Ugh. :bang:
No, I'm not! I'm showing you YOU'RE logic based on YOUR god who is outside time. A god who is outside of time and knows all things, cannot conceive an idea, for ALL things are in him eternally.
Proof from the Bible that God is In Time
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
No, I'm not! I'm showing you YOU'RE logic based on YOUR god who is outside time. A god who is outside of time and knows all things, cannot conceive an idea, for ALL things are in him eternally.
Do you think that God's Son was humble and obedient prior to the Incarnation?
If so, then Phil 2:7-8 simply refers to the fact that the Son of God demonstrated His inherent humility and obedience by incarnating and going to the cross. Humility and obedience weren't new attributes that were created within the Son of God during his Incarnation; He simply demonstrated His eternal obedience to the Father in His humanity during His Incarnation and suffering at the crucifixion.
I think your point concurs with my reply to Chat above. Do you agree?
zippy2006
New member
ghost: You believe that God cannot have a new idea
zip: That's true. God, in Himself, does not have any new ideas. A new idea implies a temporal standing as well as the lack of that idea beforehand.
Exactamundo. That is why scientific theories that depend on time as some kind of physical reality in and of itself are flawed.
Paulos, the fact that God experienced suffering and death in a body that was prepared for Him does not have anything to do with changing who God is, but having that same body raised from the dead and seated in the heavenlies has everything to do with a change in God's eternal reality. Thus, God experiences time in eternity.
zippy2006
New member
If that were so then your theory would be unfalsifiable and unprovable. Now if our two ideas are both unfalsifiable and unprovable, then clearly we will make no progress here. But the Settled View is demonstrable via philosophy/logic/reason. If you reject reason and want to build your argument simply on your particular interpretation of some select Biblical verses, then the conversation ends when we disagree on the interpretation, although Lamerson has presented a very strong case in that area as well.
:e4e:
zippy2006
New member
Both, for creativity does not imply a lack. You can be omniscient and creative. God is both.
You cannot be creative if you already know everything. It's impossible. Think it through before you post again.
zippy2006
New member
Sure you can. You think ignorance is a pre-requisite for creativity, but that's not true. An artist with immense knowledge paints a beautiful picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary. His effort was creative, it does not matter that he already knew what he was going to paint.
Your real concern is that a thought of God cannot be novel/new/original from God's own perspective. That is true, for what is perfect does not need to change. There is nothing inherently good about novelty.
So basically if God was to know the end result, it would not be creating, correct?
How about a perfect clock? :think:
Or better yet how about a perfect parent? A perfect parent is cable of change, they understand and deal with situations that require response. A perfect parent shows mercy, relents, is moved to wrath etc.
The saying... "for what is perfect does not need to change." by definition could only apply to inanimate objects. I guess you could say... the perfect stone idol need not change because any change would leave him less than perfect. Yet God isn't a stone idol, He is the living God who is very capable.
What is it that you want God to create that He hasn't already conceived of?
zippy2006
New member
A clock is inanimate:
The nature of a perfect clock does not need to change. Perfection needn't be static. Indeed God is perfect and fully actual, pure act as Thomas would say.
The nature of a perfect parent does not need to change. When we say perfection or immutability we are not talking about something which has no movement (again, the philosophers noted that God is always in complete movement, always reaching out in love).
When you see a bad parent and say to them "you need to change," you do not mean that they must move their finger, you mean that they must do something differently than the way they are currently doing it. They must act in a way they are not currently acting. This may imply more physical movement or less physical movement, that's not the point.
:e4e:
Lon
Well-known member
Ugghh, a 'thought' is a 'thing.' I can't be thinking about 'no-thing.'
Be precise, people.
Other than that, all Ghost said was that whatever we see is a 'property' of God. That's a no-brainer that doesn't mean what you thought it meant. It simply means 'no-thing' exists apart from God. Welcome to the traditions.
The are two main definitions of "inanimate" the most common one is... Lacking the quality or ability of motion.
A clock moves and therefore is NOT inanimate. If you take the lessor definition (inanimate is something that is not alive) I guess you would be right because a clock isn't alive.
But I think the first definition is the best since it's how most folks use the term but I certainly don't want to argue over definitions of words.
What you are describing here is also what an open theist would say. God's righteous character does not change.
Yet in this conversation we are trying to find out if He can change in any way at all (besides just His nature). After all... if God is outside of time and in a state of "forever now" He could not change in any way whatsoever (having nothing to do with His nature).
I gave you the opportunity to think first, but I see you decided not to.
You're not getting this at all. It has nothing to do with ignorance (except on your part). If God is outside of time, and knows all things, then all things are eternally in the mind of God and therefore God is incapable of creativity for that in which he would conceive is as eternal as He is.
We are not talking about a physical reality of that which is conceived, but conceiving. You are mixing the two.
You keep contradicting yourself.
God is perfect, yet He changed and never became less than perfect. Change does not negate perfection. God is a living God. He moves. He acts. He loves. He creates. He conceives. He judges. He initiates. He speaks. He teaches.
zippy2006
New member
The are two main definitions of "inanimate" the most common one is... Lacking the quality or ability of motion.
A clock moves and therefore is NOT inanimate. If you take the lessor definition (inanimate is something that is not alive) I guess you would be right because a clock isn't alive.
But I think the first definition is the best since it's how most folks use the term but I certainly don't want to argue over definitions of words.
Fair enough, though I disagree on the common usage, based on the primary definitions given in dictionaries.
I think we agree on that basic idea of immutability then. I think what you are inquiring about is God's action within the temporal universe? Can the orthodox God act in time?
I'd say He can. Do you have a specific critique/argument that would show that He cannot? Apparently you think that since God does not exist in temporality He therefore cannot act within His temporal creation? I don't think God's temporal creation somehow limits Him from entering... :idunno:
- Status