Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Process theologians like Whitehead and Hartshorne argue God has a 'consequent nature' that is genuinely affected by and responsive to the physical world.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If God's nature genuinely changes through time, God becomes dependent on creation and loses the independence essential to being divine.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Process theology sacrifices traditional divine omnipotence and perfect power for philosophical consistency, weakening God's salvific capacity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim rests on assuming classical theism's problems (omniscience paradoxes) are unsolvable, but compatibilist solutions remain viable alternatives.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
A God indifferent to creation's suffering seems morally inferior to one genuinely moved by and responsive to actual creaturely experience.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Classical omniscience makes divine foreknowledge of free acts logically problematic; a temporal God avoids this contradiction entirely.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Genuine relationship requires mutual responsiveness; a static God cannot truly love or be loved by creation in any meaningful sense.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.