entire Creation in an absolute sense including the hypostatic union between the DISTINCT DIVINE NATURE of Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Christ, who IS God IN the Flesh.... and Jesus of Nazareth HUMAN NATURE (which is the flesh).

So, as I said at the beginning Clete... no need to be sorry... you made an error... NOT understanding the scripture OR the power of God... I hope you can SEE now.?




Clete said
The creation does not exist within God!


moonbeam said
That is FALSE (I could call it a lie)

Show me the scripture that says creation exists OUTSIDE of God?

I got scripture that says creation exists INSIDE of God - "For IN HIM we live, and move, and have our being;"

Show me the scripture that says creation exists OUTSIDE of God?

I'm waiting Clete... waiting... waiting... waiting... fingers tapping on the table.




Clete said
The creation is fallen and evil. Satan is a created being. Do you believe that Satan exists within God too? Surely not!


moonbeam said
Jesus of Nazareth (GOD IN the FLESH) + The HOLY SPIRIT + The Holy Spirit within Gods children (of which I know I'm one... How about you Clete?) + Every Unregenerate Person - They ALL inhabit the same DOMAIN as Satan and every fallen angel and every demon in LITERAL existence (within the one and the same Domain) that being Creation.

ALL in the same DOMAIN.

Is that not a LITERAL FACT? .... Clete?

In addition... Where did Satan and the Fallen Angels and every Demon RECEIVE their spirit from?

Are THEY self-existent beings?

Who GAVE and MAINTAINS and ENLIVENS their corrupt spirits, Clete? - nano second by nano second? - The Living GOD - that's who.




Clete said
I could see if you want to say that God permeates the creation in some way but even that you'd have to hold at arms length because you'd be speaking of things well outside our human existence.


moonbeam said
Don't you BELIEVE what God says Clete? ... I will remind you that - "Did God say?" are the first words The Deceiver spoke... Is that not so Clete?

The scripture is PERFECTLY CLEAR that God NOT only permeates the entire creation... "Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD." Jeremiah 23:23-24

But that HE energizes the entire creation at the atomic level... nano second by nano second... Or did YOU think it runs on lithium batteries.

Don't you BELIEVE what God says Clete?

Consider what the Word of GOD (not the word of Clete) says about this important matter... Keep reading.


"And UPHOLDING ALL THINGS... by the WORD OF HIS POWER," that includes the spirits of Satan and every Fallen Angel and every Demon... or do YOU think THEY are energized by Duracell lithium batteries.

Some free and good advice Clete ... DONT listen to the Deceiver ... BELIEVE what God SAYS in HIS WORD.




Clete said
You couldn't be precise, never mind dogmatic, about precisely what such an idea means

moonbeam said
You are in ERROR again Clete... because you do NOT understand the scripture AND the power of God.

God says that HIS WORD IS TRUTH - "Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth."

Pay careful attention to what Gods truth says here Clete - "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak to you, they are spirit and they are life."

We certainly can be PRECISE and DOGMATIC about the Truth God reveals in His Word.... that is called "bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" - that's being precise and dogmatic, about the precise truth God HAS revealed in His Word

Being DOGMATIC is not a PEJORATIVE expression... when your speaking Gods Truth... just thought I would mention that... but nice try Clete [but sorry NO cigar]




Clete said
any more than a mathematician can precisely explain to you the concept of a seven dimensional cube. Not because the concept is irrational or otherwise false but because we have no frame of reference for such a comment and thus no way to formulate a meaningful vernacular by which to communicate such ideas. We are, therefore, left with the ability to make somewhat vague, while still accurate and meaningful, statements like "For in HIM we live, and move, and have our being".


moonbeam said
There is a lot of flowery talk there Clete, not unusual for you - But once again you are in ERROR Clete

How are YOU in ERROR? - because you undermine the authority of God's Word.

How did Clete do that?

Clete did that by intimating that the scripture referenced [Acts 17:28] can NOT be accurately and meaningfully understood - because we can only arrive at this train station where the billboard says this - "We are, therefore, left with the ability to make somewhat VAGUE... vague... vague...vague" conclusions.

Thats HOW Clete UNDERMINES the AUTHORITY and PERSPICUITY of God's Word... just bringing that to the attention of the reader.

Once again - nice try Clete (but NO cigar) ... (you are as slippery as a wet eel)




Clete said
The bible expresses several such things, by the way. The most prominent of which is easily the Triune nature of God, where there is One and ONLY One God within Whom exists three Persons. And doesn't even begin to touch the concept of "seven Spirits of God" that are spoken of in Revelations 4 & 5.


moonbeam said
The seven Spirits of God are angelic beings - consider the name Michael - meaning "Who is like God" - Incidently that is a personal descriptor and also a challenge to THE USURPER

Consider the name Gabriel - meaning God is my strength

The seven spirits of God are creatures - ontologically inferior and distinct from the ONE GOD - The Triune GOD.




Clete said
In short, God's existence transcends our own by a long way and we should be careful about being too bold with our interpretations of such passages.


moonbeam said
God's Word is Truth, and the Spirit teaches us that Truth - so I say, as Paul says, as God would have us say - I BELIEVED and therefore have I spoken.
.

 

[moonbeam]

Additionally, why don't you present your "novel destructive argument against Open Theism" here, since it is not tangential to the OP.

The novel destructive argument against Open Theism is briefly summarized below in its essential elements.

1 - Accepting their premise that - Time does not exist outside of a thinking mind.
2 - Demonstrate that God possesses the preeminent thinking mind.
3 - Demonstrate that the creation is internal to God - Not external - hence within that preeminent thinking mind.
4 - Demonstrate the ontological distinction between God and the creation - even though the creation is internal to God.
5 - Utilizing their premise that - Time does not exist outside of a thinking mind - therefore time does exist (in fact) as an intrinsic ontological element imbedded in the creation, which is within the preeminent thinking mind of God.

The Open Theism premise that - Time does not exist outside of a thinking mind - is essentially the foundation upon which the Open Theist predicates the true nature of the relational dynamic between God and man, not only how it exists, but how it functions.
That mechanism (that time is a concept that only exists in a thinking mind) is the basis of their doctrine regards the immanence of God.

It is also the foundation of the Open Theists doctrine of the Omniscience of God - in that God is cognitively aware of all thoughts and intentions of the heart, contemporaneously, of all sentient creatures - And that is all that God can know.
.

 

[Derf]

The novel destructive argument against Open Theism is briefly summarized below in its essential elements.

1 - Accepting their premise that - Time does not exist outside of a thinking mind.
2 - Demonstrate that God possesses the preeminent thinking mind.
3 - Demonstrate that the creation is internal to God - Not external - hence within that preeminent thinking mind.
4 - Demonstrate the ontological distinction between God and the creation - even though the creation is internal to God.
5 - Utilizing their premise that - Time does not exist outside of a thinking mind - therefore time does exist (in fact) as an intrinsic ontological element imbedded in the creation, which is within the preeminent thinking mind of God.

I'm not convinced that "time does not exist outside of a thinking mind" is that integral to Open Theism.

But even if it were, your premises that all creation is internal to God and yet distinct from God does nothing to remove the thinking mind of God from the equation. God exists and thinks, therefore within the realm where God operates, which would be all realms, I suppose, time exists. This would also apply to the time prior to creation, therefore time is not part of creation.

The Open Theism premise that - Time does not exist outside of a thinking mind - is essentially the foundation upon which the Open Theist predicates the true nature of the relational dynamic between God and man, not only how it exists, but how it functions.
That mechanism (that time is a concept that only exists in a thinking mind) is the basis of their doctrine regards the immanence of God.

It is also the foundation of the Open Theists doctrine of the Omniscience of God

As stated above, I don't believe the non-existence of time outside of a thinking mind carries any weight in Open Theism, since God is eternal, and His mind has never been non-thinking.

- in that God is cognitively aware of all thoughts and intentions of the heart, contemporaneously, of all sentient creatures - And that is all that God can know.
.

You've just stated your premise as if it is a conclusion. That's circular, making it invalid for determining truth.

 

[moonbeam]

I'm not convinced that "time does not exist outside of a thinking mind" is that integral to Open Theism.

I agree - if your statement is applied to the created order (creation) - its evinced by the increasing number of grey hairs accumulating on your head, and the tears we have shed at innumerable funerals.

The premise that "Time does not exist outside a thinking mind" is a methodology whereby Open Theism adherents hope to undermine the classical definition of Gods omniscience, especially in regard to the classical notion that he has determined all things.

Why do you think JudgeRightly and Clete actively defend that premise?

