Any process theologians out there?

[Pinky Pie of Doom]

If so could you give me your reasons for excepting process theology?

[Xmansmommy]

What is process theology? :nsm:

[Pinky Pie of Doom]

see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology

[Xmansmommy]

TY Ivo :smile:

[Pinky Pie of Doom]

The answer doesn't necessarily have to come from a process theologian.At the very least could someone familiar with PT give some of the arguements used in favor of it.Even if they don't necessarily agree with the arguements.

[Fideist345]

Ivo Shandor:

The answer doesn't necessarily have to come from a process theologian.At the very least could someone familiar with PT give some of the arguements used in favor of it.Even if they don't necessarily agree with the arguements.

Tell you what, give me a chance to refresh my memory and I'll see if I can post some of Hartshorne's thought. Please don't expect me to defend it though. :smile:

[PantaRhea]

If so could you give me your reasons for excepting process theology?
I think I must be the only Process Theist here. Are you still around and still looking for reasons?

[Xmansmommy]

:popcorn:

[shunyadragon]

I think I must be the only Process Theist here. Are you still around and still looking for reasons?
I consider Process Theology to be closely related to pantheism, deism, Some Buddhist sects. The nature of God is not an omnipotent eternal unchanging entity, but one that is subject to change and evolution like the universe itself.

The concept of the soul and afterlife is more in line with the thinking of many Buddhists. The concept of there being an eternal soul with an independent identity is just not there.

Variations of Process Theology have been toyed with on the fringes of Christianity, but I do not consider it well accepted in even the most liberal of Christians.

It appears to have a better reception among liberal Jews, because the belief in highly personal involved God is not as essential to their beliefs.

I consider 'Process Theology' a bit of a contradiction, because it is not very Theistic.

[cyber_geisha]

I consider 'Process Theology' a bit of a contradiction, because it is not very Theistic.I couldn't agree more. I'm a Pantheist and I've never heard the term "Process Theology" before.

[PantaRhea]

I consider Process Theology to be closely related to pantheism, deism, Some Buddhist sects. The nature of God is not an omnipotent eternal unchanging entity, but one that is subject to change and evolution like the universe itself.Actually, a distinctive of Process Theology is that God is dipolar. God's nature is eternal and unchanging, but God's actuality is contingent, changing and relational. Pantheism only has one wing of the God bird (the ONE, or BEING) and so it can't fly. A pantheist generally will say that all of our experiences of this world are illusions. The bird PanEntheism (Process Theology) on the other hand has two wings (ONE/BEING and MANY/BECOMING) and flies quite nicely.



The concept of the soul and afterlife is more in line with the thinking of many Buddhists. The concept of there being an eternal soul with an independent identity is just not there.
Process Thought shares a lot of similarities with Buddhists - and Judaism, and Christianity AND science and physics. I think that if we were looking for a viable metaphysical system we would expect to find correlation with almost every discipline and religion. Process thought, at least at this point (because it makes no claim of absolute Truth) would seem to be the best qualified candidate (in the opinion of many, at least).


Variations of Process Theology have been toyed with on the fringes of Christianity, but I do not consider it well accepted in even the most liberal of Christians.


From: http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/process.htm
At present, process works continue to abound, dealing with various Christian concepts and concerns: sin and evil, a theodicy, the church, pastoral care, ecology, liberation, and the relation of theology to science, philosophy, and culture. Though process theology has not yet become a major force in the church pew, it is very influential in the intellectual world of the seminaries and graduate schools, and no doubts is the most viable form of neoliberal theology now in the United States.

At present there is also a movement in the Evangelical camp called Open View Theology which has been greatly influenced by Process Theology. Dialogue is continuing between proponents of the two views.

I might also add, there is increasing interest in Process Thought in scientific communities.


It appears to have a better reception among liberal Jews, because the belief in highly personal involved God is not as essential to their beliefs.
Although there is a form of Process Naturalism which sees no need for the "God Hypothesis" whatsoever, the God of Process Theology is more involved in the world than the God of Classical Theology. Hartshorne argued that the Process God is unsurpassably personal.


I consider 'Process Theology' a bit of a contradiction, because it is not very Theistic.I wonder how you define theism then. Ya can't get much more Theistic than Process Theism.

[PantaRhea]

Another site for those interested:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/

[Pinky Pie of Doom]

I think I must be the only Process Theist here. Are you still around and still looking for reasons?

