Page 3 of 3

Re: Is God Really Omnipresent?

Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 2:56 pm
by Kurieuo
Jac3510 wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Interaction Problem between our "Mind" and "Body"?

To give a quick summary, it is asked how an immaterial substance like the "mind" can interact with a material substance like the "body" and vice-versa when there is no commonality with which each can communicate with each other.

So many try to resolve the dilemma by assuming we are not really dual in nature, but rather one -- everything being reduced to the mind (Idealism) or everything reduced to the physical (Physicalism). And yet, there are problems with both of these extreme positions.

But, if a being like God acts as the intermediate medium of communication, such that what we will affects our bodies, and the felt experiences that we feel via our bodies is consciously received... then such is easily resolved. God "carries" the laws of interaction between our mind and our bodies.

I extend this to encompass physical laws. Such that, God ultimately carries gravity to consistently behave as we see it appears to behave in accordance General Relativity. Without the carrying, such laws would fail.

Not sure if that helps you any better, or if I just confused you further. :shakehead:
That, or you could reject substance dualism and go instead with Thomistic hylomorphism--the soul is the form of the body.

That's another one of those areas where we are in 95% agreement but differ in language in naunces. And as we have too many conversations going already, I suppose I shouldn't say anymore here! :ewink:
:lol:

Re: Is God Really Omnipresent?

Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 5:09 pm
by Kurieuo
Jac, just re: your "I'll get to panentheism in detail (and the other discussion on time where I have a mea culpa to issue) tonight!"

Since you'll get to what you see panentheism entails tonight, we can work with this discussion first...

You can of course respond to the other one, but I'll focus here. About to cut back my time as baby will soon be home (today!). Did I mention he was born prematurely two weeks ago? In any case, I find I can manage posting easier when things are a bit more hectic, if I just focus on one thread at a time.

Re: Is God Really Omnipresent?

Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 9:40 pm
by Jac3510
I'm going to have to put off further comments until hopefully no later than tomorrow night. I think I am coming down with a sinus infection. Boo, man, I say boo! I suspect I'll be going to the doc in the morning for an antibiotic and by tomorrow night (with the help of enough pseudoephedrine and acetaminophen to kill a small horse) the pain will have subsided enough that I can think clearly. That or I'll be loopy enough to make at least a halfway entertaining post, something which I dream of doing but I'm pretty sure I'll never quite manage. ;)

Re: Is God Really Omnipresent?

Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 11:53 pm
by Kurieuo
Jac3510 wrote:I'm going to have to put off further comments until hopefully no later than tomorrow night. I think I am coming down with a sinus infection. Boo, man, I say boo! I suspect I'll be going to the doc in the morning for an antibiotic and by tomorrow night (with the help of enough pseudoephedrine and acetaminophen to kill a small horse) the pain will have subsided enough that I can think clearly. That or I'll be loopy enough to make at least a halfway entertaining post, something which I dream of doing but I'm pretty sure I'll never quite manage. ;)
No worries, I need a break... although I may end up responding to your last post to make you even further behind. :P

Re: Is God Really Omnipresent?

Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:54 am
by Jac3510
I haven't forgotten about you. I got a lot sicker than I thought and have been abnormally busy the past week or so. Will get to this ASAP.

Re: Is God Really Omnipresent?

Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:23 pm
by Kurieuo
Hi Jac, take your time.

Also, please feel free to direct me to sources. You don't have to re-interpret -- I'm happy to read your sources with some commentary.

I've really only started doing some research online re: what other Christians believe. There seems to be a strong knee-jerk reaction, and many strawmen and misunderstandings in its raw form.

Some see it as an emergent church things with Christian spirituality, some see it as a middle ground between Theism and Pantheism (entirely wrong! -- Panentheism isn't any less Theism any more than belief in the Triune God is Polytheism rather than Theism).

