Because bad theology, like bad science, is of no use to anyone.
I was, of course, responding to particularly bad piece of theology that suggested that a changing God is 'theologically incoherent'.
If by responding you mean actually addressing the argument, no.
How would you respond to what Aristotle says about this, or Maimonides, or Hinduism, or Descartes? You are just saying you don't like the philosophical conclusions of pretty much every major religion and the vast majority of philosophical systems. That is a big claim - where do you think those arguments are flawed?
Again I challenge a piece of illogic.
The premises was that one's experience of God may change - but such experience does not mean God changes.
No, that is a conclusion, not a premise.
First, you are raising two separate issues - one's experience of change and an assumption that God does not change and linking them in a way to question our experiences. In other words, are experience are, at best, unreliable. If our experiences are suspect how do we arrive at a position where we can make any statement at all?
There is no assumption that God cannot change, as I said above. It is a very well described philosophical conclusion. The question of why we seem to experience change, or other qualities that do not properly belong to God such as wrath, is attached to our changableness. God is like a fixed point, the center of the circle, and we move around him along the edge. As we move, our orientation with relation to the unmoving center point moves as well. Our experience is our perception of events - we perceive a change because our perspective with relation to the fixed point has changed, not the point itself.
It is the - if it smells like a fish, looks like a fish and tastes like a fish - it probably is a fish.
But for some reason our experience that God changes is 'incoherent' - only if you limit God.
What's a limit? Being less than fully actualized would be one. It is incoherent because it doesn't make any sense. God cannot change and also be what gives reality to all things - Plato explains this quite succinctly.
Second - the assumption that God does not change is just that - an assumption where any number of biblical texts will indicate that God changes.
As above, the conclusion of a piece of reasoning, as well as being indicated by other Biblical texts, not an assumption.
You assumption is God lives outside of spacetime - something which is debatable at best. Jesus certainly didn't.
Again, it has nothing to do with assuming anything. The underlying source and ground of a thing cannot itself be contained by that thing.
Then there is quantum gravity - which exists when the universe does not. Take away the chucks of rock and clouds of gas and you will still have something called spacetime operating.
Your two statements here are saying different things. It is possible conceptually I suppose that one could have an empty universe made up a space-time structure - I don't know if it would be possible mathematically. But that does not make that structure something that is apart from the universe, and it certainly doesn't make it somehow self-existent or necessarily eternal.
It sounds like you've been reading Hawking's rather ham-fisted philosophical attempts.
To suggest that physics has some final answer is a bold statement indeed given the activity going on at present in search for the Higgs bosun.
Bold given the Higgs bosun? Um, no. That has no theological or philosophical significance at all - it is an interesting bit of science. Just because idiotic journalists call something the god particle doesn't mean it actually has anything more to do with God than any other particle does.
