Theology Club: What is Open Theism?

[Clete]

I'm afraid that you don't get to have it both ways Godrulz.

If time is an aspect of God's experience, then it should not be affected in the least bit by physical forces of creation (like gravity or laws of acceleration). If time is an aspect of God's experience then not only is not only is Einstein wrong but all the experimental data that strongly supports the phenomenon of time dilation are wrong and it is incumbent upon the open view to come up with another plausible explanation or to admit that the OV is contrary to science on this point.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34363

That's really the rub, the OV is on the wrong end of the clear teaching of scripture, the wrong end of most accepted scientific understanding of time and on the wrong end of logic and rationality when it comes to God's relationship to time.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

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.

I've discussed the issue of infinite regress a hundred times. I agree that it is a valid issue but it does not out weigh the myriad of issues the alternative presents. Not the least of which is that God either experiences duration or He does not exist at all.

Besides the issue of infinite regress is not rationally solved by merely pretending that time doesn't now, which is self-contradictory or didn't exist at some point which is also self-contradictory (i.e. "at some point" - - IN TIME!).

As I've pointed out many times in the past, I don't pretend to understand everything there is to understand nor do I have all the answers to every puzzling issue. What I do have is a theology that is more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying than any other that I have yet been exposed to.

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)

This ignores the meaning of the word "time"! You cannot "do" anything if time does not exist! This is the sort of thing I'm referring to when I talk about people "pretending" that time doesn't exist. Its a trick! Not that you're trying to trick me but that you've been tricked. You cannot even formulate a sentence talking about the non-existence of time without contradicting yourself. And it's not just a limitation of our language its a limitation of reality. The concepts themselves are contradictory.

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.

I like that you rightly refer to it as a paradox and not something more rationally sinister than that. Paradoxes are not the same at contradictions. Contradictions and other logical fallacies serve to falsify a truth claim. Paradoxes, on the other hand, merely point to gaps in information or understanding but not fundamental, systemic errors. Zeno's motion paradoxes, for example, do not prove the concept of motion false but exposed an flaw in our ability to analyze, quantify and express issues concerning the motion of objects in absolute terms. Zeno's paradox is VERY similar to the infinite regress problem, by the way, and I suspect that the infinite regress problem will be resolved in a manner similar to the way Zeno's paradox was resolved with the invention of Calculus.

As for Boyd "trying to humanize the gospel". You should note that doing so is not necessarily a bad thing. And while I can all but guarantee you that humanizing the gospel is not his motive, it may be the result. The point being that if our goal is the truth then what we want is for the gospel to be precisely as "human" as it actually, no more AND no less.

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.

I know nothing of his position on these issues and so I won't comment on them except to say that I am not an Open Theist because of Boyd or any other single author. It is the biblical and rational arguments persuaded me, not a personality.

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?

6 Days.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’”​

Good post!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Dialogos,

I intend to respond to your post (#211) as soon as time allows. There's too much there to respond to all of it obviously but since you made an effort to present a substantive response, I didn't want you to think I was ignoring it.

Clete

 

[Lighthouse]

That would be you... since you don't seem to get that God having a different perspective on time necessitates that God experience time differently than we do.

:doh:

I understand, completely, that God has a different perspective on time; which is why I brought it up. I also understand that this means He experiences it differently than we do. I even understand that we don't all always experience it the same as each other.

But the one thing I want you to focus on here is that God experiences time; you have admitted so yourself. And that is the foundation of the OV argument.

When was the last time you said that a thousand years went by like yesterday?

That would be the last time I experienced 1000 years; which is never. But I have noted to several people that I have known for quite some time [decades] that it seems just like yesterday that we met.

Once, at a job, I walked past a new employee who was training as I was going to my break, and thought to myself he looked familiar. I looked at his name tag to see if his name would help; it did. I talked to him later, when we weren't working, and asked how old he was, as the last time I saw him he was about five, or so. He was seventeen now [this was in 2001]. I commented that it didn't seem like it had been that long, and that I felt old. I then talked to a few others who had known him and his family and they all made pretty much the same comment. And I just realized that he's almost 30. Time sure flies, doesn't it?

Really??

Which line is longer, the eternal line or the infinite line?

:dunce:

The eternal line does not necessarily reach forever in both directions, only one. For instance, as a sanctified, justified, etc. person I now have eternal life which is something I have not always had, and my life certainly does not reach forever into the past. But it will last forever into the future.

Also, you have apparently never heard of hyperbole.

Please Lighthouse, everyone has some level of ignorance about some things but do you really have to put yours on parade?

I didn't make this up; actual scientists have claimed it. Gravity and velocity affect physical objects, and atoms [and atomic clocks] are physical things. Do you disagree?

In each of the examples I provided above, the results were entirely consistent with calculations based on the theory of relativity which does not theorize time as a constant, but as a variable.

I have no doubt they did. This, however, does not mean they were inconsistent with time being a constant.

All of the examples of time dilation are consistent with the mathematical models developed by Einstein and refined by theoreticians based on theories of general relativity.

I never said otherwise, nor do I think otherwise.

You really are talking from ignorance here Lighthouse.

To some extent I do only know what I am told.

Do yourself a favor, read the article linked below and learn something about how we use the theory of general relativity to account for time dilation every day.
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

What new information am I supposed to glean?

Especially with all the irrelevant and unnecessary [redundant?] information.

It is clear that time dilation, rather than the effect of lesser gravity and higher velocity on physical objects, is assumed [and not at all proven] by the author of the article.

Now, I am sure that universities around the world would be more than happy to review Lighthouses theory of non-relativity. I, for one, won't be holding my breath.

:chuckle:

I'm not the only person to disbelieve time is physical, in fact there have been some noted scientists who have believed the very same, and their names are just as household as Einstein's. Even the inventor of the atomic clock didn't believe.

Time is not relative, it is merely perceived relatively.

 

[Dialogos]

Dialogos,

I intend to respond to your post (#211) as soon as time allows. There's too much there to respond to all of it obviously but since you made an effort to present a substantive response, I didn't want you to think I was ignoring it.

Clete

Take your time, the internet probably isn't going anywhere.

 

[Desert Reign]

Besides the issue of infinite regress is not rationally solved by merely pretending that time doesn't now, which is self-contradictory or didn't exist at some point which is also self-contradictory (i.e. "at some point" - - IN TIME!).

As I've pointed out many times in the past, I don't pretend to understand everything there is to understand nor do I have all the answers to every puzzling issue.

If you get contradictory results from ideas like that, it is more likely that you are asking the wrong question. In this case, 'time' is simply a convenient peg on which to hang some big and complex ideas. There is no such thing as time as an objective force or thing or dimension at all. That is why when you treat it as such, everything breaks down. When clocks tick, they don't measure time as if time existed to measure in the way that a weighing machine weighs the amount of flour sitting on it. All a clock does is move round at the same speed as most other clocks. When God created the world he set up natural clocks in the sun and moon. Time is just a construct that helps us all to work together efficiently, not turning up late for meetings, ,etc., etc. There isn't a 'line of time' along which things move such that it is now today and tomorrow it is something else. When the clock has turned round once, it doesn't mean that an hour of time has passed. Nothing has passed. It is a construct and nothing more.

 

[Clete]

If you get contradictory results from ideas like that, it is more likely that you are asking the wrong question. In this case, 'time' is simply a convenient peg on which to hang some big and complex ideas. There is no such thing as time as an objective force or thing or dimension at all. That is why when you treat it as such, everything breaks down. When clocks tick, they don't measure time as if time existed to measure in the way that a weighing machine weighs the amount of flour sitting on it. All a clock does is move round at the same speed as most other clocks. When God created the world he set up natural clocks in the sun and moon. Time is just a construct that helps us all to work together efficiently, not turning up late for meetings, ,etc., etc. There isn't a 'line of time' along which things move such that it is now today and tomorrow it is something else. When the clock has turned round once, it doesn't mean that an hour of time has passed. Nothing has passed. It is a construct and nothing more.

Exactly! Time is an idea. Time is the convention of language that is used to convey information concerning the duration and sequence of events. A clock is nothing more than a relatively regular and entirely arbitrary (in most cases) set of events that we can compare to other events. The turning of the hour hand once around a clock face is one event that we call an hour. The fact that sixty minutes ticked by during that event is entirely arbitrary. It could just as easily have been a hundred somewhat faster ticks, or the hour itself could have been elongated to encompass a hundred of the regular ticks, or any of an infinite number of possible set ups that could have been devised.

This is a key concept in this entire debate because if time does not ontologically exist then it clearly makes no sense to speak of anything being outside of it (or inside of it for that matter). If one experiences an event and thinks of that event relative to any other event, that one is thinking about and thus is experiencing time, whether he calls it that or not.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Dialogos]

The idea that time is only an aspect of the temporal world and does not apply to God goes back to Plato. There are some who would like to make Plato's Timaeus one of the books of the Bible.

Two thoughts.

First, just because Plato wrote about it doesn't make the concept his. Second, just because Plato wrote about it doesn't make the concept wrong.

Aristotle wrote a great deal about logic. Some would call him the "father of logic." Just because he wrote about it doesn't mean that we can attribute logic to Aristotle nor does the fact that he, another dreaded Greek philosopher, wrote about it means that logic is wrong. In fact, Clete seems rather convinced that a God who isn't logical can't be God at all.
Pythagoras wrote a great deal about geometry, that doesn't mean that geometrical rules are all Pythagoras' idea nor does the fact that he was a Greek pagan make geometry wrong, does it?

Plato has been the whipping boy that OV folks have used to "poison the well" long enough in my opinion.

But you contradict yourself if you use the temporal word "before" knowing that God is not temporal.

The unfortunate limitations of a finite mind is that we just don't have a suitable framework to give a fully articulate description of God's transcendence of time.
But let me be clear, there are theories about God's relationship to 'time' that suggest that God experiences a “divine time” that is wholly separate from the 'time' that we experience. Bruce Gordon, Prof. At Baylor and a fellow of the Discovery Institute outlined four perspectives on God's relationship to time.

Option two was as follows:

Relative Eternality (Timelessness): *The relative eternality position acknowledges that God transcends time, which is a created thing and dependent upon God, but denies that he is absolutely atemporal because it sees God as actively sustaining a*changing world in existence. *The relative eternalist therefore maintains that God is timeless relative to physical time but temporal relative to an uncreated metaphysical time that transcends the universe and is a pure duration that flows without change. *God’s being is ontologically prior to this temporal aspect of his life and serves as the ground of it.

