Theology Club: What is Open Theism?
- Thread starter surrender
- Start date
You, I'd bet, have yet to show any need to solve "the problem if infinite regression".
The fact that we are here, now, in the present, presents you with the problem, not me or any open theist. That is unless your theology includes the notion that God had a beginning, in which case you have even bigger philosophical problems than a mere logic puzzle or paradox or two.
You see, the Bible presents God as experiencing duration and sequence and thus presents God as being "in" time, for want of a better expression (i.e. Time is an idea, not a place or substance that one can be "in" or "out" of). It is your doctrine, not scripture that teaches otherwise. That, along with the indisputable fact that we have all managed to make it here to the present moment, presents YOU with the burden of proof, not those of us who conform our doctrine to the testimony of the plain reading of scripture and the evidence presented by every sunrise and sunset.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Dialogos
Well-known member
Simple, God isn't bound by the same limitations you are, so what is impossible for you, and what may be impossible for you to fathom is not necessarily impossible for God.
In short, just because you don't get that God is not bound by time doesn't mean God is bound by time.
Second, you appear to want to define timelessness as "not being present" in time, which is, a clever way to to try and set a philosophical trap but not an accurate understanding of what the vast majority of the Christian world believes about God and His infinite nature.
When you stop pushing down the straw men, then we can have an honest dialog.
Your "simple" explanation of how God is outside of time is:
That is what I would call the exact opposite of an explanation. It tells "what" you believe, but for the question Dave asked, "how", all it says is "I don't know" sort of nebulously.
Do you even understand the words you use?
"Necessarily" is a logic word. Did you use it in that sense or in the normal, mindless, idiomatic way the the average smuck uses it? If the latter, I'd advise steering clear of the mindless use of words while participating on a debate forum. If the former then you contradict yourself inside of a single sentence because you start the sentence by implicitly denying that logic even applies to God in the first place!
The denial that the laws of logic apply to God is, of course, your primary point here. As such, I'd like for you to explain how you know this? By what teaching did you come to understand that one's Theology Proper (i.e. theology of God) need not worry about being rationally coherent?
It isn't that we don't get it, its that it cannot be gotten. We are not positing a mere difference of personal opinion. The concept of being outside of time is irrational, its it inherently self-contradictory and therefore it IS false.
If you do not accept self-contradiction as falsification then NOTHING can ever be falsified at all! Perhaps David Koresh was the Messiah after all! Perhaps Jesus, Sir Isaac Newton and Bill Clinton were all incarnations of the same guy! Without the laws of reason (i.e. logic) you cannot prove otherwise!
On the contrary, nearly every Catholic, Calvinist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist and Pentecostal believes that God is TIMELESS. That is, they believe that God exists outside of time, a concept Christianity picked up thanks primarily to Augustine who got it from Plato. Augustinian theology permeates nearly every major Christian sect to this day. If you want to read more about what Augustine thought about God and Time, HERE is a good place to start.
Another reference to logic! Do you really know what a Straw Man argument is? Do you understand WHY straw man arguments are invalid?
My bet is that you do!
But you don't get to have it both ways! You cannot imply that the rules of logic don't "necessarily" apply to theology and then turn around and attempt to reject someone else's argument on the basis that they've broken some rule of logic! After all, just because its impossible for you to fathom Dave's argument doesn't necessarily mean its impossible for God! - Right?
Resting in Him,
Clete
Explain to me what God's timelessness means to you then.
It only seems reasonable to believe that if God is timelsss then he is not in time.
Explain what you mean by God is in time but not bound by it.
--Dave
Dialogos
Well-known member
Yup.
Necessarily is a word that is often used in logic, frequently in distinguishing between necessary and sufficient conditions. Given that most people who happen upon this board aren't logicians, I tend to use words according to their modern parlance (i,e. the way must common schmucks use them). If you consider yourself so erudite that you can't stand how we common folk use words, then feel free to look down your nose on us all you like.Clete said:
My point is that the laws of logic that bind and apply to God's creation cannot logically apply to a God that created those laws.Clete said:
A rationally coherent Theology Proper must allow for God to be bigger than the laws that theology claims He authored.
You limit what is possible to what is conceivable by you. Just because you don't appear to be willing to entertain the possibility that something may be true that is beyond your understanding does not mean that nothing beyond your understanding is possible.Clete said:
Really, you just demonstrated part of the pompousness of open theology. The idea that if you can't get it, it can't be gotten flies in the face of the reality scripture testifies to in Isaiah 55:8-9.
Second, there is nothing self contradictory about God being able to transcend the logical limitations of temporally bound beings and also have the ability to exercise the prerogative to interact within time. This self-contradiction is a dilemma of your own making.
Yes, but this is not the same thing as being unable to act within time. Just because a duck exists outside the pond doesn't mean he can never hop in one and swim around.Clete said:
Just because God exists outside of time doesn't mean He can't choose to interact with those who are time-bound.
I've done quite a bit of study on both Augustine and Plato. Suffice it to say that Plato has taken quite a bit of criticism and abuse for what ails Christianity. Some of that is deserved but unfortunately, neither Plato or Augustine can be blamed for the notion that God is timeless. For that, you have to look to the Hebrew bible in passages like Psalm 139 where God knows the number of David's days before one comes to pass, Isaiah 40-48 where God demonstrates His superiority over the idols by being able to know and reveal the future, and pretty much anywhere else in the bible where God speaks through His prophets in order to demonstrate that He is not bound by temporal limits as we are.Clete said:
This argument is just silly.Clete said:
I didn't say that logic didn't apply to theology, I said that God is not bound by the same temporal limitations that we are and I personally think that it is rationally incoherent to assume otherwise. Yes, I do know what a straw man argument is and it appears that you are just as fond of pushing them down as Dave appears to be. Incidentally, that is what most of the Christian world understands when they say that God is "timeless" not that God is incapable of acting in time.
If Dave, or you for that matter, care to actually engage in what Calvinists, Lutherans, Methodists, etc... actually believe about God's transcendence of temporal limitations I am sure you will find many who will engage in the discussion but you probably won't find anyone all that anxious to rush to the defense of a belief that they don't actually hold.
Last edited:
We actually do know that the theology of most is that God is timeless and that he can act in time.
The real way to state this is that God is timeless and in time at the same time always and forever.
Theologians call this God the "Eternal Now". He has no past, no future, all his infinite thoughts, feelings, and actions are now, not sequential, no before or after.
Timelessness in a God that is also in time is a contradiction, and obviously irrational. Timelessness contradicts the creation of the world because a universe that did not exist before God created it means that there was a past for God in which only he existed, before he created.
Timelessness contradicts the incarnation, the Word became flesh obviously means that there was a time in God before the Word became flesh.
The creation of the World is in God's past and so is the incarnation.
If an irrational belief suits you, why do you want to charge us, or anyone else, that we are wrong about what we believe because it contradicts you, the Bible, or anything else??
--Dave
Thank you, I will.
I know that was your point! It is the basis for what you later call a "silly argument" of mine.
Any theology that claims that God authored logic would be rationally incoherent, as it would 'beg the question'.
"Begging the question" is another term of logic that you'll need to do a quick Wikipedia search on to understand properly. It won't help you understand why it would apply though, you'll have to think on your own for that.
If God is super-logical then there is no way to know what does or does not apply to God. There can be no Theology Proper at all if that which is irrational can apply to God. This is so because Theology is the logic of God, that's what the word THEOLOGY means; the Logos (logic) of the Theos (God). Thus, if God is super logic, He is super theological as well thus no knowledge of God would be possible.
