Okay, I'll try to keep this manageable . . .
Kurieuo wrote:I have trouble accepting "extended". You say that Creation is necessarily an extension of God, but I just don't believe this.
In positions that say Creation does not have its existence within God's own existence, I can see "extension"... but God doesn't extend Himself into physical reality if such a reality exists within God's own existence.
No, I don't say that "Creation is necessarily an extension of God." I would disagree with that on multiple levels. Again, all "extension" means is "taking up mass in space."
Unless "anywhere" is equivalent to "everywhere" then there is no contradiction.
Consider your wife comes home and walks through your front door: "Hey Chris, are you anywhere?" Such implies she knows you're located in some part of the house, but she doesn't know where. The implication here is that you're not everywhere, but rather somewhere.
Now consider your wife instead yelling out: "Hey Chris, are you everywhere?" Obviously, there is a distinction. Therefore there is no equivocation, and therefore there is no contradiction in what I said.
So now, when you say "God is located anywhere", see the feeling I get? Despite your intended use, it carries with it some sort of connotation that God is somewhere, not everywhere. So I reject the use of "anywhere" since I embrace a full-blooded position of God's Omnipresence.
Simply adjusting to say "God is located everywhere" makes everything crystal clear.
I don't think you are following what I am saying. I am not making "anywhere" equivalent to "everwhere." They mean different things and I mean them as such.
The word "anywhere" has the connotation of any
particular place. When my wife asks if I am anywhere, she ask asking about my particular location. Assuming in such a context the question really means, "Am I anywhere
in the house," then the truth of the idea is contingent on my physical location. If I am down the street, then I am not anywhere
in the house. On the other hand, if she asks if I'm everywhere, there is no way that can be true because I am an extended being. That is, I have extension in space. To be everywhere, I would have to fill up all space, which I do not--indeed, I cannot (it is logically impossible).
So I still see a contradiction between saying God is not anywhere but He is everywhere. The
any in anywhere points to any possible location. The
every in everywhere points to all possible locations. If God is not in
any location then He, by definition, is not in
every location. What you would have to say is this:
- God is anywhere because He is everywhere.
You cannot say
- God is not anywhere because He is everywhere
What I say, again, is
- God is not everywhere because He is not anywhere
With that clarified, I therefore accept that "God is not
located anywhere in His creation. He doesn't have "this" or "that" location. Furthermore, you know I embrace that Creation has its existence within God. It is back-to-front to say that God exists
somewhere within Creation. Even perhaps that God exists everywhere
in Creation. Rather God
saturates creation, because creation has its existence sustained in God. That is a view acceptible to me.
But, please withhold your criticism to this extended explanation. However, you may define "in" -- such may not necessitate a Divine Substance. Many theologians, including Craig tentatively it seems, embrace Idealism. Thus, God's "speaking" Creation into existence is simply an exercise of God's "mind", whatever that is in the Divine sense. Given Idealism, it follows that Creation exists in God, not some bodily substance, but rather as some Divine specially controlled idea. And so, Craig for all his rejection of Panentheism, is in my opinion simply having a knee-jerk reaction like many others, since from Idealism it in my opinion necessarily follows that Creation is within God.
Now, please bite your tongue a little longer.
I know you believe in Divine Simplicity. Such that God does not Exist, but is Existence. This is something Byblos earlier pointed out and I can appreciate this. Now, if Creation exists, it is no longer a potentiality but an actuality like God Himself, then its Existence is therefore based on God's Existence who is Existence. Such that, Byblos can say that if God somehow stopped existing, so too would all Creation. So, guess what? Any part of Creation that actually exists, has its existence
in God. Not is the sense of substance, but in an Actual (?? searching for the right word ??) sense.
Ok, now you can release your tongue. I urge you not to reject Panentheism based upon the extreme views of some who hold it. My friend I often discuss theology with did this. Then he found out I embraced it, and was puzzled because he thought I accepted much "associated" thinking of Monistic Idealists which he came to [wrongly] think was equivalent necessary from Panentheism. After further discussion, he too came to appreciate many facets of the view that make sense. Panentheism is quite a powerful belief -- as as I hope to have demonstrated, even if you still disagree, it is very flexible towards a variety of positions re: God's nature or divinity if you prefer.
I'll discuss panentheism in more detail below. I'll only say here that if God "saturates" creation, then I don't think you can get away with saying that God is everwhere yet not anywhere because everything is "in" God. The moment you deny with me that God has a location, then you cannot affirm that God is in all locations (which is what "everywhere" means). At most, you can say based on your panentheism that God is in all locations, and that necessarily so. I think there are serious problems with that, but it is, at least, logically consistent.
To Byblos' point, we would not say that we have our existence "in" God in a metaphyical sense. As per your diagrams below, we would adhere to the first option--God and creation are radically different, for God is wholly other in every way. I wonder if you aren't predicating
existence to God and creation univocally. If so, that is part of our misunderstanding. I said this before, but I'll say it again. We do not receive existence as a thing added to our natures (which are things) and thereby we become real, such that 1 (a substance called existece) + 1 (a substance called creation) = 2 (a substance called an existent creaton). Rather, creation is such that it has the capacity to exist. Some things do not have that capacity. Square triangles do not. But creation does. Yet the capacity (in technical language, potency) to existence does not mean that it actually exists except as an idea in the mind of God. So what God does, being the very substance of existence--and as the substance of existence, what He does is reproduce
existence in other (non-existent) things--actualizes that potency. That actualizatioin is necessarily outside of God (metaphysically speaking). We can say it is "in" Him theologically, but not philosophically. Our being is received being, finite being, defined being. We have it as an actualization of a potency, not as a thing in itself. Thus, what we have is radically different from what God has (or better, from what God is). So panentheism is not only unnecessary for me, it is absolutely incompabitible with the idea of God as existence. For if everything is
in God (metaphysically), then we are literally sharing in the substance that is existence. Thus we are not a potency being actualized, but a composition of two substances: existence itself and our quiddity. But
that is unacceptable for reasons I won't get into in this post (the short answer, following Parmenides, is that when being itself is added to something as a nature, it necessarily and inescapably swallows up all distinction into itself).
Now that's my own view, and I'll compare it more with panentheism below.
I have panentheism in the back of my mind? Likewise, I knew you would have panentheism in the back of your mind as your read my post.
You'd have to lay out your argument for how such denies God's omniscience, for I believe it actually helps us to understand it.
Please don't simply have a knee-jerk reaction. I do not even know that Panentheism is proposed by Process philosophers. Rather, it is just a view of God's relationship to Creation. There are only so many ways two circles of "God" and "Creation" on a piece of paper can be structured (see my next post). And so I just can't fathom that such an obvious positioning was first proposed by Process Theologians, and as such I'd quite strongly disagree that Process Theologians (or anyone else for that matter) has the corner on Panentheism.
With all due respect, my rejection of panentheism is not a knee-jerk reaction. It is born out of a studied consideration of the matter. You know as well as I do that certain propositions necessarily entail other propositions. So a self-professed philosophical naturalist cannot logically affirm the existence of objective morality. That many do is just a matter of their own ignorance of what their position entails. You, having studied it, do not have a knee-jerk reaction in rejecting philosophical naturalism given its necessarily implications for morality. You actually understand the position better than they do.
So I know this sounds arrogant, but the implication is that I understand panentheism better than you do. And with all due respect again, I think I do. I appreciate the fact that you came to accept it without any knowledge of its background and that you hold it without any knowledge of its historical ontological bases. I appreciate the fact that you do not hold to Hegelian and process assumptions. I simply and humbly suggest that what you fail to realize is that you are holding two self-contradictory beliefs, just as philosophical naturalists who hold to objective morality do the same.
As far as how panentheism destroys omniscience, I'll make a follow up post on that because I think that will take us too far afield. I also need to be at a different computer where I have access to a few resources to be able to say things more clearly.
You say here "in" presupposes the idea that "God is extended"? You earlier said that "all physical reality is necessarily extended". So, although I reject the that God is extended and reject use of the term "extended" in my own position of Creation existing in God (as I earlier commented on), I'm not sure how the "in" is something bad if you believe "all physical reality is necessarily extended" and the "in" supports this. I'm missing something here.
If physical reality is extended and God is not extended, then physical reality cannot be in God, for then God would have to be extended. That is what "in" means. An idealist (as you mentioned earlier) could avoid this conclusion because he could argue that extension is just an illusion. But if you believe that the universe is
really extended, then if it is
in God, then God is
really extended insofar as He saturates the extended universe.
But, I do understand that you believe Creation is held together by God. I have no issue with this -- obviously I can embrace both "in" and "by" within my position. Using "by" is good, as such emphasises God's omnipotence and control. But, as pointed in my original post, the reason God can control "here" and "there" is because "here" and there" are within God and so accessible in an immediate manner. Omnipresence and Omnipotence appear to go hand-in-glove as does Omnipresence and Omniscience, since God existing everywhere helps us to conceive of how God may know everything there is to know.