At one time I believe you could catch a video of that lecture on Youtube.

If God's relationship to time is in accordance with “relative Eternality” then there is no problem saying, “before creation...” because we would be describing metaphysical time rather than physical time. What I wouldn't agree with, because I think scripture, logic and science closes the door on this option, is that God, in the fullness of His being, experiences time in the same way that His creation experiences time. There are Arminians, like William Craig, who argue this and it is my understanding that the OV is predicated on this view.

God did stop the evil that came into the world from Adam to Noah. If Noah had not been a righteous man then we would not be here having this conversation.

The fall didn't happen at the flood Dave, it happened in the garden. People don't die today because of the millions of disobedient souls who drown in the flood, people die today because Adam bit the fruit. Do you think God could have stopped the fall of Adam?

 

[Clete]

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.

You speak here as though I done this, I have not. If you think otherwise, you've misunderstood.

Logic is God! This is not a mere assertion, the Bible flatly states it. So to suggest that logic is co-eternal with God would be to assert that God is co-eternal with Himself. Sort of silly.

And as for time. Time does not exist except as an idea. It is a convention of language used to convey information concerning the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. That's what time is! That isn't my opinion and its not a mere assertion, it is the definition of the word. Webster conveys the same idea this way...

Time

1 a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration
b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future

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.

I have no doubt that you can biblically substantiate that God created the cosmos. As I pointed out in a post just one or two before this one, He did so in 6 days.

Nowhere in the bible is the creation of time mentioned - nowhere.

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.

There is so much wrong with this, its hard to know where to start.
In the interest of time (pardon the pun), I'll resist the temptation to follow the half dozen rabbit trails I could go down concerning God's attributes, and simply focus on the most fundamental error expressed by asking you to explain to me how you know the difference between a bad doctrine and one that we humans are too limited to understand.

In essence, the god of open theism is only as big as the level of understanding of the open theist.

God is as big as He wants to be and no bigger (or smaller). What's so hard to understand about that?

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).

The argument was not at all shallow, it spoke DIRECTLY to the point and the etymology was not wrong! The Greek word logos is where we get the suffix "-ology". That IS where we get it! (i.e. that isn't my opinion - its a fact of grammar. So says the Oxford Dictionary). 'Biology', for example, is the logos of life, the logic of life. Thus life processes are referred as being bioLOGICAL.

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).

Yes, I have access to Wikipedia too! Here's a much more complete quote of the article concerning the term 'theology'...

Theology translates into English from the Greek theologia (θεολογία) which derived from theos (θεός), meaning God, and logia (λόγια),[12] meaning utterances, sayings, or oracles (a word related to logos [λόγος], meaning word, discourse, account, or reasoning)​

In effect the difference between the two terms has to do with whether you are referring to speech (written or spoken) vs. something else. The meaning of the terms are otherwise identical.

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.

Now whose making bald assertions?

It wasn't mistaken etymology, as I have now proven, and, as a result, it did precisely prove the point I was making.

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.

I've never suggested otherwise. You might consider reading my posts more slowly and take them for what they actually say rather than whatever it is you think I mean.
To be clear, there is plenty about God that I do not understand. There's plenty about me that I don't understand! I would never suggest that, on the basis of this lack of complete understanding that I can therefore know nothing at all about either myself or God. That would be worse than a non-sequitur, it would be stupid.

Not understanding something and acknowledging a contradiction (or some other irrationality) are, however, two entirely different things. If they were the same, not only could we not know God, we couldn't know anything at all.

You are right, I looked it up, when I was studying truth function logic in my freshman year at university.

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.

Based on the way this conversation is going, I find it very difficult to believe that you've studied logic for more than fifteen minutes! However, my belief is irrelevant and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'd be asking for a refund though, if I were you.

Finally, we agree. It doesn't matter what you can or cannot conceive of.

It matters, it just doesn't change the facts of reality. If our conceptions didn't matter, logic would be useless, theology would be impossible to learn and Christianity would impossible to practice.

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.

You CANNOT even determine whether there is any biblical evidence without using LOGIC!!! Never mind whether that evidence is "sufficient" or not!

I'm sorry, but I just cannot make myself believe that anyone who has even taken a single course in logic or even read a solitary book on the subject, (Never mind MINORED in it!) could possibly make such a colossal error without seeing it!

I ask you again...

How do you know the difference between bad doctrine and a truth that is simply too lofty for our feeble human minds to understand?

HOW?

You seem to think that if a theological (there's that "logic" word again!) truth claim contradicts with your reading of the bible that it is thereby falsified but you seem perfectly comfortable with the very same truth claim contradicting ITSELF! By what means do you determine which laws of reason are applicable to matters of theology and which are not?

Which of the three laws of reason don't apply to theological matters and why? Do they never apply to theology or do they only apply to parts of theology and not to others? If the latter, which parts of theology do the laws of reason apply to and which parts don't they apply to and why?

THOSE ARE NOT RHETORICAL QUESTIONS!!!

Well, they are, I suppose but not exclusively so. That is to say that, in addition them making a rhetorical point, I want you to answer them.

