# God and Time



## johnny_redeemed (May 6, 2004)

please say why you picked the one you did. 





p.s. if i spelled any of them wrong, sorry!!! let me know and i will fix it.

[Edited on 5-6-2004 by johnny_redeemed]


----------



## JWJ (May 6, 2004)

Pardon my slowness.... it is early in the morning, but I am not sure of your question. Is your question in reference to time in general? 

Jim


----------



## BlackCalvinist (May 6, 2004)

Well, God is timeless.... He is not bound by time. He exists simultaneously [b:6cf8ae4c23]in[/b:6cf8ae4c23] time and [b:6cf8ae4c23]outside[/b:6cf8ae4c23] of time.....just as present now, moment to moment as I play hooky from work to post on this board  as He is 2 hours from now when I go into work half a day.

My answer is omnitemporal.

He is the author of time, has decreed and declared all things that will come to pass, so He is not bound by what He has created...nor can He be.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (May 6, 2004)

was God in time before be created, you can say before in a logically sense or a chronological sense it does not matter. it you say yes then God is not timeless because he has always been in time. if you say no then God changed, namely he went from being not in time to being in time that is a change. once we get change on God many of the classical attributes of God start to fall down. show me if this argument is flawed.


----------



## JWJ (May 6, 2004)

*What is Time or Timelessness*

You must first define what you mean by time or timelessness. Depending on your definition itl reveal the vality of the statement "God exists simultaneously in time and outside of time" and determine how one (if one) can answer the poll. So what is time or timelessness? What does it mean to say God is timeless?

Jim


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 6, 2004)

How is time different or distinct from the rest of God's creation? If it is not, then there is your answer. God relates to time the way He relates to the rest of His creation.

[quote:d572d91ed1]
God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and [b:d572d91ed1]things[/b:d572d91ed1], from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy. (WCF V:1)
[/quote:d572d91ed1]


----------



## robot (May 6, 2004)

God created time, so he is outside it. He rises above it, while at the same time functioning within it.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 6, 2004)

god is bound by the free will of man

jk


thought this was an arminian board


blade


----------



## JWJ (May 6, 2004)

No one yet defined time. Yes it is proper to say that God relates to time but he is not in time. Yes God created time, but what is it that God created that qualifes time? Is it proper to define or even illustrate God's timelessness by saying in God there is no past or future but only a &quot;now&quot; &quot;present&quot;?

Just want to get you thinking.


Jim


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 6, 2004)

Time is another aspect of our creation it helps derive a source of meaning for us as beings being created at a certain point.

I view history as complete when God preordained everything. It is us who feel history moving beneath our feet as though it were something new or old.

Speaking in human terms it only takes God less than a second for all the events of our creation history to be thought made and finished. 

There is more to God than we can even realize beyond all the events of our history.

Time fades away like a tear in the rain. There and gone.

blade


----------



## cupotea (May 7, 2004)

It does not seem unlikely that God should be seen distinct from his creation (and by extension, time) by virtue of his transcendence, yet at the same time, intimately involved in his creation (and by extension, time) by virtue of his immanence.

I used to say God is atemporal and also temporal, but maybe omnitemporal would be the most appropriate term; I'm not really certain.

Josh: I'm suprised you haven't said anything about your &quot;slippery slope&quot; argument against anything but the atemporal position. Do you still think that to be a valid criticism of omnitemporality?




*By &quot;slippery slope&quot; I mean your argument that if you give way to the classic (aka Thomistic) view that God is not in time, then a whole slew of God's characteristics go with it, and we're left with an open-theistic, Armenian God.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (May 7, 2004)

[quote:c0d6637b45][i:c0d6637b45]Originally posted by JesusFan[/i:c0d6637b45]
It does not seem unlikely that God should be seen distinct from his creation (and by extension, time) by virtue of his transcendence, yet at the same time, intimately involved in his creation (and by extension, time) by virtue of his immanence.

