All of the above seems to have been aimed at demonstrating either flaws in Zeno's paradoxes or perhaps to show how the problem of infinite regress is not directly related to Zeno's paradox. If so then you have seriously missed my point. Effectively everything you've said here is entirely irrelevant to our discussion. I don't care anything at all about Zeno's paradox
If you don't care about Zeno's paradox then why are you constantly bringing it up? I did not mention it in my original argument nor in my previous response. My argument is not concerned with Zeno's paradox, but as I said in my previous post I
" focused on God's thoughts and the nature of his knowledge and not time or some other thing when making the argument". I gave the reasons why. That makes the argument I am making different from Zeno's paradox. The "solutions" given to the paradox do not necessarily solve the problem.
You don't conclude that because there is an infinite series of things that much be done in a finite period of time that you therefore haven't really arrived at your current location.
That we do not pass an infinite series of points in a finite amount of time is precisely what I addressed in my previous post. Given the nature of space-time (discontinuous and finite), we can only pass a finite series of points in a finite amount of time. I even gave reasons why I think that an actual infinite (such as an infinite series of things) cannot exist in reality, but only on abstract mathematics.
I don't know how history has arrived that the present moment and in spite of the fact that the infinite regress problem would seem to prove that would could not have done so, I choose to accept that in fact we have arrived at the present moment and conclude therefore that there is something about the nature of infinity that we do not sufficiently understand in order to solve the infinite regress puzzle.
We know from science that the universe and time began at the big bang roughly 13.7 billion years ago (if you are a creationist, you believe it began either 6,000 or 10,000 years ago). So, in either case, history is finite, and this is precisely the reason why we have arrived at the present moment. Only a finite amount of events and time has taken place.
We may not understand some things about infinity, but as I was arguing in my previous post, we can know that an actual infinite cannot exist in reality. Both science and mathematics seem to support this conclusion.
On the contrary, the problem is very much unsolved but that it does not prove that history had a beginning any more than it proves that God had a beginning which neither of us believes.
Well, history for sure had a beginning, we know this from science but we also know this from revelation. The issue is that the nature of the God of open theism subjects him to the same need for a cause or beginning as what makes the universe need a cause and a beginning. Either that or he, like an eternal universe, falls into an infinite regress, which seems to be impossible in reality.
In other words, infinite regress does not disprove open theism any more than it disproves the settled view! We are both saddled with the problem of infinite regress because we both affirm the notion that God had no beginning. It is a problem for theism in general, not open theism in particular.
Not at all, open theism suffers from the same problems as the eternal universe, a problem which finds it's solution on Classical Theism. You affirm that God had no beginning in the same way that atheist / pantheist affirm that the universe had no beginning, that is, by embracing an infinite regress. Besides, Open Theism believes in a God that is of a substantially different nature than the God of Classical Theism, so it is incorrect to place both on equal grounds. When atheists ask the question "Well, what then caused / moves God?" The open theist would be engaging in special pleading with his answer whereas the classical theist would not.
God existing outside of time does not solve the problem because all it does it replace on difficulty with a whole series of worse difficulties not the least of which is the fact that existence outside of time is itself a contradiction!
Yes, existence outside of time is a contradiction. Existence entails movement, the measure of which is time. But God neither moves nor is he measured by time, ergo, he does not exists(!). God is not an existent but is pure and simply Subsistent Being. Whereas existents have their being by participation, that is, they have it from something other than themselves, God is being itself.
Further, if you, as do most Settled View believers, especially Calvinists, say to me that the notion of God's existence outside of time is a ineffable mystery that we should just take on faith as a fact we must live with then why you do begrudge me of doing the exact same thing concerning infinite regress? If you can say "I don't know how that works." concerning God's existence outside of time, why am I not allowed to say the same thing concerning infinite regress?
There is a critical difference between not being able to fully understand something (God's eternal nature) and accepting something that is, as far as we know, a logical impossibility (passing an infinite series of things). The first can be accepted, the second cannot.
That we cannot fully comprehend how God sees everything in an eternal now (for example) does not means that such a thing is a logical impossibility. Rather, it is something born out of our own nature. For in order for us to fully understand how God sees an eternal now, we would have to posses the same nature as him, which is itself an impossibility (we are finite creatures and he is infinite, for example).
That doesn't means that we cannot try to understand how that may work by means of analogy. A personal favorite of mine is that of a movie. When we watch a movie on TV, we see it from beginning to end, going frame by frame as the tape plays, watching it at a rate of 30 or so frames per second. To God, it is as if you were watching each individual frame of the movie at the same time, being aware of what is happening on the whole movie in a single moment void of any succession. It is as if you took out the tape, cut every individual frame and pasted them on a large wall, you would see the whole movie with in single glance. Of course, God sees every single detail on every frame and does not has the limitations that we have when it comes to seeing the wall with all the frames.
Another thing to consider is that God by virtue of his nature does not "experiences" things in the same way that we do. For example, God does not has a brain, nor does he have senses, so he neither grasps things thru sense perception, nor does he have to go thru the processes our brains go thru in order to think. So, while it takes succession and time for us to grasp and understand things, this happens instantaneously to God.
Should that not be our goal as Christians? To search for the objective truth and cling to the closest thing we've found to it until something better is found?
Yes. I believe that truth, whenever and in whatever form it is found, own it's being to God. The real, the good, is something we should embrace once we come in contact with it. And in so doing, we embrace God, who is goodness and truth himself. However, the good, which proceeds from the author of reality, cannot be in opposition to reality, for God cannot contradict himself.
With this issue, what I see is a field where a number of pillars grouped together in pairs is found. Each pillar in each pair is one aspect of reality, a good, a truth. On one extreme I see the open theists taking down the left pillar of each pair, on the other extreme, I see the
supralapsarian Calvinists taking down the right pillar of each pair. In so doing, I believe that both extreme views fall into error and that by denying one aspect of the real, of truth, both end up with a clouded and distorted view of reality.
It is my position that, between two extremes, there is bound to be a golden middle road that leads to the truth, to the real. While both extremes are focused on the root of the pillar, with the hope of bringing it down, I lift my eyes to the top of the pillars and see that they are both united at the top, and I also realize that if one pillar of the pair would fall, the other would fall too. While the brightness of the sun prevents me from accurately perceiving how both pillars are united, I can, even with my limited view, see that they are indeed united and dependent upon each other. I may not fully understand the shape that both pillars form when united, but I can be confident that they are united and dependent upon each other.
Knowing that and looking down again, I smile and while stretching my arms wide, I run thru the space between each pillar, letting my hands touch and caress both of the pillars in each pair, as I continue to move thru them on the road leading to truth, to God.
Evo
