Well, what I actually meant was what he said in the link I quoted. There's no need to read everything he ever wrote!Metacrock wrote:KR Wordgazer wrote:How about instead of reading up on stuff, we just talk about what Greg Boyd actually said? Who agrees with it? Who doesn't? Why or why not?
Sometimes, honestly, we get so bogged down in scholarship around here that we miss good conversations.
then I would have to read up on what Greag Boyd said.
Greg Boyd on Open Theism
Moderator:Metacrock
Forum rules
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.
- KR Wordgazer
- Posts:1410
- Joined:Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Wag more.
Bark less.
Bark less.
- KR Wordgazer
- Posts:1410
- Joined:Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm
Re: Greg Boyd on Open Theism
Metacrock, how does this relate to this other thing that you have said:Metacrock wrote:
knowing what an agent will do does not control the freedom of that agent. That's especially true of past time. God is outside of time and looks at all times equally so that's like syaing if I know the men at the Alamo are going to fight to the death, and they have in fact already done so, does that mean I controlled them and forced to do it? why would it mean that?
you see that also depends upon one's understand of the relation bewteen God and time. There are other views of the relationship that don't involve God seeing all in advance.
If space-time is a thought in the mind of God, but there is also free will of human agents, might that not mean that God is aware of every possible outcome, but also at any given point in God's thoughts, Xe might not "know" specifically which outcome human choice is going to cause? But then if God "steps back," so to speak and looks at the whole "beach ball," Xe can see which outcome actually occurred.I accept Bishop Berkely's notion that we are thoughts in the mind of God. Thus, while the naturalistic assumption is that there is a "beyond time" and this is concieved as a giant room filled with non-time (and the space/time bubble like a beach ball floating around in that room--or say a beach ball in the ocean of non-time) that is purely a naturalitstic assumption. We have no idea what is beyond the BB. Thus, I posit the notion that physical reality is in the mind of God. God is like the Platonic forms in that he is in an abstract reality which has no physical locus, and thus is "everywhere and nowhere." So in that case there is no "beyond time" there is only the mind of God. That is a world of the mind, thus it does contain causality, but no temproal progress, it is controlled by the "thoughts" of God.
Does that make sense?
Wag more.
Bark less.
Bark less.
Re: Greg Boyd on Open Theism
KR Wordgazer wrote:Metacrock, how does this relate to this other thing that you have said:Metacrock wrote:
knowing what an agent will do does not control the freedom of that agent. That's especially true of past time. God is outside of time and looks at all times equally so that's like syaing if I know the men at the Alamo are going to fight to the death, and they have in fact already done so, does that mean I controlled them and forced to do it? why would it mean that?
you see that also depends upon one's understand of the relation bewteen God and time. There are other views of the relationship that don't involve God seeing all in advance.
If space-time is a thought in the mind of God, but there is also free will of human agents, might that not mean that God is aware of every possible outcome, but also at any given point in God's thoughts, Xe might not "know" specifically which outcome human choice is going to cause? But then if God "steps back," so to speak and looks at the whole "beach ball," Xe can see which outcome actually occurred.I accept Bishop Berkely's notion that we are thoughts in the mind of God. Thus, while the naturalistic assumption is that there is a "beyond time" and this is concieved as a giant room filled with non-time (and the space/time bubble like a beach ball floating around in that room--or say a beach ball in the ocean of non-time) that is purely a naturalitstic assumption. We have no idea what is beyond the BB. Thus, I posit the notion that physical reality is in the mind of God. God is like the Platonic forms in that he is in an abstract reality which has no physical locus, and thus is "everywhere and nowhere." So in that case there is no "beyond time" there is only the mind of God. That is a world of the mind, thus it does contain causality, but no temproal progress, it is controlled by the "thoughts" of God.
Does that make sense?
Yes I've thought about that too. Just to clarify people seem to think that space/time could be a thought in the mind of God but then want to go on acting as though the problem of space/time are real for God. The whole concept has to be re-calibrated because if the concept itself is just a conventional point of reference that pertains to our reality, the problem of timelessness would be just as absent for God as the problem of time.
I don't see why God couldn't let the thing run on its own without making each move happen specifically if the concept he's imagining is a autonomous universe. They could check on it at various points.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief