I understand that the "age of the universe" refers to how much time has elapsed since the Big Bang. The point you are missing is that the Big Bang is not the "beginning" of the universe. In terms of the "age" of the universe, of course, we speak loosely of the Big Bang as the beginning. However, from an ontological perspective, these same scientists still posit a singularity "before" the universe (obviously, an incorrect term to use, since there is no "before" the emergence of the criteria [space-time] by which a "before" would be measured). So again, this is not desperation on my part, but merely a result of a misapplication of words and concepts to structures to which they do not apply.
What you should also fathom is that the age of the universe invokes the universe being finite in that respect. Since you affirm that the age of the universe refers to how much time has elapsed since the Big Bang, it would only follow that you affirm there is finite connotations to the universe, something that you actually denied in the last round. Also, I have never even hinted at the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe, so to claim that is something I am missing is way off base.
No, it has nothing to do with popularity. The only reason I even brought up the brane-world advocates is because of your prior conflation of the "scientific perspective" with a very narrow, homogenous understanding of the origins of the universe (which, conceptually speaking, are not even themselves accurate). As I mentioned before, what science says about the subject is not particularly interesting to me, as all scientific theories are not able to eclipse the threshold of singularity, brane-worlds, or other material explanations for the origin of the Big Bang. In other words, none of these approaches get to ex nihilo at all, which is entirely my point.
Regarding the Scriptures, I affirm with the Genesis record that the universe was created by God. My argument is that this affirmation, however, need not lead one down a path which materializes the relationship between God and that which God has created by causally and materially linking that which is created to that which is not. Failing to maintain this distinction does not, in any way, force a materialist interpretation of Genesis 1; rather, such a rendering is simply a by-product of an improper view of the relationship between God and creation.
If you claim the scientific perspectives I brought up are not accurate, then you run into the same problem you did above were you want to deny something scientific then agree with it but only partially to your liking. That is not how science works. You go all the way to the conclusions, and this conclusion (the universe has an age) leads to an idea of a finite universe in that sense. What science says doesnt have to be interesting to you at all, as long as it is sound and backed by evidence. I wouldnt like something backed by evidence that destroys my earlier claim either, but there it is demolishing just that.
Regarding the Scriptures, you should also be affirming that not only is the universe created by God, but it also had a beginning as I said and asked of you in the last round and to which you just ignored now. Genesis 1:1 mentions a beginning. You denied a beginning. You are flat out wrong as again the Bible confirms a beginning.
Again, and to which you also left unaddressed, creation means origin of. The universe had an origin. If the universe had no beginning, it could not have been created. If the universe was not created, there can be no creator. Therefore, if there is no beginning to the universe, there is no creator of it. This conclusion, among many more, is why OT should be regarded as not only mendacious, but absolutely unbiblical as well. I am not saying that god is non existent according to OT, rather god cannot be logically said to have created the universe being there was no beginning to it as is claimed.
This is an entirely different debate altogether, but I follow the more Humean school of causality which rejects the unnecessary and illusory distinctions between Aristotelian and (later) Scholastic types of causes, and argues that if there are causes, they are only efficient (this is assuming, of course, that causality isn't actualized only psychologically). In such a perspective, your appeal to "efficient" causes is irrelevant, and we still find ourselves at the conclusions I outlined before (and which you seem to tacitly agree with, given your sudden interest to now distinguish between "types" of causes).
Actually, this is only relevant to this debate. To bring up another debate topic when that topic is already being discussed in the already presumed debate is unnecessary. However, if you want to leave this bit out and only claim something with no support, I could easily as say I am aware of the harsh criticisms to the Humean school, which would indeed render the Aristotle understanding of causality the most coherent. Moreover, if the Humean school that you adhere to argues that if there are causes, they are only efficient then how can it be argued from the same perspective that a material cause must suffice for a material effect? This is something my partner has also left untouched the support for why a material cause must abide in order for there to be a material effect. As I said in the last round, such an idea is unwarranted.
Of course, even if we presume the validity of the distinction between Aristotelian/Scholastic categories of causality, the conclusions are really not any different from those I have already outlined. After all, efficient causes are, fundamentally, "producers" of effects; insofar as efficient causes bring about effects, they necessarily presume the "effect" of which they are the cause
This is where you are hung up at. You have not supported the idea that they necessarily presume the effect of which they are the cause. Think about it. An efficient cause is that which produces an effect. The material cause is that which the effect is composed of. If the sculptor is making a sculpture, the material he uses may not have any of the same properties at all that he has. For example, the sculptor (efficient cause [God]) has no similar properties of the sculpture (material cause [universe]). The sculptor is conscious as he is making the art, while the art is not conscious as it is material and so an unconscious thing. The sculptor is of flesh and bone, while the material may be clay or metal. In this way, the idea that they necessarily presume the "effect" of which they are the cause is completely ludicrous.
But my point all along is the universe is not an "effect", that is not related to God in a causally identifiable way. Shifting from material to efficient causes (which isn't what I was arguing to begin with, and really only underscores your misunderstanding of causality) changes nothing, for you have still not established that the universe is an effect of which there can or needs to be a cause--be it efficient, material, formal or final. And moreover, if we do suggest that the universe is an effect, we still create an inversely necessary ontological relationship between the efficient cause and its effect, and we find perhaps an even stronger argument for pantheism than that which proceeds merely from the analysis of divine knowledge about creation.
I understand your point. I just as feel as if you have not grounded it with reason much at all. Allow me to explain why one last time. First, I didnt say that you were arguing a material cause to efficient cause. That you think I said this is only a display of your misunderstanding of what I have been actually saying, which has nothing to do with a miscomprehension of causality on my part. What I said was that if there is creation ex nihilo then there is only an explanation of an efficient cause missing, since there is no material cause (material to work with as the sculptor has) that is posited. Anything that begins to exist or has an origin must have an efficient cause. There must be an efficient cause, not a material or formal or final but efficient cause of the universe since indeed it began to exist and was created ex nihilo. By now, one thing is clear: the claim my partner has proposed that they necessarily presume the "effect" of which they are the cause is baseless as the claim is unsupported. Once again, that being the case, we arrive no where near Pantheism. Pantheism has many forms from near atheistic to theistic. Even the pantheistic theistic view holds that god is not personal, while I have advocated a God that has an eternal plan for creation being there is eternal knowledge which is more than personal. For my partner to claim that I am arguing, even implicitly, a form of Pantheism is to fallaciously shift the meaning of Pantheism to what he thinks it is or wants it to be while what he may think it is, is not what Pantheism actually is.
But let's get back to your statement. Again, you use tremendously imprecise language when you speak of the universe "beginning" to exist. It is imprecise because a beginning implies a change of state. However, ex nihilo creation involves no change in state, for non-existence is not a state from which a change can said to be made. To even talk about the non-existence of the universe is, fundamentally, to conceptually confuse the issue, but this is precisely what occurs when we speak of the "beginning" of the universe and the universe "beginning" to exist.
Once again another baseless claim; how does a beginning imply a change of state? The Bible implies a beginning. To say this is imprecise language is to essentially say the word of God uses imprecise language, which is not just unbiblical, but not Christian too. What youre overlooking again is that if there is creation ex nihilo, then there is nothing. There is no universe when God existed from eternity. You cannot deny that no matter how imprecise you want to say our language on this subject is. Then, out of nothing, there is something. Nothing from something is a change as there is an external difference of the something from nothing, regardless of there being no state of nothingness.
You are welcome to your opinion, of course. From my perspective, the goal of theology must ever be to evolve, especially as philosophical paradigms change. I'm not necessarily suggesting that the historical theological renderings of "First Cause" are intrinsically improper--after all, we have to take into consideration the philosophical milieu in which they were formulated. However, given the evolution in human understanding regarding the universe since then, I think it is certainly appropriate and prudent for these theologies to be scrutinized in order that we do not reach illegitimate ends because we have applied a rubric that is based upon assumptions that we no longer make.
I have no problem with theology changing as long as what is changing makes sense and is backed by Scripture and not just philosophically as you claim. The thing is what we understand now is that the universe had a beginning. We understand the universe is finite in age. It is what was understood back then, and is even more supported now. I have no issue with scrutiny, but the ones you propose are nonsensical.
I see no convincing reason why one cannot affirm that the universe was created by God while also affirming the infinity of the universe. Your objection ultimately rests upon a linear conception of divine action in creation, but as I've argued again and again, there is no linearity in God's creative acts. Creation is ex nihilo, out of nothing. The necessary philosophical import of this notion is that the "no-thing" of which we speak is not code for "before" the existence of the universe, or even for "a state in which the universe didn't exist." By even naming the "out of nothing", we have betrayed a linear conception of God's existence in relation to the universe, and dissolved the necessary tension we must maintain between the existence of God and that which is "other than" God in order to not devolve into a mindless pantheism.
Once again you seem to be distorting what I am actually meaning to convey. I said that one cannot assert that the universe was created by god while saying the universe had no beginning. Creation implies an origin of, hence if God created the universe there is a beginning to the universe. So my objection doesnt really rest on any linear concept of creation, but the actual meaning of creation itself. Therefore, this response is only worth being a straw man.
Surely you can see how improper it is to say that the universe was non-existent!
Actually, I cannot. A nonexistent object is that which does not exist. Although of the insinuating paradox of this view, we accept lots of negative existence statements that are true and sensible. Something like Sherlock Holmes does not exist, or Zeus does not exist.
The vindication to the paradox is to discredit the premise that If a singular term
a denotes something, then
a does not exist is false. The aim here is that while the quantifiers there is and something cover everything, the objects that do exist presently only cover a light portion of that domain. So in this sense it would be false to conclude
a means something to
a is something that exists. The statement Zeus does not exist merely depicts that Zeus is a nonexistent body. Zeus denotes a mythical Greek god and thus is intelligible. So, the whole sentence Zeus does not exist is meaningful too. Since it is true that Zeus is not associated to the class of objects that are considered to exist, Zeus does not exist is true. This rule could be executed to all negative singular existence statements, such as with the universe.
"The universe was no-thing"
"A == !A".
These are absurd statements, and really betray a fundamental confusion about God's relationship to the universe.
Surely you get my point now, that there is no reason to assume the existence of something in order to deny its existence. That itself is what is absurd. In turn, there is no betrayal of Gods relation to the universe by claiming the universe was non existent.
From the perspective of causal relationships, the universe most certainly does not have a beginning or an origin, for it is not an "effect" of which a cause can be presumed. After all, if effects can inferentially lead us back to ultimate causes, we will never actually arrive at "no-thing", for that which does not exist cannot be the cause of that which does. And if we say that God "caused" the universe (be it material, efficient, or some other type of cause), we have actually jettisoned creation ex nihilo, for a regressive analysis of causality will lead us not to "no-thing", but rather "something."
Since the universe began to exist, and since everything that begins to exist must have a cause, from a causal perspective the universe does indeed have an origin. The universe is the effect of Gods creative act. God acted in whatever creative fashion, and as a consequence the universe began to exist.
When we are talking creation ex nihilo, we are simply referring to there being no material present firstly for God to create with. In that respect there is nothing. See, creation ex nihilo is in contrast to creation ex materia, which is to certify the idea there was pre existent matter for God to create with. In that respect, there would be something, however since we affirm creation ex nihilo, there is nothing. Yet the fact remains that God existed without the universe in a eternal, atemporal state. In this way, there is something without the universe as God existed without the universe and God is something since God exists. What Im saying here is that even affirming creation ex nihilo, there is something that will be lead to without the universe according to a regress of causality. On this point, my partner is profoundly confounded on what creation ex nihilo really proposes; as he takes it to essentially mean that god must be considered nothing.
In this way, then, if we abandon creation ex nihilo and advocate some causal beginning to the universe, the ultimate philosophical result must ALWAYS be pantheism, for the inverse relationship of effect (the universe) to the cause (God) will necessarily require that we posit the existence of the effect on a commensurate ontological level with the cause.
Again, there is no need to abandon the concept of creation ex nihilo to regard a casual beginning to the universe as explained above. As it has been shown throughout this whole thread, Pantheism is not the result of any such view as it would require one to fallaciously change the context of Pantheism itself. And as I said before, and to which obviously was still not produced, there is no evidence or further argumentation for the idea that a material effect must have a material cause.
My objection to your distinction is not based on me "missing it"--I object because the notion itself is absurd. You continue to suggest that there is a distinction between that which God is "consciously aware of from eternity" and what actually obtains. I get that. What you haven't done, however, is even attempt to explain or defend how this distinction is meaningful.