Yes, I would like to add that I'm not looking for a debate.
I'm just curious as to what your philosophical/theological reasons for accepting Process Theism are.

Also, I'd like to thank you for responding :smile:

[PantaRhea]

Yes, I would like to add that I'm not looking for a debate.
I'm just curious as to what your philosophical/theological reasons for accepting Process Theism are.

Also, I'd like to thank you for responding :smile:You are certainly welcome!!:smile:

Quickly off the top of my head - reasons for accepting Process Theism:
1.) It makes the most sense to me.
2.) (See above)

Some of the ideas which make sense to me, more than other theologies and philosophies are:
1.) An explanation for why it would take millions and millions of yrs. for the universe to become what it is today.
2.) An explanation for why there are values like beauty, peace, & love.
3.) An explanation for why there is permanence.
4.) An explanation for why there is change.
5.) An explanation for why there is good and evil.
6.) An explanation for why the most ultimate power in the universe is persuasive and not coercive.
7.) An explanation for why there is meaning and purpose.
8.) An explanation for why emotions can affect a body.
9.) An explanation for why a body can affect emotions.
10.) An explanation for why there is unity and diversity.
11.) An explanation for why I can experience my environment.
12.) An explanation for why I can recall the past.
13.) An explanation for why I can experience hope.
14.) An explanation for how there can be both necessary and contingent existence.
15.) An explanation for why there is actuality and possibility.
16.) A theological explanation for the effectiveness of prayer.
17.) A theological explanation for inspiration.
18.) A theological understanding of salvation.
19.) A theological understanding of how Jesus is God.
20.) A theological understanding that God IS Love.

There are most likely a whole bunch of 'em that I've missed but I think that is a fairly good sampling.

Feel free to ask me any questions about any of the above!

[shunyadragon]

You are certainly welcome!!:smile:

Quickly off the top of my head - reasons for accepting Process Theism:
1.) It makes the most sense to me.
2.) (See above)

Some of the ideas which make sense to me, more than other theologies and philosophies are:
1.) An explanation for why it would take millions and millions of yrs. for the universe to become what it is today.
2.) An explanation for why there are values like beauty, peace, & love.
3.) An explanation for why there is permanence.
4.) An explanation for why there is change.
5.) An explanation for why there is good and evil.
6.) An explanation for why the most ultimate power in the universe is persuasive and not coercive.
7.) An explanation for why there is meaning and purpose.
8.) An explanation for why emotions can affect a body.
9.) An explanation for why a body can affect emotions.
10.) An explanation for why there is unity and diversity.
11.) An explanation for why I can experience my environment.
12.) An explanation for why I can recall the past.
13.) An explanation for why I can experience hope.
14.) An explanation for how there can be both necessary and contingent existence.
15.) An explanation for why there is actuality and possibility.
16.) A theological explanation for the effectiveness of prayer.
17.) A theological explanation for inspiration.
18.) A theological understanding of salvation.
19.) A theological understanding of how Jesus is God.
20.) A theological understanding that God IS Love.

There are most likely a whole bunch of 'em that I've missed but I think that is a fairly good sampling.

Feel free to ask me any questions about any of the above!The problem with some of these reasons and the concept of Process Theism is that they do not really agree. Since Process Theism is less personal, not necessarily entirely impersonal, numbers 16 through 20 most definitely indicate a more traditional Theistic God. For example: (1) The Jesus would no more be a God than anyone else. (2) Salvation would be more in line with the contemporary Buddhist belief where the identity of the individual would merge with existence itself and the soul lacks the permenant identity that could be saved in the Christian belief.

Numbers 2 are universal claims by believers in every different belief imaginable to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy inside, except for God's victims in the OT like Ammonites and maybe those that worship Thor.

Number 6 does seem to be an important issue with those that believe in PT, but the OT God is most definitely coersive and PT would not be in agreement with the OT as understood today with God personally involved as a law giver and enforcer.

Number 7 through 15 are pretty universal too with all beliefs. The unity and diversity of existence would be more a Baha'i belief that would allow a more diverse view of the nature of God without the necessity of defining God in terms of one belief like PT or traditional Christian theism.

My view is that Process Theism as viewed from a Judaic/Christian perspective is as believable as traditional Theism and neither gives a better or even satisfactory explanation for a universal God with a balanced nature in harmony with existence as we know it.

Manmade concepts to make oneself comfortable with what one thinks God should be, is egocentric and not very realistic. Looking for a personal theology in the west has become like shoe shopping. God is most likely not theist, deist, pantheist, monist, thouist or Taoist. God is . . .

[PantaRhea]

For anyone reading this other than Shunyadragon, my replay may be difficult to understand because Shunyadragon claims to be familiar with Process Theology and so I will be using some Process terms to answer his criticisms.


The problem with some of these reasons and the concept of Process Theism is that they do not really agree. Since Process Theism is less personal, not necessarily entirely impersonal,.

I'm not sure what you mean here. If you are at all familiar with Process Theism you know that it has a distinctive understanding of "personal". You would know, for instance, that according to PT, there are (technically) no "persons" - that is, there are no subjects or substantial selves having experiences. Rather there are personally ordered societies of actual occasions and then there are impersonal societies of actual occasions. You need to explain your use of "personal" from a Process perspective before you can criticize it for being "less personal".


numbers 16 through 20 most definitely indicate a more traditional Theistic God. For example: (1) The Jesus would no more be a God than anyone else.Again, this is too unclear. I don't understand why you would insert "a" between "be" and "God". But, if you meant to say that Jesus would no more be God than anyone else, I must disagree and suggest that you do a little more study of Process Theology. If an occasion were to prehend God in such a way that the "initial aim" offered by God to every occasion, became the occasion's "subjective aim", the occasion would "be" God. Process Theists generally understand the incarnation of God in Jesus in this way.


(2) Salvation would be more in line with the contemporary Buddhist belief where the identity of the individual would merge with existence itself and the soul lacks the permenant identity that could be saved in the Christian beliefAgain, this is unclear. Are you referring to "objective immortality"? The word "salvation" is used in a lot of different ways. I believe the word as it is used in the Bible means to be restored to wholeness. From my perspective, a lack of wholeness is due to alienation - from God, from other humans, and from nature. Salvation has to do with at-one-ment, or consciously sensing and enjoying our relationship with God and the world. Process Theology IS a Relational Theology and clearly offers salvation to those who are alienated and lost.

There is no "merging with existence itself".

If you are thinking that salvation has something to do with "going to heaven" you'll have to read some of David Griffin's and Marjorie Suchocki if you are not aware of a Process view of how the "soul" can survive death.


Numbers 2 are universal claims by believers in every different belief imaginable to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy inside, except for God's victims in the OT like Ammonites and maybe those that worship Thor.I'm not sure you understood that I meant that Process Theology provides explanations - not simply faith claims. Process Theology is based on the speculative philosophy (metaphysics) of Whitehead, Hartshorne, and others. As Whitehead wrote in his PROCESS AND REALITY (p.3):


Speculative Philosophy is the endeavor to frame a coherent, logical necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted. By this notion of 'interpretation' I mean that everything of which we are conscious, as enjoyed, perceived, willed, or thought, shall have the character of a particular instance of the general scheme.



Number 6 does seem to be an important issue with those that believe in PT, but the OT God is most definitely coersive and PT would not be in agreement with the OT as understood today with God personally involved as a law giver and enforcer.
Do Process Theologians believe that men can be inspired by God? Yes. Does that mean that this inspiration overcomes the limited knowledge and biases of the individual? No. Understanding God as a law giver and enforcer, depending upon how literally one understands it, would, I think, be considered a fairly primitive view of God.



Number 7 through 15 are pretty universal too with all beliefs. The unity and diversity of existence would be more a Baha'i belief that would allow a more diverse view of the nature of God without the necessity of defining God in terms of one belief like PT or traditional Christian theism.
Again, I think you are referring to faith claims rather than explanations.


My view is that Process Theism as viewed from a Judaic/Christian perspective is as believable as traditional Theism and neither gives a better or even satisfactory explanation for a universal God with a balanced nature in harmony with existence as we know it.
Traditional Theism is basically premodern and makes its ultimate appeal to the authority of a supernatural God. Because of this, where its truth claims conflict with experience and reason, it remains content to answer critics with "Mystery" and circular reasoning.

Process Theism is a postmodern constructive natural theology and makes it ultimate appeal to its internal coherence, its adequacy to experience, and its power to explain. Unlike Traditional Theism then, it is open to criticism. So, what do you find unsatisfactory about its explanation for a univesal God?


Manmade concepts to make oneself comfortable with what one thinks God should be, is egocentric and not very realistic.ALL concepts are constructed by man. Is the use of the adjective redundant? Would your criticism apply to all the scientific and philosophical efforts of the human species?


