Open Theism Vs Unmoved-Mover

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oreoracle said:
Quite right. I can’t believe it is an infallible route. Then again, I don’t attribute infallibility to any method.
Click to expand...
Then you cannot claim that any method is less reasonable then the other, since science presupposes the truths of metaphysics.

Have you ever heard of that? If not, then i doubt that you know anything about metaphysics.
Look it up some time. Good luck.
 
MindOverMatter said:
What does that mean? If you don’t know what meaning is, I’m not going to explain it to you.
Click to expand...
As I look it up, it doesn’t appear that the dictionary definitions help you. Meaning is subjective.

Your tone doesn’t surprise me, though. You’re one of the users who admit to having an agenda against atheists, am I right? Apparently you’re rather hostile toward agnostics to. I wonder how you act towards non-Christian folk who are religious? 😉
 
Oreoracle said:
I’m not rejecting knowledge, I just don’t care to investigate some things. I don’t desire ignorance, I’m just indifferent toward some concepts. It’s like me saying, “You don’t want to read my book about gardening?! Ignorance is bliss, as they say!”
Click to expand...
I would hardly consider books about gardening as synonymous in value with that which is the origin of my being, my feelings, my personal nature!!

You are just making excuses for yourself. Don’t come to these forums if your not interested.
 
MindOverMatter said:
Then you cannot claim that any method is less reasonable then the other, since science presupposes the truths of metaphysics.

Have you ever heard of that? If not, then i doubt that you know anything about metaphysics.
Look it up some time. Good luck.
Click to expand...
Christian starts thread with a leading question that fits his agenda.

Agnostic/atheist challenges the question and all assumptions made in its formulation.

Christian makes assertion and doesn’t provide evidence for his claim, demanding that his opponent dig up the evidence instead.

Much lolz ensues in the mind of the agnostic/atheist as he quietly leaves.

😃
 
No, he was posing a theological question. Is scripture in conflict with the “unmoved-mover”. How is that leading an agnostic?
 
Uninvited *Agnostic/atheist, derails the thread.

Catholic, who reasonably doesn’t believe things can exist and not exist at the same time, makes some suggestions to arrogant atheist who avoided the question about contradiction.

Atheist, conveniently believes that it is perhaps more reasonable to believe in things magically popping out of nothing for no reason, then to believe in an absolute being that brought all things in to being and is ultimately going to judge his actions.

Ironically Much lolz ensues in the mind of the agnostic/atheist as he quietly leaves. because he is arrogant, full of pride and does not care about anything that undermines his personal kingdom.
 
And on that note, lets get back on topic.

I don’t think I have the brain power to look at it tonight, but Thomas Aquinas was well versed in scripture and he held to the unmoved-mover position. Therefore I am highly sceptical that it would be in conflict.
 
Oreoracle said:
Quite right. I can’t believe it is an infallible route. Then again, I don’t attribute infallibility to any method.
Click to expand...
To say that something can’t be infallible all the time, assumes some ligitmacy yet allows room for error. But according to your own position, Science is completly invalid in regards to knowing truth because we can never know if objective reality is real. Science thus becomes a mere tuatology, unless one is willing to have a reasonable faith in objective reality. But then we must admit that, ultimately we aquire knowledge through faith and inference. In which case one is reasonable in having faith based beliefs that are supported by reason and probability based on experience so long as they are consistent with other forms of knowledge that make up our world veiw. Thus metaphysics cannot be shoved to the side as invalid unless it can be shown to be inconsistent in some way.

Are you willing to admit this in a court of law?
 
I’ll assume that you’re genuinely interested in my opinion and that you aren’t going to mindlessly bash me as though I’m a militant atheist and materialist anymore. I don’t know if that’s a safe assumption, though.
MindOverMatter said:
To say that something can’t be infallible all the time, assumes some ligitmacy yet allows room for error. But according to your own position, Science is completly invalid in regards to knowing truth because we can never know if objective reality is real. Science thus becomes a mere tuatology, unless one is willing to have a reasonable faith that objective reality exists. But then we must admit that, ultimately we aquire knowledge through faith. In which case one is reasonable in having faith based beliefs that are supported by reason or probability based on experience so long as they are consistent with other forms of knowledge that make up our world veiw.
Well yes, I think it’s reasonable to assume there are objects around us even though we can’t provide any air-tight proof of such. But I think most will agree that it’s one thing to trust one’s senses and that it’s quite another to postulate the existence of unobservable, infinitely complex intelligent beings to cover up the gaps in our understanding of the universe. That is, unless you’ve trained your mind to think this is reasonable.
Are you willing to admit this in a court of law?
Click to expand...
Depends. Are you intentionally being dramatic?

Seriously, I’ve been upfront this entire time. There’s no reason for you to feel that I’m trying to trick you.
Click to expand...
 
MindOverMatter said:
Is Open Theism the way forward, or is it a step backwards in regards to our metaphysical achievements?
Click to expand...
This question identifies a problem that I have had for a long time with the OT. I find it difficult to understand why God would communicate and participate so directly in the world as described in the OT, and I find it difficult to reconcile that with His apparent silence since then (other than His incarnation as Jesus).

This difficulty is also partly to do with my understanding of God as the unmoved mover. The understanding of God described and explained by Aquinas makes sense to me, both rationally and intuitively. Open theism does not because of the problems that it introduces with respect to God’s nature as eternal, unchanging and perfect for example. In addition it appears to accept as literal the accounts given in the OT of God’s actions. That’s not how I understand the OT. Therefore, open theism appears a retrograde step to me.
 
Oreoracle said:
I think you know that’s the point, my friend. 😛

Even if you went through a catalog of everything that exists, proving that they were all caused while doing so, it would only prove that everything currently in existence has been caused. It will not prove that there is a force dictating they must be caused.
Click to expand...
I would have to concur. However, wouldn’t you think that if, in point of fact, everything we know - and knew - was caused that we could at least postulate a Theory, if not a Law, that all things are caused? Wouldn’t you agree with me that this reminds us of science? It certainly is repeatable.

jd
 
Oreoracle said:
What do you mean by “meaning?” I always thought that meaning is created and assigned by subjects. It doesn’t actually exist as an object or quality of an object.
Click to expand...
“Meaning” usually means that something, such as a quality, or multitude of qualities, is predicated of an object. (In the sense of science, “subject” and “object” can be tautologous without a problem.) The quality of tallest predicated of a certain tree in a forest, will certainly make life easier for the two people who planned to meet by it.

Does “tallest” define the tree? To some degree, yes. To some degree, no. The definition of tree-in-general will be a scientific one, and should include the most general, i.e., the most universal attributes. The general definition should be based on predicates that relate to all trees. The definition of a particular tree, should include those attributes peculiar to it, that are not qualities of the other trees. “Meaning”, then, is directly derived from the predicates of an object precisely because they exist in the object, or objects, and may either relate them (generally) or differentiate them (specifically).

Another meaning of “meaning” is kind of a dirivative from “meaning’s” true meaning. It would be better to call it something else, perhaps, such as “significance”. To say that, “Something has meaning to me,” is really to say that, “This has more significance to me than that does.”

We should avoid confusing them.

jd
 
JDaniel said:
I would have to concur. However, wouldn’t you think that if, in point of fact, everything we know - and knew - was caused that we could at least postulate a Theory, if not a Law, that all things are caused? Wouldn’t you agree with me that this reminds us of science? It certainly is repeatable.

jd
Click to expand...
Yes, it would be reasonable for this to become a theory or law. I just think that it’s important to remember this law is axiomatic, no matter how obvious it seems.
 
JDaniel said:
Another meaning of “meaning” is kind of a dirivative from “meaning’s” true meaning. It would be better to call it something else, perhaps, such as “significance”. To say that, “Something has meaning to me,” is really to say that, “This has more significance to me than that does.”
Click to expand...
This seems to be the version of “meaning” I was using. I didn’t want MoM to be saying that objects possessed significance in themselves, which is why I asked what he meant.
We should avoid confusing them.
Click to expand...
Certainly. I’m glad you explained these definitions. MoM doesn’t appear to be kind enough to elaborate on his meaning of “meaning.”
 
JDaniel said:
I would have to concur. However, wouldn’t you think that if, in point of fact, everything we know - and knew - was caused that we could at least postulate a Theory, if not a Law, that all things are caused? Wouldn’t you agree with me that this reminds us of science? It certainly is repeatable.

jd
Click to expand...
What you have written here is good and very important given that people have a warped sense of reason and science. But may i suggest we take it to my new thread, because its off topic.🙂

Thanks D

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=362684
 
MindOverMatter said:
Some people think that the rational unchanging God of metaphysics does not accurately describe the God of the bible. The God of Abraham appears to be changing and interacting in a manner expressive of a being that is mobile. Thus the advocates of Open-Theism are calling for a change in our meta-physical or supposedly un-biblical conceptions of God, and are opting for a being that changes in time.

