PDA

View Full Version : Re: Open View/Closed Future



justchristian
June 27th, 2005, 10:07 PM
This is mostly addressed to godrulz and other OVers I have been talking to over the last month or so trying to get my head around the logical necessity for an open future. But as always I welcome any input.

So after chewing on some of the great arguements many of you have made regarding Open View I finally understand the ultimate necessity of an open future. At least in so much as that future relates to God's relationship with us in the present. The arguement of contigent choices still is a logic jump I don't get. But the reality of God's interaction with his creation, of our free will being ultimately independant of causality, and the nature of real relationship seems to require a choosen ignorance of our future choices on God's part.

But....

Yep theres a but. I still cannot dismiss my understanding of time as being a complete created expression of the intrusic "time nature" of God. Time as we percieve it most definately is something (regardless of what godrulz thinks) and that something is a created something. So if time is a complete created something God, to some degree, would have a complete understanding of everything within time. That is my understanding of time and I will explain how that sits (at least for now) with my understanding of an open future.

If you don't hold that time is a complete created something I think you can really only hold it is a incomplete created something being constantly created as we move forward though it. Think if it as a path being created brick by brick with each step forward. In either case I believe God is ignorant of our free will choices when they are made independant of causality. This being a necessity of relationship. But since a complete or incomplete time is created, our free will is created, and everything BUT God is created, God would ultimately have a perfect understanding of everything he has created.

I now find myself reconciling the two. How can God be ignorant of something if he is fully responsible for its creation? For now, I rest on a "both are true" answer. It is a tricky place to rest but I don't see another viable option (ie the reason for this thread and the request for input). What if God is both fully aware of the future and not? In the same way Christ was fully man and fully God, the same way the Trinity is both three and one. Now this is tricky ground, I am trying to divide God's understanding without dividing God so bear with me.

God the Father, the creator, would have a perfect understanding of all he created and would have a perfect understanding of how time and our choices would unfold. Being the ultimate reality God would have a perfect understanding of any realities he would create and how they would interact. But in order for God to enter into true relationship with man he would have to choose a state of ignorance as to the function of our free will, and (since I believe in a closed future) to the closed future in which our choices are already made by us. This is limited only in so much as God interacts with us in the now. This is how Christ both was seperated from God in the now of the crucifixion but remained God ultmately. The part of God we enter into relationship with (Christ in the now?) chooses this ignorant state for meaningful relationship. But God ultimately retains his exaustive foreknowledge and sovreignty since he is ultimately not dependant on, or restricted by, his creation (time, free will). And only chooses such restrictions in our created reality to enter into relationship with us.

Sorry for the length of this post, and if I repeated myself to much. If you took the time to read it all or even skim thankyou for your time. I appreciate any input, critique, or questions.

logos_x
June 27th, 2005, 10:41 PM
I had similar problems. But I noticed something about it when Knight started the "Interaction with perfect foreknowledge?" thread.

Simply put...it makes God..out there somewhere, and worst of all impersonal.
God created things in such away that His interaction with us, on a personal level, is what governs and directs "time" as it were, through our choices in relation to Him.

In other words...IMHO, God abandons "perfect" exhaustive foreknowledge in favor of personal interaction with His creation. That was the reason for free will, and what he determined to be "good".

At least..this resolved it for me. :)

novice
June 27th, 2005, 10:55 PM
justchristian , as an open theist I am having a bit of trouble completely figuring out what you are asking or addressing in your post.

Do you think it would be possible to refine your point just a bit? I did enjoy your post as a whole, I just am not sure what to respond to.

justchristian
June 27th, 2005, 11:03 PM
The suggest dual state God holds. That ultimately he has exaustive foreknowledge of the future but in so much as he relates to us he chooses ignorance to the closed future. The future is closed in reality but we and the part of God in relationship with us, are ignorant to it making it practically open.

novice
June 27th, 2005, 11:12 PM
The suggest dual state God holds. That ultimately he has exaustive foreknowledge of the future but in so much as he relates to us he chooses ignorance to the closed future. The future is closed in reality but we and the part of God in relationship with us, are ignorant to it making it practically open.Why would you want to theorize that?

If the future were closed and exhaustvely known by God that would by definition include God's "charade" of ignorance (as you suggest).

I just don't see the reason to add such a complication.

logos_x
June 27th, 2005, 11:23 PM
The suggest dual state God holds. That ultimately he has exaustive foreknowledge of the future but in so much as he relates to us he chooses ignorance to the closed future. The future is closed in reality but we and the part of God in relationship with us, are ignorant to it making it practically open.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. But, here's my take on it.
God knows how it will all turn out, in the end. (My veiw is Christian Universalism, not Calvinistic in this regard). There will be the restitution of all things, and in the end God will be all in all. But this outcome doesn't require exhaustive foreknowledge of all things from creation, because the agency of God's interaction will affect the outcome. He has a "drawing" influence, and will save the lost from their "lostness" through personal interaction and our response. When our will become His will...when we surrender to His will, then we become more and more like He is (Jesus, that is).
God's foreknowledge is immutable only insofar as what He wills, and directs, personally, is made to happen through providential governing of creatures with free will..not an exhaustive foreknowledge.

I'm not sure if I'm articulating what I mean very well...

justchristian
June 27th, 2005, 11:36 PM
I just don't see the reason to add such a complication. The problem of time and creation. With time, if time is complete, and God is outside it, why would he not be able to see it in entirety? If time is not complete, how do you propose a God who creates something (the universe and time) from nothing does not have a complete understanding of such a thing? and from that complete understanding not be able to completely know the ourcome? Thats why I suggest the complication. This dual state of God. Our relationship with God necessitates an open future from our and his percpective. But at the same time the nature of God as the ultimate creator of our free will, time, and the rest of the universe would have a complete understanding of the outcome. You must therefore say God's view of the future as open is a choosen ignorance. This choice would only need be in his interaction and relationship with us, but not it his ultimate nature. God only would limit himself in his creation, he wouldnt need to limit himself outside of it.

godrulz
June 27th, 2005, 11:38 PM
The suggest dual state God holds. That ultimately he has exaustive foreknowledge of the future but in so much as he relates to us he chooses ignorance to the closed future. The future is closed in reality but we and the part of God in relationship with us, are ignorant to it making it practically open.

When I first was exposed to an alternative view, I was a fairly new Christian in Bible College who was only exposed to the classic view ('eternal now'; exhaustive foreknowledge, etc.). My first desire was to reconcile the views assuming the truth was somewhere in between. Over time, the evidence demanded that I reject some of the classic views as unbiblical/incoherent, and embrace a cogent, alternate understanding. You may be in transition, wanting to have your old cake and eat the new too.

I think the best resolution for all texts, without logical contradiction, is to recognize some of the future is settled/known, while much of it is unsettled/only known as a possibility until it becomes a certainty.

Your post, as written, falls short of coherence, in my humble opinion. Try rewording it for clarification.

God cannot chose to be ignorant of something knowable. The issue is that an open future is necessary for genuine freedom and must be uncertain until it becomes actual (except where God purposes to bring certain things to pass regardless of other free moral agent's actions).

logos_x
June 27th, 2005, 11:40 PM
The problem of time and creation. With time, if time is complete, and God is outside it, why would he not be able to see it in entirety? If time is not complete, how do you propose a God who creates something (the universe and time) from nothing does not have a complete understanding of such a thing? and from that complete understanding not be able to completely know the ourcome? Thats why I suggest the complication. This dual state of God. Our relationship with God necessitates an open future from our and his percpective. But at the same time the nature of God as the ultimate creator of our free will, time, and the rest of the universe would have a complete understanding of the outcome. You must therefore say God's view of the future as open is a choosen ignorance. This choice would only need be in his interaction and relationship with us, but not it his ultimate nature. God only would limit himself in his creation, he wouldnt need to limit himself outside of it.

Why is this a problem?

godrulz
June 27th, 2005, 11:41 PM
Is time really a created thing? Is love, truth, faithfulness, holiness, etc. a created thing? These things, including time, are aspects of personal, godly beings. Time cannot be put under a microscope like most things can. The events that occur in time are tangible as are thoughts and feelings. Time is a reference point, but it is not metaphysical.

Time/eternity= endless duration/succession/sequence...It is not timelessness...

