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
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