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.

Then how can we know what is good theology and what is bad?

How, biologos? You, with your minor in logic, have now repeatedly sliced your own theological and philosophical (same thing) head off and you can't even see it!

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.

My claim does not, per se - of course. As I am fond of reminding people around here...

Saying it doesn't make it so. And that goes for me too!

As such, I try to stay away from making statements of mere opinion unless it is clear that that is what I am doing. You, on the other hand, think that when someone points out a contradiction that all they are doing to expressing an opinion. If that is so, then nothing can be known about anything, including whether or not someone is expressing a mere opinion.

Third, I don't think your definition of time is adequate enough to prove your point...

It is not MY definition. I don't get to define words. Words mean what they mean.

...or to explain many of the observable scientific phenomenon of time dilation...

Time is absolute.

If you wish to debate this point, I'm happy to do so on the thread that I linked to.

For the sake of this discussion, suffice it to say that they call it the Theory of Relativity for a reason.

...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...

Experience is time, or more correctly stated, time is an expression of experience. That is to say that both time and experience have to do with events. Time is merely the discussion of the duration and the sequence of the experienced events relative to each other.

God existed before creation, then He created for six days, then He rested on the seventh day and He continues to exists post creation. That's all straight out of the bible and that's God "experiencing" time.

...nor does it disprove that God is free not to experience time at all.

To be free to not experience time is a non-sequitur. It cannot even be discussed without inherent and blatant self contradiction.

Have you ever paused to consider the possibility God experiences existence in a completely different way than we do?

Yes, I have! The results of such a notion, as I hope this post has made clear already is that, if He does, nothing can be known of Him at all.

We have been made in the image and likeness of our Creator for the express purpose of have an intimately personal, love relationship with us. This alone biblically PROVES that God's existence cannot be "completely different" as you put it. We have plenty of things in common with our Creator, the ability to know truth from error not being the least of them.

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.

Contradiction!

The act of being "free from the bounds of that experience" is itself an event, an experience, which can be discussed (by God at the very least) in relation to other events, other experiences - thus time!

If you think that God is entirely within cosmic time,

There is no such thing as "cosmic time".

Time is not a created thing with its own ontological existence. It is a concept, an idea, an abstraction. It is not something that anyone is "within" or "outside" of.

...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.

Universally irrelevant to the discussion and not really very thorny either.

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?

I reject that such a notion is a fact. It clearly isn't. Not every event that occurs is a physical. Any event, whether physical, mental or spiritual happens before, during or after some other event. That's time. Further any event or set of events can be used as a clock (i.e. a measure of time). Those events need not be physical.

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.

Your materialism is showing here, diologos. There is more to life than the physical. My salvation, for example, was a spiritual event, not a physical one. And the fact that I can measure the time from that spiritual event in terms of physical events speaks to the universality (i.e. the super - physicality) of the concept of time.

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.

There is just no possible way you took a single course in logic! Are you kidding me with this materialistic stupidity!?

You do not think just with your brain. Your mind will survive the death of your brain! And people knew plenty about the process of thought before they even knew there was such a thing as a brain anyway so it happens to be really easy to conceive of thinking without a brain to think with. You just did it when you wrote down this idiotic objection!

So your objection to the notion that God thinks in an 'eternal now' is based upon your own experience of that impossibility.

WHAT? :bang:

No! My objection has nothing to do with my experience but with the FACT that such a notion is BOTH unbiblical and irrational!

Yes, it is impossible for you, but that's because you are a physical being that is subject to physical limitations.

Once again...

[I keep repeating this point because it really is the only one that matters in this entire discussion]

... HOW then can we know when we find bad a doctrine vs. a doctrine that is merely too lofty for our limited minds to understand?

Just how logical is it to conclude that a non-physical entity (God) is entirely subject to physical limitations and measurements?

I never suggested any such thing. You really need to stick with what I say and not what you think I mean. I cannot have stated my position any more clearly that I have and I am not responsible for your erroneous assumptions about the physical nature of time.

That is, insofar as one's "definition" is conclusive and not a matter of mere personal opinion.

There is no such thing as a definition that is a "mere personal opinion". Definitions are not matters of opinion. If there were, we'd have a difficult time communicating at all. Words mean what they mean. My opinion doesn't come into it. Words do often have a range of meaning and when this is the case it is important for the person using the word to make it clear the sense in which he is using it but that too is not a matter of opinion but of context.

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."

This clenches it. You DID NOT minor in logic! OR if you did, you failed the course of study.

I believe the former.

Otherwise the inherent flaws in your definition will bleed through into your argumentation.

This is simple stupidity.

The definition is a primary premise of the argument, you dolt!

Bleed through!? Yes, I suppose you might say that the primary premise of an argument tends to "bleed though" the argumentation.

:dunce:

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.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Really?

Yes, really.

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.

I do accept the plain reading of all of those passages. It is you who bring your doctrine to it rather than drawing your doctrine from it. But, yes, by all means lets get to my attempt to explain it all away!

That's a lie and one of the worst kind. It attempts to contort the scriptures in order to preserve your theology.

It contorts nothing. Psalms 139 IS talking about the process of development in the womb - period.

Here is what the scriptures actually say.