I used to say God is atemporal and also temporal, but maybe omnitemporal would be the most appropriate term; I'm not really certain.
[/quote:c0d6637b45]

please explain what you mean, precisely, by omnitemporal. 

if i understand it correctly, by onmintemporal you mean God was not in time before creation, then he became in time. if i understand this view right can someone please, exceptionally JesusFan, how this is not a change in God. please remember the Biblical data that says God does not change? 

Malachi 3:6, "For I am the LORD, I do not change" 

Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent." 

1 Samuel 15:29, "And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent."

James 1:17, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning."


----------



## alwaysreforming (May 7, 2004)

I liked the way Robot put it:
&quot;God created time, so he is outside it. He rises above it, while at the same time functioning within it.&quot;

God created the universe &quot;ex-nihilo,&quot; from nothing. Because of that, there was no &quot;space&quot; before creation, and by virtue of that, no time, since time is a function of space. (Am I correct, physicists? I learned this during a physics course.)

So, God existed &quot;outside of time&quot; at least at some point, and whether He remains &quot;outside&quot; that realm is unknown. He relates to us as if He shares our same perspective in time, but this is surely anthropomorphic.

How does this not violate God's immutability, Johnny Redeemed? My take is because it does not logically follow that it should violate it. God created &quot;creation.&quot; He created everything. Why should the fact that time is a function of creation violate God's immutability? He is simply in existence in relation to what He created. If He creates a banana 
 does that mean that God changed because now He has a relationship that He's existing with that He didn't have before? I don't see where one follows another; perhaps you could elaborate on your argument/question...


----------



## johnny_redeemed (May 10, 2004)

those of you that vote omintemporal have not answered my objection yet. (see my last post to see that objection.) this is the MAIN problem i have with this view, if it can be answered i will be happy :yes:


----------



## yeutter (May 12, 2004)

The &quot;open view&quot; types posit God in time. 
Some who call themselves reformed argue that time is an attribute of God. The ones I know who take this position stand in the tradition of Herman Dooyeweerd.
It would seem clear to me from the creation narrative that God created time. &quot;In the beginning&quot; would seem to refer to time as being something that is not eternal but has a beginning. Why are we told about God creating in six days if it is not to indicate that time is a created entity?
I am suspicious of any departure from what has every where and always been received as truth without clear Biblical warrant. The idea that God created time did not originate with Pascal or Anselm or St. Thomas Aquinas.. All the Church fathers seem to be agreed on this point.


----------



## alwaysreforming (May 12, 2004)

I agree, Yeutter. And even the fact alone that God hears, and can respond, to all of our prayers at the same &quot;time&quot; seems to hint at a God to whom time has no application. There's simply too much &quot;simultaneous-ness&quot; going on to believe that God is &quot;inside&quot; our space-time continuum.

But after what we can briefly say about God's relationship to time, it seems we quickly enter the realm of idle speculation to where no good can be had. One thing we CAN say, however, is that there was a starting point to this universe, and before that point the very nature of time seems to be meaningless (if indeed time is a function of space, as posited above earlier). So, if God existed outside of time at one point, I wouldn't think placing Him inside our realm now would be very consistent; and who are we to do so?

:wr50:

(Boy this &quot;two-cents&quot; icon comes in handy!)


----------



## yeutter (May 12, 2004)

In saying God is outside space and time we must also remember the incarnation and God's continued interaction with space and time. We need to avoid the Barthian view that God is wholly other.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (May 13, 2004)

[quote:03994ecbaa][i:03994ecbaa]Originally posted by yeutter[/i:03994ecbaa]
In saying God is outside space and time we must also remember the incarnation and God's continued interaction with space and time. We need to avoid the Barthian view that God is wholly other. [/quote:03994ecbaa]

i agree fully with this  we need to avoid saying God is wholly other. if we say that then all statments about God become meaningless.


----------



## cupotea (May 13, 2004)

Johnny, sorry of the huge delay between now and my last post.

