A Way to Think About Free Will and God: Open Theism

In this topic, I wish to discuss the hypothetical and actual ideas brought forth through believers and non-believers with an open mind alike as to the character of the Christian God of literature and oral tradition throughout History. In particular, I wish to discuss the ideas around free will, foreknowledge, human attempts to understand the plan, meaning of stories and legends and also what the apologists and popular preachers and teachers have added throughout the years. Believers, feel free to contribute anything you get from commentaries on the Bible, Calvinism, Philosophy, even your own freethought opinions. Yes, Tangle...in this topic we are freely making it all up...that's the guidelines....what sense can we make out of the idea of a Creator of all seen and unseen who chose to relate to humanity through a divine human character which we are charged to emulate? Lets start with a few quotes: Next, can everybody read this article defining Open Theism? A brief quote:

quote:

---

Open theism, also called free will theism and openness theology, is the belief that God does not exercise meticulous control of the universe but leaves it "open" for humans to make significant choices (free will) that impact their relationships with God and others. A corollary of this is that God has not predetermined the future. Open Theists further believe that this would imply that God does not know the future exhaustively. Proponents affirm that God is omniscient, but deny that this means that God knows everything that will happen.

---

In other words, for the guidelines in this discussion, God transcends time...but His Son allegedly was and is human...thus God also represents humanity at our level and within our times.Next, for the sake of this particular argument, let's assume that we all are essentially making up God. This allows for participants such as Tangle to skip the task of proving that to us and to join the conversation as if we are arriving at a consensus on what God would be like in regards to humans. Participants can feel free to either use the Bible to state their case that God exists apart from human imagination and has a plan or vision of some sort concerning the fate of humanity. Or they can ascribe to Open Theism or they can simply go along for the ride, pointing out flaws in Theological Assertions and Arguments and why they disagree with God as defined in the conversation. Also for the purpose of this discussion, let's assume that Jesus was and is Gods character yet was bound by the limits of time as we are. He was a product of His culture and times upon the earth.If Jesus exists today,(or is defined as living and existing by participants) we can further argue that we are attempting to define Him and our responsibility and role with Him as believers by defining the character of God--as imagined/believed today. Unbelievers can also argue why they avoid Him. (keep in mind this is all based on a hypothetical)Faith & Belief, please.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : clarification

Sure. Sounds good... I think my editing is finished on the topic starter.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

To start with, many of these "gods" were purposely foreknown to be creations of literary fiction. For the purpose of this discussion, We are starting by defining the characteristics of a hypothetical Creator...superior intelligence. Stick to One example. I realize that you believe in none of them, but don't simply provide me with all of them in order to refute my example as simply one of many. Counter my chosen example with one other character from either literature or your own imagination...and assign the character some basic attributes. Don't use the excuse that you--and many---have outgrown the need for such a character.This is a common argument employed by skeptics. They use catch phrases such as "you believe in the nonexistence of every God but One...we just go One God further." Lets nail down the basic idea:
1) God is the initial Creator of all things seen and unseen.
2) Humans have sought to explain such a belief through many religions and in many ways. Critics may claim that Christianity(the angle which I will attempt to defend/represent/define in this discussion) is nothing more than another story among many stories through known literature and oral traditions defined as Anthropomorphism.Jesus, as a character in literature, is either described as God Incarnate or as fully God and fully man. Others have described him as human while on earth and as more of a messenger or Messiah..(some claim failed Messiah.)In this topic, I want to get to the hypothetical idea that a Creator of all seen and unseen exists, that such a Creator is capable of communing with and relating to humans, and that this is done in some way, shape, or form through specific human(s) to other humans. You can drag us ridiculously off topic with hypothetical spaghetti monsters, historical ghosts and apparitions, or characters invented through literature if you must. I warn you, however, that this will be dragging us through ridiculous off-topic nonsense.Allow me to break the hypothetical down to your level and real-life experience. Note ringos quote: You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~RingoWhen you go fishing and meditate, you also get answers and perhaps many more questions through your own imagination and consciousness. Why is it so bothersome for you to simply imagine a Creator of all seen and unseen with an ability to impress upon human philosophies and thoughts? You always go back to primitive superstitions and about how much science has learned about how and why we think and believe the way that we do. Don't be afraid. Make God up, and then answer the question of how such a hypothetical timeless concept would relate to humanity within time. As I said in the opening post,

quote:

---

, for the sake of this particular argument, let's assume that we all are essentially making up God. This allows for participants such as Tangle to skip the task of proving that to us and to join the conversation as if we are arriving at a consensus on what God would be like in regards to humans.

