tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post2681474561762371385..comments2024-03-29T07:57:16.659-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: I am the Zapata of temporal theory Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-6025399500064920062018-03-09T10:54:31.008-08:002018-03-09T10:54:31.008-08:00That's not the way I understand it, tho I'...That's not the way I understand it, tho I'm far from an expert. The unchanging aspect contains abstract (potential) objects, but that pole itself is not potential. It is necessary. It necessarily and eternally is.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-43594240667971837212018-03-09T06:05:39.110-08:002018-03-09T06:05:39.110-08:00yes he has di polar thing. But the unchanging pole...yes he has di polar thing. But the unchanging pole id only potential.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-86398507969756955392018-03-08T16:29:24.720-08:002018-03-08T16:29:24.720-08:00Links are mostly unreachable. However from what I...Links are mostly unreachable. However from what I can find on my own, Whitehead's process theism holds that God changes, but there are some properties or aspects of him that don't change. OK. That's compatible with a personal God.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-5698981747534455952018-03-08T14:46:31.902-08:002018-03-08T14:46:31.902-08:00Whitehead; "God is the fellow sufferer who un...Whitehead; "God is the fellow sufferer who understands." I don't know enough about the field of process thought to say, but maybe we can agree that there's a diversity (range) of opinions?7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-8159386640180835872018-03-08T13:53:22.112-08:002018-03-08T13:53:22.112-08:00the frist commemto thatpost is a shit hole name Go...the frist commemto thatpost is a shit hole name Goliath who hated Goso deeply je psemdall his time trying to proveI laid everythingisaid,he he tries imly thatimadeup venusulcerisease.,it he;s stupid to reaioze oiprolbkly spellediotwromg,<br /><br />anonymous said...<br />"On a completely unrelated note, why is it that a google search for "venus ulcer disease" only turns up your webpages? And why doesn't WebMD.com have an entry for this alleged disease?"<br /><br />It should be "venous" so anxious to prove a Christian is lying it just didn't occur to him after all I lied abouit dyslexia i really spell fine,I'm just to lay to bother spelling well most of the time.<br /><br />O but i am so wrong to say an eightieths hates God that makes me like a fundamentalist like I think I can read his mindJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-13967265806963595602018-03-08T13:46:32.815-08:002018-03-08T13:46:32.815-08:00here is a google search i did on process theology ...here is a google search i did on process theology and impersonal God. I did this a long time ago its posted on this blog,<br /><br /><a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2008/08/god-of-process-theology-is-impersonal.html" rel="nofollow"><b>here</b></a><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-18519529667624345672018-03-08T13:29:16.847-08:002018-03-08T13:29:16.847-08:007 refers to a distinction between God's essenc...<i>7 refers to a distinction between God's essence and what he';s doing or appears to us he is doing.</i><br />- Do you know anything about Aristotle's and Aquinas' philosophy? Do you know what they mean by 'movement'? I suggest you brush up on your philosophy.<br /><br /><i>In essence God is not changing but in terms of God;s relationship to time and things in time he appears to be changing</i><br />- Oh, really. So you observe that God appears to be changing? In what sense?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-66469844550857385832018-03-08T13:28:59.003-08:002018-03-08T13:28:59.003-08:00Link
this is the link fro URL above,ore quotes
P...<a href="http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_6_PROBLEM_of_EVIL/Process_Theology.htm" rel="nofollow"><b>Link</b></a><br /><br />this is the link fro URL above,ore quotes<br /><br />Process philosophy and Open Theism--From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.<br />Process theology is a school of thought influenced by the metaphysical process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947).<br />Open theism, a theological movement that began in the 1990s, is similar, but not identical, to Process theology.<br />In both views, God is not omnipotent in the classical sense of a coercive being. Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature. The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God and creatures co-create. God cannot force anything to happen, but rather only influence the exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities. See the entries on Process theology, Panentheism, and Open theism.<br /><br />Process theology--From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.<br />Process theology (also known as Neoclassical theology) is a school of thought influenced by the metaphysical process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861 - 1947).<br /><br />The concepts of process theology include:<br /><br />God is not omnipotent in the sense of being coercive. The divine has a power of persuasion rather than force. Process theologians have often seen the classical doctrine of omnipotence as involving coercion (arguably mistakenly), and themselves claim something more restricted than the classical doctrine.<br />Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature.<br />The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God cannot force anything to happen, but rather only influence the exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities.<br />God contains the universe but is not identical with it (panentheism)<br />Because God contains a changing universe, God is changeable (that is to say, God is affected by the actions that take place in the universe) over the course of time. However, the abstract elements of God (goodness, wisdom, etc.) remain eternally solid.<br />People do not experience a subjective (or personal) immortality, but they do have an objective immortality in that their experiences live on forever in God, who contains all that was.<br />Dipolar theism, or the idea that our idea of a perfect God cannot be limited to a particular set of characteristics, because perfection can be embodied in opposite characteristics; For instance, for God to be perfect, he cannot have absolute control over all beings, because then he would not be as good as a being who moved by persuasion, rather than brute force. Thus, for God to be perfect, he must be both powerful and leave other beings some power to resist his persuasion.<br />The original ideas of process theology were developed by Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000), and were later expounded upon by John B. Cobb and David Ray Griffin.<br /><br />Process theology soon influenced a number of Jewish theologians including British philosopher Samuel Alexander (1859-1938), and Rabbis Max Kaddushin, Milton Steinberg and Levi A. Olan, Harry Slominsky and to a lesser degree, Abraham Joshua Heschel. Today some rabbis who advocate some form of process theology include Donald B. Rossoff, William E. Kaufman, Harold Kushner, Anton Laytner, Gilbert S. Rosenthal, Lawrence Troster and Nahum Ward.<br /><br />Alan Anderson and Deb Whitehouse have attempted to integrate process theology with the New Thought variant of Christianity.<br /><br />Thomas Jay Oord integrates process theology with evangelical, openness, and Wesleyan theologies.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-32506087778148214402018-03-08T13:26:32.266-08:002018-03-08T13:26:32.266-08:00Process theology is super complex too complex for ...Process theology is super complex too complex for me to go into now. I ear good sounding statements about process God is suffering with the world and stuff, But when you come to what they think God is and reality is it doesn't really allow for a personal God I'm not so sure it allow personal humans.Here are some quotes:<br /><br />"In their view the deity or "god' is seen less as an entity than as a process. The reality of the deity has not been fixed and the being is still developing. The deity and its creations have a bipolar nature. All existent entities have a mental pole or nature and a physical pole or nature as well.<br /><br />For these philosophers traditional theism does not work, particularly when considering the discoveries of modern physics, so they conclude that a new concept of God, is needed along with the view of the world we experience"<br /><br />http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_6_PROBLEM_of_EVIL/Process_Theology.htmJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-89650340570902092502018-03-08T12:52:58.377-08:002018-03-08T12:52:58.377-08:00Whitehead was one of the greats of 20th entry thou...Whitehead was one of the greats of 20th entry thought, He invented process theology but he was not the only one to develop it. Hartshorne brought in Unitarian ideas and a guy named Pittinger popularized it for Christianity,the n Schubert Ogden,my old professor did his thing. So in the developmental process (get it?) it got translated into impersonal view of God; I also wonder if Whithead really meant that in the conventional sense?<br /><br />How does that make sense though? I'm not familiar with Ogden's or Pittinger's ideas, but if God is becoming along with the world and that world includes personal beings like us, how could God be devoid of that quality he is in process of becoming alongside of?7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-24386778182840208172018-03-08T02:21:36.032-08:002018-03-08T02:21:36.032-08:00im-skeptical said...
How can ANY disembodied thing...im-skeptical said...<br />How can ANY disembodied thing at all ever "move"?<br /><br />In situations where no matter exists, what is "movement"? <br /><br /><b>yes that's my point. God looks "static" in that sense but to be aware of God relative to time is active thing,</b><br /><br />- I mean movement in the Aristotelian sense. In other words, any kind of change. And it doesn't have to be physical (after all, we are talking about God). What I'm saying is in agreement with Thomistic philosophy. They say that God is impersonal and unmoving. God doesn't have any process of thinking, which imply movement (or a changing state of affairs).<br /><br /><b>7 refers to a distinction between God's essence and what he';s doing or appears to us he is doing. That distinction is carried further by the Orthodox church in the dichotomy of God's energies. In essence God is not changing but in terms of God;s relationship to time and things in time he appears to be changing, </b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-76381078126773377452018-03-08T02:15:51.756-08:002018-03-08T02:15:51.756-08:00Mike Gerow said...
Unless "movement" in ...Mike Gerow said...<br />Unless "movement" in all the ways we know it doesn't actually exhaust the possibities of the way things might change, which would seem to be the case once you've granted for the sake of the argument the possibility of a disembodied consciousness like "God" in the first place. <br /><br />How can ANY disembodied thing at all ever "move"? <br /><br /><b>sure,I am not moving now relative to other people in this building, I am moving at some speed relative to the Moon, I am moving at near light speed relative to guys in another galaxy,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-31524339282895253012018-03-08T02:12:59.884-08:002018-03-08T02:12:59.884-08:00th Stooge said...
Joe, Why do you say that process...th Stooge said...<br />Joe, Why do you say that process thought understands God as being impersonal or non-personal? Whitehead in Process and Reality talks about God's loving tenderness towards the world and his suffering with the our suffering. I thought the whole point of process thought was to counter the monarchic, static conception of God detached from and disinterested in the world.<br /><br /><b>Whitehead was one of the greats of 20th entry thought, He invented process theology but he was not the only one to develop it. Hartshorne brought in Unitarian ideas and a guy named Pittinger popularized it for Christianity,the n Schubert Ogden,my old professor did his thing. So in the developmental process (get it?) it got translated into impersonal view of God; I also wonder if Whithead really meant that in the conventional sense?</b><br /><br />I agree that God, in his essence, should not be contradictory. I think we're saying the same thing. We may have perceptions that seem contradictory. These are what you are calling contradictory properties, right? But the objective reality beneath it can't be contradictory. Regardless of what we think, the underlying reality can't be both moving and unmoved at the same time. That's not logical.<br /><br /><b>I agree but the problem is so many terms that seem absolute to us are really retaliative, So "moving" is absolute if you live on earth but not if you live in space.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-56893302106483760852018-03-07T18:32:53.372-08:002018-03-07T18:32:53.372-08:00How can ANY disembodied thing at all ever "mo...<i>How can ANY disembodied thing at all ever "move"?<br /><br />In situations where no matter exists, what is "movement"? </i><br /><br />- I mean movement in the Aristotelian sense. In other words, any kind of change. And it doesn't have to be physical (after all, we are talking about God). What I'm saying is in agreement with Thomistic philosophy. They say that God is impersonal and unmoving. God doesn't have any process of thinking, which imply movement (or a changing state of affairs).im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-73880047082904751122018-03-07T17:51:14.025-08:002018-03-07T17:51:14.025-08:00Unless "movement" in all the ways we kno...Unless "movement" in all the ways we know it doesn't actually exhaust the possibities of the way things might change, which would seem to be the case once you've granted for the sake of the argument the possibility of a disembodied consciousness like "God" in the first place. <br /><br />How can ANY disembodied thing at all ever "move"? <br /><br />In situations where no matter exists, what is "movement"? Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-60075254719211504032018-03-07T17:16:19.852-08:002018-03-07T17:16:19.852-08:007th Stooge,
I agree that God, in his essence, sho...7th Stooge,<br /><br />I agree that God, in his essence, should not be contradictory. I think we're saying the same thing. We may have perceptions that seem contradictory. These are what you are calling contradictory properties, right? But the objective reality beneath it can't be contradictory. Regardless of what we think, the underlying reality can't be both moving and unmoved at the same time. That's not logical.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-37711185577482830282018-03-07T14:37:11.070-08:002018-03-07T14:37:11.070-08:00Joe, Why do you say that process thought understan...Joe, Why do you say that process thought understands God as being impersonal or non-personal? Whitehead in Process and Reality talks about God's loving tenderness towards the world and his suffering with the our suffering. I thought the whole point of process thought was to counter the monarchic, static conception of God detached from and disinterested in the world. 7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-91168130487381698862018-03-07T14:33:13.899-08:002018-03-07T14:33:13.899-08:00- I agree. It due to our own frame of reference th...- I agree. It due to our own frame of reference that there might appear to be a contradiction. That's what I was saying about Evelyn Underhill. She is speaking about the way humans see God, not about some objective reality.<br /><br />But the 'objective reality' is what we're trying to determine. We don;t know for sure what the objective reality is, especially pertaining to metaphysics and theology. Anything we understand has to be processed and filtered through our own subjective mental apparatus. My point was that God might very well have contradictory properties but that even if this is so, it doesn't mean that God in his substance, his essence, is contradictory. Understanding these contradictory properties depends heavily on the context, which I believe will never be fully understood by any finite mind.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-71065085939116502712018-03-07T13:22:55.750-08:002018-03-07T13:22:55.750-08:00true but is a noetic aspect to the experience. wea...<i>true but is a noetic aspect to the experience. weather one chooses to accept noetic aspects ad relativity merely illusory is another matter.I do't see how an empiricist could do otherwise</i><br />- I'll see your 'noetic' and raise you a 'numinous'. Who cares? These are just words you use to make a subjective feeling sound as is it has objective existence. It's nothing more than chemicals and electrical signals rattling around in your brain.<br /><br /><br /><i>empiricism is just faith and ideology</i><br />- Empiricism is a well-founded and long-standong epistemological position that our senses tell us something about the real world. And as epistemological positions go, there's nothing that works better. You can call it ideology if you want to make it seem as unjustified as religion is, but that's pretty childish.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-73189617640793731142018-03-07T10:04:50.309-08:002018-03-07T10:04:50.309-08:00im-skeptical said...
