Right. Did you think that quote from Wikipedia proved your assertion that "Very
few people in history held the position of classical theism"? That's what I was
correcting.
On its own terms, with regard to the difficulty reconciling classical theism
with the Bible: Yes, it "can be" difficult for those who are not thoroughly
familiar with classical theism. But the Jewish and Christian classical theist
theologians dealt with the apparent difficulties in some detail.
And no, Xeno isn't "more accurate" than I am. He's just getting his feet wet
regarding classical theism, and his understanding is still seriously deficient
at this point (as is yours, even more so).
There's no shame in not being familiar with classical theism. I wasn't until
fairly recently. What's so inappropriate is when one doesn't recognize one's
ignorance and makes arrogant, hostile assertions about it that are grossly
factually mistaken.
<< This is what wikipedia states about classical theism
"Since classical theistic ideas are influenced by
Greek philosophy and focus on God in the abstract and
metaphysical sense, they can be difficult to reconcile
with the "near, caring, and compassionate" view of God
presented in the religious texts of the main
monotheistic religions, particularly the Bible.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism
Xeno seems to be more accurate than you. >>
> It appeared that you were suggesting the "God 1.0/2.0" notion had something
> to do with classical theism, which made no sense. Guess not, huh? Maybe you
> could have been a little clearer that they were unrelated and you were just
> lumping them together in a single post. >
> And you couldn't be more seriously mistaken about classical theism being a
> position held by "a very few people in history." It's actually been the
> mainstream theological position throughout history and has only recently
> gotten some competition from theistic personalists and some other flavors or
> theism.
>
> Classical theism is not associated with any one religion, but rather is the
> basis for the theology of many religions, including those of the
> Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions and several Eastern traditions as well.
<< Ooooopsie yourself. These religions are comprised of
Personalistic Theists. >>
> >
> > Very few people in history held the position of classical
theism which is impersonalistic theism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism
> > > Um. If classical theism has nothing to do with any religion, how come
> > > six of the 16 "God 1.0" chart items refer to Jesus Christ or the
> > > Trinity? Ooooopsie?
<<<< The position of Classical Theism is this so called "God" is "beingness"
and not a being.
> > > >
> > > > Thus classical theism is an abstract philosophical position
and has nothing to do with any religion. >>
> > > >
> > > > Welcome to God 2.0
> > > >
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/quantum-flapdoodle-and-god-2-0-t17702.htmlhttp://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/quantum-flap
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/quantum-flap
doodle-and-god-2-0-t17702.html
> > > >
--- Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/
> http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/
deepak-chopras-god-20
>
> LINK
>
> Deepak Chopra's God 2.0
> The "quantum flapdoodle" of the New Age author is a failed
> effort to update medieval theology.
> Chopra's New Age theology is essentially an updating
> of this medieval scheme, with ample borrowings from
> the vocabulary of particle physics. This upgrade from
> God 1.0 to God 2.0 can be summarized in the following
> chart (inspired by my friend and colleague Stephen
> Beckner):
>
> God 1.0
> 1. omnipresent
> 2. fully man/fully God
> 3. miracle
> 4. leap of faith
> 5. transubstantiation
> 6. Council of Rome
> 7. supernatural forces
> 8. heaven
> 9. hell
> 10. eternity
> 11. prayer
> 12. the Godhead
> 13. the Trinity
> 14. orgiveness of sin
> 15. virgin birth
> 16. resurrection
>
> God 2.0
> 1. non-local
> 2. wave/particle duality
> 3. wave-function collapse
> 4. quantum leap
> 5. Heisenberg uncertainty principle
> 6. Copenhagen interpretation
> 7. anti-matter
> 8. dark energy
> 9. dark matter
> 10. space/time continuum
> 11. quantum entanglement
> 12. general relativity
> 13. special relativity
> 14. quantum erasure
> 15. quantum decoherence
> 16. virtual reality