---

Perhaps I should clarify and add that you don't have to make up a God per se...perhaps you could utilize concepts such as fate, destiny, and the philosophical meaning of what hypothetically happens when a human fights for relevance, purpose, and legacy...either through their own personal accomplishments or vicariously through their offspring and fate intervenes...one way or another. Or perhaps you could also criticize the concept of fate itself.Either way, the thrust of this topic is in discussing our usual presupposition of free will vs omnipotence in the light of the added philosophical (theological?) concept of Open Theism. The reason that I added the corollary that God is essentially made up is to skip the usual arguments with you and others attempting to prove this.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Replying to you as Percy, rather than Admin..... Which is why in this topic I want to focus more on the philosophy of free will vs Omnipotence with the added twist of the idea of Open Theism. Of course, this depends on whether you believe that God interacts in some way with humanity or is more of a Deistic concept that created through natural processes and has no interaction with humanity in any measurable way.(which, of course, the evidence suggests...or rather lack of evidence. Hypothetically, however, I want you to imagine an interactive God for the purpose of the topic.Add by edit: To a Deistic God, would behavior be the only thing that matters? Would it be hypothetically possible for such a Creator to initially "light the fuze" through a Big Bang, withdraw from active involvement while we each individually lived out our lives, the establish a judgment whereby some would pass the character test and move on while others would be discarded at that point?Remember the Prime Directive in Star Trek? So based on Open Theism, such a God would allow humans to be fully responsible for their final grade in this life. Drawbacks to such a belief are the unfairness of those who died prematurely or suddenly without an opportunity to complete their "race". What are your ideas about God? What is His/Her/Its role in all of this? Is God the eventual "rewarder"? It shouldn't. The uniqueness of this hypothetical, however, is in our agreeing on a consensus of God as "rewarder" if that may be the case. If it is based on what we do, does it really matter whether God knows the future or whether the future is open, pending our choices along the corridor of time? Would it cause you to have any different feeling about God and you or would you continue living/believing/behaving as you have always done? As an aside, I don't believe that God cares if we think about Him and/or pray to Him every day...He is more concerned with how we get along with the other fish in the fishbowl. Perhaps to Him, we are a giant social experiment.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Not necessarily. You still believe in luck and chance. You even use the words a lot. I'll never be able to convince you that its all a myth, and you will forever be pointing me to examples in science where it is real, but you don't see the bigger picture...the foreknown predetermination of the value of the probability. Lucky? Explain how luck even enters into the equation.

Well, can we just move on with the topic? I don't feel like tangling with you right now...I want to discuss the concept of Open Theism.

What do you mean? I guess I don't understand your question---
The earth is the Lords but the world belongs to the devil.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Looking at GDRs argument in the other rapture thread, he apparently believes that Scripture was how humans interpreted God speaking to them. As GDR says, he believes that "the authors got it right." Believers seem to choose belief based on trusting those who inspire and persuade them. Skeptics are more likely to trust hard evidence and are unimpressed with the storytellers.(or the stories themselves)Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I suppose because monotheism is simpler and more plausible. I don't believe in some petty vengeful OT God. I believe that the Creator of all seen and unseen "so loved the world"...meaning the people...that He desires Communion with us.
Think of the building project not in terms of planets, galaxies, and matter. Think of it as the creation and supervision unto completion of a living prototype---humanity.Why do you always use the word "rule"? Why do you refer to such a Deity as an alien overlord? The goal of the project is voluntary joyful communion---not mandatory compliance. Granted you can (and likely will) make a case for the latter. Which is also why I don't simply take the Bible as written. Common sense tells me that often the stories don't make sense for a supposedly all wise and logical Deity to consider. Faith and my biblical literalist friends always passively say that His ways are not our ways...yada yada yada...but I ascribe more intelligence into a Creator of all seen and unseen.If I were to trust only in ever-evolving human wisdom and understanding, I fear that we as a species wouldn't make it and would fail at some point.Open Theism seems palatable to me because it allows both our free wills and also allows Gods involvement. It seems rather unfair IF God were to foreknow who fails and gets damned beforehand.

