15.11.2014 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Dr. Geisler is absolutely correct in this particular criticism <strong>of</strong><br />

panentheism. One writer assessed the situation as follows:<br />

<strong>The</strong> incontestable fact is that if God moves necessarily<br />

in time he is limited to some rate <strong>of</strong> velocity that is<br />

finite (say, the speed <strong>of</strong> light, if not the faster rate <strong>of</strong><br />

some hypothetical tachyon). This means, unfortunately<br />

for process theism, that it is impossible for such<br />

a finite deity to have a simultaneous God’s-eye view<br />

<strong>of</strong> the whole universe at once, since it would take him<br />

millions <strong>of</strong> light years or more to receive requisite<br />

data from distant points <strong>and</strong> places (Gruenler, 1983,<br />

p. 58, parenthetical comment in orig).<br />

Thus, panentheism finds itself in the untenable status <strong>of</strong><br />

positing a finite, non-omnipotent, non-omniscient God Who<br />

is best described in the following illogical manner. (1) He has<br />

the entire Universe as His body. (b) By definition, however,<br />

He is limited (because He is finite) by the physical laws <strong>of</strong> that<br />

Universe. (c) <strong>The</strong>refore, He cannot even know His own body<br />

because it extends over the entire Universe, yet He cannot<br />

extend Himself over the entire Universe because He is restrained<br />

by its physical laws. Corduan could not have been<br />

more correct when he wrote: “Thus the arbitrary denial <strong>of</strong><br />

any one attribute does not yield a finite God but yields nothing<br />

at all.”<br />

Second, panentheism suggests that God is in the “process”<br />

<strong>of</strong> changing, yet the crucial element <strong>of</strong> change—causality—is<br />

conspicuously missing. While it is correct to say that every<br />

change is the actualization <strong>of</strong> some potential, such change<br />

does not occur by itself. <strong>The</strong>re must be a cause involved in<br />

the process. Remember the cake analogy above?<br />

Try actualizing a bowl <strong>of</strong> batter’s potential to become<br />

a cake without putting it into an oven. A c<strong>of</strong>fee cup<br />

has the potential to be filled with c<strong>of</strong>fee, so let us see if<br />

it will fill itself. Of course it won’t. Cakes cannot bake<br />

themselves; c<strong>of</strong>fee cups cannot fill themselves; potentials<br />

cannot actualize themselves. Where a change<br />

occurs, there must be a cause to bring about that<br />

change.... Panentheism attempts to circumvent the<br />

-54­

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!