From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> If God and "creation" are so intertwined, exhaustive alternatives are: (1)
> both are eternal in the sense of existing in infinite past time; (2) the
> deity existed eternally before "creating"; (3) both deity and universe
> sprang into existence simultaneously.
Re (1): The only "time" we know by experience is the "time" that is an
aspect of _this_ universe. What warrant do we have to use this term without
qualification before t=0, the temporal beginning of this universe?
> If (1), we have a pagan outlook, akin to that of the Ionians, Plato,
> Aristotle, etc.
So, if we stick a "pagan" label on it, does that make it totally unworthy of
further consideration?
> Plato's demiurge, with perfect plans hampered by
> recalcitrant stuff, and Aristotle's eternally existing Pure Reason and
> absolute unreason (Prime Matter), are not compatible with Hebrews 11:3.
OK, but who is arguing for Plato or Aristotle?
> However, the modern view can be consistent with Genesis 1:1, which does not
> necessarily involve creatio ex nihilo, but where it is clear throughout the
> chapter that nothing in matter hamper's Elohim's work. Still, there is a
> major problem incorporating the Big Bang.
What's the problem you have in mind here?
To summarize, in addition to all the problems process theology has with
orthodox theology, I think it falls apart from purely philosophical
problems. I see it as at root irrational.
I know that's what you think. In an earlier post you referred to it even
more ruthlessly as "drivel." That makes it rather difficult to carry on an
exploratory discussion here.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 03 2002 - 11:35:37 EST