What you quoted was only a single verse and perhaps not all of that! Let's look at the entire passage, shall we!

Psalms 139

13 For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame (i.e. bones - skeleton) was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth (an idiomatic expression meaning "in the womb").
16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.​

The context is UNQUESTIONABLY that of fetal development in the womb, which is a process that is very specific and systematic and that God designed and knew everything about before David existed.

There is NOTHING in this passage about God existing outside of time!

If you think otherwise, its your doctrine that's "bleeding through", to coin a phrase.

You are either too blinded by your theology or too invested in it to admit that you have directly contradicted the scriptures.

So, there's a pot and a kettle sitting at a bar.....

You claim that this psalm “doesn't say a word about God know(ing) all of David's days..”

Yep!

The scripture says that all of David's days were written in God's book when as yet there were one of them?

Context, context, context!

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?

Well, God thought through how babies would form in the womb and then when He had just the way He wanted it, He wrote it down in a book.

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.

In the womb!

Context!

So you think that God's book in Psalm 139 is titled “God's little book of predictions: Divine guesses for people's lives?”

You're a jackass.

Neither is being in time part of what it means to be God.

You cannot be "in" time per se and so from that perspective this comment is accurate but from every other perspective it is false. If God experiences any event and has the ability to think of that event in relation to the duration and/or sequence of other events (i.e. if God is real) then being "in time" is very much a part of what it means to be God.
In fact, being "in time" is what it means to be (i.e. to exist).

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.

I don't care what you "think".

I've communicated THE definition of the term clearly enough for a six year old child to understand and have corroborated that definition with no less than the most widely used dictionary in the whole of the English speaking world.

Get over it.

Second, I dispute that existence presupposes sequence (because sequence is measured by physical events). Nice circular argumentation though.

I did not say that existence presupposes sequence I said it presupposes duration. BIG difference. Read slower!

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.

I quote Professor Gordon H. Clark, who taught at the University of Pennsylvania, Reformed Episcopal Seminary, Wheaton College, Butler University, Covenant College, and Sangre de Cristo Seminary. And who, over the course of his 60-year teaching career, wrote more than 40 books, including a history of philosophy, 'Thales to Dewey', which remains the best one-volume history of philosophy in English, and which, I'm sorry to say, I haven't read - yet.

Logic Is God

It is to be hoped that these remarks on the relation between God and truth will be seen as pertinent to the discussion of logic. In any case, the subject of logic can be more clearly introduced by one more Scriptural reference. The well-known prologue to John’s Gospel may be paraphrased, “In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God.... In logic was life and the life was the light of men.”

This paraphrase-in fact, this translation-may not only sound strange to devout ears, it may even sound obnoxious and offensive. But the shock only measures the devout person’s distance from the language and thought of the Greek New Testament. Why it is offensive to call Christ Logic, when it does not offend to call him a word, is hard to explain. But such is often the case. Even Augustine, because he insisted that God is truth, has been subjected to the anti-intellectualistic accusation of “reducing” God to a proposition. At any rate, the strong intellectualism of the word Logos is seen in its several possible translations: to wit, computation, (financial) accounts, esteem, proportion and (mathematical) ratio, explanation, theory or argument, principle or law, reason, formula, debate, narrative, speech, deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence, and wisdom.

Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic.

God is a rational being, the architecture of whose mind is logic.​

Second, the laws of logic are cosmic laws just as the measure of time is a cosmic measurement.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

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.

Why so specific? Rates of change and the motion of matter and energy are only two types of events. There are many others that have nothing to do with the physical universe. A point I've already discussed.

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).

Actually its the clocks that are effected not time. Time doesn't exist except as an idea inside a thinking mind - any thinking mind - created or otherwise.

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.

Hasty Generalization Fallacy and Question Begging.

Your assumptions are unfounded and presuppose the truth of your own position in order to argue the truth of your position.

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.

None of which exists.

This is evident by God's knowing the future.

You know the future!

Not to the degree that God knows it but that's beside the point. The point is that God's ability to predict the future does not even imply that God exists outside of time. It implies that He's wise and has complete access to all pertinent information concerning the prediction and that He is powerful enough to work out His desired plans but nothing more than that and certainly not that God has to cheat by taking a peak into the future in order to report what He sees there.


Further, your argument here presumes that prophecy is pre-written history, which it clearly is not. There are several examples of prophecies that did not come to pass in scripture.

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)
​

Well, I suppose that I can pretty easily agree that dumb idols cannot predict the future like God can. What does that have to do with being outside of time?

Unfortunately, OV ascribes to the Lord Our God the same ignorance that the idols of Isaiah 41 shared.

You're an idiot for saying such things.




Proof from the Bible that God is In Time



Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

Two thoughts.

First, just because Plato wrote about it doesn't make the concept his. Second, just because Plato wrote about it doesn't make the concept wrong.

Aristotle wrote a great deal about logic. Some would call him the "father of logic." Just because he wrote about it doesn't mean that we can attribute logic to Aristotle nor does the fact that he, another dreaded Greek philosopher, wrote about it means that logic is wrong. In fact, Clete seems rather convinced that a God who isn't logical can't be God at all.

Pythagoras wrote a great deal about geometry, that doesn't mean that geometrical rules are all Pythagoras' idea nor does the fact that he was a Greek pagan make geometry wrong, does it?