I've seen it's teaching under Process Theology. So obviously, I'd be interested to know why... besides some correlations... and no doubt will soon find out. But, you can't knock a belief by popular positions of those who hold it (genetic fallacy). And just because there may not be clear responses regarding some puzzle pieces (as with Christ's incarnation and a Trinitarian understanding of God), does not mean their is a contradiction. Some issues I do see with Panentheism are still in the process of my ironing them out, but these same issues are present in other positions of God's relationship to Creation.

Anyway, moving on... just be interested to hear your response to the following passage in Scripture (Ecclesiastes 12):
  • 1Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth, before the evil days come and the years draw near when you will say, “I have no delight in them”; 2before the sun and the light, the moon and the stars are darkened, and clouds return after the rain; 3in the day that the watchmen of the house tremble, and mighty men stoop, the grinding ones stand idle because they are few, and those who look through windows grow dim; 4and the doors on the street are shut as the sound of the grinding mill is low, and one will arise at the sound of the bird, and all the daughters of song will sing softly. 5Furthermore, men are afraid of a high place and of terrors on the road; the almond tree blossoms, the grasshopper drags himself along, and the caperberry is ineffective. For man goes to his eternal home while mourners go about in the street. 6Remember Him before the silver cord is broken and the golden bowl is crushed, the pitcher by the well is shattered and the wheel at the cistern is crushed; 7then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it. 8“Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher, “all is vanity!”
What are we to make of this essence or "breath" that returns to God. How do you see "the spirit" here and secondly how does it return to God?

Re: Is God Really Omnipresent?

Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:15 pm
by Kurieuo
Jac3510 wrote:I actually didn't know that Craig was an idealist.
He implied it when I read him saying something along the lines of, if we have rational foundations to affirm Theism on non-idealistic grounds, then so much the better (very much paraphrasing from memory).

I recall it, as it finally made sense to me how Craig embraces Creation from literally nothing... (which I still as being just as absurd as Atheists saying the universe came into being from nothing). Because Craig is associating "nothingness" with something that has not material/spiritual substance. And yet, Idealism simply exchanges the substance "fabric" for a mental substance instead of some actual essence whether material, spiritual or otherwise.

As such, while he thinks himself smart for denying it, I do not see how Craig can logically escape a Panentheistic conclusion. For, even if we're dealing with Idealism in relation to God, then in some way everything exists "in God's mind" albeit in a somehow distinct and separate manner -- you know quite ironically like Panentheism.
Jac3510 wrote: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.
Ok, so I haven't read Clayton, but I've seen Craig appear less than fair to other people's views before.

He could be getting too "literal" with Clayton's words. For example, Craig has in the past said that the God's timelessness exists before the universe, although Craig doesn't really mean this but more that God is timeless sans creation and temporal since. I raise this example, because I saw someone who appeared to be arguing exactly the same thing as Craig re: God and time, and Craig ironically took the mickey out of him for using prior/after terminology.

So... where Craig says: "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.", I think Craig is perhaps being a Nazi over terminology without trying to really understand the intention of what is said. But then, I'm more ignorant to Clayton who Craig is reading and interpreting for his readers.

How does this explicitly affirm "the world is ontologically distinct from God"? Distinctness does not equal "ontological distinctness". Panentheism simply says that Creation has existence in God, and yet embraces that it is distinct from God in some sense. To not embrace this distinction is the embrace Pantheism -- that all is God and God is all -- and clearly the fact that Panentheism represents creation diagrammatically as a smaller circle within a bigger circle is that Creation is of God but also distinct from albeit "within" God. This shows that Panentheism embraces two premises:

1) that we are composed of God (whatever that might be whether a mental or physical substance, Idealism, a substantial being, or something other) and
2) that creation is somehow distinct from God.

Craig then goes onto say that: "[Clayton] 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."

I'd much rather hear Clayton's own words. But, I just don't necessarily see how "the universe being derived from God's essence" leads to "creation being some spatio-temporal part found within God." It might work to conceptually try and understand God's Being. There is a big jump here for me... talking from a raw Panentheistic perspective rather than Clayton who I'm ignorant to.

