Evidence for God from Science

Hey all,

Would you all be so kind as to offer some critiques on the first part of a paper I'm working on? It's not due until Sunday midnight, but I need to get it in sooner then that simply because I have to write another one and turn it in by the same deadline. I'm less concerned about that one just because the subject matter is relatively easy (though not uninteresting).

Anyway, I'm still on one of my hobby-horses here--a defense of classical theism, specifically here a strong, classical version of immutability (i.e., that God cannot change in any way, is not in time, etc.). My professor has made it clear that he doesn't like philosophical arguments (which I think is ridiculous, but okay then), and he's challenged me to offer a more biblically grounded paper. So long as he considers the Trinity a biblical doctrine even though it is couched in deeply philosophical language, I think I can meet his challenge.

So I'm attaching the first part of the paper to see what you all think so far. I should also note that he is like most evangelicals today and does not hold to classical theism, which I confess is part of the reason I chose this paper.

fdit: this is, of course, very much a rough draft!

Jac, a good start.

Found this typo: "The logic is simple. If God is dependent on something, then He could have created it, for then prior to its creation it would not have existed and thus He, being dependent on it, could not have existed either.

I'm sure here you meant to use: "then he couldn't have created it ..."

I love your points about God being a simple being (however complex and unfathomable He seems and is to us). It seems that so many want to add their definitions of what God is like, so as that he takes on man-like attributes.

Geisler said it well: "Nor should we assume that God's will operates independently of his "unchangeable" nature. If God is simple, as classical theists acknowledge, then His nature and will are absolutely one. Of course, Geisler extends this to his assertion that, "He cannot will to love only some. An all-loving God by nature must love all."

Yikes. Thanks for catching that, philip. And THIS I think is absolutely on point:

Philip wrote:It seems that so many want to add their definitions of what God is like, so as that he takes on man-like attributes.

You've got an amen corner right here with comments like that!

Thanks for the thoughts. I'm glad I seem to be coming across clearly, at least with one reader!

fdit: and I think I like Geisler's point. I'll have to think on it some more.

Hi Jac,

I've read some, as limited time. Just to see what you say re: temporality.

You know my view here, and your lecturer probably won't care much... but, I disagree with your logic:

1) God's immutability entails there cannot be any change in God -- agreed
2) God being temporal means there are temporal changes in God -- disagree
3) Therefore an immutable God cannot be temporal. -- disagree

We've debated the issue before, though quite some time ago.

For me, God's creative act means God relationally "entered" into temporality in virtue of His true relationship with Creation. Post-Creation God is therefore temporal, but without Creation God is timeless. God remains always eternal.

While not the perfect analogy, my being in my mother's womb doesn't change the nature of who I am anymore than now I am born. Yet, it is not God's location that changes, but rather a relational change due to Creation's existence.

I mean, this has to be so on any view. Since presumably, it is believed creation hasn't always existed. Therefore God's relationship to creation was "nil" prior to His creative act, and only "actual" since.

It is my belief that God's nature never changes. Temporality does not affect God's nature but is rather more to do with a change in "perspective" of God without creation to God with creation.

If Timelessness/Temporality is seen as a part of God's nature (which I feel may complicate Divine Simplicity if God is seen as "Pure Act"), then how are we to describe this ontologically "within God's nature"? What does it look like? What does it mean of God ontologically? For example, if God is temporal, does that mean God is Time like God is Righteousness? I don't believe that. People argue that you can't prove a negative, yet can we assign a negative as some ontological attribute? Such that "Timelessness" (without time) is something with ontological status? Is that a property that can be had any more than say "Creationless" (that is, without creation)?

As a side, I find it funny when scientists dismiss philosophy, and Evangelicals dismiss philosophy. How is it they can logically reason anything? It's like saying please stay up on that tree branch your sitting while you cut down the tree. Always brings a wry smile to my face.

Speaking of the last sentence in my last post, I oddly received this via Skype and just visited the YouTube link after posting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE8el_qscvE

How freaky is that?

Thanks for the response K. I need to look how to clarify my points then. I am aware that you disagree on God's temporality, and that's perfectly fine. I even cite Craig as an example of someone who believes God is temporal but who affirms my argument (see p7n16). I there refer to Craig's Time and Eternity, and readers can happily view the relevant pages here: http://books.google.com/books?id=mHRdzX ... ty&f=false

Just click "page 29" or if the search doesn't work, just read pages 29-32. I know you've read the book before.

Anyway, I am aware that there is a weak definition of immutability such that a temporal God can be "immutable" in that sense. But that, of course, is precisely what I'm challenging in the paper. I've said repeatedly throughout that a temporal God cannot be immutable in the strong, classical sense, which is something Craig also says. To quote just that relevant portion:

• Similarly, if God is immutable, then even if He is not simple He cannot be temporal. Like simplicity, the immutability affirmed by the medieval theologians is a radical concept: utter immobility. God cannot change in any respect. He never thinks successive thoughts, He never performs successive actions, He never undergoes even the most trivial alteration. God not only cannot undergo intrinsic change, He cannot even change extrinsically by being related to changing things. But obviously a temporal being undergoes at least extrinsic change in that it exists at different moments of time and, given the reality of the temporal world, co-exists with different sets of temporal beings as they undergo intrinsic change. Even if we relax the definition of "immutable" to mean "incapable of intrinsic change," or even the weaker concept "intrinsically changeless," an immutable God cannot be temporal. For if God is temporal, He at the very least changes in that He is constantly growing older--not physically, of course, but in the purely temporal sense of constantly adding more years to His life. Moreover, God would be constantly changing in His knowledge, knowing first that "It is now t₁" and later "It is now t₂." God's foreknowledge and memories must also be steadily changing, as anticipated events transpire ad become past. God would constantly be performing new actions, at t₁ causing events at t₁, and at t₂ causing events at t₂. Thus a temporal God cannot be changeless. It follows, then, that if God is immutable, He is timeless.