I have explained this, many of times. This is why I say you have missed it. The question is whether you intentionally or unintentionally missed it. Like I said, Im giving you the benefit of the doubt.
For example, I will ask again: If God is consciously aware of something "other than" God from all eternity, precisely where did this knowledge come from? If the universe doesn't exist to be known from eternity, how is it that God is consciously aware of no-thing? And, on the other side, if the universe obtains precisely because it is eternally and "consciously" known by God, how can we speak of the universe being "other-than" God at all? As I suggested in my previous response, if God's knowledge of the universe is commensurately eternal with God's knowledge of Godself (which is ultimately what you are arguing), then we must necessarily posit the eternal existence of the universe itself within the very nature of God, for that which God knows (the universe, in this case) is that which is (for God doesn't know no-thing)--to say that God has knowledge of no-thing is patently silly.
There is no need to ask again because I have already answered this question in the previous round. Go back and read it yourself. This is how you have missed my explanation on the difference here. I said that there is no origin of knowledge since it is eternal, and as God always existed God has always known of everything. So, to pose this question is nonsensical. The universe exists necessarily, and something that exists necessarily is that which can be known by God. The universe is other than God because the universe does not presently exist from eternity whence God knew of it, as in when God existed without the universe the universe did not exist. What about that is too difficult for you to understand? What you suggested in your previous response has been shown to be false, which means that it doesnt make it any truer by simply regurgitating it here. Yet again another shallow attempt to discredit my position.
And I will continue to suggest that while language will obviously not "elaborate" the true nature of God, this in no way means that we can run roughshod over the language that we use. You say that language "really doesn't matter", and on that point, I agree that you don't think it does, given your frequent contradictory use of the very words you're attempting to use to defend your position. But notwithstanding your imprecise and often contradictory use of language, it is important insofar as communication is concerned. In the course of a debate, the words that one uses--and more importantly--the way which one uses words is extremely important for explicating one's position. If you disagree, than there is really no point in debating as the retreat to "it really doesn't matter" will render the meaningfulness of the discussion moot.
First, you argument that I use imprecise language results from a misunderstanding of negative singular existence statements. Second, youre taking my statements out of context. I never claimed that words do not matter, but when we attempt to describe God our language doesnt matter because it does not convey the whole nature of God in entirety. That is not the same as saying words dont matter by itself. And again, to which you once again have not refuted, your objection of the contradicting words I am using to describe my position must be shared by your position as well, since God is eternal and therefore timeless and existed before time.
But despite your claims that the words really don't "matter", you are actually a bit dishonest on this point. Throughout this debate (and even in this post, which is humorous), you have appealed to particular words ("beginning", etc.) to establish your point, and in doing so, have relied upon some intended meaning for these words (notwithstanding the imprecision with which you used them). So if they don't matter, why would you make such appeals? Surely you see some level of self-contradiction in that.
Again, youre taking my words out of context. I said that our language will not reveal in entirety the true nature of God, not that words do not matter. Now, I have used words like beginning but such a word would only be applicable to our finite perspective, not Gods since He has no beginning. So, if beginning is really only significant to us, I am not pealing the meaning from said word but giving it meaning by defending the idea, both Biblically and scientifically. More than anything I am not saying that our words to describe our perspective do not matter, but the objection that our language is imprecise to detail an infinite God is as that is given!
Moreover, if you are appealing to concepts (like causality) "only in manner of speaking", in what way am I supposed to understand your position? If you want to advocate that God "caused" (or "started) the universe, but don't want to be held to the standard of what "caused" (or "started") implies, there's little point in discussing the issue with you.
This again will be another example of how my opponent obscures my statements. I didnt say that concepts like causality are only to be taken in a manner of speaking, rather what I said was the statement there is no time before time should only be regarded as a manner of speaking and not literally. So, I am not neglecting the implications of God as a first cause, as I have explained what I believe that implies, and as that directly conflicts with your view, there is much point in this discussion. If not, you wouldnt have responded in much detail as you have been doing.
