On Wed, 03 Apr 2002 11:21:14 -0500 "Howard J. Van Till"
<hvantill@novagate.com> writes:
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?
This is clearly an attempt to twist matters. My statement clearly
specifies that the time of this uncreated universe is what we have at
present. In plain language, it is a denial that there is a t=0. It seems
you are trying to import the notion of creation into what can at most be
a matter of forming or possibly reforming a deity/universe without
beginning, therefore, without creation as the term is normally used.
> 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?
Of course not. Pagan Plato has more good ideas than most contemporary
philosophers. But it does take us back to the denial of the very
possibility of creation, a notion which comes strictly from the Hebrew
tradition.
> 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?
Like it or not, all people who like process theology, though covertly. I
contend that this is one of the few possibilities possible to them,
though they try to twist it so as not to be responsible for the necessary
implications. They are not as honest, or perhaps aware, as a very liberal
churchman who told my dad that "We use the same terminology, but not with
the same meaning."
> 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?
I thought it was obvious: this version of process theology cannot have
the kind of beginning specified by any consistent version of the Big
Bang. Even a cyclic notion cannot be eternal, and that is the closest I
know one can come to a Big Bang without a start.
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
Granted, there is a problem. I refer you to Ted's post, where he clearly
notes that the view is inconsistent with orthodoxy. George, in an earlier
post, noted that it is essentially impossible to develop a Trinitarian
process theology. By "revising" terminology, one can come up with
virtually anything. At the extreme, one may argue with the Hindus that
all is maya, illusion.
What good I have seen of process theology seems to be a "justification"
of human freedom. It does that, but at a cost of contradicting what I
hold dear. If there is no Trinity, how can there be an incarnation?
Without the incarnation, what hope do I have? If the deity is restricted,
how can I be sure that everything will not crash because the limited
deity did not foresee that which triggers a catastrophic descent into
chaos? Complexity theory has recently produced a new outlook on
prediction. These matters, and many more, make process theology
incoherent if joined to orthodoxy. I contend that this is a necessary
conclusion if the problems are faced without fudging.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 03 2002 - 14:12:29 EST