Looking for a personal theology in the west has become like shoe shopping. Ahhh yes. It was so much better when the Church simply told us what was True.



God is most likely not theist, deist, pantheist, monist, thouist or Taoist. God is . .
And the basis of your "most likely" is what?

[Heathen Dawn]

I adhere to panentheism and to the doctrine that the creation is a subset of the Creator. I haven’t stuck the label of Process Theology onto my beliefs, mainly because I’ve got so many labels already, but you may if you wish, if you consider them close enough. In my view the universe was created by God modifying part of His own substance—the universe is a finite spacetime bubble in an infinite spacetime sea, an area of modified God-substance inside an infinite area of unmodified God-substance (God-substance being Spirit or Uncreated Light). The bubble has been constantly evolving, or in process as it were, ever since Creation about 15,000 million years ago.

Panentheism allows for both immanence and transcendence.

[shunyadragon]

For anyone reading this other than Shunyadragon, my replay may be difficult to understand because Shunyadragon claims to be familiar with Process Theology and so I will be using some Process terms to answer his criticisms.I spent some time reading over some of the Process Theism materials and I found some statement by different advocates of it that create some confusion as to what exactly is PT. This has lead to some miscomunication between us.

These difference cause some confusion, because I found a consistent thread of believers trying to 'Make Sense' of contradictory theology of older religions that did not fit todays worldview. It was sort of an attempt at overhaul and refit old ways to fit a new world. When you do this the concepts and beliefs of PT tend to be bent and molded to fit different paradyms. Liberal Christian PT, Jewish PT, Humanist PT, and others tend to mold PT to their own beliefs.


I'm not sure what you mean here. If you are at all familiar with Process Theism you know that it has a distinctive understanding of "personal". You would know, for instance, that according to PT, there are (technically) no "persons" - that is, there are no subjects or substantial selves having experiences. Rather there are personally ordered societies of actual occasions and then there are impersonal societies of actual occasions. You need to explain your use of "personal" from a Process perspective before you can criticize it for being "less personal".I was not criticizing PT as being less personal. I was comparing it as less personal than the 'hands on God' of traditional Christianity.


Again, this is too unclear. I don't understand why you would insert "a" between "be" and "God". But, if you meant to say that Jesus would no more be God than anyone else, I must disagree and suggest that you do a little more study of Process Theology. If an occasion were to prehend God in such a way that the "initial aim" offered by God to every occasion, became the occasion's "subjective aim", the occasion would "be" God. Process Theists generally understand the incarnation of God in Jesus in this way.I may have been unclear, because to me PT and what you just described is unclear. I am still trying to sort this out.


Again, this is unclear. Are you referring to "objective immortality"? The word "salvation" is used in a lot of different ways. I believe the word as it is used in the Bible means to be restored to wholeness. From my perspective, a lack of wholeness is due to alienation - from God, from other humans, and from nature. Salvation has to do with at-one-ment, or consciously sensing and enjoying our relationship with God and the world. Process Theology IS a Relational Theology and clearly offers salvation to those who are alienated and lost.
There is no "merging with existence itself".

If you are thinking that salvation has something to do with "going to heaven" you'll have to read some of David Griffin's and Marjorie Suchocki if you are not aware of a Process view of how the "soul" can survive death.I am getting a vagueness and conflicts in different messages here in what I read, so I am rereading some stuff and will get back to you.







I'm not sure you understood that I meant that Process Theology provides explanations - not simply faith claims. Process Theology is based on the speculative philosophy (metaphysics) of Whitehead, Hartshorne, and others. As Whitehead wrote in his PROCESS AND REALITY (p.3):



Speculative Philosophy is the endeavor to frame a coherent, logical necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience can be interpreted. By this notion of 'interpretation' I mean that everything of which we are conscious, as enjoyed, perceived, willed, or thought, shall have the character of a particular instance of the general scheme.



Do Process Theologians believe that men can be inspired by God? Yes. Does that mean that this inspiration overcomes the limited knowledge and biases of the individual? No. Understanding God as a law giver and enforcer, depending upon how literally one understands it, would, I think, be considered a fairly primitive view of God.



Again, I think you are referring to faith claims rather than explanations.


Traditional Theism is basically premodern and makes its ultimate appeal to the authority of a supernatural God. Because of this, where its truth claims conflict with experience and reason, it remains content to answer critics with "Mystery" and circular reasoning.