Does the above statement seem plausible or resonate with reality?

justchristian
June 27th, 2005, 11:50 PM
Is time really a created thing? Is love, truth, faithfulness, holiness, etc. a created thing? These things, including time, are aspects of personal, godly beings. Time cannot be put under a microscope like most things can. The events that occur in time are tangible as are thoughts and feelings. Time is a reference point, but it is not metaphysical.
I would say all are created things. They are all created expressions of the intrusic nature of God but as created are independant of God. Time may not be something as a tree, but it is something like gravity, or electromagnetism. I am not saying gravity and electromagnetism are intrusic to God's nature, but that time, like them, is created. It is a property of the universe independant of God. We may not be able to put it under microscope but we can express it in math. It can be observed, measured, manipulated, and changed. All physics and science as I understand them hold time as a something.

logos_x
June 27th, 2005, 11:53 PM
I don't think we need to worry about Who holds the future. God obviously does.
That is enough for me.
How He does it, IMHO, is personally. Not just pulling strings outside of our reality...but personally interacting with it.
If there is an aspect of God outside or above the timeline..we'll never percieve it as reality anyway...and it proposes some pardoxes that are quite unresolvable, and speculating about time as some part of metaphysical dimension might be entertaining...but means very little in any practical sense.
God comes down to our reality in Jesus and the Holy Spirit. He reaches down to us, rather than us reaching up to Him. I think that our salvation lies in understanding that much about God.

justchristian
June 27th, 2005, 11:54 PM
God cannot chose to be ignorant of something knowable. Why? Wasn't Jesus ignorant in many respects to what was knowable?

justchristian
June 28th, 2005, 12:02 AM
If there is an aspect of God outside or above the timeline..we'll never percieve it as reality anyway...and it proposes some pardoxes that are quite unresolvable, and speculating about time as some part of metaphysical dimension might be entertaining...but means very little in any practical sense. Much of what I think about isn't practical. But I enjoy it. And I think it is alot like math beyond grade 10. It's not practical but it helps you use and understand what is.

God comes down to our reality in Jesus and the Holy Spirit. He reaches down to us, rather than us reaching up to Him. I think that our salvation lies in understanding that much about God.
I agree. I don't think any of this is neccessary to salvation. But so much about God isnt. That's part of Him reaching down. But I choose to explore the universe I live,as I am sure you do to, not only the physical, but the mental, and the spirtual. Along with exploring the nature of God, the nature of the one who loves me. I don't think I'll ever really get it or that anyone will, but I like just getting closer.

logos_x
June 28th, 2005, 12:08 AM
Much of what I think about isn't practical. But I enjoy it. And I think it is alot like math beyond grade 10. It's not practical but it helps you use and understand what is.
I agree. I don't think any of this is neccessary to salvation. But so much about God isnt. That's part of Him reaching down. But I choose to explore the universe I live,as I am sure you do to, not only the physical, but the mental, and the spirtual. Along with exploring the nature of God, the nature of the one who loves me. I don't think I'll ever really get it or that anyone will, but I like just getting closer.

:thumb:
Our God is awesome!

Delmar
June 28th, 2005, 04:11 AM
The problem of time and creation. With time, if time is complete, and God is outside it, why would he not be able to see it in entirety? If time is not complete, how do you propose a God who creates something (the universe and time) from nothing does not have a complete understanding of such a thing? and from that complete understanding not be able to completely know the ourcome? Thats why I suggest the complication. This dual state of God. Our relationship with God necessitates an open future from our and his percpective. But at the same time the nature of God as the ultimate creator of our free will, time, and the rest of the universe would have a complete understanding of the outcome. You must therefore say God's view of the future as open is a choosen ignorance. This choice would only need be in his interaction and relationship with us, but not it his ultimate nature. God only would limit himself in his creation, he wouldnt need to limit himself outside of it.

Where do you get the idea that time is complete? Is this the same thing as saying that all future events have happened already and what we are experiencing now is some sort of memory?

Turbo
June 28th, 2005, 05:21 AM
justchristian,

Can you biblically support the notion that God created time?

Mention of God creating time is conspicuously absent from Genesis 1, yet the entire chapter describes God creating things in sequence over the course of six day, i.e. "in time". And then we read of Him resting on the seventh day. So our first impression of God is that He is clearly "not outside of time."

Freak
June 28th, 2005, 05:30 AM
Can you biblically support the notion that God created time?
Turbo, the Scriptures clearly state God is the creator of time...

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Were you aware of this?

Delmar
June 28th, 2005, 05:35 AM
Turbo, the Scriptures clearly state God is the creator of time...

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Were you aware of this?Certainly God created the concept of time or at least defined it. I doubt if Turbo or any open theist is saying otherwise.

Freak
June 28th, 2005, 05:46 AM
Certainly God created the concept of time or at least defined it. I doubt if Turbo or any open theist is saying otherwise.

Turbo. Well?

Turbo
June 28th, 2005, 07:15 AM
Turbo, the Scriptures clearly state God is the creator of time...

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Were you aware of this?
Time is not a thing. The concept of time is used to describe duration and sequence.

Unlike His creation, God has endured since eternity past. As you quoted, "He is before all things." If God exists "outside of time" then this statement and many others like it in the Bible are either false or meaningless. It is illogical to refer to something that happened or existed before time existed.



Though God created "all things," He Himself is uncreated; He did not create Himself. Were you aware of this?

Did God have to create love for love to exist?

godrulz
June 28th, 2005, 09:47 AM
I would say all are created things. They are all created expressions of the intrusic nature of God but as created are independant of God. Time may not be something as a tree, but it is something like gravity, or electromagnetism. I am not saying gravity and electromagnetism are intrusic to God's nature, but that time, like them, is created. It is a property of the universe independant of God. We may not be able to put it under microscope but we can express it in math. It can be observed, measured, manipulated, and changed. All physics and science as I understand them hold time as a something.

The common sense view is that time is not wrapped up in physics and science. It is merely a descriptive word for the duration/sequence/succession we all experience as we think, act, and feel. You cannot put the past and future in a bottle. The events can be recorded historically, but they do not exist beyond the present instant. We can reference intervals between instants, but it is fundamental and abstract, not tangible and verifiable physically.

Faulty assumptions (time is a created thing or it is space) leads to faulty conclusions.

godrulz
June 28th, 2005, 09:53 AM
Why? Wasn't Jesus ignorant in many respects to what was knowable?


This relates to His incarnation/kenosis/humiliation where He became the God-Man (Phil. 2; Jn. 1:1, 14). As a man, He grew in wisdom, knowledge, stature, and in favor with God and man (Lk. 2:52). He was hungry, tired, thirsty, and even died! None of these things apply to God or the Word in His preexistence. Any ignorance of Jesus relates to a voluntary choice to veil His Deity for a time on earth. He was 100% man and 100% God. During this time, He voluntarily laid aside attributes like omnipotence. He was limited by the flesh to our planet. The exact nature of how His divine and human nature relate is speculative. I assume that He inherently did not know His preexistent knowledge as a baby, but had to learn to speak, do homework, be a carpenter, etc. The idea of not knowing when His Second Coming would be relates to this, and perhaps to the fact that even the Father had not set the date in stone in the first century.

As God, in His preexistence and post-resurrection, He was not ignorant of anything. He was omniscient knowing the past/present perfectly, and the future as possible/probable.

godrulz
June 28th, 2005, 09:57 AM
Turbo, the Scriptures clearly state God is the creator of time...

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Were you aware of this?

Did God create your car, pen, or computer? Did He create your supper or the clothes you were?

When He says nothing is impossible for God, does that mean God lies, dies, creates rocks too heavy to lift, makes 2+2=11, makes black white at the same time, etc.?

God did not create love, hunger, sin, joy, etc. Time is as fundamental as anything. It is not created. It is simply a descriptive aspect of any personal being or reality that experiences one moment after the next. In God's case, it is an everlasting duration of moments (that have content). In our case, our experience had a beginning, but will never end.

justchristian
June 28th, 2005, 05:21 PM
So it still all comes down to time again eh?

godrulz
June 29th, 2005, 12:36 AM
So it still all comes down to time again eh?

A correct view of time/eternity (endless duration vs timelessness; not a thing) is a root factor. The other is the nature of genuine free will (libertarian) and what omniscience actually means (knows all that is knowable).

eccl3_6
June 29th, 2005, 06:46 AM
The common sense view is that time is not wrapped up in physics and science. It is merely a descriptive word for the duration/sequence/succession we all experience as we think, act, and feel. You cannot put the past and future in a bottle. The events can be recorded historically, but they do not exist beyond the present instant. We can reference intervals between instants, but it is fundamental and abstract, not tangible and verifiable physically.

Faulty assumptions (time is a created thing or it is space) leads to faulty conclusions.

I am really surpised that the apologists on this site haven't embraced relativity yet. It can actually be used to support your Genesis theories. But to comment Godrulz:
#1 It may be commonsense view that time is not wrapped up in physics but that is only from our own perspectives. Try and imagine a four dimensional shape. You'll find it difficult because you see it three dimensions. Try and explain the colours of the rainbow to a blind man and you'll find it difficult because he doesn't see colours. Time is a product of physical existence. Scientific fact- we use connotations of this understanding everyday in modern technologies.

#2 Time can be 'intensified' or 'dilated' in relation to things. In this sense you can put it in a jar. You can quantify it. It is real.

#3 Can't put the past in a bottle? Look at a star. You are seeing exactly what happened thousands of years ago. Look at the sun. The light from it took 10 seconds to get to you. Look at your TV. The image you see isnt the current image, it happened in the past but due to the nature and speed of light only billiionths and billionths of a second in the past so for all intents and purposes it is the here and now. Everything you feel, see and observe is relative. Especially time.

#4 What you record as the historical sequence of events only happens in that order relative to your observation. It is theoretically possible for you to leave someone on yor 20th birthday, travel at near light speed, come back a year older, and everybody else back on earth has aged ten years (time dilation). The way they observe your history will then be much different to the way you observe theirs.

#5 Time has been verified and is tangible- it is not abstract. If it were sattellite communications wouldnt work as we have to account for relativity to receive a clear signal.




Time to hit the science books......

eccl3_6
June 29th, 2005, 06:54 AM
A correct view of time/eternity (endless duration vs timelessness; not a thing) is a root factor.

This is really disturbing. Firstly you say time is unquantifiable, untangible and then you hit us with a correct view is to consider this time/eternity as a root factor!!!

I apologise if my argument doesnt appeal to the non scientists....but what you are saying is nonsense. A root is a quantifiable notion, even if complex or irrational numbers are forced to be used to complete it. It is always theoretically quantifiable. Your view is a contradiction of terms and the argument has a hole in it big enough to sail a ship through.

This smacks of Galileo....

godrulz
June 29th, 2005, 09:41 AM
I am really surpised that the apologists on this site haven't embraced relativity yet. It can actually be used to support your Genesis theories. But to comment Godrulz:
#1 It may be commonsense view that time is not wrapped up in physics but that is only from our own perspectives. Try and imagine a four dimensional shape. You'll find it difficult because you see it three dimensions. Try and explain the colours of the rainbow to a blind man and you'll find it difficult because he doesn't see colours. Time is a product of physical existence. Scientific fact- we use connotations of this understanding everyday in modern technologies.

#2 Time can be 'intensified' or 'dilated' in relation to things. In this sense you can put it in a jar. You can quantify it. It is real.

#3 Can't put the past in a bottle? Look at a star. You are seeing exactly what happened thousands of years ago. Look at the sun. The light from it took 10 seconds to get to you. Look at your TV. The image you see isnt the current image, it happened in the past but due to the nature and speed of light only billiionths and billionths of a second in the past so for all intents and purposes it is the here and now. Everything you feel, see and observe is relative. Especially time.

#4 What you record as the historical sequence of events only happens in that order relative to your observation. It is theoretically possible for you to leave someone on yor 20th birthday, travel at near light speed, come back a year older, and everybody else back on earth has aged ten years (time dilation). The way they observe your history will then be much different to the way you observe theirs.

#5 Time has been verified and is tangible- it is not abstract. If it were sattellite communications wouldnt work as we have to account for relativity to receive a clear signal.
Time to hit the science books......


Our subjective perception of sunlight differs from the objective reality of light travelling. God knows and perceives both correctly. We know it theoretically. Our perception does not change the knowable, objective reality.

You know we cannot go at the speed of light, so that analogy is irrelevant and does not change the reality of daily living and historical bibical revelation.

Relativity/perception is not decisive in determining the true, objective nature of time vs eternity.

godrulz
June 29th, 2005, 09:44 AM
This is really disturbing. Firstly you say time is unquantifiable, untangible and then you hit us with a correct view is to consider this time/eternity as a root factor!!!

I apologise if my argument doesnt appeal to the non scientists....but what you are saying is nonsense. A root is a quantifiable notion, even if complex or irrational numbers are forced to be used to complete it. It is always theoretically quantifiable. Your view is a contradiction of terms and the argument has a hole in it big enough to sail a ship through.

This smacks of Galileo....

What are you babbling about...I was not talking about mathematical square roots?!

Time can be measured, but it is still not a physical thing.

I said time/eternity is a key issue (a fundamental or root issue/factor) to the debate on exhaustive foreknowledge and free will. The future has a degree of uncertainty and is known by God as such.

eccl3_6
June 29th, 2005, 09:49 AM
Our subjective perception of sunlight differs from the objective reality of light travelling. God knows and perceives both correctly. We know it theoretically. Our perception does not change the knowable, objective reality.

You know we cannot go at the speed of light, so that analogy is irrelevant and does not change the reality of daily living and historical bibical revelation.

Relativity/perception is not decisive in determining the true, objective nature of time vs eternity.

We know it theoretically and objectively - WE USE IT EVERY DAY!!!
You don't need to travel at the speed of light to experience time dilation! The analogy is relevant you just haven't grasped the science yet.

"Relativity/perception Time Vs Eternity???

Perception IS relativity!!!!!

Eternity is an abundance of time.........why the 'Vs'?....They are not in conflict with one another.


I'm starting to understand what Galileo went through.

godrulz
June 29th, 2005, 09:57 AM
We know it theoretically and objectively - WE USE IT EVERY DAY!!!
You don't need to travel at the speed of light to experience time dilation! The analogy is relevant you just haven't grasped the science yet.

"Relativity/perception Time Vs Eternity???

Perception IS relativity!!!!!

Eternity is an abundance of time.........why the 'Vs'?....They are not in conflict with one another.


I'm starting to understand what Galileo went through.

What do you mean 'why the V's'? Eternity is an endless duration of time that God experiences, not timelessness, nor an incoherent 'eternal now' impersonal existence.

eccl3_6
June 29th, 2005, 10:28 AM
What do you mean 'why the V's'? Eternity is an endless duration of time that God experiences, not timelessness, nor an incoherent 'eternal now' impersonal existence.

So what you meant to say was Absence of time VS Eternity....not what you actually said at all. And the rest of my post still stands.


Physics in room 101 for you I'm afraid.

justchristian
June 29th, 2005, 12:26 PM
OK, to be fair, you guys are misreading godrulz a bit. Mabye I only read what he meant because we've agrued this mabye 5-10 times indirectly. But he is still wrong about time in either case. The Galileo anaolgy is great. I really see his view of time (and he is not the only one who holds it) to be right up there with a flat earth, an earth at the center of the universe etc.

Delmar
June 29th, 2005, 02:42 PM
I really see his view of time (and he is not the only one who holds it) to be right up there with a flat earth, an earth at the center of the universe etc.
Oh brother!

justchristian
June 29th, 2005, 03:16 PM
All right, all right. That was a hyperbole. But his view of time is not consistant with what we obeserve in the universe.

eccl3_6
June 29th, 2005, 03:26 PM
No but the secret to Galileo is two fold

#1 He was forced to renounce what he knew to be true, by the Church and those most zealous

#2 He is the father of theoretical science. Modern scientific methods of research originated with him....good old Galileo

godrulz
June 29th, 2005, 06:58 PM
So what you meant to say was Absence of time VS Eternity....not what you actually said at all. And the rest of my post still stands.


Physics in room 101 for you I'm afraid.


There is no such thing as absence of time. TImelessness is incoherent. Eternity can be seen as timelessness, but it can more correctly be seen as endless time.

godrulz
June 29th, 2005, 06:59 PM
All right, all right. That was a hyperbole. But his view of time is not consistant with what we obeserve in the universe.


It is consistent with the revelation of God in Scripture where we see Him experiencing an endless succession of time (Ps. 90:2; Rev. 1:8; historical narratives from Genesis to Revelation).

justchristian
June 29th, 2005, 09:30 PM
It is consistent with the revelation of God in Scripture where we see Him experiencing an endless succession of time I am refering to your understanding of time not being something.

godrulz
June 30th, 2005, 12:01 AM
I am refering to your understanding of time not being something.