Because no other would qualify worthy of worship or even respect. We can just do it all ourselves. Which is what many of you believe to be our only option anyway. And as I said before, If I were to trust only in ever-evolving human wisdom and understanding, I fear that we as a species wouldn't make it and would fail at some point. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Why is there only one way to interpret scripture? And why should we trust those who teach it? What makes them any wiser than any other teacher? Note the opponent in the open theism debate...John E.Sanders. His resume is not that of an intellectual slouch. What makes him wrong? And why do the other scholars have an inside track on what is right...simply by believing? Did God give them extra wisdom?? Is he wrong simply by not being part of the "inerrancy club"?Finally...why would a sod like Tangle simply come along and say that despite all of his degrees and learning, John E.Sanders knows no more than anyone else who has read the book?? Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I dont think its so much worship as it is respect and obedience. If the commander has more experience than the foot soldier, the soldier would do well to listen. We humans are quite early in our development and would need a Being or Deity with intergalactic wisdom and experience...not to mention the equally mysterious realm of inner space. Of course our psychology of understanding the nuances of human behavior is increasing, and ringo may be right---we may need to do it all ourselves---but belief in God is a rational belief in a superior Being that wants to help us grow.Now can everyone see why I wanted one of the guidelines for this topic to be freely imagining God rather than pinning Him down to some random scripture that has Him ordering baby killings? Those sorts of arguments are so lame...it is quite obvious that God was being made up (or embellished) even back then.Nothing has changed---except that I would argue that we will never outgrow our need for such a communion. On the contrary, we will grow to need it more and more. Mark my words.Add by Edit: About the OT God---if Open Theism is a reality, such a God would even then have allowed its warrior tribal people to do their thing in regards to survival of the culture they lived in. Granted such a Deity could well be viewed as cruel---much like today's arguments that if God exists, why such a messed up world? Open Theism would allow for the responsibility being placed on humans (much the same as if there were no God anyway) ostensibly to help us grow and learn so as to be ready for our next assignment after Earth. Edited by Phat, : added jabberwocky

OK. How about attempting to understand Him? Or do you think the Pentagon is filled with ghosts and zombies? And the topic is about the existence of god and how such a Deity would utilize omnipotence, open theism, and omniscience. And thus they have no business commenting on this topic if they can't accept the hypothetical. So your argument has to be that belief is not rational. If we had evidence, we wouldn't even have belief...thus the argument centers on rationality. Is the hypothetical God with omniscience and foreknowledge rational? Would an open theistic God be any better? Why or why not?

We have yet to arrive at a consensus of any one truth, but through discussions, we are ostensibly trying.I am currently leaning towards the theory(belief) that humans do in fact make up their interpretations and understandings of a universal truth. My belief, of course, is that such a truth does exist and that there is but One God--One source. To be an atheist, in contrast, is to support relativism where truth is unique to each and every individual. I disagree with Faith because she never explains her own personal relationship and understanding of God but rather casts her lot in with apologists past and present who have formulated and agreed to abide by a universal doctrine. Why should I assume that John Calvin knows anything more than what any modern scholar with a heart for truth would know? To simply fall back on the belief that the Bible is the one source for universal Truth is, in my opinion,a decision that is risky. Too much evidence against inerrancy. A Belief in One all-knowing Creator with a perfect desire and plan for humanity is more logical. Thus, I won't fall back on the position that the Bible is a word for word truth and reality. I will, however, assert that the authors were seeking such a goal but that a consensus throughout time is hard to achieve. If God exists, God exists period. If not, then no. I refuse to concede this argument....there is not enough intelligence that convinces me to reject the idea and belief. In contrast, my personal experience confirms the need for this belief as well as the possibility that it is true.

Note that you say *we*. What your group of "we" do is to follow the evidence. I fail to see any consensus in your worldviews apart from that. You are all a group of individuals with varied beliefs and worldviews. As is your need for evidence. You have a faulty argument concerning God, however. The problem is that you follow the evidence from books and manuscripts describing such a critter rather than imagining a God above such petty human defects. Of course, you won't even allow yourself to make one up. You prefer evidence...I get that. And you obviously don't need belief.