Process Theism is a postmodern constructive natural theology and makes it ultimate appeal to its internal coherence, its adequacy to experience, and its power to explain. Unlike Traditional Theism then, it is open to criticism. So, what do you find unsatisfactory about its explanation for a univesal God?

ALL concepts are constructed by man. Is the use of the adjective redundant? Would your criticism apply to all the scientific and philosophical efforts of the human species?Comment on this after I have read more.


And the basis of your "most likely" is what?Is that god is basically unknowable and hidden. We cannot define him better by using words and labels, than try and 'Make Sense' of God with our own logic. Part of the problem I found is that everyone was trying to 'make sense' of God to fit their own worldview. Sort of the blind men discovering the elephant and describing God logically what they found in their own worldview, but essentially remaining in their own world view.

Actually the writings of the Baha'i describe PT without an effort to try and 'make sense' of things. The 'Process' is the dynamic cyclic progressive creation and revelation billions of years in the 'Process'. This process is seen reflected in the cyclic progressive revelation of all the religions of the world as well as many of the faiths of the primative peoples.

[PantaRhea]

I adhere to panentheism and to the doctrine that the creation is a subset of the Creator. I haven’t stuck the label of Process Theology onto my beliefs, mainly because I’ve got so many labels already, but you may if you wish, if you consider them close enough. In my view the universe was created by God modifying part of His own substance—the universe is a finite spacetime bubble in an infinite spacetime sea, an area of modified God-substance inside an infinite area of unmodified God-substance (God-substance being Spirit or Uncreated Light). The bubble has been constantly evolving, or in process as it were, ever since Creation about 15,000 million years ago.

Panentheism allows for both immanence and transcendence.
Why would you call this panentheism rather than pantheism? As soon as you assume a substance ontology, you put yourself outside of Process Theology.
Since the "creation" and God are the same substance, it doesn't make sense to me to claim your view is panentheistic, (that the world is IN God) rather than pantheistic, which claims that the world IS God. But you have two substances, don't you? What is the difference between the modified and unmodified God-substance? I'm going to guess that the main difference is that the unmodified God-substance is infinite, and the modified God-substance is finite. But if so, you have a major problem if you feel any need to have a coherent theology. How is something finite created from the infinite? Another way of putting this, is how can necessary existence (abstract existence) create contingent existence (concrete existence)?

The difference, it seems to me, between your theology and the major monotheistic religions, is your idea that there is just one God-substance. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam claim three substances - God (Spirit), matter, and human spirit. Maybe there are four if we count angels and demons as another kind of substance? However, they share the same problem of coherence - how can an infinite God (a necessary Being) create?

[Heathen Dawn]

Why would you call this panentheism rather than pantheism?

Because I believe God > Universe rather than God = Universe. That’s panentheism.


As soon as you assume a substance ontology, you put yourself outside of Process Theology.

I don’t call myself a Process Theologian. It’s just usually the case that Process Theology and panentheism coïncide, so I decided to post here to hear if someone thought I could be called a Process Theologian. I don’t care either way.


Since the "creation" and God are the same substance, it doesn't make sense to me to claim your view is panentheistic, (that the world is IN God) rather than pantheistic, which claims that the world IS God.

It does. God = Totality, Totality < Universe, ergo God < Universe. Creation and God are the same substance ex origine, but different substance in realitate—universe comes from God-substance but is modified to be different from the Transcendent Godhead.


But you have two substances, don't you? What is the difference between the modified and unmodified God-substance? I'm going to guess that the main difference is that the unmodified God-substance is infinite, and the modified God-substance is finite.

More than that. Modified God-substance is varied and complex, whereas the Transcendent Godhead is simple and uniform. Modified God-substance can also be so modified as to be naturally estranged from the Creator (as we all are).


How is something finite created from the infinite? Another way of putting this, is how can necessary existence (abstract existence) create contingent existence (concrete existence)?

I fail to see the problem here.


The difference, it seems to me, between your theology and the major monotheistic religions, is your idea that there is just one God-substance. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam claim three substances - God (Spirit), matter, and human spirit. Maybe there are four if we count angels and demons as another kind of substance?

One fundamental substance, which is Spirit or Uncreated Light; which through modification becomes very many different kinds of substance.


However, they share the same problem of coherence - how can an infinite God (a necessary Being) create?