But let's talk about what I'd say, in relation to your underlined portion. Though you may not get it, I would emphatically reject: "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." It isn't like Creation is an organ like a heart or liver within God or something.

Creation is necessarily part of God in so far as Creation's very real existence, but Creation is still unique to itself as sustained by God's power within God Himself. It's hard to logically know exactly what the divine substance is that Creation is "within"... whether some Idealism, some divine essence, or something along Divine Simplicity lines where God doesn't even possess a divine substance (right?).

However, some key to unlocking this mystery is actually quite amazingly the Trinity. No analogy is great, especially when the Trinity is concerned, but in any case... just for this moment, let's conceive of God in spacial terms to allow our human brains to comprehend, although I believe God is not really spacial without creation, or that space is part of God although it has it's existence within God... (perhaps that puts a slant on what "panentheism" literally means, but that is simply due to God's nature not the underlining concept which we analogously understand diagrammatically as one smaller circle within the larger... so.... I'll use double quotes in my following comments where "concept" rather than "actual" is intended.)

At Creation, God "enters into" Himself (the Holy Spirit) to define, shape and sustain Creation "where" it once did not exist. The "substance" of creation, that is, the fundamental ontological reality that undergirds Creation's most base reality such that Creation really is Real, can only be derived from that which timelessly existed - God Himself alone. Thus, the role of the Holy Spirit is to sustain Creation in existence, something that can be only fundamentally derived from God Himself... and yet the work of the Holy Spirit draws boundaries and makes distinctions such that we really are "us" and "self-"conscious and separate from God albeit founded upon His own very existence.

Then we get to the third person of the Trinity: Christ. For God's incarnation into our world as Christ, fully divine and yet fully human, requires that God Himself enters into Creation. Quite a temporal feat for a timeless God. On my view Christ enters into His creation which the Holy Spirit sustains within God Himself. Panentheism provides a basis for God's Trinitarian nature like no other view can. In fact, Panentheism literally demands a Trinitarian conception of God. When I realised this, the view almost cemented itself into my Christian belief system.

Now, I'm sure there are many nuances that differ from my own beliefs compared to say Process Theologians (there'd have to be). My own beliefs that I associate as Panentheism may even be unique to their own. I really don't care. I hate systematic theologies founded upon someone, and I hate that terms can get destroyed in etymologically derived meanings that no longer hold a logical basis. I hate words even which limit the mind, but we're nonetheless forced to use them. So, for all intents and purposes, until I know what the developed understanding of Panentheism is (which I'm interested in whether Process or otherwise), then I'm going to start calling my own position here simply "Raw Panentheism" -- what I believe is a raw and unadulterated panentheism. I'm happy snob any intellectual back who doesn't like that, but I want my own thoughts on the table not a strawman.

Re: Is God Really Omnipresent?

Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:27 am
by Jac3510
Okay . . . so this post has been too long in the works! *cracks knuckles*