Moving on, you've now introduced new terms "poles" and "pole of becoming". I'm really starting to feel daft, and I'm sure you've read about these concepts and are assuming I just know them too, but I just don't follow what you mean.
To however reiterate, I do not believe God extends into Creation, but rather God saturates Creation in virtue of Creation coming forth from God who alone possesses Aseity -- thus, it follows Creation has its Being from/in God whether one sees that as some divine Substance, Idealism or Actual Existence.
I'll get into the poles of becoming and being in God when I talk about process theology in more detail. The goal isn't to make you feel daft or pull any rhetorical tricks as you suggest below. I'm simply getting at what I see as the necessarily entailed presuppositions buried in panentheism.
Anyway, I don't agree that the
reason God can control there here and there is that they are in God. That would imply that anything not within Him is beyond His control. I, however, see absolutely no warrant for such a conclusion. There is nothing even commendable about the idea from our own experience. As a matter of fact, I think you have it reversed. They reason we say that God is omnipotent is precisely because He controls everything, is sustaining everything, and is giving everything its being.
So in addition to "Process Theology" you now also introduce a new term "Hegelian" which I've never heard -- but from the way you write it is something I wouldn't want to accept as a conservative or Scriptural Christian.
It is very powerful rhetoric to associate a position with perceived unfavourable conclusions. Whether wrongly or rightly, I can't help but really feel that your continual association of my positions or beliefs with this or that label, and your own with the "Traditional", "Classical" or what-have-you, is simply a type of persuasive debating style.
For example, consider YECs who might says: "You can try to divorce your Day-Age position from Scripture, but I believe in Scripture when it says God created in 6 days and rested on the 7th." To someone following the discussion, they're initial reaction as a Christian would be to side with YEC believing anything else is not scriptural.
I'm not saying you are purposefully doing this. Perhaps you're just use to using rhetoric, that is a persuasive writing style in your writing. But if there is any truth in what I say, then I'd like to drop this pretense if it is at all possible. It does not add much to discussion and I feel slants things in a less than honest manner, and than I'm left responding to a bunch of side criticisms in addition to just carrying on the discussion. I'm here to learn and develop my views, not win a debate.
Further, it is also a genetic fallacy to try to rule out one's positions or beliefs based upon associating it with others who hold the position or belief who might be less than desirable.
With that in mind, rather than simply associating my view of Panentheism with Process Theology or some Hegelian form, or simply stating that it can't effectively be coherent without such foundations, how about we explore just what it is you believe necessary ties Panentheism to Process Theology --- and if I reject certain ties you feel are necessary constraints, give me a chance to make my view coherent with regards to such issues.
Let's discuss your actual concerns, rather than broad-stroking Panentheism with less than desirable positions, implying it is anti-Evangelical and whatever else.
So I think I've dealt with these concerns sufficiently above. Again, I'm not trying to pull any rhetorical punches. You can ask me to refrain from those labels, and that's fine, but then there will just be other labels that get invoked--those philosophical notions that are entailed by Hegelianism. So in that case, rather than talking about Hegel, I could talk about his basic idea of thesis + antithesis = snythesis. But should I be worried about "broad-stroking" your beliefs there as well? At what point do we actually talk about the issues? I would say that is exactly what I am doing.
Moreover, this is neither a debate tactic nor a genetic fallacy. It is, rather, an implicit
modus tollens, such that:
- 1. Panentheism entails process theology;
2. Process theology is wrong;
3. Therefore panentheism is wrong.
So that is obviously not a genetic fallacy. But if you want to talk about rhetoric, I could politely point to your own example just above and accuse you (politely, again) of poisoning the well, which really
is a type of genetic fallacy and a very subtle
ad hominem. By even lightly suggesting that this is more about debate tactics and trying to "win" than a quest for truth, you are impugning my motives and thereby my credibility and thereby suggesting others reject the arguments themselves. And then you round all this out by employing YEC as an example of this type of fallacy--which you and the board know I hold--all in the context of a board that is wont to reject YEC anyway, which is to say, is to be sympathetic to your example. The rhetorical advantage there is to gain the sympathy of the reader on a point with which they definitely agree with you (illicit YEC debate tactics) and thereby impugn me with those same concerns.