But even if it were, your premises that all creation is internal to God and yet distinct from God does nothing to remove the thinking mind of God from the equation. God exists and thinks, therefore within the realm where God operates, which would be all realms, I suppose, time exists. This would also apply to the time prior to creation, therefore time is not part of creation.

That God is rational and thinks in a logical framework does not mean that His thinking processes are restricted to sequentiality (such as the mind of man) - That conclusion of yours may seem logical as you extrapolate from the lesser logical mind (of man) to the greater logical mind (of God)- but that would be an ontological category error - In that you are assuming (projecting) your finite understanding (and functionality) onto the infinite mind of God - Thereby constraining Him to your, mans, parameters.

If God says that He knows the "end from the beginning" don't assume it's by extrapolation of a contemporaneous data set - If you do than of course God will comfortably fit into your man-made paradigm (Open Theist perspective)

Whereas if you don't make that (ontological error) assumption that God logically extrapolates like man.
Then, perhaps, when He makes statements like this concerning His Being.

"I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please'." (Isaiah 46;10)

Then, perhaps, you have a coherent reason, to contemplate, or logically assess as a plausible concept, some alternative paradigm (that is not man centric) - so as to actually discern the truth of that statement - and so come to understand that Gods thinking is not restricted to sequentiality (in and of Himself - innately) as man's mind is restricted - God knows the end from the beginning because He knows His own mind - He knows what He has purposed, what He has determined.

The objection could be raised that the very concept inherent in the phrase - "my purpose shall stand, and I will do all that I please" - denotes, if anything, planning, sequential planning and sequential execution of that planning, to which I will reply "who's denying that?" - certainly not me.

We have to understand that the scriptures are overwhelming couched in anthropomorphic language, that is the scriptures are specifically framed for man's comprehension. So, the logical sequencing, as well as the temporal sequencing (outworking) of Gods purposes (His intent) can be seen and deduced by the creature man (that they are in accordance with scripture)

But in those instances where God is describing His person, His personal attributes (specifically) such as in Isaiah 46:10 and in Malachi 3:6 and in James 1:17 - than we ought to perceive that we need to elevate out thinking above what our normal criteria would be (man centric - creation centric) - and understand the descriptors not as comparative, but as absolute , when applied by God, to Himself, in regard to His personal attributes.

As stated above, I don't believe the non-existence of time outside of a thinking mind carries any weight in Open Theism, since God is eternal, and His mind has never been non-thinking.

I think you ought to consider the extreme importance both JudgeRightly and Clete adjudge that issue (concept) - recognizing that those two persons, in particular, are the primary intellectual defenders (apologists) of Open Theism on that forum.

It must be of very significant importance to warrant the concentrated firepower, regards defending OT against raiding Calvinist apologists.

Is that not so?

So, something for you to think about.

You've just stated your premise as if it is a conclusion. That's circular, making it invalid for determining truth.

The constant quoting of supposedly identified, logical fallacies, especially in regard to those contending against Open Theism is a constant and annoying feature of that particular forum (Open Theism Home World) - in my opinion.

Personally, I view the abundant use of that ploy, on that forum, as just that, nothing more than a ploy - with the unstated intention to disrupt the natural flow of conversation, under the ostensible cover of an insistence on logically building argumentation, and/or, counter argumentation.

One way I can bring that to your attention is in the current discussion on Our Moral God thread wherein you are engaged - Clete's OP states that the Logos is better translated as the Logic, quoting in support, the work of Calvinist academic and philosopher Gordon H Clark.

What I find interesting, and most telling, is that Jesus, the personification of Logic - never - not even on a single occasion - raises the objection in any of His discourse, that His opponents have used an identifiable logical fallacy - He just got on with the discussion.

As an aside - moonbeam is not without allies - some of which you will find joining the fray at Open Theism Home World.
It's quite possible one of them will make mention of that fact.
.

 

[Gary K]

Post - 4

Clete said
This would seem to suggest that we are merely concepts within God's mind. I just don't get it.

moonbeam said
Does not thought preceed action, creative action?
What else could we have been prior to being created but an idea, a concept, in the Mind of God?
What else could the entire creation have been before being spoken into existence by the Word of His power but an idea, a concept, in the Mind of God?

Does not thought precede action, creative action? - This scripture affirms it [case closed]
"Even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were." - Romans 4:17





Clete said
I literally see nothing in what you've presented here that even suggests that we exist "internally to God". Creation isn't God and God did not create Himself.

moonbeam said
Do you have eyes to see and ears to hear?