I don’t know but that’s not going to prevent me from believing.

[PantaRhea]

I apologize if I seemed confrontational or destructively critical. My intent was to find out if I understood your theology correctly and make some comparisons to Process Theology. The criticism I offer is intended to be constructive but only IF you are looking to have a coherent theology. Otherwise, you can take the pragmatic approach and believe in whatever helps you be whatever you want to be.

Yes, you could describe your position as panentheistic if indeed God in your theology transcends the universe. And I like this:


It does. God = Totality, Totality < Universe, ergo God < Universe.This corresponds nicely with Process Theology which explains that God is the All Inclusive Whole and everything else is included in the whole. However, Process Theology does not have a substance ontology, but an event ontology. The universe is made up of what Whitehead called "actual occasions". Viewed from a scientific perspective, these would be quantum packets of patterns of energy. But these "actual occasions" have an inner reality as well, so understood in that way, they are "feelings" or experiences. Looked at more closely, we see these "experiences" creating themselves from past experiences. The many "experiences" in the environment are creatively integrated into a new experience which then become used in the self-creation of another experience. So, "the many become one and are increased by one". Each occasion is an individual which includes other individuals and is therefore a whole. God is the All Inclusive Individual who includes all individuals. Process Theology is a relational theology in that it views reality as a relationship between one and many.

I don't want to bore you with more, but I did want to give you just a small sample of what Process Theology is about. It's important to understand that Process Theology is a philosophical theology and not a revealed theology.

If you are interested, I can explain why the idea that contingent existence can not be created from that which exists necessarily.

[Heathen Dawn]

Eep, I made a mistake with the angle brackets. Should be:

God = Totality, Totality > Universe, ergo God > Universe


I apologize if I seemed confrontational or destructively critical. My intent was to find out if I understood your theology correctly and make some comparisons to Process Theology.

I’m not offended. I just wanted to make it clear I’m in this thread to inquire whether I have anything to do with Process Theology, and not because I’m sure I am one.


However, Process Theology does not have a substance ontology, but an event ontology. The universe is made up of what Whitehead called "actual occasions". Viewed from a scientific perspective, these would be quantum packets of patterns of energy. But these "actual occasions" have an inner reality as well, so understood in that way, they are "feelings" or experiences. Looked at more closely, we see these "experiences" creating themselves from past experiences. The many "experiences" in the environment are creatively integrated into a new experience which then become used in the self-creation of another experience. So, "the many become one and are increased by one". Each occasion is an individual which includes other individuals and is therefore a whole. God is the All Inclusive Individual who includes all individuals. Process Theology is a relational theology in that it views reality as a relationship between one and many.

Aha, it reminds me of Metacrock (http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/)’s philosophy that we are all “thoughts in the mind of God.” I’ve labelled this view “theistic solipsism,” to denote that I’m not very comfortable with it. If God were to stop thinking us, we would cease to exist; whereas, substance made cannot be unmade, and this is a much more secure footing.


I don't want to bore you with more, but I did want to give you just a small sample of what Process Theology is about. It's important to understand that Process Theology is a philosophical theology and not a revealed theology.

No, you don’t bore me at all, otherwise I wouldn’t be on TWeb at all. My own theology of the Brahman (Creator-God, Ground of All Being) is philosophical too, but a feature of mine is that I tie it with polytheism, which is revealed theology.


If you are interested, I can explain why the idea that contingent existence can not be created from that which exists necessarily.

Go ahead, I’m curious to hear that.

[PantaRhea]

Aha, it reminds me of Metacrock (http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/)’s philosophy that we are all “thoughts in the mind of God.” I’ve labelled this view “theistic solipsism,” to denote that I’m not very comfortable with it. If God were to stop thinking us, we would cease to exist; whereas, substance made cannot be unmade, and this is a much more secure footing.
Process Philosophy is not idealism. An "actual occasion" begins as subject and becomes an object - a "being". As an object, it cannot be "unmade".



Go ahead, I’m curious to hear that.I'm running late and my wife will begin cutting off my fingers if I don't get off the computer... so, I'll get that argument to ya later. :smile:

[PantaRhea]

Go ahead, I’m curious to hear that.
Heathen,

Hmmmm. Reminds me of the old days when my world was divided into people who were heathens and those who were christians. :sigh:

I'm sorry I didn't get back to you right away. I made the argument I promised you to Justin here: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41231

Let me know what you think?