tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11807447.post1672348484876567451..comments2023-09-08T03:25:12.539-05:00Comments on Liberal Jesus: Panentheism and Theodicy: Creator's guiltMatthewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17980181582122445265noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11807447.post-6409126578553062452007-04-23T09:03:00.000-05:002007-04-23T09:03:00.000-05:00@enemy:Sure, link away.Sorry to hear you're having...@enemy:<BR/><BR/>Sure, link away.<BR/><BR/>Sorry to hear you're having a faith crisis, those can be uncomfortable. =PMatthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17980181582122445265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11807447.post-88670538888806864442007-04-22T17:08:00.000-05:002007-04-22T17:08:00.000-05:00I just came over from Paul's blog. I see why he li...I just came over from Paul's blog. I see why he likes you so. I am currently having a faith crisis. Do you mind if I link you? I enjoy your perspective.Enemy of the Republichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17342253341470198835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11807447.post-89632616630414884792007-04-20T21:52:00.000-05:002007-04-20T21:52:00.000-05:00Matthew wrote: if nothing exists outside of God, i...Matthew wrote: <I>if nothing exists outside of God, it would be difficult for God to simulate creation in such a way that it didn't actually have the moral implications of a real creation.</I><BR/><BR/>I don’t see it. Just because all matter is a part of God, that doesn’t mean every part of God is matter. (Would that be pantheism?) I still don’t see why a panentheistic god couldn’t simulate the world in a part of the god’s mind that <I>wasn’t</I> matter.scootshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14648062432937107093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11807447.post-28404848520796716202007-04-17T11:39:00.000-05:002007-04-17T11:39:00.000-05:00@scoots:"But surely a god––even a panentheistic on...@scoots:<BR/><I>"But surely a god––even a panentheistic one––would have a mind that could operate independently of matter, right?. After all, God could only create matter with a mind that existed independent of that matter."</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think that the panentheistic model requires that God have a mind independent of matter, or, turned around somewhat, that "matter" exists as something distinct from God. I think the panentheist would be more likely to say that the construct that we call matter is actually made of God.<BR/><BR/>Along those lines, if nothing exists outside of God, it would be difficult for God to simulate creation in such a way that it didn't actually have the moral implications of a real creation. The word "simulate" loses its meaning.<BR/><BR/><I>"our panentheistic god obviously couldn’t think through “forever” before going on with creation; to that, I would say that thinking through a few billion years should have been sufficient to demonstrate the horrors that the world brings about."</I><BR/><BR/>This is really, really interesting in terms of computational theory, and I need to make it its own post.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17980181582122445265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11807447.post-4914896480099356432007-04-14T00:52:00.000-05:002007-04-14T00:52:00.000-05:00Do we need to assume that God would have tested th...Do we need to assume that God would have tested the algorithm in the most efficient way possible, and that therefore God would have <I>had</I> to actually create the universe to see what would happen?<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that you or I can think through a simple algorithm and know how it will be played out without having to run it on actual hardware. If we could do that with a simple algorithm, I don’t know why God couldn’t do it with a complex one. But then, come to think of it, that’s a bad analogy, because our brains constitute actual hardware as well.<BR/><BR/>But surely a god––even a panentheistic one––would have a mind that could operate independently of matter, right?. After all, God could only <I>create</I> matter with a mind that existed independent of that matter. And if that’s the case, then I don’t see why that same god couldn't think through the algorith of the cosmos (using its nonmaterial mind) before “running” it on the hardware of actual matter.<BR/><BR/>One reason we could claim that such a mental exercise wouldn’t work is that the results would take too long for the god to think through before going through with the actual creation. That presumes we can compare the speed at which our panentheistic god thinks with the speed of events as they play out in the actual universe. Of course, since we’re just supposing a god that can be exonerated of evil anyway, I suppose we can say that the thoughts would have taken as long as the working out of events. So the most efficient way to find out what would happen would be to let it happen in the actual creation.<BR/><BR/>But I don’t think that solves the problem either. Wouldn’t it still be wrong for a god to be too impatient to think through the playing out of events––at whatever speed it could––before going through with the creation? If it was irresponsible for Bush to go to war without fully thinking through the consequences, surely it would be even more irresponsible for God to create the entire cosmos under similar circumstances.<BR/><BR/>One potential way out would be to say that the cosmos goes on forever, and that our panentheistic god obviously couldn’t think through “forever” <I>before</I> going on with creation; to that, I would say that thinking through a few billion years should have been sufficient to demonstrate the horrors that the world brings about.<BR/><BR/>Then we have to suppose that maybe our panentheistic god just isn’t smart enough to think through all the events that would occur in the universe. But then, that would mean we’re dealing with a god who badly misjudged how the world would go. That’s problematic, to say the least.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I think maybe you wrote “pantheist” a couple of places in the post where you meant “panentheist”…scootshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14648062432937107093noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11807447.post-87991486907621871332007-04-13T10:38:00.000-05:002007-04-13T10:38:00.000-05:00That's funny... so do I! There it was needed, but ...That's funny... so do I! There it was needed, but no kidding, I have to keep editing "so" out of my sentences as the first word.<BR/><BR/>Also "always" and "never" I've personally found good words for me to avoid. I tend to want to use them for emphasis but then they beg the question of exceptions, which, when I think about it, there usually are.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14770384445526387065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11807447.post-84596066675953835642007-04-10T22:50:00.001-05:002007-04-10T22:50:00.001-05:00I sure do say "So" a lot.I sure do say "So" a lot.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17980181582122445265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11807447.post-49732126157956510412007-04-10T22:50:00.000-05:002007-04-10T22:50:00.000-05:00@Paul:Yeah, I like your summary better. Saying tha...@Paul:<BR/><BR/>Yeah, I like your summary better. Saying that God created the universe simply pushes us over to the question of what created God.<BR/><BR/>@Richard:<BR/><BR/>Hm.<BR/><BR/>I think the seed of the universe, before the big bang, could be thought of as containing minimal informational entropy (or maximum information), supposing that it was impossible to compress it further.<BR/><BR/>So if the universe is deterministic, any fact about it - for example, the fact that I scratched my chin ten seconds ago - would actually be implied by the state of the universe at time 0. So I think what I'd want to say is that if one were trying to compare universes for goodness, one would be forced to consider what was going on at every point in space at every point in time, eliminating the possibility of a shortcut.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17980181582122445265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11807447.post-5139838823734917852007-04-10T16:58:00.000-05:002007-04-10T16:58:00.000-05:00Is there a connection between your idea and issues...Is there a connection between your idea and issues of algorithmic compressibility and informational entropy? <BR/><BR/>To wit, the shortest/only means to describe an algorithm that cannot be compressed (i.e., maximal informational entropy) would involve the actual running of the algorithm. That is, if the universe has low compressibility then the only way to describe/simulate the “algorithm” would be to run/execute the “algorithm.”Richard Beckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06500628452135216019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11807447.post-39743987844000235292007-04-10T00:00:00.000-05:002007-04-10T00:00:00.000-05:00Logically I think that what's theologically termed...Logically I think that what's theologically termed "creation" could have created itself or have existed eternally in one form or another - that it's no more logical to assign aseity, if I'm remembering that term correctly (meaning self sufficiency of being) to an entity that's more or less seperate from creation than to ascribe that attribute to creation itself.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14770384445526387065noreply@blogger.com