So how would you feel if I suggested all of that was really what you
might be getting at? I suspect you wouldn't appreciate it at all.
What I suggest, then, is that rather than impugning my motivations, if you don't see the relevance of an idea I raise, then simply challenge me on it. Ask me to explain it. After all, if I am right, then you need to know it. And if I am wrong, then you can show me where I am wrong in seeing the relevance. That would be how we honestly discuss these issues with no genetic fallacies of any kind.
There is some mention of Panentheism, but I'm not sure what in particular about it you wish me to be paying attention to.
I understand Craig rejects it, and I believe Craig is inconsistent for doing so... as I commented on earlier with regards to his embracing Idealism.
I actually didn't know that Craig was an idealist.
Anyway, I know the article is on pantheism. But Clayton, who he is dealing with, claims to be a panentheist. Craig, then, raises some of the important connections between panentheism and omnipresence as we've been discussing. In particular, this section struck me:
- Clayton also tries to avoid pantheism. He proposes that we adopt panentheism instead as a way of affirming God’s true infinity. Such nomenclature is misleading, however, for panentheism is typically taken to be the view that the world is partially constitutive of the divine being, that is to say, the world is a proper part of God. But Clayton, despite some incautious statements that “we are ‘composed’ out of him who is Being itself”, explicitly affirms that the world is ontologically distinct from God, having been created ex nihilo at a point in the finite past and subsequently conserved in being by God. What, then, does Clayton mean when he calls his view “panentheistic”? He means that the universe is literally located in God. At first blush this is reminiscent of Newton’s view of divine immensity and absolute space. According to Newton infinite space is the physical by-product of God’s omnipresence, and objects moving through space are actually moving through God, who is present throughout space.
The underlined statement in particular is important, but the whole pargraph (and its context) is informative. Again, I'll say more about this later when discussing process philosophy in some detail.
Kurieuo wrote:Jac wrote:By your "omnipresence" meaning "there is nowhere in which God is not effectual", do you mean there is nowhere that God cannot effectively reach? If so, I think this downplays what "presence" in "omnipresence" truly means. For example, I'm present in my house right now while my kids are asleep. I can see the hallway and easily reach them in their rooms, such that noone could really access them with my knowing. My presence could be said to be effectual, but I'm not actually present with them at the moment.
I am not merely saying that "there is nowhere that God cannot effectively reach." I mean that God is actually effectual everywhere--effectual meaning "bringing about an effect." Put more clearly, I didn't say that God is
effective everywhere, but that He is
effectual everywhere. So I am not speaking of possibility but actuality. God actually is bringing about the effect of every point in space at the moment of its existence. Thus, if anything is some
where, it is there because God is so causing it (as the First Cause).
Ok, now I'm effectively lost.
If God is bringing about the effect of every point in space, then isn't Omnipresence logically entailed?
For example, if I'm
actually effecting something, then wouldn't I be present with that something? Or do you believe something like God's effecting is wound up and then set into motion, such that God doesn't need to be present for the effect to occur. I'm a little confused about what you believe here.
Surely God needs to be present (so-to-speak) in order for Creation to be held together
by God?
Jac wrote:I largely agree with you that: "He is fully present so to speak at each place and each point in time insofar as He Himself and not some part of Him is the cause of that thing's existence." (I only strike out "so to speak" as I believe God is fully present in virtue of His omnipresence, not just "so to speak" as in some pseudo-omnipresence).
And I include "so to speak" because the word "presence" implies location, which does not exist in God. God is "here" insofar as He is causing "here" to be. But God Himself in His nature is not located here or there or anywhere. In technical language, I would say that all that is, is because it has the potency to existence, and the First Act (which is God) actualizes that potency. It (the First Act) is, in that way, "present" to the effect.
Ok, got you. I suppose the nature of reality and as such omnipresence
is contingent upon the nature of God.
So I take it you are no longer effectively lost. I hope that my view of omnipresence is clear here. But to make it all the clearer, the "presence" in omnipresence is metaphorical language. God is not
literally everywhere because He is not
literally anywhere. But He is really effectual everywhere, and that is what we mean by God's omnipresence. So yes, omnipresence is contingent upon the nature of God--His nature is existence itself, and He thereby gives existences not substantially but as the act of a potency to any given thing. That is to say, He does not give existence to things as a nature but He gives it efficiently (that is, through efficient causality).
So I'll get to panentheism in detail (and the other discussion on time where I have a
mea culpa to issue) tonight!