Plato has been the whipping boy that OV folks have used to "poison the well" long enough in my opinion.

The unfortunate limitations of a finite mind is that we just don't have a suitable framework to give a fully articulate description of God's transcendence of time.

But let me be clear, there are theories about God's relationship to 'time' that suggest that God experiences a “divine time” that is wholly separate from the 'time' that we experience. Bruce Gordon, Prof. At Baylor and a fellow of the Discovery Institute outlined four perspectives on God's relationship to time.

Option two was as follows:

At one time I believe you could catch a video of that lecture on Youtube.

If God's relationship to time is in accordance with “relative Eternality” then there is no problem saying, “before creation...” because we would be describing metaphysical time rather than physical time. What I wouldn't agree with, because I think scripture, logic and science closes the door on this option, is that God, in the fullness of His being, experiences time in the same way that His creation experiences time. There are Arminians, like William Craig, who argue this and it is my understanding that the OV is predicated on this view.

The fall didn't happen at the flood Dave, it happened in the garden. People don't die today because of the millions of disobedient souls who drown in the flood, people die today because Adam bit the fruit. Do you think God could have stopped the fall of Adam?

God could have stopped all sins if he wanted us puppet's on his strings. But, regardless of your lack of sincerity in response to my comment, sin is stopped when sinners perish. God could have killed Adam just before he sinned but that would have ended the human race before it got started.

"The unfortunate limitations of a finite mind" is not why "we just don't have a suitable framework to give a fully articulate description of God's transcendence of time". The reason is because it's impossible for a timeless God to create a world that has a beginning. A timeless God can't even create time without contradicting his timelessness. All attempts to discribe this impossibility are irrational regardless how clever they seem.

--Dave

 

[Paulos]

God "inhabits eternity" (Isaiah 57:15 ) and "His understanding is infinite" (Psalm 147:5). That isn't philosophy, it's scripture.

...although it is true that much can be found within philosophy to agree with it. As the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus wrote in Against Apion:

"I do not now explain how these notions of God are the sentiments of the wisest among the Grecians, and how they were taught them upon the principles that he afforded them. However, they testify, with great assurance, that these notions are just, and agreeable to the nature of God, and to his majesty; for Pythagoras, and Anaxagoras, and Plato, and the Stoic philosophers that succeeded them, and almost all the rest, are of the same sentiments, and had the same notions of the nature of God; yet durst not these men disclose those true notions to more than a few, because the body of the people were prejudiced with other opinions beforehand."​

 

[Clete]

...although it is true that much can be found within philosophy to agree with it. As the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus wrote in Against Apion:

"I do not now explain how these notions of God are the sentiments of the wisest among the Grecians, and how they were taught them upon the principles that he afforded them. However, they testify, with great assurance, that these notions are just, and agreeable to the nature of God, and to his majesty; for Pythagoras, and Anaxagoras, and Plato, and the Stoic philosophers that succeeded them, and almost all the rest, are of the same sentiments, and had the same notions of the nature of God; yet durst not these men disclose those true notions to more than a few, because the body of the people were prejudiced with other opinions beforehand."​

The word in Hebrew translated as "eternity" is not timelessness but rather unending, continuous existence.

Strong's H5703

ad
1) perpetuity, for ever, continuing future

a) ancient (of past time)

b) for ever (of future time)

1) of continuous existence

c) for ever (of God's existence)​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lighthouse]

It's been over 26 hours since my last post in here and still no response?

Do you not have an answer, Dialogos?

 

[DFT_Dave]

...although it is true that much can be found within philosophy to agree with it. As the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus wrote in Against Apion:

"I do not now explain how these notions of God are the sentiments of the wisest among the Grecians, and how they were taught them upon the principles that he afforded them. However, they testify, with great assurance, that these notions are just, and agreeable to the nature of God, and to his majesty; for Pythagoras, and Anaxagoras, and Plato, and the Stoic philosophers that succeeded them, and almost all the rest, are of the same sentiments, and had the same notions of the nature of God; yet durst not these men disclose those true notions to more than a few, because the body of the people were prejudiced with other opinions beforehand."​

Augustine was a Platonist

"By having thus read the books of the Platonists, and having been taught by them to search for the incorporeal Truth, I saw how thy invisible things are understood through the things that are made. And, even when I was thrown back, I still sensed what it was that the dullness of my soul would not allow me to contemplate. I was assured that thou wast, and wast infinite, though not diffused in finite space or infinity; that thou truly art, who art ever the same, varying neither in part nor motion; and that all things are from thee, as is proved by this sure cause alone: that they exist...I now believe that it was thy pleasure that I should fall upon these books before I studied thy Scriptures, that it might be impressed on my memory how I was affected by them."

--Book VII:20


It's irrational and contradictory and unbiblical to say a timeless God created the world

Augustine dilemma; God is active--not timeless, according to the Bible and the world is not eternal, but God is timeless--not active, according to Plato and Aristotle and the world is eternal. Augustine forms a synthesis, he takes the timelessness of an immovable God and combines it with the God who is active and creates an eternity that defies logic in which God can be "active" from our finite, temporal perspective as we read our Revelation from him, but "inactive (immoveable) from his infinite, eternal perspective that we know from Greek philosophy. In the Confessions, where Augustine raises the most logical question that could be asked about his synthesis, he gives no answer. Augustine had abandoned rationality in favor of his personal revelation.

