The Many Faces, and Causes, of Unbelief - Apologetics Press

More documents

Recommendations

Info

What should be the response of Christians to panentheism? First, we should be quick to point out that a “finite” God is worthless. As Corduan lamented: Once we have denied that God is infinite, we do not have any reason to think that He should be any of those other wonderful things that we say He is. Then He lacks a rationale for His being all-knowing, allloving, eternal, and the other attributes that are based on His infinity. Take away the infinity, and you take away the justification for believing any of the standard attributes of God. Thus the arbitrary denial of any one attribute does not yield a finite God but yields nothing at all (p. 95, emp. added). This is an extremely important point. Once God’s infinity is removed, most of His other traits fall one by one like the proverbial row of dominoes. A finite God, for example, cannot be an omniscient God. Consider the following. Panentheists place great faith in modern physics. In fact, much of Whitehead’s “process theology” was based on concepts from physics. But according to the laws of physics, nothing travels faster than the speed of light (186,317 miles per second). That being true, then God never would be able to comprehend the entire Universe at once because ...his mind could not travel across the universe any father than 186,000+ miles per second. But by the time he has moved from one end of the universe to the other, the universe would have changed multimillions upon trillions of times. In this case, God would not really know the universe (his “body”) at all. He could only know an infinitesimal portion at a time while all else is changing.... Of course, panentheists could solve their problem by affirming that God’s mind transcends the universe and is not subject to the speed of light. But if they take this way out of the dilemma, they fall right into the arms of classical theism, which they strongly reject. So the painful alternative for panentheism is to retain an incoherent view or else return to theism (Geisler, 1997, p. 67). -53
Dr. Geisler is absolutely correct in this particular criticism of panentheism. One writer assessed the situation as follows: The incontestable fact is that if God moves necessarily in time he is limited to some rate of velocity that is finite (say, the speed of light, if not the faster rate of some hypothetical tachyon). This means, unfortunately for process theism, that it is impossible for such a finite deity to have a simultaneous God’s-eye view of the whole universe at once, since it would take him millions of light years or more to receive requisite data from distant points and places (Gruenler, 1983, p. 58, parenthetical comment in orig). Thus, panentheism finds itself in the untenable status of positing a finite, non-omnipotent, non-omniscient God Who is best described in the following illogical manner. (1) He has the entire Universe as His body. (b) By definition, however, He is limited (because He is finite) by the physical laws of that Universe. (c) Therefore, He cannot even know His own body because it extends over the entire Universe, yet He cannot extend Himself over the entire Universe because He is restrained by its physical laws. Corduan could not have been more correct when he wrote: “Thus the arbitrary denial of any one attribute does not yield a finite God but yields nothing at all.” Second, panentheism suggests that God is in the “process” of changing, yet the crucial element of change—causality—is conspicuously missing. While it is correct to say that every change is the actualization of some potential, such change does not occur by itself. There must be a cause involved in the process. Remember the cake analogy above? Try actualizing a bowl of batter’s potential to become a cake without putting it into an oven. A coffee cup has the potential to be filled with coffee, so let us see if it will fill itself. Of course it won’t. Cakes cannot bake themselves; coffee cups cannot fill themselves; potentials cannot actualize themselves. Where a change occurs, there must be a cause to bring about that change.... Panentheism attempts to circumvent the -54
Page 2 and 3:
APOLOGETICS PRESS
Page 4:
CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPT
Page 7 and 8: For example, when Joshua—who had
Page 9 and 10: the truth, but they will not. The s
Page 11 and 12: obliged to acknowledge that it was
Page 14 and 15: 2 THE MANY FACES OF UNBELIEF Throug
Page 16 and 17: Impossible task, that—since one w
Page 18 and 19: Neither of these tasks is simple (n
Page 20 and 21: foundation, not in divine guidance,
Page 22 and 23: are monkeys” (see Leonard Huxley,
Page 24 and 25: Such a premise is flawed internally
Page 26 and 27: The development, over the past four
Page 28 and 29: Thus, in the end the skeptic does n
Page 30 and 31: le plethora of men and women who ma
Page 32 and 33: include “Hell” and “Some Mist
Page 34 and 35: In fact, in the late 1970s, while I
Page 36 and 37: future state of rewards and punishm
Page 38 and 39: tion to function on its own; some b
Page 40 and 41: Deism...refers to what can be calle
Page 42 and 43: a God strong enough to create the w
Page 44 and 45: ecomes indistinguishable from evil.
Page 46 and 47: Ryerson who allegedly was able to
Page 48 and 49: ...Every action, under certain circ
Page 50 and 51: tes 12:7). The writer of the book o
Page 52 and 53: the Lord struck him, because he did
Page 54 and 55: ook, Apologetics in the New Age: A
Page 56 and 57: at ease. Yes, it is! Therefore, in
Page 60 and 61: principle of causality. In its pict
Page 62: a better world, but is limited by t
Page 65 and 66: every citizen enjoys. Or contemplat
Page 67 and 68: since that time that it has very gr
Page 69 and 70: cuse. Man’s failure to see this g
Page 71 and 72: With reference to men the use is pr
Page 73 and 74: in philosophy and science. Life has
Page 75 and 76: Indeed, it may “not be irrelevant
Page 77 and 78: The shock received by the inexperie
Page 79 and 80: there have been those from politics
Page 81 and 82: from the only God ye seek not?,”
Page 83 and 84: This is the first age, I think, in
Page 85 and 86: tle John brought the book of Revela
Page 87 and 88: self, but the fact that “[i]t is
Page 89 and 90: As this section on immorality as a
Page 91 and 92: Democratic Way of Life, a formal st
Page 93 and 94: But science is no synonym for spiri
Page 95 and 96: ate student asked: “Hundreds of t
Page 97 and 98: ather bluntly: “In contrast to th
Page 99 and 100: a joy to tell him that he does not
Page 101 and 102: is Steven Weinberg, author of Dream
Page 103 and 104: At Noel’s funeral, the minister b
Page 105 and 106: Again, time and space would fail me
Page 107 and 108: sin? No, they were no worse sinners
Page 109 and 110:
Just as suffering is real, so are t
Page 111 and 112:
The corruptions, or shortcomings, o
Page 113 and 114:
UNJUST ACTS COMMITTED BY BELIEVERS
Page 115 and 116:
million-dollar reward to anyone car
Page 117 and 118:
ted. For example, when law-enforcem
Page 119 and 120:
tain actions are sanctioned by God
Page 121 and 122:
of unbelief. I suppose that some wo
Page 124 and 125:
4 CONCLUSION Every person familiar
Page 126 and 127:
This latter observation needs a lit
Page 128 and 129:
REFERENCES Abelson, Phillip (1964),
Page 130 and 131:
Durant, Will (1980), “We Are in t
Page 132 and 133:
Huxley, Thomas Henry (1896), Darwin
Page 134 and 135:
Raymo, Chet (1998), Skeptics and Tr
Page 136:
Watkin, Edward I. (1936), Theism, A
show all

The Many Faces, and Causes, of Unbelief - Apologetics Press

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?