First, let me take you up on your offer about recommending you to some sources. John Feinberg has a book titled No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God that has a good discussion on the matter. Chapter 4 discusses process theology in considerable detail, but he has a relevant quote much earlier in the book I think I want to quote in full, even if it is a bit lengthy:
  • Another form of the view that God is both material and immaterial is known as panentheism (all in God). This view is especially associated with process theology as originally set forth by Alfred N. Whitehead and developed by disciples, including Charles Hartshorne, Schubert Ogden, John Cobb, and David Griffin. . . . According to process theism, God is an actual entity. All actual entities are dipolar or bipolar, so God is as well. God has a primordial, eternal, potential pole and a temporal, consequent, actual pole. According to process thinking, there exist certain eternal objects which may ingress into our world to become actual entities. Such eternal objects are pure potentials, and pure potentials cannot order and relate themselves; that must be done by an actual entity. Hence, there is a need for some nontemporal actual entity, and this is God in his primordial nature. In his primordial nature, God is like a backstage director who lines up the forms, getting them ready to ingress onto the stage of the temporal world. However, God's primordial nature shouldn't be seen as distinct from the order of eternal objects, i.e., the order is his primordial nature. The primordial, conceptual pole of God is clearly immaterial. On the other hand, as all other actual entities, God has a physical, concrete pole to complete the "vision" of his potential pole. In God's case, the consequent pole is the universe. This doesn't mean that God's actual pole is merely identical to the universe about us. Rather, process theists like to say that God's being interpenetrates everything without being identical to it. Hence, they prefer to label their view "panentheism" rather than "pantheism," for everything exists in God without being identical to him. God and the world are mutually interdependent, and what happens to one affects the other. So, God is a finite being with both material (consequent nature) and immaterial (primordial pole) elements. (p. 52)
Now, I don't expect you to agree with process theists or argue that this represents your view. On the contrary, on quite a fwe points I am sure rather strongly disagree. All the same, this is important because it seems to me that panentheistism entails all of this. If, then, this is wrong, then so too is panentheism. As a result, there is one of two arguments that is right:
  • 1. Panentheism entails (or necessarily presumes) certain ideas that are expressed uniquely in and by process theism;
    2. Process theism is wrong;
    3. Therefore, panentheism is wrong.
This is my argument. My concern in our discussion is to demonstrate (1) as I take it that comments such as the above are sufficiently problematic to simply allow for (2) without detailed discussion. You, on the other hand, have suggested a different argument;
  • i. Some process theists embrace panentheism;
    ii. Process theism is wrong;
    iii. Therefore, panentheism is wrong;
    iv. But i-iii is a genetic fallacy (more technically, it denies the antecedent)
    v. Therefore, it is not clear that process theism's error entails error in panentheism
In short, you recognize that I draw a connection between process theism and panentheism, and rejecting process theism I thereby reject panentheism. But you object to this argument as being fallacious on the grounds that such is a genetic fallacy (which I say you should modify to say that it is actually a fallacy of denying the antecedent). You would be right in your analysis except for the fact that I do not see a mere correlation between process theism and panentheism. Rather, I see (as per (1) above) a necessary entailment.

If, then, the mode of my argument is clear, I hope that we can put aside arguments about genetic fallacies, knee-jerk reactions, and whether or not you are a process theist or whether or not statements like the above quotation accurately reflect your views. All such matters are beside the point, for if I am right in the necessary entailment, then the matter is simply with your own internal consistency.

So how, then, do I prove (1)?

Actually, I don't think it is too difficult. Any conception of panentheism conceives of God "entering into" creation, at least insofar as creation exists entirely within God. We could be idealists (as you argue Craig is) and deny any material nature in God or we could affirm the real material nature of the universe and thereby argue that "part" of God is material. But those are our only two choices, for if creation really is material, and if creation really is within God, then part of God--the part of Him that permeates creation at least, is material. Or if God is completely immaterial with no material part of any kind, then everything in God must also be immaterial, and if creation is within God, then it, too, must be immaterial.

I actually don't wish to argue whether either of these is correct (I think both are incorrect, which is another disprove of panentheism, but let that pass). The point I want to make is more fundamental. We know that creation changes. Unless we hold to a B-Theory of time, which you have emphatically denied, then change is a necessary part of creation. Therefore, at least the part of God that permeates creation is changing. By analogy, consider a lump of clay. I may shape it into a circle and then a square and then a triangle. I may change the circle, and then change the square, and then change the triangle. In all that, the clay is changing. Of course, the clay never ceases to be clay, but it is changing, nonetheless. Just so, since everything is in God and He permeates all that we are, then if we change, then He too must necessarily change. In so changing, He does not cease to be God, nor are we here affirming pantheism, since God and creation are not identical. But the fact remains that changes in creation necessitate changes in God.