Opponents ask "But if it was the eternal will of God that the creation should come to be, why, then, is not the creation itself also from eternity?" --Book XI:10

Augustine's answer "Those who say these things do not yet understand thee, O Wisdom of God, O Light of souls. They do not yet understand how the things are made that are made by and in thee. They endeavor to comprehend eternal things, but their heart still flies about in the past and future motions of created things, and is still unstable. Who shall hold it and fix it so that it may come to rest for a little; and then, by degrees, glimpse the glory of that eternity which abides forever; and then, comparing eternity with the temporal process in which nothing abides, they may see that they are incommensurable? They would see that a long time does not become long, except from the many separate events that occur in its passage, which cannot be simultaneous. In the Eternal, on the other hand, nothing passes away, but the whole is simultaneously present. But no temporal process is wholly simultaneous. Therefore, let it see that all time past is forced to move on by the incoming future; that all the future follows from the past; and that all, past and future, is created and issues out of that which is forever present. Who will hold the heart of man that it may stand still and see how the eternity which always stands still is itself neither future nor past but expresses itself in the times that are future and past? Can my hand do this, or can the hand of my mouth bring about so difficult a thing even by persuasion?" --Book XI:11

Obviously we can see from Augustine's comments that his timeless view of God in his day was not the prevailing one.

http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/Augustine.html

--Dave

 

[Desert Reign]

if time does not ontologically exist then it clearly makes no sense to speak of anything being outside of it (or inside of it for that matter).
Resting in Him,
Clete

Yep. That's what I believe.

Why a lot of people can't grasp this is because they are unable to self-reference. They cannot see what they are doing when they think (or use words, which is about the same thing). This is the same debate as the old objective vs subjective. It's the wrong question being asked.

 

[Desert Reign]

But the one thing I want you to focus on here is that God experiences time; you have admitted so yourself. And that is the foundation of the OV argument.

Yes. Or God has a concept of time in that he has memory and can make plans. I would think of necessity it was different from us because there is no prospect of him ever dying like we will.

It is clear that time dilation, rather than the effect of lesser gravity and higher velocity on physical objects, is assumed [and not at all proven] by the author of the article.

I'm not the only person to disbelieve time is physical, in fact there have been some noted scientists who have believed the very same, and their names are just as household as Einstein's. Even the inventor of the atomic clock didn't believe.

Time is not relative, it is merely perceived relatively.

Yes, that's exact. I've heard several people claim that time is real because you can send clocks into space and measure time differences compared with clocks that were exactly synchronous and yet remained on Earth. They say that it is a physical property of the universe and that the clocks are proof of it. That's a complete misunderstanding of the science. All the science is saying is that when things move at near light speed, they of necessity experience change differently to the object they are moving relative to. It's because that change is mediated by the speed of light.

 

[Lighthouse]

Yes. Or God has a concept of time in that he has memory and can make plans. I would think of necessity it was different from us because there is no prospect of him ever dying like we will.

And He didn't begin as we did, either.

Yes, that's exact. I've heard several people claim that time is real because you can send clocks into space and measure time differences compared with clocks that were exactly synchronous and yet remained on Earth. They say that it is a physical property of the universe and that the clocks are proof of it. That's a complete misunderstanding of the science. All the science is saying is that when things move at near light speed, they of necessity experience change differently to the object they are moving relative to. It's because that change is mediated by the speed of light.

Yup.

 

[Dialogos]

I understand, completely, that God has a different perspective on time; which is why I brought it up. I also understand that this means He experiences it differently than we do. I even understand that we don't all always experience it the same as each other.

But the one thing I want you to focus on here is that God experiences time; you have admitted so yourself. And that is the foundation of the OV argument.

Brandon,

I've never denied that God was capable of experiencing time. I've denied that He is somehow obligated to experience exactly the way we do, which is to say that I deny that God is bound by the same temporal limitations that you and I are limited by.

If the OV argument was merely that God experienced time to some degree, the debate would have been long over. The most ardent atemporalist would agree that God is capable of knowing our experience of time. The key difference is not whether God is capable of knowing our temporal experience the key difference is whether or not He is capable of knowing anything other than our temporal experience and limitations that go along with it.

That would be the last time I experienced 1000 years; which is never. But I have noted to several people that I have known for quite some time [decades] that it seems just like yesterday that we met.

I've had online conversations with people that only lasted a few days but felt like an eternity.

:stuck:

Mostly because they droned on about things without there being even the slightest hint of a point.

Once, at a job, I walked past a new employee who was training as I was going to my break, and thought to myself he looked familiar. I looked at his name tag to see if his name would help; it did. I talked to him later, when we weren't working, and asked how old he was, as the last time I saw him he was about five, or so.

He was seventeen now [this was in 2001]. I commented that it didn't seem like it had been that long, and that I felt old. I then talked to a few others who had known him and his family and they all made pretty much the same comment. And I just realized that he's almost 30. Time sure flies, doesn't it?

