dfsiemensjr@juno.com wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:44:03 -0700 "John W. Burgeson"
> <johnburgeson@juno.com> writes:
> > Dave wrote: " The price for a changing deity is abandonment of
> > omniscience,
> > a deity which can be surprised by events, one which may not be able
> > to
> > keep things from going to smash."
> >
> > Why does positing a God who fits the above bother some people so
> > much?
> >
> > Seems to me that God WAS surprised a number of times as events
> > unfolded
> > as described in the Old Testament.
> >
> > If I am unable to "surprise" God (by doing something bizarre, for
> > instance), then I must conclude I am without free will and hence a
> > robot
> > made of meat.
> >
> > I think not.
> >
> > Burgy
> >
> This is a common belief, but it confuses the characteristics of the
> infinite with finite existence. An analogy is the very different results
> of arithmetic functions in connection with real, imaginary and even
> modular numbers and as applied to the transfinite numbers. The most
> straightforward discussion of the matter that I know is Dorothy Sayers,
> _The Mind of the Maker_. MacKay also dealt with aspects of the matter,
> but I do not recall where, and I did not think his treatment as
> perspicuous.
>
> Dave
Time is an epiphnomena of physical reality whose perceived forwardness is a
consequence of the second law. To posit "time" - as we have come to
understand it - before creation (as Glenn seems to want to do) would
necessitate "something" is changing "somewhere" - be it God or whatever.
But herein is my point: "something" and "somewhere" are physical notions not
applicable to any concepts of pre-primordial reality (what ever that may
be!). All such questions are moot. Of course you could say that
pre-primordal time is different - but is that really saying anything worthy
of further thought?
I agree with Dave that mathematical concepts in dealing with the infinite in
number afford (even perhaps the richest) analogies to concepts of infinity
inherent in our notions of the divine. But as with all analogies, they only
go so far - and in this instance - that not too. We can say much abut
mathematical infinities and their associated attributes since these
categories are of human origin, but mathematical infinities are different
in kind than the categories and attributes traditionally ascribed to God.
Since it is arguable that the latter too are of human origin, the actual
"who, what, when, and how of God" are questions beyond human categories and
reason - by definition; they are resultant from revelations of God to us
but always limited to human terms. Moreover, even revelation is problematic
- hence, the origin of religious differences.
I like the (Augustine's?) well known response to the inconceivable question
of what God was doing before time: preparing hell for those....well you
know. :-)
The problem with ascribing any attribute to God is that s(h)e is "Holy";
which I take to mean otherly or beyond human categories. Also, like Russell
and Godel have shown, logical categories in set theoretical foundations are
never certain to be free of antinomy. So, analogously to the loss of
certainty in mathematics due to the limits of reason, one runs into similar
contridictions in logic with theological categories like: If God is
immutable and omnipotent can (s)he change or limit he(r)mself? Take your
pick.
Reason is unworthy to place one's faith in! As Luther exclaimed in his
Galatians: "Everyone who by faith slays reason, the world's biggest monster,
renders God a real service, a better service than the religions of all races
and all the drudgery that meritous monks can render."
As with our bodies so our minds: they are wonderfully made but are temporary
and limited and must ultimately be distrusted and discarded in a religious
sense. But in animal state we are presently in, they serve us well.
George A.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 19 2000 - 12:55:19 EST