Evidence Item - v0.6
Relationality and Divine Passibility as Experiential Coherence
E-PROCESS-2
Visual overview: Process Theology Signal Evidence Dossier visual overview
Classification
- Evidence ID
- E-PROCESS-2
- Corpus/version
- v0.6
- Stage
- stage3
- Category
- Theology Proper
- Major category
- Philosophy
- Sub-category
- Divine Attributes
- BF status
- ready
- Scoring label
- Scored row with active Bayes factors
Navigation
Primary Datum
Datum: process theism presents God as relational, responsive, and passible in ways that can feel experientially coherent.
Scoring / Hypothesis Pressure
| Hypothesis | log10BF | Min | Max | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
H-GOD-IMMUTABLE | -0.04 | -0.1 | 0.03 | Classical theology can reinterpret responsiveness through timeless willing or secondary causes, so the debit is small. |
H-GOD-RELATIONAL | 0.06 | 0 | 0.12 | Experiential reports of divine responsiveness fit relational/process theology modestly, while remaining subjective and tradition-laden. |
Dependency / Cap Metadata
- dependency_cluster_id
- theology_proper_attributes
- dependency_cluster_role
- sibling_support
- dependency_cluster
- theology_proper_attributes
- dependency_role
- sibling_support
- cap_profile
- moderate_semi_independent
- evidence_function
- context_child
- directness
- supporting
Counter-Pressure
- title
- Relationality and Divine Passibility as Experiential Coherence is a bounded signal, not a standalone proof.
- text
- The strongest caution is overuse. Attribute coherence is not direct evidence for Christianity by itself. This row should be read inside its dependency family, not treated as an isolated demonstration of God, Christ, or the final synthesis.
- path
- Start with what the row actually shows, then name what it does not show. Use it to clarify what kind of God the staged argument is pointing toward.
Apologetic Note
- label
- Bounded positive signal
- title
- Relationality and divine passibility clarify how relational theism pictures God.
- key point
- Process theism presents God as relational and responsive, capable of genuine interaction and shared suffering. The leverage is not bare assertion that God exists, but the internal fit of attributes such as mind, love, necessity, relation, simplicity, and moral seriousness.
- conversation move
- Use the item after theism is already on the table. Ask whether the God being proposed can preserve personality, transcendence, goodness, worship, and covenant without contradiction.
- caveat
- Treat this as a bounded positive signal: it gives real help to the Christian map while leaving live pressure for the wider case. Do not treat attribute coherence as proof by itself. It clarifies the candidate explanation so the wider evidence can test it fairly.
Scripture Passage
reference: Exodus 3:7-8; label: I know their sufferings, reference: Hebrews 4:15-16; label: Sympathetic high priest
Caveats / Notes
- Source note
- Intra-theism adjudication; BFs limited to sibling nodes and do not propagate to H-GOD.
- Cap notes
- This row belongs to the theology-proper support family. It should be read as support-layer evidence rather than direct proof of the full Logos synthesis by itself.
- Cap profile note
- Semi-independent convergence rows are capped, but not treated as exact duplicates.
- Cluster note
- Divine-attributes cap: this row addresses theology proper and should not be used as direct Christology, resurrection, or revealed-religion evidence.
Citations
- Cobb, J.B. & Griffin, D.R. (1976). Process Theology.
- Rice, R. (1985). God’s Foreknowledge & Man’s Free Will.
- Exodus 3:7-8
- Hebrews 4:15-16
Recommended Citation
The Signal Evidence Dataset, "Relationality and Divine Passibility as Experiential Coherence," Evidence ID: E-PROCESS-2, Version 0.6. Accessed [access date]. https://logos-signal.org/evidence/E-PROCESS-2/
Machine-Readable Source
This page is generated from the public evidence mirror without recalculating or changing scores.