There's no question that God doesn't experience time like we do, imo. He no doubt understands the theory of relativity and can experience places that are running faster and slower in time, at the same time. But does He experience events totally unlike how we do? More on this later.
I think what you are suggesting here is that everything comes from God, where "everything" includes non-material "things", like emotions and thoughts. What this does is necessitate Calvinistic interpretations, which, as you said, tramples all other theologies--if true. But if sin is a thing, then it also necessitates that God is the author of sin. I'd suggest that if the jar includes beings made in the "likeness" of God, then they can add things to the jar, even from inside the jar.
You lost me here. Are you saying that God does NOT experience time unidirectionally (from the first paragraph)? Or are you saying that time is by definition unidirectional? If the latter, then God experiences time as it is--as He made it--since that is the essence of time as you just described. You sound conflicted here.
In our existence, this is NOT true. According to our understanding of thermodynamics, the other thing that changes is that there is an increase in entropy in our universe! This is so imbedded in our understanding of time these days that it could conceivably be a definition of time. To prove it, here's a Wikipedia article title (and link for those that want to read it): Entropy (arrow of time). I haven't read the whole thing, so I'm not endorsing the content, just using it to show our reigning philosophy of time vs entropy.
I'm probably nit-picking here, but numerals are not "something to measure", but representatives of real things that allow us to think about those real things in our minds. The "something to measure" needs to be more like the entropy I introduced above.
I appreciate what you're saying here, but maybe you don't quite appreciate what else you're saying. You are defining eternity in terms of the absence of segments, I think. This might be appropriate, but how do you know? Plus, if eternity encompasses our little segment, then eternity has SOME time/duration included within it, else eternity ended when time began and begins again when time ends--a caricature I'm sure you'll disagree with.
I'll probably get in trouble for this, but the problem here is that "beginning" is a "time" word, and to say anything about God outside of time is to say stuff about God using "time" words extends "time" into God's sphere. For instance, Tit 1:2 says: in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began (NKJV). But if there is a "before" time, then that particular conception of time has now been extended backwards. This isn't easy to convey my thoughts here, but imagine two events (in time for now). One happens prior to the other. So "before" Johnnie went to school yesterday, he ate breakfast. Here it is in your graphical construct:
I'd be interested in your scriptural support for God being all that there is. I think that's called pantheism, which I'm pretty sure you don't subscribe to.
I tend to agree with your thoughts on the "Greek" relationship to the idea of God being outside of time--it's hard not to come to such a conclusion. But still, you refer to a jar of God's making, containing contents of God's making, not allowing for any other "maker". Such is scripturally UNTRUE, imo, unless God is the author of sin. Once any single thing is allowed that is not of God's making, then the rest of your argument seems to crumble--not indicating that God does not possess the omni's, but perhaps indicating that your definition of the omni's is insufficient. And it doesn't allow for God to create anything but a robot.
That's a pretty fair assessment.
See, that right there gives the impression that GOD cannot intervene to cause what He wants to happen, to happen.
Thank you, I'm humbled.
A big reason I am a Calvinist, I couldn't escape the necessity of it or at the very least, Augustinian.
It isn't, its a privation. Death is the absence of life, etc. Inside the jar, it would be the part where the Vein of God is eschewed but still contained.
Acts 17:24 God is relational to, unimpaired by, time. His existence in the past is still going. Forever. I've heard "no, it's past." This cannot be correct because an eternal nonbeginning (point of reference) is eternal with no reference point. No reference, no time or progression.
Numerals: A symbol or mark used to represent a number, thus you are thinking of symbol and I'm thinking of mark. Both are correct so I agree about the word being awkward. "Mark" didn't quite work either. I was looking for a better word, but one that would commonly convey the intent. On that point, I don't think its nit-picky, but rather questioning if it got in the way of the intent. I was frustrated with not finding a better way to say it so I think it lent to your concern and need for specification. Th
It has to explain it in those terms because time 'must' begin and end for our conception of it. No beginning, no end, no time. Rather, a segment is contained in a line, rather than a line contained in a segment. In some ways, this is true of the line, because it defines where the line came from and where it is going. The properties of a line and the properties of time, I believe, are very much in mathematical sync and logical comprehension.
1) I think your observation actually does put God into the time-line. " A line is relational to, unconstrained (and largely undefined) by a segment."
Agree. God is necessarily relational to time, or you are correct 'we' wouldn't exist.
Actually, I was quite careful in what I stated. I did not "just say", rather I qualified my statement that God cannot know the future for the future is assumed to be unknowable as to factuality. That openism argues that God can predict things is not the issue in terms of epistemology. Knowledge requires a grounding in facts.
Along the same lines of my previous post related to epistemic knowledge of God concerning the future, Molinism's middle knowledge suffer from the same issues.
Excellent post, Lon! I want to point out some holes in your logic, and I'd like to see what you think. And good topic [MENTION=18375]Evil.Eye.<(I)>[/MENTION]! I wish I had time to read the whole thing. Maybe I'll get through it before it grows eternally long.
There's no question that God doesn't experience time like we do, imo. He no doubt understands the theory of relativity and can experience places that are running faster and slower in time, at the same time. But does He experience events totally unlike how we do? More on this later.I think what you are suggesting here is that everything comes from God, where "everything" includes non-material "things", like emotions and thoughts. What this does is necessitate Calvinistic interpretations, which, as you said, tramples all other theologies--if true. But if sin is a thing, then it also necessitates that God is the author of sin. I'd suggest that if the jar includes beings made in the "likeness" of God, then they can add things to the jar, even from inside the jar.You lost me here. Are you saying that God does NOT experience time unidirectionally (from the first paragraph)? Or are you saying that time is by definition unidirectional? If the latter, then God experiences time as it is--as He made it--since that is the essence of time as you just described. You sound conflicted here.In our existence, this is NOT true. According to our understanding of thermodynamics, the other thing that changes is that there is an increase in entropy in our universe! This is so imbedded in our understanding of time these days that it could conceivably be a definition of time. To prove it, here's a Wikipedia article title (and link for those that want to read it): Entropy (arrow of time). I haven't read the whole thing, so I'm not endorsing the content, just using it to show our reigning philosophy of time vs entropy.
I'm probably nit-picking here, but numerals are not "something to measure", but representatives of real things that allow us to think about those real things in our minds. The "something to measure" needs to be more like the entropy I introduced above.
I appreciate what you're saying here, but maybe you don't quite appreciate what else you're saying. You are defining eternity in terms of the absence of segments, I think. This might be appropriate, but how do you know? Plus, if eternity encompasses our little segment, then eternity has SOME time/duration included within it, else eternity ended when time began and begins again when time ends--a caricature I'm sure you'll disagree with.
I'll probably get in trouble for this, but the problem here is that "beginning" is a "time" word, and to say anything about God outside of time is to say stuff about God using "time" words extends "time" into God's sphere. For instance, Tit 1:2 says: in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began (NKJV). But if there is a "before" time, then that particular conception of time has now been extended backwards. This isn't easy to convey my thoughts here, but imagine two events (in time for now). One happens prior to the other. So "before" Johnnie went to school yesterday, he ate breakfast. Here it is in your graphical construct:
..._________breakfast_____school______...
Now, move one of those events off the line (not along the line) and explain to me how it relates to the other one. The only way to do it is to remove the time "relationship". Thus "breakfast" 1. doesn't occur, because it already is, and 2. isn't "before" "school", because "before" slams it right back into the relationship. But where's Johnnie? He's not on the timeline, because he transcends the events in his life. He was around before breakfast, and he will be around after school. But those events still happen in that order with him. This may sound familiar, as it is essentially describing God as most of us think of Him. Events aren't God. If God "does" anything, those things He "does" are events that have a before and after associated with them, even if God doesn't have a before and after. That doesn't put God into the time segment, but it shows He acted in that order to create the segment between one of His events and another.
So the problem with dealing with "events" (another time word, if you think about it carefully: from past participle stem of Latin evenire "to come out, happen, result,") is that they define sequence, and sequence is an indicator of "time relationship", though not necessarily with our definition/understanding of "time".
Spoiler
I'd be interested in your scriptural support for God being all that there is. I think that's called pantheism, which I'm pretty sure you don't subscribe to.
But regarding God's extent, He has given us a clue in that He claims heaven as His throne. Just as a man can build a house that contains but doesn't constrain him, so, perhaps, can God. And Jesus, when He ascended, He ASCENDED, giving us a relative location of where God is, since He was going to His Father.I tend to agree with your thoughts on the "Greek" relationship to the idea of God being outside of time--it's hard not to come to such a conclusion. But still, you refer to a jar of God's making, containing contents of God's making, not allowing for any other "maker". Such is scripturally UNTRUE, imo, unless God is the author of sin. Once any single thing is allowed that is not of God's making, then the rest of your argument seems to crumble--not indicating that God does not possess the omni's, but perhaps indicating that your definition of the omni's is insufficient. And it doesn't allow for God to create anything but a robot.
Spoiler
This statement is dangerous. It is denying the very thing that makes Open Theism an important addition to ALL theology. Because OPEN THEISM recognizes God's direct response to us, it is a fluid mechanic that acknowledges PROGRESSIVE REVELATION from God.
| John Wycliffe John Hus Jerome of Prague Savonarola Peter Waldo Wessel Harmenz Theodore Beza Martin Bucer Heinrich Bullinger Johannes Hus John Calvin Andreas von Carlstadt, later a Radical Reformer Wolfgang Fabricius Capito Martin Chemnitz Thomas Cranmer William Farel Matthias Flacius Caspar Hedio Justus Jonas John Knox Jan Łaski Martin Luther Philipp Melanchthon Johannes Oecolampadius Peter Martyr Aonio Paleario Laurentius Petri Olaus Petri John Wycliffe Jiří Třanovský William Tyndale Joachim Vadian Pierre Viret Primož Trubar Huldrych Zwingli |
... Sir... I have! You have ignored it! This is kind of becoming cutting at this point. I don't mean this in a whiny way, or a manipulative way, or an upset way... but sincerely... I have taken much time to address you and I feel like every word I've written is being ignored.
EE,
EE,
Have you ever noticed that those that believe in "unconditional election" are always the ones that believe that they are on the favorable side of the coin toss?
Oh sweet Nang, the reader of other people's hearts and minds.
