Re: Open View/Closed Future

[godrulz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

?!

 

[eccl3_6]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Has that killed the 'time' argument for now then?

 

[Scholastic]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.