The point you continue to miss in this discussion is that the "temporal location sense" doesn't mean anything in relation to divine knowledge, even within your own model. If God has knowledge of something, this something must necessarily exist whereby it can be an object of knowledge. If we step away from your obfuscating issue of "temporal sense location", there is no distinction between that which God knows eternally (the past, present, future, within your model) and that which obtains in space/time. After all, if it is an object of divine knowledge, it's ontological obtaining is already presumed in the idea of knowledge of that which obtains, for if it has not ontologically obtained, it cannot be known (since again, God does know no-thing). So then, if God has eternal "conscious awareness" of that which God "will" create (vis-a-vis your unnatural distinction between conceptual and actual existence), we must conclude that that which God creates is essential in nature with Godself, whereby it can exist in such a state that it can be commensurate in eternality with God's self-knowledge.
You have yet to even begin to address this challenge.
The point you are missing is that the temporal location sense of the claim
x exists now is very relevant, even to your own model. All that is to mean is
x exists in a way that we can observe it. Again, if something exists necessarily,
it is an object of knowledge. If something exists necessarily, the implications strongly mean that which is going to exist does not presently exist, i.e. what necessarily exists is not observable to us. If I contemplate making a sandwich and what I want on it, such a conceptual understanding does not mean that the contents of the sandwich or the sandwich itself exists presently in the sense that I can see it, smell it, or taste it. When it comes down to it, being conscious of something does not equate to that something being present when consciously thought of. To argue from that point is absurd.
This challenge has been more than addressed. It has been ruined.
Furthermore, I would argue with your point that there is a meaningful distinction between being "known" from eternity and "existing" from eternity. I think that if you actually contemplate the issue, you'll see that the two are, in fact, one in the same. From one's own perspective, of course, it does not appear that one exists from eternity. However, we're not talking about one's own knowledge of one's existence--we're talking about divine knowledge.
Much of this makes sense, though it doesnt make the idea that conscious awareness of something equates to the actuality of that something. It does not appear that we exist eternally from our experience because we are not actually present from eternity. If we were, since existence implies self awareness, we would be aware that we exist from eternity. And so yes, we are not talking about our knowledge but Gods knowledge, but you are talking about the knowledge of something (us) being the same as actually existing.
If God's knowledge of something is eternal, this knowledge presumes the actuality of the object of knowledge. As there is no change in state in God's knowledge (well, there should not be
your perspective actually introduces severe change, but that's another matter), there is no scenario in which God's knowledge of something transitions from conceptual to actual.
This is wrong. What you have not been able to argue against is the notion that knowledge does not equal out to actuality. I have knowledge of me going to lunch with my dad two days from now, but that event is not an actuality. In conclusion and which cannot be denied: knowledge =/= actuality. This is not to say that when the actuality of what is known comes about, there is a transition, but to say that what is known is presently happening. This does not change any aspect of divine knowledge as there is nothing about an eternal knowledge that could be changed. There is nothing to add to everything being known from past to future, literally
all is known at that point.
For example, God does not have only conceptual knowledge of Godself--rather, as God exists, so God knows Godself fully and completely. In the same way, if we posit that knowledge of the universe belongs eternally to the mind of God, we must assume the same: there is no "state" change in God's knowledge of the universe from "conceptual" to "actual". And more to the point of your misunderstanding, there can also not even be a "state" change in that which God has knowledge of. That is, if God has knowledge of the universe from eternity, we cannot conceive of a state in which the universe is not known to God as the universe. If the universe is known to God from eternity, it is not because knowledge of the universe is appropriated to the divine mind via creation (which would negate the premise of God's eternal knowledge of it), but rather because the universe exists in a domain that corresponds to God having eternal, divine knowledge of the universe. As the only domain in which this type of knowledge is possible is that of the divine Self, we must conclude, then, that if God has eternal knowledge of the universe, it is because the universe exists eternally within the domain of the divine self; in other words, the universe exists eternally with (or more appropriately, as) God.
I feel like this is a circular argument now. I have refuted this many times and for the last time in this final round. I am not doing it yet again.
As I pointed out in my previous response to this "analogy", there is nothing of the future which you are imagining. You are simply extending knowledge of "what is". But this doesn't really matter, because your final point (that something "external" of God gives way to foreknowledge) destroys your argument completely. If you are arguing that God's knowledge of the universe is eternal (conceptually or otherwise), but then are also suggesting that this very knowledge is premised on that which is "other than" God, you actually have more fundamental issues to deal with than the inevitable conclusion of pantheism.
I still think you are getting the wrong impression of the analogy. I do not know the future of which I am thinking of, but I am thinking of something I want to know that may happen in the future. For example, say I think of marriage between my girlfriend and I. When I look into the ball, it will reveal whether or not we will get married, what it will look like, and so forth. I do not know what the future holds in that respect, but I want to know so I think of marriage between her and me.
Even without the analogy my point here still stands: the actuality of the future is not brought about by the knowledge of the future, rather the future is brought about by the individuals that engage in action and the events they bring about. Foreknowledge is therefore not a causal factor. You say this destroys my point here when in fact you fail at showing
how this is so. Basically another baseless claim.
The point you continue to miss is simple: if God eternally knows "what is going to happen", the "what" must refer to something (not no-thing, which can't even be named), since God doesn't eternally know "not what is going to happen" (which is no-thing, an absurdity). Therefore, as God's knowledge of what is going to happen is eternal (in your view), the "what is going to happen" must also be eternal whereby it can be an object of divine knowledge. If, on the other hand, the "what is going to happen" is not eternal, it cannot be eternally known to God, for it is no-thing, and we would be absurd in saying that God has knowledge of no-thing.
There is nothing about this point that would make it hard to grasp. Its just irrational. Reading it back to myself it really doesnt even make sense. The what that is known is the future as it would necessarily exist, not as in it existing presently from when it is known, but only conceptually. Ive shown this argument wrong on many fronts. It is weak, short coming, and nonsensical. Whenever it is brought up again it can only be referred to as such as I would be wasting my time repeating what has already been said and that which was nothing said about.
If God is not the universe, and if the universe is not eternal, how can God "move" the universe? Moreover, if the universe is created ex nihilo, exactly what is "moved"? I know you don't think that language matters, but surely you see the absurdity of your position in this case.
God doesnt move the universe per se. God creates the universe, and with the first creative act, the universe began to exist as a result. Again, creation ex nihilo means there is no pre existent matter for God to create with, so its not as if I am saying there exists matter and energy alongside God for Him to create with, rather there is no matter and energy, then out of nothing, since the only being that would have existed is God (without the universe), is something. I believe when I said move I used quotations to signify not literally moving as referenced to God but create.
The very nature of causality (the "movement" which you suggest) implies changes in states between the agents of cause and effect. But this is absurd. To imply such a change is an affront to divine immutability, and is equally absurd in relation to the universe, as you jettison entirely the concept of creation ex nihilo and substitute in its place an eternality of the universe, whereby the universe can be understood as undergoing a "change" by interaction with its efficient cause. But of course, creation ex nihilo implies no change (since the "move" from no-thing to something is not a "move" or change at all). Therefore, in order to maintain this fundamental doctrine of Christian belief, you'll need to seriously revisit your haphazard application of causality to the creation of the universe.
If you knew and really thought language was as important as you claim, then you would understand what a manner of speaking is. Apparently you are not aware of language that would indicate a manner of speaking, which strikes me as very odd again being that you made this huge deal about language. I did not mean literally move hence my quotations. Once again, you have no supported why there would have to be a change in states. As it is unsupported it lacks sense. Thus, there is no affront to divine immutability. My partner wants to act like causality is irrelevant when it comes to the existence, and even more so the creation, of the universe. This thought is central to any Christian concept of the creation of the universe. It is Christian to conclude the universe had a beginning. On that premise alone it would follow that it is proper Christian theology to apply causality to the universe, since whatever begins to exist has a cause. It would follow then, though more unfortunately for my partner, that to deny these Christian understandings is therefore not Christian.
Hmm, I thought words didn't matter? If I'm to take your position that precision in language is of no importance, why should I pay any attention to the "words" that you quote from Scripture? Again, the self-contradictory nature of your argument reveals itself.
I never said words didnt matter. That is only you twisting what I really had said as what I actually said isnt what youre saying I did. Also, I wouldnt expect a person of your theological background to pay any attention to Scripture, as this is evident from you dodging my question on the beginning of the universe as it is referenced in Scripture.
The universe existing eternally in a commensurate way with the very being of God is hardly a "plan". Such would be akin to saying that God has plans for Godself, which is absurd.
Eternal knowledge of creation would give way to an eternal plan for creation. Again, this is even noted in the verse I mentioned. The Bible mentions that God has chosen us before the creation of the world, and that suggests a divine plan. The Bible does not mention a plan for God that God has, so that objection makes absolutely no sense. You did not even begin to address this verse as it directly conflicts with your position, which is itself absurd.
But there is really no objection that you can make, for one need not assume "eternal" knowledge of creation in order to allow for God achieving divine purposes within creation. Such an imposition of a linear view of knowledge upon God is not necessitated, either philosophically or biblically.
I am not talking simply about divine purposes, but a plan for creation before creation. That is Biblical, and is of no I issue of it in a philosophical sense.
Language! There is no "at that point" in God's creating of the universe. God does not "become aware" of the universe "after" or "as" God is creating it, for these concepts imply a "tensed" relationship of God to creation. As I've maintained throughout, God's knowledge of the universe emerges with God's creative acts. They do not emerge in a retroactive way "from" the existence of the universe "to" God's mind.
What exactly does emerge mean? This is something you havent really defined or brought to light, which makes your position hard to understand, not because of some intellectual complexity but rather from a lack of information and support. The only definitions that would even relate to your position are two:
- to become manifest : become known <new problems emerged>
- to come into being.
If gods knowledge of the universe emerges with creative acts, then there is more than one creative act, as again knowledge of the universe would not be complete if there is only one creative act. If there is more than one creative act, then god would have been creating until the universe is finished assuming that is something you accept of which I doubt (I assume you think god is presently creating). Either way god would still be considered to be in the process of creating, in a state of constant flux as his knowledge of the universe emerges with each creative act. This is something I asked of you to which you did not answer so now as it just makes even more sense that the above is actually the case, Ill move forward with my objection which I believe still stands.
If either gods knowledge of the universe is emerging presently as he would be presently creating, or if gods knowledge of the universe emerged with the few acts of creation and since then has been finished, each would imply a tensed relation to the universe. That being so, god would said to be existent in time and experience time as we do.
Moreover, there is no state in which knowledge of the universe is "added" to what God "previously did not know" because, again, these linear, tensed concepts have no bearing on the existence or acts of God. There is no "addition" to divine knowledge, for God's knowledge necessarily and completely encompasses that which "is". As that which isn't (no-thing) is not an object of knowledge, the domain of what God knows is constantly and unchangingly infinite, encompassing all of that which exists.
Youre missing it. Acts as in more than one creative action necessarily means a linear tensed concept. Acts are such a concept. What about this do you not understand? Therefore, it would be correct to say that as god does not know something of the future, then as he creates and his knowledge of the future emerges, what he is ignorant of is now comprehended, and so added to the knowledge he already has of the past. According to your position, knowledge of the universe emerges when god creates, so when the future finally exists in whatever way it will according to you, knowledge of what is happening comes into being as god creates. It is something when it comes into being and is then considered an object of knowledge. It is knowledge once not known, and then it is known, hence a bash to divine immutability, and therefore of Christian theology.
I never said God obtains knowledge! This is purely your misunderstanding or misrepresentation of my position. What I said is that God's knowledge of the universe emerges with God's creation of the universe. In this way, the knowledge which God has about the universe does not "come" from anywhere; it is commensurate and essential with God's creative acts themselves.
Here you said this, So God's knowledge of the universe is not "obtained" from the emergence of the universe, but rather from the divine act of creation. By this statement what you seem to be saying is that gods knowledge of the universe is not obtained from the emergence of the universe, but obtain from creation. You are denying that the knowledge is not obtained through the universe emerging, not specifically that knowledge is obtained is being false. Like I said it in fact appears as if youre saying knowledge
is obtained. If anything this is you not conveying your position in an adequate way.
And NO, God's knowledge does NOT increase. I've made this plain more times than I care to count. God's knowledge is necessarily and exhaustively inclusive of that which exists. As there is no change in state from the "no-thing-ness" of something to the existence of something, God's knowledge of that which God creates is never "added to", for the domain and extent of God's divine and perfect knowledge is still ever and exhaustively encompassing of that which exists.