I fear that Open-Theism could do a lot of damage to are conception of God by rendering our God irrational or un-biblical.

What do you feel about Open-Theism? Has Christianity been corrupted by the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato? Is Open Theism the way forward, or is it a step backwards in regards to our metaphysical achievements?
Click to expand...
MoM:

This is truly a profound question and an incredible challenge to the unity of two ordinarily fairly allied sides of Christianity. It is certainly well worth a philosophical discussion. It is also a place where atheists can surely have an (name removed by moderator)ut because, in my opinion, Atheism is the impetus for the appeal to open-theism. If our atheist friends would enter the argument not as combatants, but, as intellectual proponents of the open-theistic position, they will learn a lot more about what classical Catholics believe and why. On the other hand, classical Catholics may well learn a few things too.

As I understand it, open-theism is the result of the debate over what exactly is Free Will. It certainly seems as though in order for us to have absolute Free Will, God cannot be deterministic in any way. This means that, in order to be non-deterministic, God cannot know - in advance - everything that we will do. But this is clearly opposed to the classical teachings of Catholicism. God cannot be omniscient and not know everything. And, “everything” cannot dis-include knowledge of what to us is the “future”.

Mom, you said that you “…feared that open-theism could do a lot of damage to our conception of God…” In what ways?

jd
 
MindOverMatter said:
Some people think that the rational unchanging God of metaphysics does not accurately describe the God of the bible. The God of Abraham appears to be changing and interacting in a manner expressive of a being that is mobile. Thus the advocates of Open-Theism are calling for a change in our meta-physical or supposedly un-biblical conceptions of God, and are opting for a being that changes in time.

I fear that Open-Theism could do a lot of damage to are conception of God by rendering our God irrational or un-biblical.

What do you feel about Open-Theism? Has Christianity been corrupted by the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato? Is Open Theism the way forward, or is it a step backwards in regards to our metaphysical achievements?
Click to expand...
MoM:

This is truly a profound question and an incredible challenge to the unity of two ordinarily fairly allied sides of Christianity. It is certainly well worth a philosophical discussion. It is also a place where atheists can surely have an (name removed by moderator)ut because, in my opinion, Atheism is the impetus for the appeal to open-theism. If our atheist friends would enter the argument not as combatants, but, as intellectual proponents of the open-theistic position, they will learn a lot more about what classical Catholics believe and why. On the other hand, classical Catholics may well learn a few things too.

As I understand it, open-theism is the result of the debate over what exactly is Free Will. It certainly seems as though in order for us to have absolute Free Will, God cannot be deterministic in any way. This means that, in order to be non-deterministic, God cannot know - in advance - everything that we will do. But this is clearly opposed to the classical teachings of Catholicism. God cannot be omniscient and not know everything. And, “everything” cannot dis-include knowledge of what to us is the “future”.

Mom, you said that you “…feared that open-theism could do a lot of damage to our conception of God…” In what ways?

jd
 
JDaniel said:
MoM:
Mom, you said that you “…feared that open-theism could do a lot of damage to our conception of God…” In what ways?
Click to expand...
Well, for one, if open theism represents the God of the Bible, it would mean that Aquinas metaphysics isn’t actually defending “Yahweh”, but actually replacing him with a different being, an un-biblical deity that isn’t known by organized religion or divine revelation. The God of “Greek Philosophy”. Aquinas would actually be more of a heretic (which i don’t believe), rather then a defender of the faith/philosophy synthesis. The faith/philosophy Synthesis is very important to our faith in terms of rendering it intelligible to outsiders. The unmoved mover is one of our greatest intellectual achievements.

I want to prove open-theism wrong. I want to show that Yahweh is the philosophical God of Aquinas. I want to prove that the seemingly changing God of the bible is consistent with the concept of an unmoved-mover. I am unaware that this has actually been achieved to a sufficient degree, and i am having difficulty making a synthesis myself. On the other hand many of the attributes of the biblical God are consistent with the God of philosophy. At the moment it “seems” that we are faced with a dilemma. To salvage the unmoved-mover, it seems we either have to turn much of the bible into poetic mythical stories and analogous representations of Gods mastery existence where it describes change in his being (this would cause problems with the Jesus). Or we must admit that the Bible has error; or we have to rebuke the Greek concept of an unmoved-mover and replace that being with a changing being. But such a being is rendered absurd by Aquinas himself!! Not to mention we would lose much of what makes are faith reasonable. But i do believe there is a better way of looking at it. However i want to see other peoples take on it.

Whats your thoughts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top