Proof from the Bible that God is In Time

[Traditio]

Why does He need to wait?

You assert that God is durational. To wait is nothing else than to extend from moment A to moment B in time. It is 11:15 AM. I must wait 5 minutes for it to be 11:20 AM of the same day. Necessarily, if the Open Theist is right, God must wait.

He decides to move, so He moves. :idunno: There is no dilemma there. No matter where God is on the "timeline", He decides to create and so He does.

I think you've missed the point. Ok. Imagine a timeline that extends infinitely in both directions. Let moment A be the moment that God creates the world. I'll ask you whether God existed at moment B (a moment before moment A). You say yes. And I'll keep going back and back, and you'll say that God existed. I'll ask if there is any possible point on the timeline prior to A that God did not exist. You'll say "no." Therefore God existed in an infinite number of moments prior to A. Therefore God must traverse them all. But it is impossible to traverse an actual infinity. Therefore, God is still waiting for moment A to come.

Worse: Do you assert that God can experience any moment? Let A be a moment that God experiences. The same reasoning above applies. Therefore, God experiences no moment.

Worst: Do you assert that God exists in any moment? Let A be any moment in which God exists. The same reasoning above applies. Therefore, God exists in no moment.

Do you see? By your own premises, your God does not even exist. Knight, if you are to be consistent with yourself, you must admit that you are an atheist, for at any possible moment at which your God might exist, an infinite number of moments precede.

However, here is a dilemma for you. If God created time (as you assert), prior to the point where God created time there was no time, i.e., no succession of events. How then could God ever create time? How could there be a time before time if without time there was no succession of events? You can't get from then to now if time doesn't exist.

There is no temporal priority to the creation of time. There's only a logical priority. Consider reading book XI of Confessions or book V of the Consolation of Philosophy (you can find both texts online). God eternally creates time in a single eternal "moment" of creation.

Said in another way... you can refute the notion that God created time with a simple question.... how long did it take God to create time? :chuckle:

It didn't. The very least that we can say about God is that He is self-subsistent being. He's not able to be really divided. lain:

 

[ghost]

Lon... Instead of <------l------l--------> to make your point about eternity, wouldn't it be more accurate to have your two points set inside a circle?

I'd show you what I mean, but I do not have the ability to post images.

 

[Traditio]

Lon... Instead of <------l------l--------> to make your point about eternity, wouldn't it be more accurate to have your two points set inside a circle?

I'd show you what I mean, but I do not have the ability to post images.

Ghost: That's a great way to view reality...if you are a Nietzschean and believe in an eternal recurrence. So much for the idea of everlasting life in Heaven with God though...or the idea of everlasting torments in Hell, for that matter. In fact, there's no reason even to posit God's existence in that case.

"What if a demon were to creep after you one day or night, in your loneliest loneness, and say: 'This life which you live and have lived, must be lived again by you, and innumerable times more. And there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and every sigh— everything unspeakably small and great in your life—must come again to you, and in the same sequence and series.' Would you not throw your self down and curse the demon who spoke to you thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment, in which you would answer him: "Thou art a god, and never have I heard anything more divine!" - Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882)

 

[rocketman]

Ghost: That's a great way to view reality...if you are a Nietzschean and believe in an eternal recurrence. So much for the idea of everlasting life in Heaven with God though...or the idea of everlasting torments in Hell, for that matter. In fact, there's no reason even to posit God's existence in that case.

"What if a demon were to creep after you one day or night, in your loneliest loneness, and say: 'This life which you live and have lived, must be lived again by you, and innumerable times more. And there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and every sigh— everything unspeakably small and great in your life—must come again to you, and in the same sequence and series.' Would you not throw your self down and curse the demon who spoke to you thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment, in which you would answer him: "Thou art a god, and never have I heard anything more divine!" - Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882)

Huh? how does this correlate to the post ghost made? :idunno:

 

[ghost]

Huh? how does this correlate to the post ghost made? :idunno:

It doesn't. Trad's a moron.

 

[Lighthouse]

Eternity defies time.

How so?

Yes it does mean "an infinite amount of time".

Eternal = Infinite = Timeless.

:drum:

:singer:
Introducing, contradiction!

I wouldn't expect you to understand what Eteranl means, ghost.

He was laughing because you contradicted yourself.

Saying that God knows all things that will ever be, binds God from writing a new song making Him not omnipotent.

It binds us from doing as commanded regarding singing new songs, too. For how can we sing a new song to God if no song is new to Him?

 

[godrulz]

Huh? Is it me or what? I am having a hard time understanding what you and sky are saying. Maybe I'm have a stroke or a brain aneurism or something. :idunno:

The problem is their incoherence, not your brain.

 

[godrulz]

I asked a question earlier though it seemed to get forgotten in the heat of the discussion. Could Bob, Knight, ghost or any of you with the open view tell me if this view has implications as it relates to our salvation? and if so what are they? I am just trying to understand the Open view vs. Settled view and it's implications in either case.

There are practical implications of the view relating to prayer, evangelism, social responsibility, relationship with God, etc. It is not a salvific issue. Open Theism is not primarily about soteriology, Christology, eschatology, etc., but the doctrine of God. We still affirm the triune God, etc., but differ on models of providence, understanding of the future/omniscience, etc. It is free will theism like Arminianism, but more biblical, coherent.

 

[godrulz]

I personally think that it speaks to the dangerous beliefs of Calvinist doctrine. Their foundations are built on a settled view of eternity. I'm not sure people who hear their message can be saved.

That's just my view. I doubt that I speak for Bob or Knight.

Most people are fully saved by grace through faith before they later convert to Calvinism. In your OSAS view, they should be Christian and Calvinist.

It is unlikely you have always believed in a settled view of eternity. The vast majority of Christians believe it because it was a relative non-issue in light of bigger fish to fry in church history. It is not a salvific issue and not even clearly addressed in Scripture like other major doctrines (hence need to use godly philosophy in addition to biblical evidence).

 

[Lon]

Lon... Instead of <------l------l--------> to make your point about eternity, wouldn't it be more accurate to have your two points set inside a circle?

I'd show you what I mean, but I do not have the ability to post images.

No problem, I do know what you mean, I think. In fact, a circle, then becomes a discussion about a plane where there is way more (infinite in fact) possibilities because there are an infinite amount of lines and rays that can intersect a line at any given point. This is important in the sense that we as created beings must pass only once from said point. We are locked in. God, by definition and understanding passes at least two directions. With your circle, you actually have an infinite number of possibilities concerning God and durational time.

Here is another mind-blower: Not only that, but if we think beyond just two-dimensional thinking, adding the third dimension, we have infinite possibility times infinite possibility. Note my sig and think with me on that for a couple of minutes. Our God is amazing.

At any rate, I need to repeat here that time is to eternity, what a segment is to a line. You have to have two points for either to exist (which is why you have to have a beginning for time to exist). In that sense, it necessarily follows that God creates our time because He has to start something and then there has to be a second point (segment) for the concept of time to work. Without either, no time measurement or concept is possible.

His blessings

-Lon

 

[Traditio]

Huh? how does this correlate to the post ghost made? :idunno:

If you assert that time is circular, bizarre metaphysical consequences follow. Refer to Nietzsche.

 

[Lon]

The problem is their incoherence, not your brain.

I'm sad. This is parallel to an elementary kid telling a high schooler there is no such thing as geometry. Even if the kid doesn't get it, he's clearly and blatantly wrong to anybody in Geometry class.

You can bring in your math book quotes again and I'll explain once again he is specifically dealing with a segment rather than a line, a temporal duration, rather than the infinite. I don't fault you for being wrong or even not understanding you are wrong, which is why it is sad to me. I just wish a few open theists would take Geometry. I'm beginning to think seminary shouldn't be allowed to graduate theologians until they successfully complete at least Geometry and possibly pre-Calculus.

 

[ghost]

Most people are fully saved by grace through faith before they later convert to Calvinism.

A Christian would never "convert" to Calvinism. It's impossible to be a Calvinist and a Christian. Impossible. This is not an opinion. If you think it is possible, then you have no idea what a Christian is. (Of course, that fact has been well established in your 55,000+ posts).

In your OSAS view, they should be Christian and Calvinist.

Many cults believe that Jesus is God. believing that Jesus is God does not make you a Christian. Believing and teaching that Jesus is not God is evidence that someone is not a believer. You are far too ignorant of the Bible to understand this. It is beyond your limited view of God, who He is, and what He has done.

Anyone who believes that salvation can be lost, returned, forfeited, or removed does not know or believe in the God of the Bible. If it is YOUR testimony that someone was once saved and is no longer, it is evidence that you are not saved.

It is unlikely you have always believed in a settled view of eternity.

Would someone else like to point out to this godless, demon possessed, donkey's butt, that he should read the thread he is posting in before he makes another stupid comment about what I've said in it?

 

[Traditio]

I'm beginning to think seminary shouldn't be allowed to graduate theologians until they successfully complete at least Geometry

Plato agrees.

and possibly pre-Calculus.

That's a big requirement. :noid:

 

[chatmaggot]

...he is specifically dealing with a segment rather than a line,...

Are there an infinite number of points on a segment?

 

[godrulz]

And this is what Open Theism is creating. Very close to atheism.

This is a stupid statement showing ignorance and arrogance.

 

[godrulz]

You don't debate with truth from the Bible. You deny it and then call on what Bob has taught you. All of what you need to know is in the Bible. What do you want me to do, go with your "settled truth"?

The Bible does not resolve many areas of knowledge. It is the final, authoritative truth/revelation, but it also must be correctly interpreted. There are areas of truth that are not addressed by the Bible, so we must all speculate and reason to search out the matter.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Would someone else like to point out to this godless, demon possessed, donkey's butt, that he should read the thread he is posting in before he makes another stupid comment about what I've said in it?

Please don't thwart people's attempts to participate on this thread. Not every thread needs to turn into a anti-godrulz thread. Just because you two don't agree one issue doesn't mean you wont have agreement on another issue.

 

[Traditio]

Please don't thwart people's attempts to participate on this thread. Not every thread needs to turn into a anti-godrulz thread. Just because you two don't agree one issue doesn't mean you wont have agreement on another issue.

Someone should make a beer thread for Ghost and Godrulz. lain:

 

[godrulz]

This should be interesting to see who sides with Bob and Tom. I mean Bob and Knight. It will be the ones who deny the literal interpretation of Scripture.

A face value reading of Scripture, page after page, supports endless time, not timelessness (the few proof texts for the latter have been addressed).