The word of God says this .... "FOR - IN - HIM ... we live + and move + and have our being;"

What is it that prevents you from seeing that?




Clete said
Creation isn't God and God did not create Himself.

moonbeam said
Correct - creation is not God - that would be Pantheism.

Correct - Jesus is NOT a created BEING!

Jesus's flesh is created and imbedded in the creation (that temple of blood, water, bone and cartilage)

But the SPIRIT that enlivens and energizes that fleshly temple - is The SPIRIT and PERSON who is The Second Person of The Triune God [the ONE God]

So, we agree - Creation isn't God and God did not create Himself.




Clete said
The problem here is that the baby is LITERALLY inside the mother! That isn't an analogy, that's the literal truth, right?!

moonbeam said
Correct - I was using the LITERAL truth as an ANALOGY - isn't that how you use an analogy to reveal the truth?




Clete said
Paul was not speaking literally as if we are inside God. It's that we are identified or considered by God as if we were "in Him".

moonbeam said
Why is Paul NOT speaking literally?

The alternative is that the creation is OUTSIDE of God? - Where does the scripture say that?

What can be, or what is, OUTSIDE of God? ...... NOTHING ....... and Nothing - is NO THING by definition - which can NOT exist.

Do you understand now?




Clete said
He is our spiritual covering but that is meant as an analogy not a literal statement as if we are physically enveloped inside God as you are inside your shirt.


moonbeam said
In the case of the indwelling of the Spirit it is NOT an analogy - it is the LITERAL Truth... Correct?

In the case of the unregenerate person their unenlivened spirit [which is of God - who IS Spirit] - IS INTERNAL - that's NOT an analogy it is the LITERAL Truth... Correct?




Clete said
If I take a friend to lunch and the waitress brings the bill and I say that "I've got you covered!", I'm not saying that I'm going sit on my friend or throw a sheet over his head. I'm telling my friend that I'm going to pay the whole bill and that, therefore, his debt is "covered". It's a very intuitively understood figure of speech.


moonbeam said
It is INTUITIVELY understood - and also a Literal fact.

Why can you not see that? Do you have eyes to see?






Clete said
And in no sense would any of that apply to the concept of time which is purely a mental abstraction.


moonbeam said
But you agree that time does EXISTS.... so, a purely mental abstraction does exist... INSIDE a Thinking Mind which God possesses [pre-eminently]




Clete said
I'm sorry mb, but the highlighted portion of your comment here is simply heresy.

moonbeam said
No need to be sorry Clete you have made an ERROR because you DON'T understand the scripture... its ok... your correction follows... keep reading.

Pantheism is a heresy because it teaches that the TOTALITY of GODS BEING is the Creation... in an all-encompassing ontological sense with NO distinction between God and the creation... the Creation and God are ONE ONTOLOGICALLY.

That is NOT the biblical model represented by the LITERAL understanding of the scripture - "For in HIM we live, and move, and have our being;"

How so?

Because the ontological distinction between God and the creation is established in the very first [God breathed] scripture which says - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

That statement emphatically DENIES Pantheism and ANY ANALOGOUS interpretation of Acts 17:28 by establishing an ONTOLOGICAL - DISTINCTION.

An ontological DISTINCTION that permeates the entire Creation in an absolute sense including the hypostatic union between the DISTINCT DIVINE NATURE of Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Christ, who IS God IN the Flesh.... and Jesus of Nazareth HUMAN NATURE (which is the flesh).

So, as I said at the beginning Clete... no need to be sorry... you made an error... NOT understanding the scripture OR the power of God... I hope you can SEE now.?




Clete said
The creation does not exist within God!


moonbeam said
That is FALSE (I could call it a lie)

Show me the scripture that says creation exists OUTSIDE of God?

I got scripture that says creation exists INSIDE of God - "For IN HIM we live, and move, and have our being;"

Show me the scripture that says creation exists OUTSIDE of God?

I'm waiting Clete... waiting... waiting... waiting... fingers tapping on the table.




Clete said
The creation is fallen and evil. Satan is a created being. Do you believe that Satan exists within God too? Surely not!


moonbeam said
Jesus of Nazareth (GOD IN the FLESH) + The HOLY SPIRIT + The Holy Spirit within Gods children (of which I know I'm one... How about you Clete?) + Every Unregenerate Person - They ALL inhabit the same DOMAIN as Satan and every fallen angel and every demon in LITERAL existence (within the one and the same Domain) that being Creation.