I don't think that is too terribly problematic in and of itself, either--at least not for you. You have no problem, I believe, affirming that God is mutable to some degree, and this would go well with your idea that God is temporal (indeed, this would entail God's temporality). But it is here we see that we must accept the dipolar nature of God, which is the essence of process theism. For on this point, the part of God that is changing is not only temporal and mutable, but necessarily so. It is necessarily so because the creation is necessarily temporal and mutable (if not in itself then at least in fact--again, we are firmly denying B-Theory here). Thus, part of God is necessarily temporal and mutable, if not in Himself then at least in fact. Whatever else we call it, this temporal, mutable part of God is precisely identical to what process theists call God's concrete, actual pole. You may differ in your terminology, but on this point, whatever word you use, you are expressing exactly the same idea.

So a part of God is inescapably changing. In process language, a part of God is "becoming" (as opposed to being). But the moment we say that, we see the necessity of another pole in God, another part of God that is necessary and immutable. We see this in three ways. First, change presupposes a thing to be changed. If part of God is changing, then God Himself is presupposed as the thing to be changed, and that necessarily so. Second, if something is becoming then it must be so that it may become. Thus, if part of God is becoming, then part of God must also literally be. Third, nothing that is in flux can be necessary, for by definition, it's previous state existed and its current state did not, being that it's previous state ceased to exist (and therefore it's previous state was not necessary) and it's current state at one point did not exist (and therefore it's current state is not necessary). Thus, anything in flux necessitates something else that is absolutely necessary. If God is changing, and if God is the necessary being, that means that a part of God is absolutely unchanging and exists necessarily. This, I think, is something you can readily accept as you have argued strongly before that while God may change in some respects, He really is immutable in others (i.e., His nature). Now, all of this means that while there is a mutable, temporal pole in God, there is also a necessary, immutable pole in God.

We should quickly add that in speaking of two parts of God we are not literally suggesting that God is a divided entity. We are simply saying that in one sense, God is absolutely necessary and immutable, and yet in another He is absolutely contingent and temporal, at least insofar as His relationship with creation is concerned. Thus, we have completely affirmed the dipolar nature of God. To emphasize: a panentheistic conception of God necessitates that we affirm God's dipolar nature.

But if this is true, then we are forced to draw the conclusion that all process theologians must draw--there is no such thing as creation. The universe had no beginning but exists eternally with God. But this is in direct conflict with Scripture and is therefore to be rejected. To emphasize, if panentheism is true, then because God is dipolar, then we must necessarily deny that creation had a beginning but must instead affirm that it is eternal with God.

I assume you agree that such a point is unacceptable, and so you would challenge the assertion. The reason it is true is rather simple: we cannot speak of God as dipolor now but monopolar before creation (however we mean that). Thus, you cannot say that God is monopoloar sans creation, but once He created the world, He became dipolar. The reason should be self-evident. A monopolar God exemplifes the absolutely necessary, immutable existence. As such, there is no "part" of a monopolar God that can change. That is to say, a monopolar God cannot become anything (refer to the conversation above about what "becoming" entails). Thus, a dipolar God must necessarily always be dipolar--indeed, that is part of His primordial pole (to be dipolar!). But if God is necessarily dipolar, and then the second pole--the actual, concrete pole that "contains" or permeates the material world--entails that a material creation exist. For the second pole of God is a contingent pole. It makes no sense to speak of the second pole sans creation, for where there is no creation, there is no second pole. For this reason, we must affirm that a second pole of God necessitates a world.

Thus, on panentheism, God's primordial pole guarantees inescapably that a universe exist. It is self-contradictory to speak of creating one unless "creation" is reinterpreted to deny an actual creation and mean simply "dependence upon." But either view--the denial or reinterpretation of creation--denies the biblical account and so must be rejected.

Thus, I say what I have said all along. Panentheism, because of its necessary assumptions, is unbiblical. It cannot be sustained because it ultimately denies Scripture. It necessarily entails (or presumes) process theism, and that whether you know what process theism involves or not. Since process theism is wrong (as we have seen), then panentheism is also wrong.

Your thoughts?

edit:

I'll go back soon and answer line by line your post above, too. I don't want you to think I ignored it, and I'll say something about Ecclesiastes as well. For now, it's back to work! :)