If god experiences time, which as I have shown to be true, then there is knowledge added to preexistence knowledge of the past. That is how we experience time and the gain of knowledge, and since god would said to be experiencing time on an OT view, he gains knowledge, which violates even more the theological sound doctrine of immutability.
My partner has described Open Theism as he understands it. What follows are the few main criticisms which I feel bury my partners position, and to which I also feel were not adequately addressed which only makes them validated remarks. The rest I had to say about his position can be summed up earlier in this final round.
According to him, the universe had no beginning yet is still created. I preserve the claim that this is nonsensical, for the first reason an origin to the universe is found in the very first sentence of the Bible. Secondly, because of the implications of creation suggest an origin. If the universe had no beginning, it could not have been created. If the universe was not created, there can be no creator. Therefore, if there is no beginning to the universe, there is no creator of it. This conclusion, among many more, is why OT should be regarded as not only mendacious, but absolutely unbiblical as well. I am not saying that god is non existent according to OT, rather god cannot be logically said to have created the universe being there was no beginning to it as is claimed.
Furthermore, if there is no prior knowledge of creation or the universe, then there can be no plan for either. Scripture confirms to a plan from God before the creation of the world. A plan suggests knowledge, so an eternal plan requires eternal knowledge. If there is no plan, creation is obviously unplanned which is, as I said previously in the last round, extraordinarily unbiblical. An eternal knowledge of creation would mean it is perfect; encompassing all aspects of all there is to be known. This goes back to the existence of time itself and what could be said to exist of and in time. Remember, as I have shown, and to which was never refuted, non present objects exist, not in a temporal location sense as we could see them, but in a sense that means that they simply exist. Not only this, but the future as it is determined by past circumstances exists necessarily. Therefore the future can be said to exist. Now, despite the false assumptions my partner is guilty of that the future does not exist, and since the future would therefore be an aspect of everything there is to be known, if god does not know the future, he cannot be omniscient. This is yet another unwelcoming conclusion one must greet of Open Theism, which again is why it is established as unfounded and embarrassing to a traditional, Biblical understanding of Gods nature in relation to His omniscience.
Another critique which I said from the very beginning of the debate, is not, and now confirmed to never be answered satisfactory, is that of how it could be that god, whom is supposed to be immaterial, can exist within time/space which is material? The ontology of god would have to be temporal in nature for there to be a divine emergence of knowledge, since to obtain knowledge is a temporal action. It wouldnt seem sensible to say there is an emergence of knowledge with every act of creation since the immaterial cannot occupy time/space. Would it be that god is no longer immaterial as he experiences this divine emergence? Again, that makes the incarnation moot. It is not clear how the ontological existence of god is comprehended according to OT specifically regarding this divine emergence only because I would think there is no clear answer, or else it would have been offered. Either way, according to this here, it cannot be consistently maintained that god is immutable -- yet another feat of OT.
These are the tarnished thoughts that result from an Open Theistic view of god, time, and the universe, of which are all consistent and logically flow to their conclusions. The universe had no beginning; the universe could not have been created. God did not know he was creating until the very act of creation; there was no plan for creation. From here I wish to show why this position is erroneous on one last point to which my partner brought up as:
Notice how I have repeatedly portrayed my partners position as unbiblical, while this is evidently from the lack of evidence from Scripture on his behalf. Mark how he did not note even one verse to support his view of OT. In this sense, OT is unbiblical too. Rather it was the Traditional view which produced many Scriptures to show that 1) God is eternal and therefore timeless 2) God has an eternal plan for creation and thus eternal knowledge of creation 3) God has perfect knowledge 4) God is immutable 5) The universe had a beginning. Under OT, all five of these Biblical truths are convoluted, made out to be a sham when in fact they are not. Under the Traditional view, these five Biblical truths reach to new conclusions which state, and of which I feel I have supported in the subsequent rounds, that God knows the future and has so from all eternity. One last piece of Biblical evidence to allude to such an idea will be put forth:
You have searched me, LORD,
and you know me.
You know when I sit and when I rise;
you perceive my thoughts from afar.
You discern my going out and my lying down;
you are familiar with all my ways.
Before a word is on my tongue
you, LORD, know it completely.
You hem me in behind and before,
and you lay your hand upon me.
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
too lofty for me to attain.