I can see the challenge that you raise with regard to God being timeless and then saying he &quot;became&quot; inside of time. Became implies that he was never REALLY timeless or that He always existed along some sort of temporal plane. I cannot adequately respond to that, because this is such an &quot;experimental&quot; subject for me right now. My immediate reaction is that this does present a difficulty for me to think about.

On the other hand, I think the difficulty of explaining how an entirely timeless being can create, interact with, communicate with, be incarnated into, or even THINK about a creation that does in fact, exist in time is ALSO a significant difficulty. Simply because no one here has answered your question does not mean that your challenge holds, but only that no one here has thought enough about the subject.

I can plead ignorance for myself anyway, since, as you know, Johnny_Redeemed, I have only recently been considering this subject.


----------



## cupotea (May 13, 2004)

Johnny Redeemed wrote:

if i understand it correctly, by onmintemporal you mean God was not in time before creation, then he became in time. if i understand this view right can someone please, especially JesusFan, how this is not a change in God. please remember the Biblical data that says God does not change? 

JesusFan's response:

Your question is, how can God be in time in any way without experiencing change. You argue that if God experiences a &quot;moment,&quot; then that is a type of change. I argue that this cannot be a substantive change, since God has gained no new knowledge. Since God decrees all things, his knowledge is based on his decrees. God knows what I will do tomorrow, not because he knows a contingent being's action: aka my decision, but because he decreed that being's actions. Thus, even if God is in the NOW, there is NO CHANGE because the creation is not contingent but is entirely DEPENDENT on God. God cannot be changed by one of His creations precisely because of the creator/creature relationship.

In the same way that Abraham cannot exert a change on God, for example, being in creation at Mt. Sinai doesn't cause a change in God (I refer to location in an anthropomorphic sense). In the same way that being at Mt. Sinai does not cause a change in God, being in a moment does not cause a change in God. Why? Because the creation is only a creation and has no real or influential power over God. Anything that hypothetically COULD cause a change in God is ACTUALLY powerless to because of the fact that God is its source, and his decree is its foundation.

How can God experience a moment without His experience of that moment bringing about a change? Simple? God decreed the moment and is ITS mover, not visa-versa.

Be back next week for my response to your response!


----------



## JohnV (May 13, 2004)

It seems to me that we are considering the concept of time from the temporal into eternity. But in order to understand time we need to see it in light of eternity first. That is what makes time so hard for us to define. Traditionally time has been defined by motion of objects, which includes the open space for objects to move in. So if you are the only object in all of creation, then time is measured by your movements. But that is the measurment of it; it does not account for its exstence. 

The creation itself seems to us to be a change in God. Before creation He decided to create out of His good pleasure. So it seems, to fulfill Hisgood pleasure, He did something that was not done before. But this is anthropomorphizing God's attributes. 

In a similar manner we tend to think of eternity as a never-ending &quot;now&quot;; timeless, but with motion. And again we are judging a part of God's existence by our human standards.

Before I can answer to one of the four options, I think that we first need to have a definition of time which is out of eternity, the way it was created. We are trying to think about the entire ocean from looking at a spoonful of salt water. 

JesusFan, I don't know what you mean by,
[quote:bea6f48261]*By &quot;slippery slope&quot; I mean your argument that if you give way to the classic (aka Thomistic) view that God is not in time, then a whole slew of God's characteristics go with it, and we're left with an open-theistic, Armenian God.[/quote:bea6f48261]


----------



## cupotea (May 17, 2004)

Well, JohnV, what I was referring to in the quote you just provided has some background to it. Johnny_Redeemed and I are actually good friends and we have discussed this face-to-face before entering this forum.

I referred to an argument Johnny_Redeemed had previously referred to in which he seemed to set forth that IF we concede that God is in time, then there is a logical problem because that means God's immutability is compromised, and if God's immutability is compromised, then God's eternity is in jeapordy and if God's eternity is in jeapordy than we are left with the bi-polar God of process theology or open theism.

My contention is that we can refer to God being in time and at the same time, that temporal omnipresence does not require that God be mutable. Read my post above to see my argument why omnitemporal interaction/existence does not at all include the danger of mutability from a Calvinistic perspective.


----------



## cupotea (May 17, 2004)

Johnny_Redeemed,
I am just curious as to whether or not you believe my response is sound, so far as your question of why omnitemporality implies change in God.

Is such an answer adequate, or do you still consider it flawed in some way?

I don't want to appear to be gloating, but I think it's important that you understood my response which I gave above.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (May 17, 2004)

JesusFan wrote (JFW): Your question is, how can God be in time in any way without experiencing change. 

johnny_redeemed's responce (jrR): this is not my question, God could have started in time and this would not be a &quot;change&quot;. my argument/question is how could God "start" not in time and then become in time. this sounds like a change to me. in fact a huge change; a change that would deny immutability.

(JFW): You argue that if God experiences a &quot;moment,&quot; then that is a type of change. 

(jrR): no, this is not my main argument. although you do bring up a good point. if God knows he is in this moment (A) and not in another moment (B). Then when God gets to moment (B) he now know he is in a new moment. that sounds like a change to me, namely God's knowledge about what moment he is in changed. even if God knows from all eternity that he is going to change, this is still a change.

(JFW): I argue that this cannot be a substantive change, since God has gained no new knowledge. Since God decrees all things, his knowledge is based on his decrees. God knows what I will do tomorrow, not because he knows a contingent being's action: aka my decision, but because he decreed that being's actions. Thus, even if God is in the NOW, there is NO CHANGE because the creation is not contingent but is entirely DEPENDENT on God. God cannot be changed by one of His creations precisely because of the creator/creature relationship. In the same way that Abraham cannot exert a change on God, for example, being in creation at Mt. Sinai doesn't cause a change in God (I refer to location in an anthropomorphic sense).

(jrR): You said, "the creation is not contingent but is entirely DEPENDENT on God.&quot; i do not see the difference between contingent and dependent. please explain what you mean by this. i also DO NOT see how this is at all relevant to your position. i agree that God cannot change. that, to me, seems to be you argument here and i fully agree. But your position, as an omnitemporalist seems to indicate that God does change

(JFW): In the same way that being at Mt. Sinai does not cause a change in God, being in a moment does not cause a change in God. 

(jrR): Is God JUST at Mt. Sinai? NO he is everywhere. is God only in one moment in time as the omnitemporalist says? NO God is in all time. God is not moving through space, just as he is not moving through time. 

(JFW): Why? Because the creation is only a creation and has no real or influential power over God. Anything that hypothetically COULD cause a change in God is ACTUALLY powerless to because of the fact that God is its source, and his decree is its foundation. 

(jrR): i agree fully. But why do you think then that God could create time and then become subject to it??

(JFW): How can God experience a moment without His experience of that moment bringing about a change? Simple? God decreed the moment and is ITS mover, not visa-versa. 


(jrR) i ask again is God experiencing only that moment? if so then when he moves from that moment to the next, that is a change. if God is not only in that moment you are an atemporalist

i hope you all followed that. i cannot wait to see what you guys have to say about this. i would ask anyone to pick my thinking apart, so i can understand this topic better and have my view refined.


p.s. i see that the atemporal position is growing in the poll. :yes:

[Edited on 5-18-2004 by johnny_redeemed]


----------



## JWJ (May 18, 2004)

I still think your quesitons will be better answered if you first take the time to define time (no pun intended). 

JWJ


----------



## johnny_redeemed (May 18, 2004)

here is how Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines time: the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues. 

i think this sounds like a good definition to use. if any of you have a better one let me know and we can change our definition of time.


----------



## JWJ (May 18, 2004)

*Definition of Time*

In my opinion this definition is insufficient and too broad and does nothing to the bigger picture (i.e., the picture that God is timeless). For example, the phrase "the measured or measurable period" itself lacks clarity. The question remains how and what of something of "time" is to be measured? Is this to be done by measuring motion of mere inanimate matter (light, earth, sun,), acts of creatures, or a condition or process such as gravity? Hence, this is why time is often said to be relative and in many cases thought to be indefinable. Moreover, to use this definition of time and say that God is timeless would only muddy the waters.

Now there are definitions of time that are helpful in our everyday use (e.g., motion of the earth and sun) yet they are not always applicable to the bigger questions. Of all the definitions of time given, at least the ones I am aware of, I prefer Augustine's. He defined time, as "successive thoughts in a finite creatures mind" Hence time is relative and dependent on finite creatures successive thoughts and not mere inanimate matter such as light or the motion of the earth. Time began on the first day of creation when the first creatures were made (i.e., angels who witnessed the rest of creation-- cf. Ps. 104). Moreover, God can consistently and effortlessness be said to be timeless because he does not think successive thoughts. 

JWJ


----------



## johnny_redeemed (May 18, 2004)

all you have done is define time in such a way this it makes it impossible to be applied to God. i agree with you that God is timeless, but i think your definition is uncharitable to the other side. we need a definition that both, or all, sides can agree on.


----------



## JWJ (May 19, 2004)

[quote:9fa80e1757][i:9fa80e1757]Originally posted by johnny_redeemed[/i:9fa80e1757]
all you have done is define time in such a way this it makes it impossible to be applied to God. 

 [/quote:9fa80e1757]

Precisely! If God is timeless why or how could one logically define time in such a way as to apply it to him? The definition you purposed, not to mention the many definitions and illustrations that that are often put forth never get the heart of the issue and often are very meaningless to application among finite creatures. 

Reflect further on this definition and many elements will begin to make more sense.

Jim


----------



## johnny_redeemed (May 19, 2004)

[quote:3567cfd1c6][i:3567cfd1c6]Originally posted by johnny_redeemed[/i:3567cfd1c6]
i agree with you that God is timeless, but i think your definition is uncharitable to the other side. we need a definition that both, or all, sides can agree on.[/quote:3567cfd1c6]

I think, JWJ, you need to answer this objection. you would be upset if an Arminian defined God's love or the atonement or some other thing (do not get to technical with me here) is such a way that it made it impossible to hold to Calvinism. all i am saying is if your opponent, theologically, defined your position out of existence you would not like it.

we need a definition that is agreeable by both sides so me can work on/debate this issue together.

what do you all think about this. the more i think about this the less i am become convinced of my opinion, namely that the definition should be the same for both sides. tell me what you all think.


----------



## cupotea (May 20, 2004)

Okay, Johnny,

After reading your bit-by-bit response to my argument, at first I didn't know what to think. But then I realized something!

You may have missed my post from about a week ago where I responded to you that I had no response to the objection that God's becoming temporal (or subject to time, as you put it) implies a change, which implies that God was NEVER timeless. First of all, make sure you read that post. Then, if you did so, you will see that my next post was only a response to the idea that God's being in a moment causes a change, not to the previously discussed objection about God's &quot;becoming&quot; temporal.

You are reading my response to why God does not change in an omnitemporal view and wondering why I'm not effectively dispatching your argument about God &quot;becoming&quot; omnitemporal. That is because I have already said that I know two little about the idea of God's &quot;becoming&quot; omnitemporal, and thus, only feel adequate to respond to the idea of omnitemporality and changelessness.

What I noticed in your response/analysis of my argument was that you would read my argument and then say, &quot;Yeah, but you're ignoring my argument that if God becomes omnitemporal, then He never WAS atemporal!&quot; Do you see my dilemma? You require something of my argument that my argument was not meant to accomplish.

Wow, I just managed to confuse myself. See you all NEXT week!


----------



## johnny_redeemed (May 21, 2004)

[quote:d9639bfd60][i:d9639bfd60]Originally posted by JesusFan[/i:d9639bfd60]
Wow, I just managed to confuse myself. See you all NEXT week! [/quote:d9639bfd60]

and me too?

if, and a bi IF, i understand you point, you are saying that if God is in a moment that is not a change. in order to answer this i need to know if you mean (a) God is in only moment a, and not in moment b or (b) God is in moment a and moment b. 

please let me know witch one of these you are talking about so i will be able to give you a full and adequate response.


----------



## cupotea (May 28, 2004)

I choose &quot;b.&quot;


----------



## cupotea (May 28, 2004)

*Oops! I said &quot;choose!&quot; I think I just proved &quot;free will!&quot;* LOL

Okay, I have been doing a little defensive footwork. How about if I offer you a few syllogisms?

First, try this one:
1. God is creatively active in the temporal world. 
2. If God is creatively active in the temporal world, God is really related to the temporal world. 
3. If God is really related to the temporal world, God is temporal. 
4. Therefore, God is temporal.*

Next, have fun with this one:
1. A temporal world exists. 
2. God is omniscient. 
3. If a temporal world exists, then if God is omniscient, God knows tensed facts. 
4. If God is timeless, He does not know tensed facts. 
5. Therefore, God is not timeless.*

Consider this:
Even to SAY that God existed BEFORE or PRIOR TO creation, aren't we assigning a temporal &quot;timeline&quot; to God and His existence?





*Just so you know, I got these from William Lane Craig's website on omnitemporality at: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/omnitemporality.html
I couldn't make up a valid syllogism from scratch if my life depended on it!


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Jun 1, 2004)

first, i am not a scholar on this issue. i do not know everything that there is to know about this, in fact i know almost nothing about this issue. so the fact that you went and got a quote from a scholar on this issue does not help our discussion . i could go and find a quote from Paul Helm (an atemporalist) that you could not answer. 

that being said, i do have a response to the second syllogism you posted. here is the syllogism:

1. A temporal world exists. 
2. God is omniscient. 
3. If a temporal world exists, then if God is omniscient, God knows tensed facts. 
4. If God is timeless, He does not know tensed facts. 
5. Therefore, God is not timeless.

i think the crux of this argument is found in the 3rd premise and i think here is the answer. this premise is circular (in fact the whole argument is circular), to make this statemant you must assume that God is temporal. if God is atemporal then he would not know tense fact. that is NOT to say that God is not omniscient. God is limited by his nature. if his nature is &quot;outside&quot; time then he could not know tensed facts. 

so in short this argument is circular. it assumes that conclusion before he even work the syllogism. and if the opposite view was presupposed a different conclusion would be reached.

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by johnny_redeemed]


----------



## 2legit2quit (Jun 1, 2004)

[quote:6efa93b4d8]_i think the crux of this argument is found in the 3rd premise and i think here is the answer. this premise is circular (in fact the whole argument is circular),

[Edited on 6-1-2004 by johnny_redeemed] [/quote:6efa93b4d8]

Wut up Dogg,
I want you to know from the get go Johnny that I am not saying that this is a good argument, but I think that there needs to be some clarification here. I don't think that you are understanding the argument. 3. says If the temporal world exists and God is omniscient, then God knows tensed facts. There might be a problem with 3. but it isn't circular. The problem comes by equating God knowing the temporal world with God knowing tensed facts. 

Jesus fan can you explain to us how just becaseu God knows the temporal world, then God also knows tensed facts?_


----------



## cupotea (Jun 2, 2004)

First of all, I don't think it's a problem at all that I presented a syllogism from William Lane Craig, because he represents an omnitemporalist position. What we are discussing is not how smart you or I are, what we are discussing is an ISSUE: namely, is God in time, or is God out of time? Who is brought into the discussion is of minimal importance. What is being discussed represents a difficult question on a difficult subject, and it is an important subject.