I guess we have to define 'something'. Time is a four letter word. It is not morals (choices). It is not metaphysics (substance, stuff, things, essence). It is fundamental and inherent in God's reality and ours. It is merely duration/succession/sequence and describes instants and intervals. It has always existed and is uncreated. This does not make it a god, nor does it limit God. A personal being relating, thinking, acting, or feeling must do so sequentially for these things to be coherent. A comes before B. Time is an abstract, real concept, not an entity.

eccl3_6
June 30th, 2005, 08:12 AM
There is no such thing as absence of time. TImelessness is incoherent. Eternity can be seen as timelessness, but it can more correctly be seen as endless time.

Of course there's such a thing as an absence of time....there was one when I had to go to work the other day and I ended up running late.

Eternity is an abundance of time, timelessness is a state of non-existence. You may say something that is non-existent is incoherent but as a mathmatician I wouldn't get very far without zeros, minus numbers, complex numbers, irrational numbers, concepts of infinity.....etc

eccl3_6
June 30th, 2005, 08:18 AM
I guess we have to define 'something'. Time is a four letter word. It is not morals (choices). It is not metaphysics (substance, stuff, things, essence). It is fundamental and inherent in God's reality and ours. It is merely duration/succession/sequence and describes instants and intervals. It has always existed and is uncreated. This does not make it a god, nor does it limit God. A personal being relating, thinking, acting, or feeling must do so sequentially for these things to be coherent. A comes before B. Time is an abstract, real concept, not an entity.

Not in the world of relativity......

A becomes B and then becomes C and so on i suppose....
Relativity shows me a way how I could observe C before B.
And then in the world of Quantum theory just you try and tell them that they can't have ABC together, or not at all and see what happens. Science has out grown your philosophies. I'm not saying we don't need philosophers, we do, but you desperately need to get up to speed.

justchristian
June 30th, 2005, 09:03 AM
It has always existed and is uncreated. So to you time and God are the only two uncreated realities? Or are there more? Gravity perhaps? Morality? Love?

eccl3_6
June 30th, 2005, 09:12 AM
So to you time and God are the only two uncreated realities? Or are there more? Gravity perhaps? Morality? Love?

Don't forget electricity........can't see that neither....

Its like if he can't put it in a bucket and its not God he doesn't want to know!

godrulz
June 30th, 2005, 10:45 AM
So to you time and God are the only two uncreated realities? Or are there more? Gravity perhaps? Morality? Love?

God is light; God is truth; God is love (present, continuous tenses). The beauty of the triune understanding of God is that relationship, love (requires object), fellowship, communication, holiness, etc. have already existed and are uncreated. Gravity relates to the Genesis 1 created universe. Being is eternal. Morals are based on His eternal being. The First Cause is personal vs impersonal. Personal attributes require duration, succession, sequence to be meaningful=time.

J.R. Lucas: "A Treatise on Time and Space" (he gives 300 pages of technical, scientific/philosophical arguments and concludes that timelessness/eternal now is incoherent):

"Time is more fundamental than space. Indeed, time is the most pervasive of all the categories. Some theologians say that God is outside time, but it cannot be true of any personal God that He is timeless, for a personal God is conscious, and time is a concomitant of consciousness (accompany). Time is not only the concomitant of consciousness, but the process of actualization and the dimension of change. The many different definitions of time given by philosophers reflect its many different connections with other fundamental categories. Time is connected with persons, both as sentient beings and as agents (feel/act); it is connected with modality, and the passage from the open future to the unalterable past; it is connected with change, and therefore with the things that change and the space in which they change.

Augustine (Latin): "What is time? If nobody asks me, I know, but if I want to explain it to some one, then I do not know."

The present is with us- we know that. But the future, which is not yet present with us, and the past, which no longer is present with us, where are they?



Refute or interact, S.V.P. If you can dismiss this, I have another 299 pages that you will throw in the towel to as he fleshes out the nature of time.

godrulz
June 30th, 2005, 10:47 AM
Don't forget electricity........can't see that neither....

Its like if he can't put it in a bucket and its not God he doesn't want to know!


Electricity is part of the created order. It has physical properties and consists of created electrons. It is not eternal like the being of God and time itself. Why accuse me of not wanting to know? Rejecting your false assumptions is not tantamount to hating truth.

eccl3_6
June 30th, 2005, 10:47 AM
God is light; God is truth; God is love (present, continuous tenses). The beauty of the triune understanding of God is that relationship, love (requires object), fellowship, communication, holiness, etc. have already existed and are uncreated. Gravity relates to the Genesis 1 created universe. Being is eternal. Morals are based on His eternal being. The First Cause is personal vs impersonal. Personal attributes require duration, succession, sequence to be meaningful=time.

J.R. Lucas: "A Treatise on Time and Space" (he gives 300 pages of technical, scientific/philosophical arguments and concludes that timelessness/eternal now is incoherent):

"Time is more fundamental than space. Indeed, time is the most pervasive of all the categories. Some theologians say that God is outside time, but it cannot be true of any personal God that He is timeless, for a personal God is conscious, and time is a concomitant of consciousness (accompany). Time is not only the concomitant of consciousness, but the process of actualization and the dimension of change. The many different definitions of time given by philosophers reflect its many different connections with other fundamental categories. Time is connected with persons, both as sentient beings and as agents (feel/act); it is connected with modality, and the passage from the open future to the unalterable past; it is connected with change, and therefore with the things that change and the space in which they change.

Augustine (Latin): "What is time? If nobody asks me, I know, but if I want to explain it to some one, then I do not know."

The present is with us- we know that. But the future, which is not yet present with us, and the past, which no longer is present with us, where are they?



Refute or interact, S.V.P. If you can dismiss this, I have another 299 pages that you will throw in the towel to as he fleshes out the nature of time.

godrulz
June 30th, 2005, 10:53 AM
?!

eccl3_6
June 30th, 2005, 11:34 AM
God is light; God is truth; God is love (present, continuous tenses). The beauty of the triune understanding of God is that relationship, love (requires object), fellowship, communication, holiness, etc. have already existed and are uncreated. Gravity relates to the Genesis 1 created universe. Being is eternal. Morals are based on His eternal being. The First Cause is personal vs impersonal. Personal attributes require duration, succession, sequence to be meaningful=time.

J.R. Lucas: "A Treatise on Time and Space" (he gives 300 pages of technical, scientific/philosophical arguments and concludes that timelessness/eternal now is incoherent):

"Time is more fundamental than space. Indeed, time is the most pervasive of all the categories. Some theologians say that God is outside time, but it cannot be true of any personal God that He is timeless, for a personal God is conscious, and time is a concomitant of consciousness (accompany). Time is not only the concomitant of consciousness, but the process of actualization and the dimension of change. The many different definitions of time given by philosophers reflect its many different connections with other fundamental categories. Time is connected with persons, both as sentient beings and as agents (feel/act); it is connected with modality, and the passage from the open future to the unalterable past; it is connected with change, and therefore with the things that change and the space in which they change.

Augustine (Latin): "What is time? If nobody asks me, I know, but if I want to explain it to some one, then I do not know."

The present is with us- we know that. But the future, which is not yet present with us, and the past, which no longer is present with us, where are they?



Refute or interact, S.V.P. If you can dismiss this, I have another 299 pages that you will throw in the towel to as he fleshes out the nature of time.
Alright Im gonna have to know this guys qualifications (Lucas)otherwise I'm gonna file him along with the other cranks L Ron Hubbard and David Iyke. Time is connected as to sentient creatures as well as agents? THIS ISN'T SCIENCE......

Just because you buy a book that seems to qualify what you believe even though you don't understand what it involves doesn't justify quoting it.

And I'm pretty sure Augustine didnt have a grasp on Einstein's theories Relativity, let alone Heisenburg or Quantum Theory, time has literally come a long way since his day.

justchristian
June 30th, 2005, 11:38 AM
Time is more fundamental than space. According to Einstien they are both part of spacetime. One category.

Indeed, time is the most pervasive of all the categories. Even God? oh wait he's getting to that.

Some theologians say that God is outside time, but it cannot be true of any personal God that He is timeless, for a personal God is conscious, and time is a concomitant of consciousness (accompany). OK good. I agree that conciousness is concomitant with time. But not our time. There is a necessary distiction of God's time and our time. Go'd time is intrusic. The time we experience is an expression of that time just as our conciousness is an expression of his.

Time is not only the concomitant of consciousness, but the process of actualization and the dimension of change. So without change there is no time? Did God change before he created the universe? Change from what to what? and if he didnt how was there time?

