Open Theism just doesn't make any sense!

[MarcusAndreas]

It turns God into something less than perfect, something that doesn't know everything.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR TOTAL OMNISCIENCE:

1. God is that then which nothing greater can be conceived
2. It is greater to know all than to know less than all
3. Therefore, God knows all.

For the record, I'm Arminian.

[technomage]

Your syllogism fails, in that 2 does not necessitate 3. Your posited God could still be greater than can be conceived by humanity, yet still not omniscient.

(Your syllogism also fails in that you do not define "great," therefore you do not clarify why God is greater than human imagination.)

Oh, and for the record, Open Theism is a crock.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

3. Therefore, God knows all.

Yes but humanity often knows diddly-squat hence 'Open Theism' which is more 'cop-out' than 'crock' I suspect.

[technomage]

Yes but humanity often knows diddly-squat

Agreed!

hence 'Open Theism' which is more 'cop-out' than 'crock' I suspect.

Nah, I have to disagree.

Cop-out = "We didn't understand it, so we didn't try."

Crock = "We didn't understand it, so we tried anyway (and made an epic fail)."

But YMMV, which is cool.

[Xmansmommy]

Great way to squash any potential conversation on the topic, folks. But then again, I don't suspect that was the intent to begin with.

[technomage]

Dearheart, Open Theism falls under the same criticism as all varieties of Closed Theism--any attempts, by human beings, to force God to fit in a definitional box is doomed to failure.

What would be better is for both sides to admit that they don't know how God functions and go grab a soda, or a plate of nachos, or something.

[Xmansmommy]

Dearheart, Open Theism falls under the same criticism as all varieties of Closed Theism--any attempts, by human beings, to force God to fit in a definitional box is doomed to failure.

What would be better is for both sides to admit that they don't know how God functions and go grab a soda, or a plate of nachos, or something.

Is admitting that you don't know how God functions what you offered to do Justin, when you called it a crock? Is that what the OP suggested we do? Obviously, you think that having a God we can know nothing much about is better than at least attempting to understand God through scripture, our experiences and the experiences of others.That's fine if that's what you think. But don't be surprised that some of us do actually think we can know some things about God and we might discuss those things respectfully from time to time. While we may not fully understand God, it is my opinion that calling any attempt a "crock" is making a definitive statement about Him as well. You don't escape the same conundrum the rest of us deal with.

Soda?

[technomage]

While we may not fully understand God, it is my opinion that calling any attempt a "crock" is making a definitive statement about Him as well.

I am not saying anything definitive about God, but about man's ability to know.

Soda?

Mountain Dew, please.

[Dee Dee Warren]

MetalMark, I am not an OV. I too think it is a crock, like I think futurism is. But you are misdefining something.

We all believe that God can do everything that is possible to be done. OVers believe it is logical impossible to know the future as it doesn't exist yet.

I know that is simplistic, just wanted to throw that out there.

[Xmansmommy]

I am not saying anything definitive about God, but about man's ability to know.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your position. Are you saying that God reveals nothing about Himself to us humans or that we simply can't know anything about Him regardless of what He reveals?

Mountain Dew, please.

If I had a MD smiley I'd put it here but :drink: will have to do.

[MarcusAndreas]

Omnipotence exists, but I'm talking about Omniscience. Anyway, the OVers are wrong.

[Xmansmommy]

[Kenny]

It turns God into something less than perfect, something that doesn't know everything.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR TOTAL OMNISCIENCE:

1. God is that then which nothing greater can be conceived
2. It is greater to know all than to know less than all
3. Therefore, God knows all.

For the record, I'm Arminian.

Yeah, what Darth Xena said, basically.

All of us say that God knows only what is true (we don’t say God knows false propositions for example – that would be a logical impossibility, since knowledge entails truth). And most open theists around here do affirm that God knows all true propositions. But they happen to think that there are no true propositions pertaining to future contingents. And since there are no such true propositions, they claim, there are no such true propositions that God knows.

For the record, I’m a Calvinist.

[MarcusAndreas]

Arminius pwns Calvin anyday!!!

[technomage]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your position. Are you saying that God reveals nothing about Himself to us humans or that we simply can't know anything about Him regardless of what He reveals?

Can an ant understand a human being, even if the human being reveals himself to the ant and tries to explain what he wants? Xmom, if we posit the existence of a God that is defined as "supernatural," then there is far more difference between us and God than there is between the ant and us.

Specifically in the cases of revealed (or purportedly revealed) religions that we have available for examination, I consider all of them equally erroneous. The Talmud, the various books in and out of the Christian canon, the various Gnostic texts, the Qur'an, Medieval mysticism, the Kabbalah, the Book of Mormon, Oahspe, or what have you--all of these texts make positive claims about the Divine.

They're all wrong. Each and every one of them errs. And far too often, people are more than willing to examine critiques of texts that "compete" with their beliefs, but will not entertain the same critical examination of their own.

Xmom, you and the other Christians here follow what I can only term a delusion. For most of you, that delusion is beneficial: it helps you relate with the world in a manner that is emotionally beneficial to you as an individual, and that does not interfere with your ability to interact with the rest of the world. There are only a few people on this forum for whom I would consider their delusions to be harmful.

But beneficial or not, it is a delusion.