:nightall:

The eternal line does not necessarily reach forever in both directions, only one. For instance, as a sanctified, justified, etc. person I now have eternal life which is something I have not always had, and my life certainly does not reach forever into the past. But it will last forever into the future.

Infinite really just means not finite.

More to the point though, what bearing does this really have on your or my theology? Does the OV now claim that God is finite?

If not then why are you making artificial distinctions that don't defend the OV and don't advance a relevant point?

I didn't make this up; actual scientists have claimed it. Gravity and velocity affect physical objects, and atoms [and atomic clocks] are physical things. Do you disagree?

Of course gravity and velocity affect physical objects. Of course atoms are physical things. You don't seem to get the point. Its not that the clock was affected and everything else traveling at the same velocity was not, its that everything was affected as the theory of relativity predicted because Einstein's assumption (that time and space are really linked, not separate) is demonstrably true.

The clock in the plane ticked slower than the clock on the ground.

But if you are going to toss out relativity and hold on to the notion that time is absolute, then prove your point by telling uswhich clock was right?

The sound scientific answer is, they both were, but that would contradict the Newtonian notion of absolute time. They were both keeping accurate time relative to the people and things that were moving at the same velocity. Time is, in fact, affected by velocity which is to say that the rate of change of matter and energy is affected by velocity.

So if there is an atomic clock on a jet circling the earth and it is "accurately" ticking off seconds "slower" than an atomic clock that is stationary, then which second did God experience as the true second, the "high velocity second" or the "no velocity second?"

If time is "constant" and completely independent of gravity or velocity then are the atomic clocks on the ground too fast or the atomic traveling at high speed too slow?

If you are going to toss out Einstein's theory and take us back to a Newtonian view of time, then a whole lot of scientists (which you write of as just assuming and not proving their work) are going to want to know the answer to that question and those like it.

I'm not the only person to disbelieve time is physical, in fact there have been some noted scientists who have believed the very same, and their names are just as household as Einstein's.

Like?

Even the inventor of the atomic clock didn't believe.

You mean Cutler? He didn't believe what? Einstein's theory of relativity?

Substantiate please.

Time is not relative, it is merely perceived relatively.

Perceived relatively by whom?
Perceived relative to what?

You can assert that time is absolute over and over again but repetition is not the same as substantiation.

 

[Dialogos]

That's a complete misunderstanding of the science. All the science is saying is that when things move at near light speed, they of necessity experience change differently to the object they are moving relative to. It's because that change is mediated by the speed of light.

And, according to special relativity, the closer to the speed of light something moves, then slower things change relative to the rate of change of things that aren't moving as fast.

So which is the "right" rate of change? Which rate of change is too fast, or too slow?

Whose point of reference is the unequivocal standard?

Which rate of change is God experiencing?

 

[Lighthouse]

I've never denied that God was capable of experiencing time. I've denied that He is somehow obligated to experience exactly the way we do, which is to say that I deny that God is bound by the same temporal limitations that you and I are limited by.

Can you support that with Scripture?

If the OV argument was merely that God experienced time to some degree, the debate would have been long over. The most ardent atemporalist would agree that God is capable of knowing our experience of time. The key difference is not whether God is capable of knowing our temporal experience the key difference is whether or not He is capable of knowing anything other than our temporal experience and limitations that go along with it.

The limit is not on God, it is on time.

I've had online conversations with people that only lasted a few days but felt like an eternity.

:stuck:

Mostly because they droned on about things without there being even the slightest hint of a point.

Exactly.

:nightall:

Don't be a tool.

Infinite really just means not finite.

And?

More to the point though, what bearing does this really have on your or my theology? Does the OV now claim that God is finite?

Define finite.

If not then why are you making artificial distinctions that don't defend the OV and don't advance a relevant point?

I'm not.

Of course gravity and velocity affect physical objects. Of course atoms are physical things. You don't seem to get the point. Its not that the clock was affected and everything else traveling at the same velocity was not, its that everything was affected as the theory of relativity predicted because Einstein's assumption (that time and space are really linked, not separate) is demonstrably true.

I didn't say nothing else would be affected.

The clock in the plane ticked slower than the clock on the ground.

No duh.

But if you are going to toss out relativity and hold on to the notion that time is absolute, then prove your point by telling uswhich clock was right?

The sun dial.

The sound scientific answer is, they both were, but that would contradict the Newtonian notion of absolute time. They were both keeping accurate time relative to the people and things that were moving at the same velocity. Time is, in fact, affected by velocity which is to say that the rate of change of matter and energy is affected by velocity.

So if there is an atomic clock on a jet circling the earth and it is "accurately" ticking off seconds "slower" than an atomic clock that is stationary, then which second did God experience as the true second, the "high velocity second" or the "no velocity second?"

If time is "constant" and completely independent of gravity or velocity then are the atomic clocks on the ground too fast or the atomic traveling at high speed too slow?

If you are going to toss out Einstein's theory and take us back to a Newtonian view of time, then a whole lot of scientists (which you write of as just assuming and not proving their work) are going to want to know the answer to that question and those like it.



Like?


You mean Cutler? He didn't believe what? Einstein's theory of relativity?

Substantiate please.


Perceived relatively by whom?
Perceived relative to what?

You can assert that time is absolute over and over again but repetition is not the same as substantiation.

:blabla: