Friday, March 22, 2013

Novel Theology

I've mentioned previously that I find time questionable. I especially find talk about time and God questionable because it seems to me people tend to define God as over and/or against time. So, what basically happens is that folks end up talking as if the future actually exists on some level. They do so because inertia makes them feel it is so, and if it so, then God must know it, because God knows all. This is basically the definition of omniscience.

If, however, the future doesn't exist, then God can still know all, but not know the future. He knows probability. He knows what he's going to do, and those planets, stars, and whatever out there- all the non-conscious stuff, well he has the probabilities down pat.

Think about probabilities for a second. What is the probability that a probability will happen? Well, if it is a prediction based on probabilities in physics, like where the planet will be in 40 thousand years- and God has all the data, and all the number crunching capability- we are talking 100%. If it prediction based on the probabilities of what a human being will do- well, wouldn't it be less? Since we are conscious, there is a possibility that we do something less probable. Yes, it is unlikely that we do something less probable, but we are more likely to do something less probable than non-conscious things.

So, basically, I am saying that we might provide novelty.

Now why go down such a dangerous road? Potentially bad theology here- and then, of course, there are more traditional bad theologians who can easily tell me I am a heretic.
Why rock any boats?
Well there is a philosophical problem with a satisfied God. If God needs nothing, why does He act?

No comments: