Why God is Worthy of Our Praise

[JAL]

@YouAreAwesome

Open Theism is correct to assert that God cannot foreknow a free act. This raises an interesting challenge for an Open Theist like yourself. How does God know our thoughts even in the present, since they are not deterministically predictable? What mechanism does He use to be apprised of them? The divine indwelling of the human mind cannot be a cognitive immanence because, when my mind thinks, it is not God doing the thinking (nor vice versa) because otherwise God would be culpable for my sinful thought. Therefore God indwells my mind in a spatial/physical sense, not in a cogitatively immanent sense. Essentially, then, He remains an externality even while, for the sake of intimate embrace, physically interlocking with my mind. This is graphically depicted in Scripture. How so? Think of sexual penetration. The two bodies are physically interlocked for the sake of intimate embrace, but despite the penetration, both parties remain in some sense external to one another. The man's body doesn't merge into the woman's body as to form some kind of mutual immanence. Rather the two bodies, as externalities, merely juxtapose (interlock) as to form one flesh. This is precisely how Paul understood the divine marriage of Christ to His bride. As one of the most astonishing declarations found anywhere in Scripture, Paul annnounced:

"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church" (Eph 5).

On the force of that passage alone, the exegete is warranted in repudiating immaterialism. In order for the two parties to form one flesh, both parties must be flesh.

Now, back to the question. How does God know our thoughts? Simple. When you want me to know what you are thinking, you simply speak to me. By listening to the sound waves, I become aware of your thoughts. God simply pushes that dynamic one step back. He listens to your brain waves 24 hours a day. He hears your thoughts. Now here's the clincher in case you are tempted to ascribe the same dynamic to immaterialism. It has to work without a brain! Meaning, if the mind is removed from the body - or consider bodiless angels - God can still hear my material thought-currents, whereas immaterialism would be out of luck at this point. Here too, we see that materialism alone affords a coherent solution.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

My theory is that matter is inescapably volitional - it always acts/moves. And thus the initial motions in the Totality were logically subsequent, not temporally subsequent, to its existence.

How does logic move from step to step without time? Doesn't the word "subsequent" rely on time? Again, how does "logically subsequent" exist without time?

One professor claimed that the experiments utilized to confirm Einstein's conclusions seem to presuppose some of Einstein's beliefs, thereby tainting the process.

I would be extremely cautious in creating a system that had to deny any of these experimentally proven theories. And as I understand it, if we have space, we have time. If everything began with eternal conscious material, then time existed also. That's why I'm interested in if you are redefining space-time in some way that goes against the current theories of physics.

I have no objection to the idea that our universe is exploding. But to claim that it essentially emerged ex nihilo seems to be a bogus claim. I'm much more open to the possibility that God provided a lump of clay and then exploded it Himself.

I'm not following this bit. How can He provide the material and explode the universe into being, from a physical starting point? Where would this starting point actually be? Where is He located as He begins this universe? Sorry I'm just not getting my head around these cosmological problems.

you need to explain HOW the intangible impacts the tangible, and vice versa.

I understand. But I feel like this is asking, "How does a bat hit a ball?" To answer this properly would take a book and even then it might not be enough. Because for a bat to hit a ball we have to go back to the absolute first cause. In both cases, the bat/ball, and the intangible/tangle, the first cause is from heaven. I don't see why it's such a problem for our spirit to influence our thoughts via our soul.

And then I use those assumptions to build a cosmogony that resolves several historic theological problems never coherently resolved to date. For example without my theory of Adam, there is no coherent transmission of a sinful nature from him to us. Donald Bloesch remained Platonist but admitted that this problem is INSOLUBLE on traditional assumptions.

I looked into this quite a while ago and all I remember is that I believe we are born innocent, and not with a sinful nature. I'd have to go digging to remember how I came to that conclusion. But this is how I got around this problem.

you DO want to pivot your belief system on the claims of modern physics, many of which cannot be humanly understood, such as the singularity, special relativity, time dilation, and the curvature of space. Um...Ok.