The many different definitions of time given by philosophers reflect its many different connections with other fundamental categories. Time is connected with persons, both as sentient beings and as agents (feel/act); it is connected with modality, and the passage from the open future to the unalterable past; it is connected with change, and therefore with the things that change and the space in which they change. Was there space before creation? Was there change? were there things to change? This view of God is making him in our image, not the other way around.

Time as we expreince it is an expression of time as God experiences it. Just as everything else that is not God in our universe is an expression (either whole or distorted) of God. For God it is intrinsic to his nature. Our time being an expression, is extrinsic to both God and us. Nothing extrinsic to God existed before he created it. So if you say our time doesnt exist through creation (extrinsic) it must be intrinsic (existing as part of God without creation). But the universe is extrinsic to God. It's the necessity of relationship. In order for our time to be God's intrinsic time God must create the universe from himself. The universe would be made up of God instead of being created from nothing. It would be part of God corrupted instead of a seperate corrupted expression. It would not be seperate from God. And so it snowballs.

godrulz
June 30th, 2005, 12:02 PM
Alright Im gonna have to know this guys qualifications (Lucas)otherwise I'm gonna file him along with the other cranks L Ron Hubbard and David Iyke. Time is connected as to sentient creatures as well as agents? THIS ISN'T SCIENCE......

Just because you buy a book that seems to qualify what you believe even though you don't understand what it involves doesn't justify quoting it.

And I'm pretty sure Augustine didnt have a grasp on Einstein's theories Relativity, let alone Heisenburg or Quantum Theory, time has literally come a long way since his day.


Science is one piece of the puzzle. Philosophy and logic are also relevant to resolve the issue.

Lucas is was a Fellow and Tutor in philosophy at Merton College, OXFORD. He was joint Gifford Lecturer in the University of Edinburgh for 1971-73.

'Lucas has produced the most valuable study of this topic available today...this book will be read by philosophers and physicists with equal enthusiasm." - Library Journal

Other titles in the series include Relativity by Einstein; An introduction to modal logic; Elements of Metaphysics, etc.

godrulz
June 30th, 2005, 12:16 PM
According to Einstien they are both part of spacetime. One category.
Even God? oh wait he's getting to that.
OK good. I agree that conciousness is concomitant with time. But not our time. There is a necessary distiction of God's time and our time. Go'd time is intrusic. The time we experience is an expression of that time just as our conciousness is an expression of his.
So without change there is no time? Did God change before he created the universe? Change from what to what? and if he didnt how was there time?
Was there space before creation? Was there change? were there things to change? This view of God is making him in our image, not the other way around.

Time as we expreince it is an expression of time as God experiences it. Just as everything else that is not God in our universe is an expression (either whole or distorted) of God. For God it is intrinsic to his nature. Our time being an expression, is extrinsic to both God and us. Nothing extrinsic to God existed before he created it. So if you say our time doesnt exist through creation (extrinsic) it must be intrinsic (existing as part of God without creation). But the universe is extrinsic to God. It's the necessity of relationship. In order for our time to be God's intrinsic time God must create the universe from himself. The universe would be made up of God instead of being created from nothing. It would be part of God corrupted instead of a seperate corrupted expression. It would not be seperate from God. And so it snowballs.


I think Lucas would deal with your arguments.

God's essential nature did not change. He is always uncreated Creator, eternal, faithful, holy, etc. God does change in His experiences and relations. The triune God is dynamic, not static. He has not been an impersonal blob for all eternity. The incarnation is the classic example of a change in God's being. The interchange of love, thoughts, fellowship, etc. presuppose that God is experiencing duration and change (weak vs strong/Platonic immutability).

eccl3_6
June 30th, 2005, 12:52 PM
Science is one piece of the puzzle. Philosophy and logic are also relevant to resolve the issue.

Lucas is was a Fellow and Tutor in philosophy at Merton College, OXFORD. He was joint Gifford Lecturer in the University of Edinburgh for 1971-73.

'Lucas has produced the most valuable study of this topic available today...this book will be read by philosophers and physicists with equal enthusiasm." - Library Journal

Other titles in the series include Relativity by Einstein; An introduction to modal logic; Elements of Metaphysics, etc.

Well I can say he went to a good university (same one I did). However he would have attended lectures in George Square (arts department) I on the alternative attended lectures at Kings building (science). I will bow to his philosophy as a valid philsosophy but his science is wrong. And a philosophy isn't a pursuit in truth as such more as a way it can be understood. Science on the other hand is the pursuit of truth regardless of its connotations. Think of the Jurassic Park line delivered by Goeff Goldblum. Men standing on the shoulders of giants and not stopping to think if they should even if they could. Thats the need for philosophy in science. It should never be used to tell science how things are though, and science should be hampered by metaphysics....we have enough to contend with in physics without metaphysics...

This is the mistake you have made; you have been arguing time in a physical form with a metaphysical argument and denying its physical existence. No metaphysicist would argue this point only that physical time cannot exist in a non physical universe i.e. metaphysical. The two don't apply to one another.

The reason why a physicist would be interested in a metaphysical argument would be to prevent falling into the trap Geoff Goldblum warns us about.




Finally you say that science is one part of the puzzle, philosophy and logic are imprtant to resolve the problem.

Philosophy poses the question, Science solves the problem, Logic hangs around with Engineers, and Philsophy asks itself whether it should have asked the question in the first place.....

eccl3_6
June 30th, 2005, 04:14 PM
Has that killed the 'time' argument for now then?

Scholastic
June 30th, 2005, 10:50 PM
The triune God is dynamic, not static. He has not been an impersonal blob for all eternity. The incarnation is the classic example of a change in God's being. The interchange of love, thoughts, fellowship, etc. presuppose that God is experiencing duration and change (weak vs strong/Platonic immutability).

I actually have to disagree with you here. Just as the "triune" god has three persons, so too must you consider each person. God the father has never been incarnated. I think that, if you read the entire bible, there is no incarnation of God the Father. God the Father is static. The incarnation of Jesus the son does not imply change, but rather fulfillment of the eternal will. Same thing with the holy spirit.

godrulz
June 30th, 2005, 10:50 PM
Well I can say he went to a good university (same one I did). However he would have attended lectures in George Square (arts department) I on the alternative attended lectures at Kings building (science). I will bow to his philosophy as a valid philsosophy but his science is wrong. And a philosophy isn't a pursuit in truth as such more as a way it can be understood. Science on the other hand is the pursuit of truth regardless of its connotations. Think of the Jurassic Park line delivered by Goeff Goldblum. Men standing on the shoulders of giants and not stopping to think if they should even if they could. Thats the need for philosophy in science. It should never be used to tell science how things are though, and science should be hampered by metaphysics....we have enough to contend with in physics without metaphysics...

This is the mistake you have made; you have been arguing time in a physical form with a metaphysical argument and denying its physical existence. No metaphysicist would argue this point only that physical time cannot exist in a non physical universe i.e. metaphysical. The two don't apply to one another.

The reason why a physicist would be interested in a metaphysical argument would be to prevent falling into the trap Geoff Goldblum warns us about.




Finally you say that science is one part of the puzzle, philosophy and logic are imprtant to resolve the problem.

Philosophy poses the question, Science solves the problem, Logic hangs around with Engineers, and Philsophy asks itself whether it should have asked the question in the first place.....

This is beyond my expertise, but what I do know seems persuasive to me. I believe others could or have dealt with your concerns.

godrulz
June 30th, 2005, 10:53 PM
I actually have to disagree with you here. Just as the "triune" god has three persons, so too must you consider each person. God the father has never been incarnated. I think that, if you read the entire bible, there is no incarnation of God the Father. God the Father is static. The incarnation of Jesus the son does not imply change, but rather fulfillment of the eternal will. Same thing with the holy spirit.


I agree that the Father did not incarnate. Since the Word was not always flesh, it does reflect a change within the being of God. The God-Man did not always have this form.

Scholastic
June 30th, 2005, 10:58 PM
I agree that the Father did not incarnate. Since the Word was not always flesh, it does reflect a change within the being of God. The God-Man did not always have this form.

Ah hah. This is where we come back to my time/eternity argument. Yes, in time, there was such a change. Not in eternity. In eternity, God remained static.

godrulz
June 30th, 2005, 11:04 PM
Ah hah. This is where we come back to my time/eternity argument. Yes, in time, there was such a change. Not in eternity. In eternity, God remained static.