ALL in the same DOMAIN.

Is that not a LITERAL FACT? .... Clete?

In addition... Where did Satan and the Fallen Angels and every Demon RECEIVE their spirit from?

Are THEY self-existent beings?

Who GAVE and MAINTAINS and ENLIVENS their corrupt spirits, Clete? - nano second by nano second? - The Living GOD - that's who.




Clete said
I could see if you want to say that God permeates the creation in some way but even that you'd have to hold at arms length because you'd be speaking of things well outside our human existence.


moonbeam said
Don't you BELIEVE what God says Clete? ... I will remind you that - "Did God say?" are the first words The Deceiver spoke... Is that not so Clete?

The scripture is PERFECTLY CLEAR that God NOT only permeates the entire creation... "Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD." Jeremiah 23:23-24

But that HE energizes the entire creation at the atomic level... nano second by nano second... Or did YOU think it runs on lithium batteries.

Don't you BELIEVE what God says Clete?

Consider what the Word of GOD (not the word of Clete) says about this important matter... Keep reading.


"And UPHOLDING ALL THINGS... by the WORD OF HIS POWER," that includes the spirits of Satan and every Fallen Angel and every Demon... or do YOU think THEY are energized by Duracell lithium batteries.

Some free and good advice Clete ... DONT listen to the Deceiver ... BELIEVE what God SAYS in HIS WORD.




Clete said
You couldn't be precise, never mind dogmatic, about precisely what such an idea means

moonbeam said
You are in ERROR again Clete... because you do NOT understand the scripture AND the power of God.

God says that HIS WORD IS TRUTH - "Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth."

Pay careful attention to what Gods truth says here Clete - "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak to you, they are spirit and they are life."

We certainly can be PRECISE and DOGMATIC about the Truth God reveals in His Word.... that is called "bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" - that's being precise and dogmatic, about the precise truth God HAS revealed in His Word

Being DOGMATIC is not a PEJORATIVE expression... when your speaking Gods Truth... just thought I would mention that... but nice try Clete [but sorry NO cigar]




Clete said
any more than a mathematician can precisely explain to you the concept of a seven dimensional cube. Not because the concept is irrational or otherwise false but because we have no frame of reference for such a comment and thus no way to formulate a meaningful vernacular by which to communicate such ideas. We are, therefore, left with the ability to make somewhat vague, while still accurate and meaningful, statements like "For in HIM we live, and move, and have our being".


moonbeam said
There is a lot of flowery talk there Clete, not unusual for you - But once again you are in ERROR Clete

How are YOU in ERROR? - because you undermine the authority of God's Word.

How did Clete do that?

Clete did that by intimating that the scripture referenced [Acts 17:28] can NOT be accurately and meaningfully understood - because we can only arrive at this train station where the billboard says this - "We are, therefore, left with the ability to make somewhat VAGUE... vague... vague...vague" conclusions.

Thats HOW Clete UNDERMINES the AUTHORITY and PERSPICUITY of God's Word... just bringing that to the attention of the reader.

Once again - nice try Clete (but NO cigar) ... (you are as slippery as a wet eel)




Clete said
The bible expresses several such things, by the way. The most prominent of which is easily the Triune nature of God, where there is One and ONLY One God within Whom exists three Persons. And doesn't even begin to touch the concept of "seven Spirits of God" that are spoken of in Revelations 4 & 5.


moonbeam said
The seven Spirits of God are angelic beings - consider the name Michael - meaning "Who is like God" - Incidently that is a personal descriptor and also a challenge to THE USURPER

Consider the name Gabriel - meaning God is my strength

The seven spirits of God are creatures - ontologically inferior and distinct from the ONE GOD - The Triune GOD.




Clete said
In short, God's existence transcends our own by a long way and we should be careful about being too bold with our interpretations of such passages.


moonbeam said
God's Word is Truth, and the Spirit teaches us that Truth - so I say, as Paul says, as God would have us say - I BELIEVED and therefore have I spoken.
.

I would only disagree with you in one aspect. It is spiritual discernment that Clete is lacking.

The combination of hyper dispensationalism and open theism is, in my estimation, a fatal error. Why? Because the hyper dispensationalist excuses himself from applying Jesus' own words to himself and also the work of the HS thus he will excuse himself for blaspheming the HS. I can see no other way for God to reach him.