Like I say, these things are observable, have evidence, or excellent predictive power and so I would rather keep these in my worldview or it will be very difficult to keep a logical position in general.

The Bible seems to assert that God upholds the universe. But if Einstein's theory of gravity is correct - if gravity is just a name for how lumps of matter warp space-time, then aren't the stars essentially upheld by - the stars themselves? Where is God's hand in all this?

In my view, gravity is the hand of God pushing and pulling on all particles to uphold the universe. He DIRECTLY upholds the stars.

I read the bible as a history of God's interaction with mankind. I don't hold it as my science manual. Though I do try and reconcile the two as far as possible. Can you give me the specific verse that talks of this?

 

[JAL]

How does logic move from step to step without time? Doesn't the word "subsequent" rely on time? Again, how does "logically subsequent" exist without time?

Clearly "logically subsequent" is not the same thing as "temporally subsequent". I don't believe in time as a self-subsistent independent reality existing apart from matter. There is no river of time that I can put my hand into. I regard "time" as convenience-term for a any given count of motions. Thus I fundamentally believe in matter-in-motion.

I would be extremely cautious in creating a system that had to deny any of these experimentally proven theories. And as I understand it, if we have space, we have time. If everything began with eternal conscious material, then time existed also. That's why I'm interested in if you are redefining space-time in some way that goes against the current theories of physics.

Current theories of physics? Newton's theories were assumed to be "proven" until overturned by Einstein's model. Now Einstein's model is in doubt due to its incompatibility with quantum physics.

Secondly, my model basically asserts the existence of matter. You don't have to side with my deviations from modern physics to be a materialist.

Thirdly, I'm pretty sure you're not naive enough to believe that the Big Bang theory - understood as the emergence of matter ex nihilo - has been apodictically proven to the elimination of all other theories.

I'm not following this bit. How can He provide the material and explode the universe into being, from a physical starting point? Where would this starting point actually be? Where is He located as He begins this universe? Sorry I'm just not getting my head around these cosmological problems.

God formed the universe from the leftover matter in the Totality. He could be a million times larger than the universe. You're seriously asking me if God is capable of engineering an explosion? Ordinary men are wise enough build a pipe bomb but God too stupid even to explode matter with His own self-propelling hands?

I understand. But I feel like this is asking, "How does a bat hit a ball?" To answer this properly would take a book and even then it might not be enough. Because for a bat to hit a ball we have to go back to the absolute first cause. In both cases, the bat/ball, and the intangible/tangle, the first cause is from heaven. I don't see why it's such a problem for our spirit to influence our thoughts via our soul.

Baloney. I don't need to understand the origins of the universe to recognize the incompatibility of tangible and intangible. You attest to this principle every day. For example if you want to drive a nail into a piece of wood, you'd select a very solid/tangible tool such as a hammer, as opposed to something less tangible like a sponge.

I looked into this quite a while ago and all I remember is that I believe we are born innocent, and not with a sinful nature. I'd have to go digging to remember how I came to that conclusion. But this is how I got around this problem.

Beset with exegetical problems, and not a sufficient solution. Fetuses suffer disease, starvation, injury, abuse. You cannot claim that God is infinitely kind and yet cursed Adam's innocent descendants - my theodicy resolves that issue.

Like I say, these things are observable, have evidence, or excellent predictive power and so I would rather keep these in my worldview or it will be very difficult to keep a logical position in general.

Again, my model allows for differences of opinions on physics controversies. It does NOT favor anything ex nihilo, but please don't make the nonsense claim that ex nihilo claims have been proven.

I read the bible as a history of God's interaction with mankind. I don't hold it as my science manual. Though I do try and reconcile the two as far as possible. Can you give me the specific verse that talks of this?

"He sustains all things by the Word of His power" (Heb 1:3)

"In Him we live and move, and have our being"

"In Him all things hold together."

I like the ESV rendering of Heb 1:3 (even though it's not the most literal translation):

"He upholds the universe by the word of his power" (ESV).