So, given this--and I'm really not trying to debate whether I am right in my overall position or not--what would help clarify my position here? Because I do think I'm right that if God is temporal He is mutable or if He is immutable He must be atemporal, unless, of course, we are adopting a very weak definition of immutability a la Dorner, Ware, Craig, Moreland, Chisholm, etc. That is, the so-called "onto-ethical" view of God's immutability, which is what you seem to be subscribing to. And that is the entire purpose of the paper, to say that their position is inconsistent with the biblical text. I could be wrong, obviously, but I need to at least be clear.

Thoughts?

edit:

And we're obviously in complete agreement about the philosophy thing. And I got a good laugh out of the video--yes, freaky timing. But soooo good. I will probably use that next time I'm teaching a class just to lighten things up a bit!

I find it hard to believe Scripture would support such a strong immutability.

Just logically speaking, the difficulty this logically poses to trying describe God's creative act... it's just too enormous to work out a solution unless one just downplays or ignores such a glaring issue.

However, since your essay is based more on what Scripture says, I'll read it within that context a bit later.

Good quote by the way. I'll have to re-read that portion.

Kurieuo wrote:Just logically speaking, the difficulty this logically poses to trying describe God's creative act... it's just too enormous to work out a solution unless one just downplays or ignores such a glaring issue.

It's certainly an issue that needs to be addressed, but frankly I don't find it particularly difficult. I admit frankly in the paper that such questions are philosophical, and for me (and for you, I think) that is not at all a bad thing or a derogatory comment. It's simply a recognition of the fact that Scripture affirms a fact (God created the universe) and leaves it to us to figure out (or not) or make sense of (or not) questions like what that suggests about His relationship to time. As Ware argues in the paper I'm primarily critiquing in my own argument--and he is right on this, I think--the crux of the matter is whether or not God is really related to the world or whether or not He is related instead as a "relation of reason." Classical theism holds the latter, and process theologians the former, and increasingly evangelicals the former, too. But I would insist that we recognize that the nature of God's relation to the world--real or of reason--is also a philosophical question. So that, to me, is the real crux of the matter--it's something I'm playing with concluding my own paper with, but I haven't decided yet given my prof's dislike for philosophical approaches.

Hi Jac,

Just finished reading the paper properly, and truthfully, I don't believe it really brings much Scripture to bear upon God's immutability.

The Scripture you do mention isn't really direct enough, and this leaves you really have to do some logical argumentation to get your point across -- particularly from an "Aseity entails...."

Due to the brevity of the discussion, and I suppose it is hard to describe or expand upon Aseity and how it entails Immutability; Aesity entails sovereignty which entails immutability, etc... this isn't really readily obvious. Maybe if you have had discussions with your lecturer he will understand the missing gaps? But, to me, it really looks like one big argument that doesn't appear to follow and I'm left scratching my head how one entails the other.

But... if this is meant to be a Scriptural case on God's Immutability, then really I'd be getting quick a few books by Christian theologians and reading through all the verses they present. I'd want to be as direct as possible without bringing into the discussion other theological beliefs re: God's nature. Let Scripture as much as is possible without trying to build an philosophical (logical) argument upon what other beliefs about God's nature entails.

Since you have limited time I'd probably adjust your introduction rather than rest of the paper. I see you as providing "a surface level examination of God's nature as seen in Scripture, specifically in response to scholars who have weakened the immutability of God as found Classical Theism." That is, you are taking much broader look at God's nature, introducing some issues you perceive in weak immutability given we accept certain other attributes of God's nature -- rather than simply just examining immutability itself.

Hopefully that wasn't too critical. Best of luck!

Very helpful, K. Thanks! I'll post the final copy on Sunday for anybody interested in the latest advancements in sleep-aid technology.

I'm learning to not read Jac's posts too early in the morning or before (at least) two cups of coffee.

Whenever I try to engage my wife on such subjects, after about a minute, you can about see her eyeballs glaze over - which is right before the giant clacking sound they make when hitting the back of her skull.

Poor Jac. It must not be easy being "special".

Haha, philip, I completely relate. Ah, my poor wife . . . thankfully, though, she is somewhat more interested in discussing the Old Testament.

Anyway, here's the completed paper. I did not get to make the adjustment K recommended, although he definitely got the idea I was going for. Thankfully, his comment is still in this thread, and I do have a goal to go back and revise everything I've written on my site (not the blog posts--just the papers and two books) later next year.

Happy sleeping!

Reconsidering the Evangelical Reformulation of the Doctrine of Immutability