Further, your "what is conceivable by you" comment, implies something else that you probably didn't intend. That being the idea that logic is subjective and thus all knowledge is likewise subjective. This is how I know that you looked up the definition of "necessary" and found all the commentary concerning necessary vs. sufficient conditions, which, by the way, is only one use of the term 'necessary'. The term applies to nearly any conclusion to a rationally valid argument. If some conclusion or axiom is necessary, it means that is HAS TO BE and cannot be otherwise given a particular context.
So, for example, if A=B and B=C then A=C. The "A=C" part is NECESSARY. It could be stated this way, If A equals B and B equals C then A necessarily equals C.
And the point of all this is that it DOES NOT MATTER what I can or cannot conceive of! The laws of reason ARE NOT subject to my perceptions, feelings or personal opinions! This fact is what makes logic useful! Its the reason why we can know anything! ANYTHING AT ALL!
I never said or even suggested that I have to be able to understand it. What I do say is that nothing can be both true and irrational! Indeed, it is the very fact that something is irrational that proves it false. If the irrational might be true in spite of its irrationality, well then nothing at all could ever be declared false.
Lucifer is the creator of all that exists, including Father God Himself!
Prove that statement false without employing or appealing to the laws of reason. I dare you to even try it! (You will not be able to.)
And don't tell that its obviously false and therefore no argument need be made because I feel EXACTLY the same way about the stupidity known as Divine Timelessness! You can't conceive of the notion of Lucifer being God's creator? Well, what the heck does that prove? Just because you can't conceive of it being true doesn't mean that it isn't! - Right?
I say again, the irrational is false - by definition. If you reject that simply precept, you throw ALL knowledge right out the window. Nothing can be known at all. What you think you know might be false and you'd have no way of telling because the only tool you have to know anything whatsoever is the laws of reason. ANYTHING you say in an attempt to refute (i.e. falsify) this point will itself make use of the laws of reason and thereby refute itself. You simply cannot escape the laws of reason any more than you can escape the God from whom they are derived (i.e. not created).
You have the beginnings of what would be a valid form of argument here but you stop short of establishing the premise, which, of course, is the case because you have no means to establish it whatsoever.
You see, just because you say something is my personal opinion doesn't mean that it is. Concepts are what they are. Words mean what they mean. It isn't my opinion that time is a convention of language used to convey information concerning the duration and/or sequence of events, that's just what time is. This is what is referred to as "arguing from definition". You run across it whenever you here someone add the phrase "by definition" to the end of some comment they've made. Its a way of making a logical argument stand apart from a mere personal opinion. You treat logic as though it were synonymous with and equal to personal opinion and then turn right around and give me, and all Open Theists collectively, a hard time for supposedly making arguments based on our personal opinions when in fact its the other way around! It is we Open Theists who are rejecting mere personal opinions in exchange for the cold hard facts of sound reason and the plain reading of Scripture!
Your counter example fails because being a duck does not presuppose being in a pond! There are thousands of ducks that have never seen a pond and are yet ducks! That's because being in a pond is not part of what it means to be a duck.
The concept of existence, however, DOES presuppose duration. That is to say that without the concept of duration, existence has no meaning. A thing that exists without duration, does not exist at all - BY DEFINITION!
And as I stated a moment ago, time is simply duration and/or sequence. If you are talking about duration you are using the concept of time to do it. It is not possible to do otherwise.
Thus to speak of anything existing outside of time is to commit a stolen concept fallacy and is therefore a self-refuting (i.e. irrational) falsehood. (A Stolen Concept Fallacy is the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically depends.)
There are two sentences quoted above. One of them was a known lie when you wrote it.
You either have not done hardly any study of either Augustine or Plato, or you know for a fact that it is precisely both of them that are almost exclusively responsible for ANYONE'S belief in a timeless god, Christian or otherwise.
You really should be mindful of the fact that you might not be talking to the typical, mindless, idiot that you might otherwise be used to talking to on your lunch break at work or that you might meet on the street or in some bar on Saturday night. There are people in the world who actual know what they're talking about and can tell really easily when you're lying.