 

[JAL]

I understand. But I feel like this is asking, "How does a bat hit a ball?" To answer this properly would take a book and even then it might not be enough. Because for a bat to hit a ball we have to go back to the absolute first cause.

Everything we do everyday attests to our confidence that tangible objects impact like objects and that, as tangibility approaches zero, impact approaches zero.

Look, I can't prove anything 100%. I can't even prove that you exist. All I can do is remind you that a reasonable person will favor the conclusions most plausible in light of the data. For example, let's suppose you're a manager at a grocery store. The boss asks you why $300 cash is missing from the register. He proposes that one of your cashiers used his tangible hands to steal the tangible money. You reply:

"No. I have a much more reasonable theory. No physical agents were involved. There was no tangible interaction with the cash. Instead, an intangible mind used immaterial telekinesis to summon the cash into his pockets. "

He'd think you were crazy. Similarly, if one of the cashiers gave you that explanation, you'd dismiss that theory immediately. The only reason that Christians have entertained such ludicrous thinking is their historic love affair with Plato, compounded by centuries of indoctrination.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

How does God know our thoughts even in the present, since they are not deterministically predictable?

He knows the result only. As in, at present I see the soul joining spirit and body. The spirit being in the heavenly realm and our body in the earth realm. Our thought originates in the heavenly realm, then manifests in the earth realm. God sees the manifestation of thoughts because they become physically viewable. That would be my first guess at it anyway.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

On the force of that passage alone, the exegete is warranted in repudiating immaterialism. In order for the two parties to form one flesh, both parties must be flesh.

I see it as symbolic of the Holy Spirit becoming one with our human spirit through Jesus. He penetrates our spirit and births new life.

 

[JAL]

He knows the result only. As in, at present I see the soul joining spirit and body. The spirit being in the heavenly realm and our body in the earth realm. Our thought originates in the heavenly realm, then manifests in the earth realm. God sees the manifestation of thoughts because they become physically viewable. That would be my first guess at it anyway.

Ok now you're going so far as to claim that our immaterial thoughts (even those of an intangible angel) have physically viewable effects?

Look, when faced with two options, we should strive to pick the one that is most coherent/clear. Otherwise we've placed ourselves in a sliding slope. Meaning everytime we are faced with a fork in the road, if we always choose the least clear/coherent of the two options, we will DEFINITELY end up with complete gibberish.

Worse yet, you seem to be advocating trichotomy, which is literally one of the most incoherent propositions of church history. Although it's gained a huge following among pastors, 99% of professional theologians rejected it historically, and this is still true today.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Clearly "logically subsequent" is not the same thing as "temporally subsequent". I don't believe in time as a self-subsistent independent reality existing apart from matter. There is no river of time that I can put my hand into. I regard "time" as convenience-term for a any given count of motions. Thus I fundamentally believe in matter-in-motion.

But that doesn't answer the question. I'll go with your definitions for a moment. If matter is eternal, then it is either eternally motionless, or has some small amount of motion in it eternally. If it has some small amount of motion then time is also eternal. Have I misrepresented you in some way here?

 

[JAL]

I see it as symbolic of the Holy Spirit becoming one with our human spirit through Jesus. He penetrates our spirit and births new life.

This kind of language is what immaterialists regularly emit. Flowery language that has a "theological ring" and thus in some sense "sounds biblical" but ultimately conveys absolutely nothing because there is nothing clear/coherent being stated. What do you mean the Holy Spirit becomes one with our spirit? I become God? God becomes me? Or is it a spatial juxtaposition/interlock?

Symbolic? You might have a good case if this statement was found only in Job, Psalms, or Proverbs. In such books we anticipate the possibility of many non-literal texts. Not in the epistles, however. The epistles are 99% literal, didactic texts. Furthermore, the term "flesh" screams matter. If Paul wanted to convey something immaterial, flesh is the worst possible choice of terminology.

 

[JAL]

But that doesn't answer the question. I'll go with your definitions for a moment. If matter is eternal, then it is either eternally motionless, or has some small amount of motion in it eternally. If it has some small amount of motion then time is also eternal. Have I misrepresented you in some way here?

