ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[Lon]

Hi Lon

While the quote from Aristotle may be taken to mean that God cannot undo something that exists at present, what is in view is not the thing as it exists now but as it was in the past. This God cannot undo. The thing as it exists now we both agree can be taken out of existence, but nonetheless it remains true that it existed.

Thus, Augustine writing Against Faustus (Book XXVI, 5) states:

“Accordingly, to say, if God is almighty, let Him make what has been done to be undone, is in fact to say, if God is almighty, let Him make a thing to be in the same sense both true and false. [...] But when a thing does not exist, the existence cannot be put a stop to. Now, what is past no longer exists and whatever has an existence which can be put an end to cannot be past. What is truly past is no longer present; and the truth of its past existence is in our judgment, not in the thing itself which no longer exists. The proposition asserting anything to be past is true when the thing no longer exists. God cannot make such a proposition false, because He cannot contradict the truth.

The truth in this case, or the true judgment, is first of all in our own mind, when we know and give expression to it. But should it disappear from our minds by our forgetting it, it would still remain as truth. It will always be true that the past thing which is no longer present had an existence; and the truth of its past existence after it has stopped is the same as the truth of its future existence before it began to be. This truth cannot be contradicted by God...”

Doing so would imply a contradiction, it would entail that a thing existed and didn’t exist at the same point in time, which is impossible. But as Aquinas says “there does not fall under the scope of God's omnipotence anything that implies a contradiction” (ST I, q.25 a.4), so God cannot make the past to not have been.

Hope that clears things up a little bit. I'll have to side with the open theists (godrulz and DFT_Dave) on this one, sorry!


Evo

There is a bit of a dilemma, in my thinking, with entirely wiping out the evidence. Granted we are talking about 'present' but it actually, in effect, changes the past of a sort that is undeniable. I tend to see your point and agree with it going one way looking at this, but must believe that a change in effect now, is a change of our past, and I'm not talking about sci-fi or the impossible but ramifications of omnipotence applied. It too, boggles my mind as an eternal past, but my point is to point to the logical premise of these attributes and continue to make logical and plausible arguments for a God who is beyond or comprehension but with inklings of communication from Him for us to latch onto. OV elevates man in God's mind. I think there is something special (imago deo) about us. It isn't an easy prospect playing imago deo against being creations. There is a bit of dichotomy from either perspective. I believe the Reformed emphasizes one point, and Arminian the other with the RC leaning more toward the Reformed (or rather visa versa, we are a bit extra-lean ).

 

[Lon]

Back To The Future?

God cannot go forward nor backward to what does not exist. Time and historical events are not the same thing. Unless there is an invisible reality where everything that ever will happen, has already happened.

Is there such a reality?

--Dave

Good point Dave. I do remember that OV sees time this way. I think, that the past is actually part of what makes up our present with memory and impact such that it still exists in a sort. Does that make sense? It is the premise for God being able to change it. I suppose it is really a remake of the present but in so doing, it affects our perception of what the past is. My point is that God is capable of this and it is logical. Changing those present things, would, in effect, change the past for us. I totally agree that what went on is not erased persay, but the reality we experience would. So for God, no change. For His creation, it is different. We are limited and finite so that such a thing is more than possible. Being created carries a psuedo reality kind of scenario. It is real, but it is created. It is a bit like playing in God's created playground. It is real, but it can be changed (again, "could" rather than "would"). So perhaps I agree with you guys when it comes to God, He wouldn't erase the past in His own mind, but theoretically and plausibly, ours can be changed.

 

[Skeptical Inquirer]

The past is fixed/ memory. The future is possible/imagination. Only the present moment is actua/real.

Surely presentism vs eternalism (A vs B theory of time) is the common sense view and how we actually live because it resonates with reality. There is no reason to think God must be timeless just because He is not a man. Divine temporality is perfectly comprehensible and biblical. It is consistent with His nature as a personal, dynamic vs static being.

Right again, I like this guy.

 

[Lon]

Right again, I like this guy.

Your "Old-timer" age is showing.

 

[eveningsky339]

Regardless, the Bible literally written does not depict God as timeless.

The Bible literally written also states that the Earth is flat, the sun orbits the Earth, and that there is water above the sky.

Oh, and in what book, chapter, and verses do we see the Bible expain how everything evolved?

The Bible is not a science textbook.

General science is the backbone of modern medicine and genetics. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how this world came into existence; it does not explain how to treat cancer, etc.

Let me give you a scenario that happens all the time. A patient comes in with an infection. A doctor prescribes antibiotics and the infection clears up. A week later, another patient comes in with the same infection, but the antibiotics do not affect it, because the infection has mutated. That's why we have double/triple antibiotics. Evolution 101.

God does not say "I am timeless", and the Bible does not say there are are an infinite number of timelines nor an infinite number of worlds.

The Bible doesn't say a lot of things. An ancient people group in Mesopotamia is not going to know anything about timelines; God is not going to confuse them with such concepts.

There is no way you could take a trip for a year at light speed and live. A year is a measure of time on earth and not anywhere else.

You are right, no one would survive a trip at light speed. But something does travel at lightspeed, all the time, every day. It's called light. Looking at the night sky, you are looking thousands, millions, even billions of years in the past, because that's how long it took the light of the stars to reach earth (though the stars themselves may have died long ago).

The question is, is time a part of God, not is time a part of the universe. It looks like you see time as a thing, as an it, that God can enter in and out of, but that would be history not time; and neither history past nor future exists as something that can be entered accept in movies.

On the contrary, God exists in the past, present, and future. Hence, again, His name: I AM. Assign arbitrary meanings to his name all you want, but it's true meaning is still obvious.

 

[godrulz]

I AM= self-existent, uncreated one. Endless time and timelessness both agree that He is the 'I AM' with no beginning and no end. It does not have to mean timeless. Based on the historical narratives of God's history, it does not mean timeless since God clearly acts in sequence (not an illusion, but reality).

 

[godrulz]

I think I will go out on a limb with John Sanders (Perspectives on the Doctrine of God) and say that divine timelessness is incompatible with the core beliefs of free will theism, while timelessness is compatible with determinism.

There are two major theories of time: the dynamic view (also called A theory, tensed, or process) and the stasis view (also called B theory, tenseless, block).

For the dynamic theory, the present, or now, has a special ontological status because it exists in a way that past and future do not. The past no longer exists, and the future does not yet exist (the future is a concept, not a thing or place). This view involves change with things coming into and going out of existence. The ark of covenant did not exist, then existed, now no longer exists.

The statis theory holds that the past, present, and future have equal ontological status so every event exists timelessly (as God does). A spatial metaphor of a long block has all events on a line in the block existing timelessly. This theory implies determinism because there is only one possible future that is definite. Free will theists like Open Theists cannot accept timelessness if this is the case since contingencies/free will are biblical/self-evident. Libertarian free will is undermined unless we accept the dynamic theory (Arminians would disagree).

A timeless being would not be able to perform actions attributed to God in the Bible (plan, deliberate, change emotions, adjust plans, anticipate, respond, change mind, etc.). These actions require a before and after. Reciprocal relations would not be logically possible. This fits with strong immutability, impassibility, unconditional election, irresistible grace, and prayers not affecting God.

Divine temporality supports conditional election, resistible grace, prayers affecting God, weak immutability (changes in some ways, but not other ways), triune relations from eternity past, creation, free will, etc. The biblical narrative resonates with this, unlike timelessness (whatever that would mean for a personal God).

 

[godrulz]

Does divine temporality mean that time is uncreated? We need to distinguish metric (measured) time from psychological or personal time. Prior to a physical universe, there are no bodies with distance between them, so metric time begins at creation (Gen. 1:1 does not imply time is created, but does show that our unique measures of duration came into being...sun, moon, stars). Psyc. time, the experience of consciousness (change, duration) has always been part of God's life. Time in this sense is not a thing nor created. It simply refers to the sequence of events in God's experiences (the Bible does not tell us what He thought and did and felt in eternity past in the triune relations, but He does tell us many things about His sequence after creation that coincide with our history and His involvement). There is a before and after creation, not divine timelessness and human temporality.

We worship God for what He does in history, not because He is supposedly timeless.

He goes on to show why EDF is incompatible with biblical free will and why evil is a problem in a deterministic view.

I am willing to bet my house on this one.

 

[Lon]

Hi Lon

But should it disappear from our minds by our forgetting it, it would still remain as truth. It will always be true that the past thing which is no longer present had an existence; and the truth of its past existence after it has stopped is the same as the truth of its future existence before it began to be. This truth cannot be contradicted by God...”

Doing so would imply a contradiction, it would entail that a thing existed and didn’t exist at the same point in time, which is impossible. But as Aquinas says “there does not fall under the scope of God's omnipotence anything that implies a contradiction” (ST I, q.25 a.4), so God cannot make the past to not have been.

Hope that clears things up a little bit. I'll have to side with the open theists (godrulz and DFT_Dave) on this one, sorry!


Evo

No, I agree with this but do not see it as a contradiction to the point I'm making of ability. Our reality is changeable, His is not. Why? Created things are not autonomous. Created things are 'created.' If I make a clay pot that is defective, redoing does not erase the first attempt but it does erase the first pot from existence.

 

[Evoken]

If I make a clay pot that is defective, redoing does not erase the first attempt but it does erase the first pot from existence.

Sure but that doesn't amounts to changing the past. That the first pot existed before you remade it remains true no matter how many times you remake the pot or even if you use the same lump of clay to do so.

Take this post for example. After I post it, it can be deleted by a moderator or I can come later and edit its contents. But that before such changes took place it existed as I had first posted it remains true in spite of any change or deletion that may be made later on. That the post is different now than when it was first posted does not changes the truth that it existed previously in its original form. That truth, which is the past, cannot be changed.


Evo

 

[Lon]

Sure but that doesn't amounts to changing the past. That the first pot existed before you remade it remains true no matter how many times you remake the pot or even if you use the same lump of clay to do so.

Take this post for example. After I post it, it can be deleted by a moderator or I can come later and edit its contents. But that before such changes took place it existed as I had first posted it remains true in spite of any change or deletion that may be made later on. That the post is different now than when it was first posted does not changes the truth that it existed previously in its original form. That truth, which is the past, cannot be changed.


Evo

As I said, I agree to a point. I'm pretty convinced, that 'time' is a marking merely and may or may not have been of importance before the fall. I suspect that demands make time observation more than just a casual glance and sin has a lot to do with the emphasis. I see eternity as qualitative. Our present frame of mind emphasizes, and I believe wrongly, quantitative.

I worked at a door factory when I was younger. I had a lesson to learn. I'm an artist and perfectionist. Well, my 'quantity' was poor, but I thought my doors were exceptionally well done. As it turns out, they weren't that either. I'm pretty good, but I had to get better. The boss would come out from his cocaine down and scream (I thought he was gonna bust a blood-vessel the way his veins popped out but he's still kickin').

I learned 'good enough' was the quota and that #'s were of most importance. Working on the learning curve, I became one of the best they had but hated the hostile, wicked environment.

Now back to our struggle: Reality is whatever God makes it. I agree His reality does not change but ours can easily be manipulated. Again, this is about 'can' vs would. He can change my past and easily. Everything I am, experience, and know is a created outcome. Nothing I've ever experienced but Him is eternal and everlasting. They are all results of His power such that it would be impossible by that power to see Him as unable.

 

[Lon]

Sure but that doesn't amounts to changing the past. That the first pot existed before you remade it remains true no matter how many times you remake the pot or even if you use the same lump of clay to do so.

Take this post for example. After I post it, it can be deleted by a moderator or I can come later and edit its contents. But that before such changes took place it existed as I had first posted it remains true in spite of any change or deletion that may be made later on. That the post is different now than when it was first posted does not changes the truth that it existed previously in its original form. That truth, which is the past, cannot be changed.


Evo

Oh, and 'it does for the first pot!'

 

[Evoken]

Reality is whatever God makes it. I agree His reality does not change but ours can easily be manipulated. Again, this is about 'can' vs would. He can change my past and easily. Everything I am, experience, and know is a created outcome. Nothing I've ever experienced but Him is eternal and everlasting.

You seem to think that by God changing our present reality he changes our past. This is not the case, he simply transforms the present into something else. He can even wipe out our old memories and infuse new ones so that we remember something different than what we actually experienced and that would not be changing our past. It still remains true that before God did such change, you experienced and remembered the things which you no longer remember due to said change.


Evo

 

[themuzicman]

So, then, we have to assume that the world as we presently know it is the best that God could arrange... From the moment He created it, that, in spite of being able to change the memories, decisions, conditions, and anything in the past, this it the best that a holy, righteous, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-wise, omnibenevolant God can do?

Right.

Muz

 

[Lon]

So, then, we have to assume that the world as we presently know it is the best that God could arrange... From the moment He created it, that, in spite of being able to change the memories, decisions, conditions, and anything in the past, this it the best that a holy, righteous, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-wise, omnibenevolant God can do?

Right.

Muz

No, but it also falls within OV presumption that it doesn't work out the way He wants no matter what and He even makes mistakes about it.

I said and for the record about the tenth time "Would vs. Could."

 

[Lon]

You seem to think that by God changing our present reality he changes our past. This is not the case, he simply transforms the present into something else. He can even wipe out our old memories and infuse new ones so that we remember something different than what we actually experienced and that would not be changing our past. It still remains true that before God did such change, you experienced and remembered the things which you no longer remember due to said change.


Evo

I still disgree and have problems with that. If our present is changed, so is our past. Again, it is a hypothetical, but it is logical that whatever He creates, He can remove. It is a no-brainer imho. Again, I see a difference between what He knows and what we do/His reality and ours. What we know is part of creation and can be, again theoretically, undone. We are not talking about 'would' but is able. I must believe He is able from my understanding and will continue so we can probably move on upon the premise that none of us are budging.

 

[eph39]

You ever really look at your hand, man?

(sorry, I am so sorry...reading so much philosophizin' makes me giddy. I'll go now.)

 

[Lon]

You ever really look at your hand, man?

(sorry, I am so sorry...reading so much philosophizin' makes me giddy. I'll go now.)

Is fine and I too am of the same mind with your question.

 

[themuzicman]

No, but it also falls within OV presumption that it doesn't work out the way He wants no matter what and He even makes mistakes about it.

Why would God have to make mistakes? Do you not believe that God is all-wise?

I said and for the record about the tenth time "Would vs. Could."

So, what's the shortcoming, if God is able to change the past for good? Is God not interested in making the most holy and righteous creation possible?

Muz

 

[Lon]

Why would God have to make mistakes? Do you not believe that God is all-wise?



So, what's the shortcoming, if God is able to change the past for good? Is God not interested in making the most holy and righteous creation possible?

Muz

Sorry, the first is Pinnock/Sanders/Boyd stigma that I'll have to continually work on. I do think you are a horse of a different color and have a blended theology.

The shortcoming isn't but that is my point as well. "Can" is the important concession.