Ah hah. If God was static vs dynamic in eternity, He was not personal. Thinking, feeling, relating, acting, loving, communicating, etc. happened within God's eternal, triune essence. Change is not a dirty word. It makes God a Living God instead of a stone idol. Your philosophical assumptions are not credible. "Let us make man in our image." This alone is pregnant with a non-static view of God.

Scholastic
June 30th, 2005, 11:10 PM
Ah hah. If God was static vs dynamic in eternity, He was not personal. Thinking, feeling, relating, acting, loving, communicating, etc. happened within God's eternal, triune essence. Change is not a dirty word. It makes God a Living God instead of a stone idol. Your philosophical assumptions are not credible. "Let us make man in our image." This alone is pregnant with a non-static view of God.

St. Thomas Aquinas shoots down all of that. Personal, thinking, feeling, etc? Nonexistent as far as we know it. God the father cannot feel emotion as you think of it. God the father is utterly changeless. He is eternal.

http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP009.html#FPQ9A1THEP1


On the contrary, It is written, "I am the Lord, and I change not" (Malachi 3:6).

Ie, the necessity of Jesus the son.

godrulz
July 1st, 2005, 12:29 AM
St. Thomas Aquinas shoots down all of that. Personal, thinking, feeling, etc? Nonexistent as far as we know it. God the father cannot feel emotion as you think of it. God the father is utterly changeless. He is eternal.

http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP009.html#FPQ9A1THEP1



Ie, the necessity of Jesus the son.


Strong immutability and impassibility are being refuted, even by traditional and classical theologians.

Malachi merely affirms that in specific cases, God will not change, not that He cannot change. He does not change in a fickle or capricious manner, yet He must change in some aspects to be personal.

Either you misunderstand your mentor or he is blatantly wrong.

eccl3_6
July 1st, 2005, 04:23 AM
God the father cannot feel emotion as you think of it.

So your God is no longer omniscient then.

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 09:22 AM
Strong immutability and impassibility are being refuted, even by traditional and classical theologians.[quote]

God must be absolutely immutable and impassible, because if he had the potential the change, than that means that something else would have to change him, meaning that he could be caused by something else. However, because he is eternal, then that means that nothing created him. He is without beginning nor end, ie Eternal, and therefore IMMUTABLE.

[quote]Malachi merely affirms that in specific cases, God will not change, not that He cannot change. He does not change in a fickle or capricious manner, yet He must change in some aspects to be personal.

Malachai didn't state "i don't change for specific cases" Malachai said "I am the LORD, and i change NOT!"


Either you misunderstand your mentor or he is blatantly wrong.

or door number three: Your logic is flawed.

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 09:24 AM
i do apologize for the completely and utter messed up last post. i'll repost:


Strong immutability and impassibility are being refuted, even by traditional and classical theologians.


God must be absolutely immutable and impassible, because if he had the potential the change, than that means that something else would have to change him, meaning that he could be caused by something else. However, because he is eternal, then that means that nothing created him. He is without beginning nor end, ie Eternal, and therefore IMMUTABLE.


Malachi merely affirms that in specific cases, God will not change, not that He cannot change. He does not change in a fickle or capricious manner, yet He must change in some aspects to be personal.



Malachai didn't state "i don't change for specific cases" Malachai said "I am the LORD, and i change NOT!"




Either you misunderstand your mentor or he is blatantly wrong.



or door number three: Your logic is flawed.

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 09:24 AM
So your God is no longer omniscient then.


As i said: The necessity of Christ.A static being cannot feel emotion. Christ can.

eccl3_6
July 1st, 2005, 09:42 AM
As i said: The necessity of Christ.A static being cannot feel emotion. Christ can.

But God couldn't if it werent for Christ? Question still stands

eccl3_6
July 1st, 2005, 09:46 AM
But God couldn't if it werent for Christ? Question still stands

Are suggesting that God is evolving and that the Abrahamic God wasn't a patch on the Christian God?
Can you define God like that?






And if so have you told Him?

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 09:59 AM
Are suggesting that God is evolving and that the Abrahamic God wasn't a patch on the Christian God?
Can you define God like that?

And if so have you told Him?


Oh heavens no, that is not at all what i meant. Allow me to explain it like this: God the father is that point A, that alpha and omega eternal point. Now, as i stated earlier, everything is predetermined from this eternal point A. Now, as time unfolded, certain things occur as according to the will of point A. Namely, the big point as Christ, which was the intermingling of godly nature and manly nature. Ie, it was the mixture of temporal and eternal. Thus why it was so special. While yes, there was a divine will, there was also manly compassion, love, etc etc. See?

eccl3_6
July 1st, 2005, 10:04 AM
Oh heavens no, that is not at all what i meant. Allow me to explain it like this: God the father is that point A, that alpha and omega eternal point. Now, as i stated earlier, everything is predetermined from this eternal point A. Now, as time unfolded, certain things occur as according to the will of point A. Namely, the big point as Christ, which was the intermingling of godly nature and manly nature. Ie, it was the mixture of temporal and eternal. Thus why it was so special. While yes, there was a divine will, there was also manly compassion, love, etc etc. See?

I see where you're coming from but doesn't that still leave us with a God that didn't understand our emotion prior to Christ if you believe in sequential events?

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 10:06 AM
I see where you're coming from but doesn't that still leave us with a God that didn't understand our emotion prior to Christ if you believe in sequential events?

And that is the awesome thing about Christ being the God man. It really doesn't matter when Christ came into play during time, because Christ is co eternal.

godrulz
July 1st, 2005, 10:27 AM
So your God is no longer omniscient then.


God the Father does not experientially know what it is like to die on the cross. The Word/Son does experientially know this. The Father can empathize, but it is not part of His experience. He can identify and know, but not experientially. Impassibility/passibility (does God have emotions/feelings...He does if He is personal vs impersonal...He loves, can be grieved, heart breaks, delights/joy, etc.) is not directly related to omniscience.

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 10:30 AM
God the Father does not experientially know what it is like to die on the cross. The Word/Son does experientially know this. The Father can empathize, but it is not part of His experience. He can identify and know, but not experientially. Impassibility/passibility (does God have emotions/feelings...He does if He is personal vs impersonal...He loves, can be grieved, heart breaks, delights/joy, etc.) is not directly related to omniscience.

Thus the reason i said:

A) God is immutable
B) God cannot experience emotion
C) These are some of the reasons Christ must exist.

godrulz
July 1st, 2005, 10:34 AM
[QUOTE=godrulz]Strong immutability and impassibility are being refuted, even by traditional and classical theologians.[quote]

God must be absolutely immutable and impassible, because if he had the potential the change, than that means that something else would have to change him, meaning that he could be caused by something else. However, because he is eternal, then that means that nothing created him. He is without beginning nor end, ie Eternal, and therefore IMMUTABLE.



Malachai didn't state "i don't change for specific cases" Malachai said "I am the LORD, and i change NOT!"




or door number three: Your logic is flawed.

Malachi: Context is king. Other passages do say and show that God changes His mind, etc.

Change is a sign of perfection. Your logic has been refuted in philosophical circles. You are believing an old theory of a Greek philosopher (? Aristotle or Plato?). A clock is perfect more than 2x/day because it does change. God does not change in His perfect attributes, but His will, intellect, and emotions do change in response to contingencies.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/083082734X/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-8000661-8224818#readerpage

Click next page for contents (difficult book...I would not buy it if you want a simple explanation...he gets the point across that old views of impassibility/immutability are contrary to Scripture due to their pagan roots...see also http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801022908/qid=1120235425/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8000661-8224818?v=glance&s=books )

justchristian
July 1st, 2005, 10:38 AM
God does not change in His perfect attributes, but His will, intellect, and emotions do change in response to contingencies.
So were there contingencies to respond to before he created anything?

godrulz
July 1st, 2005, 10:40 AM
Oh heavens no, that is not at all what i meant. Allow me to explain it like this: God the father is that point A, that alpha and omega eternal point. Now, as i stated earlier, everything is predetermined from this eternal point A. Now, as time unfolded, certain things occur as according to the will of point A. Namely, the big point as Christ, which was the intermingling of godly nature and manly nature. Ie, it was the mixture of temporal and eternal. Thus why it was so special. While yes, there was a divine will, there was also manly compassion, love, etc etc. See?


The Father and Jesus Christ are both called the Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End, First and Last.

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 10:41 AM
Malachi: Context is king. Other passages do say and show that God changes His mind, etc.

? I doubt Aquinas used KJV


Change is a sign of perfection.