No, matter is eternal in the sense it doesn't emerge out of nothingness. Look, Platonists have been making similar claims about God for centuries. You'll often hear them say things like:
1. God is eternal
2. No time existed
3. Then God created time

If it has some small amount of motion then time is also eternal.

No. There had to be a first motion. Time is just a term referring to the current count of motions. When the first motion transitioned that count from 0 to 1, I refer to it as the beginning of time.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Current theories of physics? Newton's theories were assumed to be "proven" until overturned by Einstein's model. Now Einstein's model is in doubt due to its incompatibility with quantum physics.

Newtons theories are still applicable in inertial frames of reference, that is, when we are dealing with mass. The only time they fail so far as I know is at the speed of light and at the quantum level where we no longer deal with mass. So they weren't overturned, just recognized as not globally applicable to all areas of study. Special relativity is not overturned by quantum entanglement though there are still things to be solved.

I'm pretty sure you're not naive enough to believe that the Big Bang theory - understood as the emergence of matter ex nihilo - has been apodictically proven to the elimination of all other theories.

Yes, I understand there are still competing theories on the fringes, but the evidence points to the big bang and it's almost indisputable. You will need to ensure your system is proven by this evidence. So you'll need to explain: redshift, cmb, mixture of elements (the big bangs nucleosynthesis), the differences we see by looking back in time, etc.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

God formed the universe from the leftover matter in the Totality. He could be a million times larger than the universe. You're seriously asking me if God is capable of engineering an explosion? Ordinary men are wise enough build a pipe bomb but God too stupid even to explode matter with His own self-propelling hands?

Is the explosion within Himself? Or outside of Himself? Also, is there HEAPS more matter, outside of God? Is there heaps of left over matter? Or is God everywhere? If He's everywhere, how is there left over matter?

 

[JAL]

Newtons theories are still applicable in inertial frames of reference, that is, when we are dealing with mass. The only time they fail so far as I know is at the speed of light and at the quantum level where we no longer deal with mass. So they weren't overturned, just recognized as not globally applicable to all areas of study.

That's not accurate, as far as I understand. Einstein proposed a completely different model, an entirely new understanding of the fabric of reality. Yes, that would count as overturning Newton's theories. And I am not denying that Newton's theories "work" to some extent. But Einstein managed to impugn their account of reality.

Yes, I understand there are still competing theories on the fringes, but the evidence points to the big bang and it's almost indisputable. You will need to ensure your system is proven by this evidence. So you'll need to explain: redshift, cmb, mixture of elements (the big bangs nucleosynthesis), the differences we see by looking back in time, etc.

I don't need to explain anything. Any explosive effects postulated by Big-Bang theory, if legitimate, can be simulated by divine influence upon matter.

 

[JAL]

Is the explosion within Himself? Or outside of Himself? Also, is there HEAPS more matter, outside of God? Is there heaps of left over matter? Or is God everywhere? If He's everywhere, how is there left over matter?

The divine Word monitors all particles. This means He is more or less sparsely distributed everywhere, for example everywhere within our universe, and all throughout the remainder of the Totality outside of our universe. Not sure why you find this so confusing.

 

[JAL]

Yes, to answer your question, there is quite likely heaps more matter in the Totality outside our universe, albeit not likely arranged as protons, neutrons, electrons. I don't really insist on this point but it's my personal opinion.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Beset with exegetical problems, and not a sufficient solution. Fetuses suffer disease, starvation, injury, abuse. You cannot claim that God is infinitely kind and yet cursed Adam's innocent descendants - my theodicy resolves that issue.

Jesus was innocent and received terrible abuse. Innocence does not imply freedom from pain. I don't believe God cursed anyone; rather a curse comes on a person when they act a certain way. Adam brought pain and problems to all his descendants, innocent or not.

 

[JAL]

I see it as symbolic of the Holy Spirit becoming one with our human spirit through Jesus. He penetrates our spirit and births new life.

Aside from the vacuity of such statements (feel free to rephrase them into something clear/coherent), they undermine a clear exegetical parity. How so? "The two become one flesh", for a man and women, is a spatial localization providing the proximity needed for intimate union. The question is, in Paul's view, does Christ treat His bride the same way? Yes. Christ enters our bodies in the form of the Third Person as a spatial localization intended to provide the proximity needed for intimate union. To ignore the parity in the passage is to exegetically torture the text.

 

[JAL]

Jesus was innocent and received terrible abuse. Innocence does not imply freedom from pain.

No. Absolutely unacceptable analogy. Jesus volunteered to atone. Innocent suffering is perfectly acceptable if volunteered as atonement for others. This is perfectly consonant with the human concept of justice. For example if I decide to put in extra hours at work to pay for my son's speeding ticket, I've volunteered my own blood, sweat, and tears to pay for his sin.

I don't believe God cursed anyone; rather a curse comes on a person when they act a certain way. Adam brought pain and problems to all his descendants, innocent or not.

Unacceptable.
(1) God did in fact pronounce judgment upon the human race when Adam sinned. You ignored my appeal to Gen 3.
(2) Ideally, even human justice systems would like to shield the innocent from any side-effects of criminal behavior. They are often unable to do so. But God has no such excuse. An infinitely kind and fair God would not allow the consequences of Adam's sin to befall 100 billion innocent people. For instance He could have easily started over with Bob and Sue.

 

[JAL]

@YouAreAwesome

I'd like to make a couple of more notes about the biblical evidence for materialism.
(1) Angels. Angels are sufficiently tangible to stand around the throne (Rev 5:6 11), strike Peter in the ribs (Acts 12:7), walk ahead for Peter to follow (12:9), draw a sword from a sheath (Jos 5:13; 1Chr 21:27), open prison doors (Acts 5:19), wear garments (Mk 16:5; Lk 24:4), ride horses(Rev 6:1 8), open sealed scrolls (Rev 6:1 8), carry weight scales (Rev 6:5), sound trumpets (Rev 8:6ff.), play harps (Rev 5:8), hold bowls of incense (Rev 5:8 9), shout in thunderous voices (Rev 10:1 4), carry off the dead (Lk 16:22), and be fettered by chains (2Pet 2:4; Jud 1:6; Rev 20:1). In Ezekiel's vision of angelic cherubim "their [physical] feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot...Their wings were [physically] joined one to another" (Eze 1:7, 9). When they flew he "heard the [physical] noise of their wings like the noise of great waters, like the voice of the Almighty, a noise of tumult like the noise of a host: when they stood, they let down their wings" (1:24).

(2) Sound. Regarding physical, sonic energy. Throughout Revelation entities cry out in loud voices or mighty voices (e.g. Rev 1:10, 15; 5:11 14 6:1, 9 10; 7:2, 10; 8:13;10:13; 11:12, 15; 12:10; 14:2, 7, 9, 15, 18; 16:1; 18:2; 19:1, 6, 17; 21:3). Voices can differ in loudness only in virtue of gradations in the magnitude of sonic energy. John never categorized heavenly voices as purely “in the mind” or “in the heart.” Certainly he knew the difference, for he documented that earthly Babylon “saith in her heart, I sit [as] a queen” (18:7). At one point “there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour ” (8:1). Silence means the cessation of objective sound, the environmental cessation of sonic energy. On the last day “the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a [sonic] shout, with the [sonic] voice of the archangel, and with the [sonic] trump of God" (1Th 4:16), "for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible" (1Cor 15:52).

 

[YouAreAwesome]

"He sustains all things by the Word of His power" (Heb 1:3)

"In Him we live and move, and have our being"

"In Him all things hold together."

I like the ESV rendering of Heb 1:3 (even though it's not the most literal translation):

"He upholds the universe by the word of his power" (ESV).

But this verse is explaining how the SON upholds the universe by the word his power. I thought you said the Son is only one tiny part of the Godhead?