not with reference to her sta...im-skeptical said...<br />not with reference to her statement about God is not static, there she was talking about objective reality.<br />- I haven't read too much of Evelyn Underhill. But in what I DID read, she was talking about the mystical experience. It is the perception of God, which seems to be sometimes an unchanging power, and sometimes a personal contact. That's what SHE said.<br /><br /><b>true but is a noetic aspect to the experience. weather one chooses to accept noetic aspects ad relativity merely illusory is another matter.I do't see how an empiricist could do otherwise</b><br /><br /><br />It is so amazing to me how those guys can praise science as true objective truth the only source of knowledge then turn around say it's all crap ,it;s all meaningless, we don't know shit<br />- True, we don't know the real nature our world. And anyone who claims to is lying.<br /><br /><b> I agree but after tat it's a choice as to what we regarde as truth,</b><br /><br /> But that doesn't mean the search for truth is meaningless. What we DO know is that many of the things we always believed before are bullshit. And how do we know this? Science. Me may not have absolute truth in our grasp, but we definitely do understand things a whole lot better because of science.<br /><br /><b>science only tells us about things with in that range of empirical data. you are choosing to regrade the results of a methodology and I know has some application to the way you want to see the world,<br /><br />empiricism is just faith and ideology</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-39521896893558738552018-03-07T08:13:52.091-08:002018-03-07T08:13:52.091-08:00not with reference to her statement about God is n...<i>not with reference to her statement about God is not static, there she was talking about objective reality.</i><br />- I haven't read too much of Evelyn Underhill. But in what I DID read, she was talking about the mystical experience. It is the perception of God, which seems to be sometimes an unchanging power, and sometimes a personal contact. That's what SHE said.<br /><br /><br /><i>It is so amazing to me how those guys can praise science as true objective truth the only source of knowledge then turn around say it's all crap ,it;s all meaningless, we don't know shit</i><br />- True, we don't know the real nature our world. And anyone who claims to is lying. But that doesn't mean the search for truth is meaningless. What we DO know is that many of the things we always believed before are bullshit. And how do we know this? Science. Me may not have absolute truth in our grasp, but we definitely do understand things a whole lot better because of science.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-86832522354007235932018-03-07T05:47:17.391-08:002018-03-07T05:47:17.391-08:00Sure, there's the possibility that time, from ...Sure, there's the possibility that time, from the pov of physics, isn't real. Or at least the A series isn't real. But if it isn't, then we are not real either, since our subjective lives are essentially tied to the A series, imo. In that case, we can't say or know anything. Everything we know would be wrong.<br /><br /><b>It is so amazing to me how those guys can praise science as true objective truth the only source of knowledge then turn around say it's all crap ,it;s all meaningless, we don't know shit,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-37724745410148111632018-03-07T05:43:05.112-08:002018-03-07T05:43:05.112-08:00But those are ways we perceive it. It's not ne...But those are ways we perceive it. It's not necessarily beyond our comprehension, but our ability to perceive reality is limited. Still, we can infer that the reality is not exactly what we perceive.<br /><br /><b>by the same token understanding all aspect doesn't we can understand the whole</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-21567882435068146732018-03-07T05:41:13.217-08:002018-03-07T05:41:13.217-08:00But you have to understand the frame of reference ...But you have to understand the frame of reference before you can say that A and not-A are incoherent. You should allow for the possibility, especially when talking about God, for a larger frame that resolves apparent contradictions.<br />- I agree. It due to our own frame of reference that there might appear to be a contradiction. That's what I was saying about Evelyn Underhill. She is speaking about the way humans see God, not about some objective reality.<br /><br /><br /><b>not with reference to her statement about God is not static, there she was talking about objective reality.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-41918906976319618582018-03-06T11:44:38.526-08:002018-03-06T11:44:38.526-08:00But you have to understand the frame of reference ...<i>But you have to understand the frame of reference before you can say that A and not-A are incoherent. You should allow for the possibility, especially when talking about God, for a larger frame that resolves apparent contradictions.</i><br />- I agree. It due to our own frame of reference that there might appear to be a contradiction. That's what I was saying about Evelyn Underhill. She is speaking about the way humans see God, not about some objective reality.<br /><br /><br /><i>What about the particle/wave duality, or locality/non-locality? Some physicists accept these contradictions as epistemic end points, but I imagine that most think that there are physical truths (maybe beyond human ability to cpmprehend) in which these contradictions will resolve.</i><br />- Absolutely. Once again, the contradiction is merely in our own perception. A particle is neither a wave nor a little rock. But those are ways we perceive it. It's not necessarily beyond our comprehension, but our ability to perceive reality is limited. Still, we can infer that the reality is not exactly what we perceive.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.com