Prove that. Aquinas already showed differently


Your logic has been refuted in philosophical circles. You are believing an old theory of a Greek philosopher (? Aristotle or Plato?). A clock is perfect more than 2x/day because it does change. God does not change in His perfect attributes, but His will, intellect, and emotions do change in response to contingencies.

Nowhere in the bible does God change. Any time "emotion" is portrayed is to be understood as an effect. love-salvation hatred-damnation anger-destruction. Ie, along those lines. The only time in which God truly knows emotion is via Christ. Here, you might speak of the part in which god "repents" and doesn't destroy the city. (i forget which book that is) That merely states that God spared the city. he didn't actually repent or feel sorrow.



Click next page for contents (difficult book...I would not buy it if you want a simple explanation...he gets the point across that old views of impassibility/immutability are contrary to Scripture due to their pagan roots...see also http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images )

A) you cannot state that something is wrong merely because of the source involved
B) Unless you can directly refute the logic (not the author), you must concede.

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 10:42 AM
The Father and Jesus Christ are both called the Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End, First and Last.

that has absolutely no bearing on my statement. I already stated that Christ and God are co eternal.

godrulz
July 1st, 2005, 10:43 AM
So were there contingencies to respond to before he created anything?


No, but God did change moment by moment in His thoughts, experiences, feelings within the fellowship of the triune Godhead. The Father could communicate with the Son sequentially before the physical universe was created just as much as after or while Christ prayed to the Father on earth. They still fellowship sequentially after the resurrection, do they not? Creation is irrelevant to their ongoing internal relations. Creation adds new contingencies and other free moral agents, so God's experience and knowledge is now different than it was before Genesis 1:1.

godrulz
July 1st, 2005, 10:45 AM
? I doubt Aquinas used KJV



Prove that. Aquinas already showed differently



Nowhere in the bible does God change. Any time "emotion" is portrayed is to be understood as an effect. love-salvation hatred-damnation anger-destruction. Ie, along those lines. The only time in which God truly knows emotion is via Christ. Here, you might speak of the part in which god "repents" and doesn't destroy the city. (i forget which book that is) That merely states that God spared the city. he didn't actually repent or feel sorrow.




A) you cannot state that something is wrong merely because of the source involved
B) Unless you can directly refute the logic (not the author), you must concede.


Your refutation is out there. Why would I concede because I do not have the time, energy, interest, or expertise to take you and Aquinas on (fully) at the moment?

God said creation was 'very good' as He experienced joy and delight. After the Fall, He was NOW grieved that He made man. This was a change in His inner disposition and feelings. He purposed to wipe them out. Then, He implemented a plan of redemption, etc. The Holy Spirit was quenched and grieved, etc. (feelings).

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 10:45 AM
No, but God did change moment by moment in His thoughts, experiences, feelings within the fellowship of the triune Godhead. The Father could communicate with the Son sequentially before the physical universe was created just as much as after or while Christ prayed to the Father on earth. They still fellowship sequentially after the resurrection, do they not? Creation is irrelevant to their ongoing internal relations. Creation adds new contingencies and other free moral agents, so God's experience and knowledge is now different than it was before Genesis 1:1.

That statement is ridiculous Communicate with the son sequentially? Thoughts, experiences, feelings changing? Not in eternity! If anything, because the Son was the Word (aka the will) of God, then it can be said that any and all "communication" was already preordained before the conception.

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 10:46 AM
Your refutation is out there. Why would I concede because I do not have the time, energy, interest, or expertise to take you and Aquinas on at the moment?

And quite frankly, the fallacy of any refutation remains clear. If god can change, then that means that God would have had to have been created, because he has potential. Anything with potential is created. However, because is entirely in act, then he must be STATIC.

godrulz
July 1st, 2005, 10:56 AM
That statement is ridiculous Communicate with the son sequentially? Thoughts, experiences, feelings changing? Not in eternity! If anything, because the Son was the Word (aka the will) of God, then it can be said that any and all "communication" was already preordained before the conception.


Your misconceptions/preconceptions of eternity lead to incoherence. Find someone else to help you :singer:

godrulz
July 1st, 2005, 10:56 AM
And quite frankly, the fallacy of any refutation remains clear. If god can change, then that means that God would have had to have been created, because he has potential. Anything with potential is created. However, because is entirely in act, then he must be STATIC.


Do you smoke pot? :sigh:

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 10:59 AM
Do you smoke pot? :sigh:

WHAT SORT OF A QUESTION IS THAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 11:04 AM
I despise Protestants - -;. 2000 years of philosophers, church fathers, clergy, popes, etc who came to certain conclusions via logic, and they think that they can try to refute the GREATEST MINDS THAT EVER EXISTED.

justchristian
July 1st, 2005, 11:31 AM
GREATEST MINDS THAT EVER EXISTED. Who are these greatest minds?

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 11:43 AM
Who are these greatest minds?

Augastine, Aquinas, Pope Gregory, etc etc etc. There's a load of em.

justchristian
July 1st, 2005, 11:50 AM
Cool. I thought you were going to say something stupid like Jesus. No offense I don't really know you but there are some wonderbreads on this forum. I love great theology works - anything from these greatest minds you could suggest?

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 11:57 AM
Cool. I thought you were going to say something stupid like Jesus. No offense I don't really know you but there are some wonderbreads on this forum. I love great theology works - anything from these greatest minds you could suggest?

Sure.
1) God is eternal
2) God is immutable
3) God is one

Those are the big points.

eccl3_6
July 1st, 2005, 12:03 PM
And that is the awesome thing about Christ being the God man. It really doesn't matter when Christ came into play during time, because Christ is co eternal.

I'm actually playing devils advocate with you on this one because if you check out some of the other threads Ive been posting on I agree with you on your concepts of time if you believe in physical and metaphysical time concurrently which I think you do
i.e. 'co-eternal'. What this does do is shoot down an argument of sequential events existing metaphysically in a physical time reference but from a different angle. Not only do they not compute with one another....this suggests that metaphysics has no need to. Can I just say though for anyone else that might be reading.....



Physical time is still quantifiable through relativity and is not just an idea and has been proved several times over.



Sorry about that but every where I go people keep telling me that time is just a concept and its driving me barmy. There's not a professional physicist on the planet that disagrees.

I just needed to get it of my chest.


:madmad:

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 12:11 PM
snip:

are you saying that you agree with what i said?

godrulz
July 1st, 2005, 12:13 PM
WHAT SORT OF A QUESTION IS THAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

It is a stupid joke. I know you do not, but your ideas seem esoteric and indefensible at times (except to you and others who share your view).

godrulz
July 1st, 2005, 12:15 PM
Sure.
1) God is eternal
2) God is immutable
3) God is one

Those are the big points.


I affirm these points, but there is more than one way to understand what is meant by them (only one view is correct, though).

The Bible explicitly says God is love, light, and spirit. God is truth. God is holy. IT does not say He is sovereign, but the concept is certainly there. It does not say He is 'immutable', but the concept is there, properly understood.

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 12:16 PM
(only one view is correct, though).

Yes, mine.

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 12:16 PM
indefensible at times (except to you and others who share your view).

Indefensible? WtF? You have yet to provide anything against it. all you've said is "no, that's wrong, because i say so"

godrulz
July 1st, 2005, 12:18 PM
I'm actually playing devils advocate with you on this one because if you check out some of the other threads Ive been posting on I agree with you on your concepts of time if you believe in physical and metaphysical time concurrently which I think you do
i.e. 'co-eternal'. What this does do is shoot down an argument of sequential events existing metaphysically in a physical time reference but from a different angle. Not only do they not compute with one another....this suggests that metaphysics has no need to. Can I just say though for anyone else that might be reading.....



Physical time is still quantifiable through relativity and is not just an idea and has been proved several times over.



Sorry about that but every where I go people keep telling me that time is just a concept and its driving me barmy. There's not a professional physicist on the planet that disagrees.

I just needed to get it of my chest.


:madmad:

There are many creation scientists that correctly reject macroevolution. Theoretical physics is speculative. Even Steven Hawkings recently recanted a long standing view on worm or black holes (?) in the face of evidence and further thought.

godrulz
July 1st, 2005, 12:20 PM
Indefensible? WtF? You have yet to provide anything against it. all you've said is "no, that's wrong, because i say so"

I hope WTF is not what I think it is. You could get banned. :wave:

I have shared thoughts, but do not have the time for a doctrinal treatise for closed-minded people. Perhaps we should debate Protestant vs Catholic Christianity :rolleyes:

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 12:27 PM
I hope WTF is not what I think it is. You could get banned. :wave:

Banned for using initials? i've never heard of that.




have shared thoughts, but do not have the time for a doctrinal treatise for closed-minded people.

Thus another way of saying "I can't argue against it, therefore you win.


Perhaps we should debate Protestant vs Catholic Christianity :rolleyes:

www.freewebs.com/philosophical_Thought/

go to thesis on God and religion. I already wrote a thesis on that. However, for your sake, i'll copy/paste the needed part:


Thus far, it can be deduced that Christianity is the most valid religion. However, there are two main branches of Christianity: Catholicism and the heretical sects (Protestantism, Gnosticism, Mormonism, etc.), all of which disagree with each other. Therefore, because all oppose each other, only one can be most valid. To find the most valid, one must again search the scriptures: "And so I name you Peter, and upon this Rock I shall build my church, and the jaws of Hell shall not prevail against it. I entrust to you the two keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven." (Matthew 16:18) "Let us rejoice and be glad, and give honor to him, for the marriages of the lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." (Revelations 19:7) From these scriptures, the following can be deduced: Salvation is found especially in this church, Christ commissioned this Church, this Church is one, denial of this church results in damnation, and Christ has bound, even married, Himself to this Church, and only this Church. St. Peter was the first Catholic Pope; his church is the church commissioned by Christ, the Catholic Church. Salvation is found in this church. The current Popes are successors of Peter. Denial of the Church is a denial of the Pope; a denial of the Pope is a denial of Peter; a denial of Peter is a denial of Christ (Christ used the word "Petros" meaning "little rock." Christ is the big rock. In this verse, Christ took Peter and His church into himself); a rejection of Christ is a rejection of God, and therefore a damnable blasphemy.

eccl3_6
July 1st, 2005, 12:51 PM
are you saying that you agree with what i said?

No ....you agree with what I said.

:p

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 12:53 PM
No ....you agree with what I said.

:p

confusing.

eccl3_6
July 1st, 2005, 12:55 PM
There are many creation scientists that correctly reject macroevolution. Theoretical physics is speculative. Even Steven Hawkings recently recanted a long standing view on worm or black holes (?) in the face of evidence and further thought.

RELATIVITY HAS BEEN PROVED.......

......EMPHATICALLY.

Stephen Hawking's was talking about emissions from blackholes, 'do blackholes wobble' and all that. Nothing to do with the authenticy of General or Special Relativity....NOTHING!


AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!


:mad:

eccl3_6
July 1st, 2005, 12:57 PM
confusing.


:thumb:

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 01:00 PM
:thumb:

darn it, would you say that what i've said on this thread is correct? Also, please invite others and yourself to add to my reputation. I have a siggy i wanna put:



Light of the Church,
Teacher of truth,
Rose of patience,
Ivory of chastity,
You freely offered
The waters of wisdom,
Preacher of grace,
Unite us with the blessed

eccl3_6
July 1st, 2005, 01:33 PM
Time can be both eternal (metaphysically) and finite (physical) If you believe that Jesus can both be eternal and exist in the physical world (as in exist in both these states) then science (physics) and philsophy (metaphysics) suggest no reason why this could not happen.



Many people on this sight will argue against science...but in some cases there's no need to.

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 01:36 PM
Time can be both eternal (metaphysically) and finite (physical) If you believe that Jesus can both be eternal and exist in the physical world (as in exist in both these states) then science (physics) and philsophy (metaphysics) suggest no reason why this could not happen.



Many people on this sight will argue against science...but in some cases there's no need to.


Precisely what i said. <_< >_> Namely in my thesis on time. lol

justchristian
July 1st, 2005, 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by justchristian

Cool. I thought you were going to say something stupid like Jesus. No offense I don't really know you but there are some wonderbreads on this forum. I love great theology works - anything from these greatest minds you could suggest?


Sure.
1) God is eternal
2) God is immutable
3) God is one

Those are the big points.

lol. I meant specific writings. like books or manuscripts.

Scholastic
July 1st, 2005, 02:06 PM
lol. I meant specific writings. like books or manuscripts.

oh ya, definately. There is the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas. I'll give you a link

http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/home.html

This is the work i use in most of my argument.

godrulz
July 1st, 2005, 11:20 PM
RELATIVITY HAS BEEN PROVED.......

......EMPHATICALLY.

Stephen Hawking's was talking about emissions from blackholes, 'do blackholes wobble' and all that. Nothing to do with the authenticy of General or Special Relativity....NOTHING!


AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!


:mad:


I did not say his recanted ideas had anything to do with relativity...try Ativan or Valium for your stress. It is hard to take someone with a little boy avatar seriously :wazzup:

eccl3_6
July 2nd, 2005, 06:43 AM
I did not say his recanted ideas had anything to do with relativity...try Ativan or Valium for your stress. It is hard to take someone with a little boy avatar seriously :wazzup:

You really do think there's a big fight going on out there between science and religion don't you. I can see you sat at your window tih a gun......
Stop making scientific learning the bad guy, your quality of life has been improved immensely because of it.....you have no reason to be scared. Its like you're scared of what you don't understand.




Freud would have had a field day.......

godrulz
July 2nd, 2005, 07:06 AM
You really do think there's a big fight going on out there between science and religion don't you. I can see you sat at your window tih a gun......
Stop making scientific learning the bad guy, your quality of life has been improved immensely because of it.....you have no reason to be scared. Its like you're scared of what you don't understand.




Freud would have had a field day.......


I love science. The heavens declare the glory of God. Many founding fathers in science were theists. I am not afraid of science. I am concerned about error and godless scientists running amok playing god. Christians welcome and excell at science. There is a difference between sound science and some of the goofiness done in the name of science. As a paramedic, I know the fluctuating fads and false theories that are not evidence based medicine. Things come and go in the name of science. People even die from bad science.

I am not scared of science. Theology is the Queen of sciences.

Chevy Chase was asked what scares him: "That there is a God and He is ticked off."

Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

Where did you get those ideas?

Have you considered what He said about Himself?

Do you believe He rose from the dead?

Are you 18" away from heaven (distance from head to heart...trust in science will not give you eternal life unless it points you to the Creator). :sam:

eccl3_6
July 2nd, 2005, 07:56 AM
Where did you get those ideas?

The idea that you're worried about science.....by you saying 'bad science'. Disturbing. What is bad science? Declare any apsect of science wrong and it infects all aspects. You can't be blinkered when making observation. You dont rule things out because they dont fit with your thinking in science. What is bad science?
The concept of time? Physical observation. 'Muons' specifically, amongst many other things


Have you considered what He said about Himself?
If you mean have I read the NT then yes.....and the translated Qu'ran.


Do you believe He rose from the dead?
Not sure



Are you 18" away from heaven (distance from head to heart...trust in science will not give you eternal life unless it points you to the Creator). :sam:

Don't know....but if the creator were to turn me away because I worked with my mind and my reason and my intellect which He granted me then I'm not sure I'd want to be with Him. I suspect He wouldn't though.........



What is bad science?

godrulz
July 2nd, 2005, 08:04 AM
The idea that you're worried about science.....by you saying 'bad science'. Disturbing. What is bad science? Declare any apsect of science wrong and it infects all aspects. You can't be blinkered when making observation. You dont rule things out because they dont fit with your thinking in science. What is bad science?
The concept of time? Physical observation. 'Muons' specifically, amongst many other things


If you mean have I read the NT then yes.....and the translated Qu'ran.


Not sure



Don't know....but if the creator were to turn me away because I worked with my mind and my reason and my intellect which He granted me then I'm not sure I'd want to be with Him. I suspect He wouldn't though.........



What is bad science?

I meant where did you get your ideas about Jesus Christ? Liar, Lord, Lunatic, Legend? God, Man, Teacher, Angel?

It is the glory of a king to search out a matter. God gave us intellect and reason to know Him and truth. Christianity is historical and stands up to intellectual scrutiny. We are to love God with our whole being, including our minds. Anti-intellectualism in religion is not biblical Christianity. Some of the best thinkers have been theists.

We cannot find God through mind alone. He reveals truth from Spirit to spirit (I Cor. 1).

eccl3_6
July 2nd, 2005, 08:26 AM
I meant where did you get your ideas about Jesus Christ? QUOTE]

What ideas?
[QUOTE] Some of the best thinkers have been theists

Yeah, absolutely which is why theists shouldn't turn on any aspect of science..........





...........of course the reason why a lot of science comes from religion is because religion controlled all education and learning for a long time. Tyndale did a lot to stop this.