Psalms 139 is talking about the process of development of a baby in the womb. It doesn't say a word about God know all of David's days for his whole life nor does it speak of God knowing David before he existed, but merely before he was born - there's a difference.
God can make predictions and bring His plans to pass without having to take a peak into the future. Even I can do that and so can you!
Of course, we cannot do it on the scale that God can, not even close, but that's beside the point. The Bible simply does not speak of God being outside of time.
Further, you fail to mention all the prophesies that are in the Bible that didn't come to pass as predicted. But that's a topic for another thread.
I just love these sort of comments where people assume the existence of things that support their case and then refer to them as a group so as to give the impression that they are frequent and plentiful to the extent that they simply can't all be listed.
There isn't one single such passage where a prophet says a single word "in order to demonstrate that He (God) is not bound by temporal limits as we are" - not a single one!
Oh, yes you did!
You said it again in this very post, which I already commented on above. You said...
"My point is that the laws of logic that bind and apply to God's creation cannot logically apply to a God that created those laws."
God did not author the laws of logic any more than God authored love or righteousness. God is Love, God is Righteousness, God is Logic. All of which are equivalent statements. A life lived rationally is a life lived righteously, a life lived righteously is a life of love! Its all the same thing! Love is righteous, righteousness is logical, logic is love! John 1 tells us outright that God the Son is Logic and that Logic became flesh and dwelt among us. Did God create Himself? No! Love, righteousness, justice, logic and the like are not created things but are rather derive their definition from the person of the Creator Himself.
Now look whose presenting personal opinions!
I really couldn't care less what you "personally think" is rationally incoherent. A thing either is coherent (rationally self-consistent) or it isn't. It IS NOT a matter of opinion! That's the whole point! It doesn't even make any sense to say something like, "I personally think that it is rationally incoherent"!
And further, I'm not ASSUMING anything! That too is what the whole discipline of logic and reason is all about. You can KNOW what you're talking about. KNOW IT! Not assume it, not merely believe it, not feel it, not have a strongly held personal opinion about it, you can categorically KNOW whether something is true or false.
Another unfounded and I believe intentional lie.
Prove it! Demonstrate a single instance where I've employed a legitimate straw man argument.
I never suggested otherwise. I know of no one who has ever suggested otherwise, for that matter. Where have I ever suggested that, based on your doctrine, God is incapable of acting in time, or formulated any argument attempting to debunk your (or any Calvinist's) position on that basis?
NO!
REALLY?!!!
You mean to tell me that I've spent the last twenty years debating Calvinist who have all universally argued in favor of doctrine that they don't even believe!
Wow! That's a real shocker. I mean, I'm stunned, I really am!
Look dialogos, what you have to realize is that this is an INTERNET discussion forum. You see, this is different than all those discussions you've had around the water cooler where you glaze everyone's eyes over inside of thirty seconds and then everyone forgets every word you've said as soon as you're no longer in the room. Everything you've said here on this forum is ON THE INTERNET! That means I can still read all of it for myself and know exactly what you've said and precisely what I said in response! It's still here, perfectly preserved for all to see and to read to their heart's content!
And so, when I say, for example, that you claim that logic doesn't apply to God, I can directly quote you and prove that you did, in fact, say it. I can then respond to that statement verbatim! I don't have to guess about what you believe, I simply quote you (or any other Calvinistic person) and then respond to your very own words. That's as much the opposite of a straw man argument as could possibly exist.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Shasta
Well-known member
The problem is that in the Open Theism paradigm the "railroad tracks of time" had no beginning. A temporal God who would by necessity be riding the train. Were He to look backwards the tracks would be infinitely long. Therefore He would be where He was for an infinite amount of time.
If Open Theism is INcorrect then God would not needs to go through any process or sequence of events to create. "When" He did anything would be irrelevant. All He need do is simply WILL the cosmos into existence which is what He did (Hebrews 11:3)
The "need to solve" the infinite regression paradox exists for materialists who believe in an eternal universe and, unfortunately, brothers who have adopted novel doctrines of such men as Greg Boyd's who it seems to me, is trying to humanize the gospel and make it more experiential and comprehensible.
Really I do not know his motives but when I have listened to him to him his denial of Biblical inerrancy, the "offensive" doctrine of hell and his distaste for calling sin what it is makes him seem like a more theologically educated version of Robert Schuller.
As to duration - in every instance when God does something instantaneously proves that He need not bother with duration. How long did it take to create the universe?
Dialogos
Well-known member
Any theology that considers that 'logic' and 'time' are co-eternal with God certainly begs the question. You must simply assert that claim without any means to substantiate it.
Those of us who believe that both time and logic are cosmic forces have plenty of biblical substantiation to prove that God created the cosmos, more on that later.
Three responses here.Clete said:
First, God is not irrational but His ways are often incapable of being understood by human beings that have limited capacity to understand the rationality of God. This is one of the main problems with open theology. If there is an aspect of God's will, nature, plan or purpose that cannot be fully understood and fully explained by man, then open theism rejects that aspect of God. This illustrates the fundamental irrationality of open theism because it is illogical and irrational to conclude that an all knowing, all powerful, eternal God could be able to be fully comprehended by a temporal being who has limited capability and limited understanding.
In essence, the god of open theism is only as big as the level of understanding of the open theist.
Second, your shallow argument from the etymology of "theology" (in addition to being wrong) commits the exegetical fallacy (which you will undoubtedly need to look up).
Furthermore, 'theology' is not, in fact, a conjunction of θεος and Λογος, it is conjunction of θεος and Λογια (which is a related word but has a slightly distinct meaning). If you look it up in Liddell, Scott and Jones you will find that it means "oracle" or "discourse." And, in fact, the first historical usage we have of the word occurs in Plato's work referring to discourses about God (or gods).
Not only are you mistaken as to the etymology of the term, your etymological argument doesn't prove what you attempt to prove. God is not bound by our limited understanding of logic and as such what you understand 'theologically' does not bind the nature of God.
Finally, to assume that a God that is bigger than our ability to logically explain means that He cannot be understood in part is a non sequitur (another logic term, you'll probably want to Google that one as well). It does not follow that because the fullness of God supersedes our understanding there is nothing about God we can know. God can, and has, condescended to explain truths about Himself that we are capable of understanding precisely because He has revealed them to us.
To illustrate, just because most 8 year old children can't understand advanced calculus does not mean that they can't understand anything about math at all nor does it mean that because the 8 year old can't fathom some mathematical theorems does not mean those theorems are not true.
No, not at all. What it implies is that that your cognitive limitations don't limit God.Clete said:
You are right, I looked it up, when I was studying truth function logic in my freshman year at university.Clete said:
Is this really the best use of your time Clete? I am sure they may be 2 or 3 people who are more interested in what constitutes a necessarily condition in truth function logic than they are the actual topic at hand, but, despite the fact that I minored in logic, I'm not one of them.
Nevertheless, we are all very impressed at your understanding of logic. I am sure that you have succeeded in impressing someone.
Finally, we agree. It doesn't matter what you can or cannot conceive of. Incidentally this is my point exactly. You may not understand how it is that God is both timeless and an Agent within time but if there is sufficient biblical evidence that shows both, then we are bound to conclude that both are true whether that accords with our puny little understandings of logic or not.Clete said:
I'm not sure where you are going with this nor do I think it matters.Clete said:
What is true is necessarily rational, but what you think is irrational is not necessarily untrue. You may well think that God being bigger than time is irrational but God doesn't care and your thinking so doesn't make it so.
I have absolutely no idea why you think this was pertinent or helpful.Clete said:
Lets move on to something more to the point.
Notably, what you said here.
First, you are correct that my claiming that something is just your opinion doesn't make it just your opinion. Second, just because you say that it isn't just your opinion doesn't make it uncontroverted fact.Clete said:
Third, I don't think your definition of time is adequate enough to prove your point or to explain many of the observable scientific phenomenon of time dilation nor does it conclusively tell us how God experiences time. It certainly doesn't prove that God is obligated to experience time just as we do, nor does it effectively disprove that God is able to experience time differently nor does it disprove that God is free not to experience time at all.
Have you ever paused to consider the possibility God experiences existence in a completely different way than we do? Perhaps God is free to experience cosmic time (time as we experience it as created beings) but is also free from the bounds of that experience.
If you think that God is entirely within cosmic time, then all sorts of thorny questions arise that the OV folks avoid answering such as, how fast does God change? How fast does He experience change? Could God experience change faster, or slower than we do? Can God experience time variably? Does gravity affect the way God experiences time like it does to created objects? Does acceleration experience the way God experiences time like it does to us. If Einstein is right, and time is relative then to what does God experience time relative to? The answer for us is clear, we experience time relative to the cosmos around us, but God is independent of His creation. This really leads to my second set of questions.
Second, how does your definition of time as experienced by God account for the fact that every measure of time or conception of time we know of is dependent upon physicality to both measure and conceive of time?
You do realize how we measure time don't you? 24 hours is the time it takes for the earth to make a full rotation, a year measures a full rotation around the sun. Hours, seconds, months, days are but fractional measures of these cosmic events. Of course, we can conceive of things in sequence but even that is dependent upon the physical universe. Event A happens after event B but both event A and B happen in space and the results are measured physically. Even your own thoughts are physical events in time as electrical pulses fire in sequence in your grey matter.
Now consider how God is exempt from these conditions. God doesn't need the sun or the earth nor does He need space or brain matter. We can't conceive of how God thinks because we can't conceive of what it would mean to think without a physical brain to think with.
So your objection to the notion that God thinks in an 'eternal now' is based upon your own experience of that impossibility. Yes, it is impossible for you, but that's because you are a physical being that is subject to physical limitations.
Just how logical is it to conclude that a non-physical entity (God) is entirely subject to physical limitations and measurements?
That is, insofar as one's "definition" is conclusive and not a matter of mere personal opinion.Clete said:
If you can demonstrate to me conclusively that you have an entirely accurate and exhaustive definition of 'time' then you can proceed to "argue from definition." Otherwise the inherent flaws in your definition will bleed through into your argumentation.
No, I treat logic (especially the logic that God uses and thinks with) as far higher and better than the limited understanding of the open theist and I give you open theists a hard time (as if you Open Theists don't give us Calvinists hard times??) because you refuse to take seriously the portions of scripture that clearly refute your position or you employ circular reasoning to contort them so that they fit into your theological paradigm.Clete said:
Really?Clete said:
Then explain to us me why you don't accept the plain reading of Psalm 139:16, John 6:64, Acts 4:27-28 and others. In fact, lets get to your attempt to explain away Psalm 139 now.
That's a lie and one of the worst kind. It attempts to contort the scriptures in order to preserve your theology.Clete said:
Here is what the scriptures actually say.
God's Holy Word said:
You are either too blinded by your theology or too invested in it to admit that you have directly contradicted the scriptures.
You claim that this psalm “doesn't say a word about God know(ing) all of David's days..”
The scripture says that all of David's days were written in God's book when as yet there were one of them?
Now, lets employ some of that logic and rationality you went on and on about. How did all of David's days get written in God's book before there were yet one of them? Who do you think put them in the book if not God? And how do you explain that God put them there if He didn't know them? The only logical inference from this verse is that God knew exactly what you claim He didn't know. God knew all of David's days.
So you think that God's book in Psalm 139 is titled “God's little book of predictions: Divine guesses for people's lives?”Clete said:
Now on to other not so important matters.
Neither is being in time part of what it means to be God.Clete said:
Your first problem is that you make a claim as if we are all just obligated to believe it because you do. I dispute that time is “simply duration and or/sequence.” I think that is an overly simplistic definition that does not account for observable phenomenology regarding time (like gravitational time dilation) or the relativity of time. Time is far more bound up the physical universe than you have accounted for. Second, I dispute that existence presupposes sequence (because sequence is measured by physical events). Nice circular argumentation though.Clete said:
Then you go off on some tirade...
After which you treat us all to a lecture about how you are not the average bear and we should all be very mindful of the fact that you are a cut above the typical mindless idiot. Congratulations, we are all very impressed with your intellectual prowess. I am sure someone will care, unfortunately most of your self adulation is lost on me.Clete said:
I will also say that I am not at all concerned with what you think about my knowledge of either Augustine or Plato. You can carry on all you like about this though, some of your sycophants might be entertained.
I've managed to pick a final thought worth responding to out of the rest of your tirade about how this isn't a water cooler discussion and other wastes of precious time.
Clete said:
First, you define λογος in terms that the bible doesn't use. No translation that I know of translates λογος as logic. You would do much better to define it the way most bible translations do which is to define λογος as Word which is a concept that has a lot more to do with truths of the OT scriptures than it does with the development of Hellenistic rationalism.
The concept of Word, as developed by the Hebrew scriptures is really the point in John 1:1. The scriptural basis for this Greek word points to Jesus as Creator (since God created by the Word), Jesus as Truth and Jesus as God's Wisdom. Furthermore, during this time in Palestine, the rabbis used the word memra (or Word) as a periphrasis for God. There are other considerations developed by Philo as well but your point that God must accord with our understanding of what is logical is totally foreign to John's point in John 1:1.
Second, the laws of logic are cosmic laws just as the measure of time is a cosmic measurement. Of course they were authored by God. Granted, some of the laws of the universe are reflections of the eternal nature of God but they come into the cosmos through creation. For example, (and back to the topic of discussion) 'time' is a cosmic construct whereby we see and measure the rate of change and motion of matter and energy. Furthermore we can see that this rate of change is variable and relative, it is affected by other physical forces like gravity and acceleration. That's why time dilation is measurable, because time is influenced by other cosmic forces (like inertia and gravity). Assuming that God is bound by time creates too many problems since that would situation God entirely within the realm of the cosmos that the bible claims He created.
But an even more important exception to your theology is the abundance of biblical evidence that God is able to transcend the bounds of time. This is evident by God's knowing the future. In fact, God gives a challenge to the mute and dumb idols through Isaiah asking the to do what only He can do.
Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified. Behold, you are nothing, and your work is less than nothing; an abomination is he who chooses you. I stirred up one from the north, and he has come, from the rising of the sun, and he shall call upon my name; he shall trample on rulers as on mortar, as the potter treads clay. Who declared it from the beginning, that we might know, and beforehand, that we might say, "He is right"? There was none who declared it, none who proclaimed, none who heard your words. (Isaiah 41:23-26 ESV)
Unfortunately, OV ascribes to the Lord Our God the same ignorance that the idols of Isaiah 41 shared.
Last edited:
Dialogos
Well-known member
Fair question.
I believe, and most theists believe, that God is not bound by time. He can, and does, enter into our temporal experience. Jesus as the Incarnate God is one notable example.
I agree. It does seem reasonable that for most beings, being in time means we are bound by temporality. But God is not most beings.Dave said:
God can act in time, but God is independent of His creation and as such is free from the rules that bind temporal beings.Dave said:
Now, if I may ask you a question.
How did time come into being or is time an attribute of God?
"God is not bound by time" is not telling me what timelessness is.
Why did you not answer the question?
What is time? Once we know what it is we can understand it's relationship to God.
So what is time to you?
--Dave
Infinite regress is a series, or chain, of events in a cause and effect relationship.
Aristotle wrote, "There is, then, something which is always moved with an unceasing motion, which is motion in a circle; and this is plain not in theory only but in fact. Therefore the first heaven must be eternal. There is therefore also something which moves it. And since that which moves and is moved is intermediate, there is something which moves without being moved, being eternal, substance, and actuality--The Unmoved Mover.
Since nothing moves itself, but is moved by something else, there must be that which is a "cause of movement" that does not move and therefore prevents an infinite regress.
But you have to understand that Aristotle logically said that the things moved are as eternal as the thing that is the cause their movement and that pure actuality, Unmoved Mover, cannot enter the world of movement, change, and time.
Infinte regress is not involved in a God who freely, without something else causing him to do so, creates a world that never existed before he created it. The God of openness freely actualizes his own unlimited potential. God can do more than one thing at a time, but he does not do everything all at once. He does as much, or as little, as he wants to do when he wants to do it.
There is no "train of time", no such thing as events waiting to happen for us or for God. We move through "space", from place to place, not a thing called time from preordained event to event. In this world we measure the duration of movement and call it time. That duration is in relationship to the movement of our planet around the sun. God's duration would not require a measurement, his activity would be intrinsic to the sequence of activity within the Trinity.
--Dave
Dialogos
Well-known member
I did, the fact that you don't like the answer does not mean I didn't answer the question.
God's freedom from the constraints of time is what "timelessness" means.
Another way of saying it is that God is infinite and eternal.
Time is the way we measure change in the cosmos.Dave said:
The concept of time presumes changes of either matter energy or motion (which requires space). That is the only we can conceive of time, apart from matter, energy or motion, we have no framework to understand time whatsoever.
Dialogos
Well-known member
If God is "in time" as the OV folks argue, then God would in fact have a past sequence of events that He would have experienced in order to get to the present. This notion ends up being far more logically incoherent than the alternative.
An infinite God who is "in time" would have had to have experienced an infinite number of past events in order arrive at the present moment. But it is logically impossible to for a being who exists "in time" to get to the present because the past is "infinite."
Infinite, by definition, means that it is inexhaustible and so a God who is "in time" never gets to the present because He can never exhaust the past.
In contrast, a more logically coherent, and more biblical, viewpoint is to acknowledge that God is eternal, (not God exists within infinity), time itself is a function of creation and God exists independently of it.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The claim that God is timeless is a denial of the claim that God is temporal. First, God exists, but does not exist at any temporal location. Rather than holding that God is everlastingly eternal, and, therefore, he exists at each time, this position is that God exists but he does not exist at any time at all. God is beyond time altogether. It could be said that although God does not exist at any time God exists at eternity. That is, eternity can be seen as a non-temporal location as any point within time is a temporal location. Second, it is thought that God does not experience temporal succession. God’s relation to each event in a temporal sequence is the same as his relation to any other event.
"God may be thought of as “timeless,” which means that God exists outside of time, unconstrained by the process of cause and effect."
The claim that God is timeless is a denial of the claim that God is temporal. First, God exists, but does not exist at any temporal location. Rather than holding that God is everlastingly eternal, and, therefore, he exists at each time, this position is that God exists but he does not exist at any time at all. God is beyond time altogether. It could be said that although God does not exist at any time God exists at eternity. That is, eternity can be seen as a non-temporal location as any point within time is a temporal location. Second, it is thought that God does not experience temporal succession. God’s relation to each event in a temporal sequence is the same as his relation to any other event.
"God may be thought of as “timeless,” which means that God exists outside of time, unconstrained by the process of cause and effect."
Timelessness means "no time".
God has no past and no future, everything is now.
Everything God can do he is doing and never starts or stops doing everything.
--Dave
I'd really like to see these scriptures that state God is outside of time, or that God is infinite.
Time is not spatial, so Open Theists do not say God is 'in' time. Rather, it is an aspect of His personal experience since will, intellect, emotion, relationship, fellowship, communication, etc. presupposes duration, sequence, succession (time). Time is a concept, not a thing, not a place, not created, etc.