I could have just given the syllogisms without mentioning Craig, but I believe that is called plagiarism. (Incidentally, any argument you present is likely to be something you've learned part and parcel from Geisler or Helm or someone else, only you're just not directly quoting them, so is there really a big difference?)

On to the issue:
[quote:267111d8b1][i:267111d8b1]Originally posted by johnny_redeemed[/i:267111d8b1]
so in short this argument is circular. it assumes that conclusion before he even work the syllogism. and if the opposite view was presupposed a different conclusion would be reached.
[/quote:267111d8b1]
First of all, you and I both agree, I believe, that all arguments involve circularity: the question is, &quot;is the argument viciously circular?&quot; I think we can probably both agree that it is not a viciously circular argument, even granting that the conclusion is assumed in the premise. As such, I think the charge of circularity should be sidestepped so that the actual issue itself can be dealt with.

[quote:267111d8b1][i:267111d8b1]Originally posted by johnny_redeemed[/i:267111d8b1]

i think the crux of this argument is found in the 3rd premise and i think here is the answer. this premise is circular (in fact the whole argument is circular), to make this statemant you must assume that God is temporal. if God is atemporal then he would not know tense fact. that is NOT to say that God is not omniscient. God is limited by his nature. if his nature is &quot;outside&quot; time then he could not know tensed facts. 
[/quote:267111d8b1]

And then, 2Legit2Quit asked for a response here:

[quote:267111d8b1][i:267111d8b1]Originally posted by 2legit2quit[/i:267111d8b1]
Jesus fan can you explain to us how just because God knows the temporal world, then God also knows tensed facts? [/quote:267111d8b1]
I post both quotes because they essentially request (or need) a response from me, and I like killing two birds with one stone (even though I throw and run like a girl).

If God knows a temporal world, does that mean that he knows tensed facts? Consider: (assuming an atemporalist perspective) If I am a temporal being, and I know a timeless being (God), do I know a timeless fact, or a tensed fact? I know a TIMELESS fact, because the subject of my knowledge determines the status of my knowledge with relation to that subject. (If I, a temporal being, know about, say for example, my wife, then I have tensed knowledge of a temporal subject, namely my wife, but that should be obvious. I'm just trying to be thorough.)

In the same way, even if God is a timeless being (for sake of argument), if he knows a temporal being, then BY DEFINITION, he knows a tensed fact. Why? Because the subject of his knowledge is not timeless, the subject is temporal. Therefore, if God knows creation and creation is temporal, then the subject (creation IN time) determines the state of the temporality (or atemporality) of God's knowledge.
[quote:267111d8b1][i:267111d8b1]Originally posted by johnny_redeemed[/i:267111d8b1]
i think the crux of this argument is found in the 3rd premise and i think here is the answer. this premise is circular (in fact the whole argument is circular), to make this statemant you must assume that God is temporal. if God is atemporal then he would not know tense fact. that is NOT to say that God is not omniscient. God is limited by his nature. if his nature is &quot;outside&quot; time then he could not know tensed facts. 
[/quote:267111d8b1]
You seem to grant that IF God knows a tensed fact, then He is, in fact, not timeless, but in fact, temporal as I have been suggesting throughout the course of this discussion. If my response to your criticism above is legitimate, then my question to you is, &quot;Is it not you who are presupposing God's atemporality?

Whew! This time, I'm not confused, but I AM tired!


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:dd3d406d3b][i:dd3d406d3b]Originally posted by JesusFan[/i:dd3d406d3b] First of all, you and I both agree, I believe, that all arguments involve circularity: the question is, &quot;is the argument viciously circular?&quot; I think we can probably both agree that it is not a viciously circular argument, even granting that the conclusion is assumed in the premise. As such, I think the charge of circularity should be sidestepped so that the actual issue itself can be dealt with.[/quote:dd3d406d3b]

I DO NOT agree that all arguments are circular, and I DO think this argument is circular. You said, "I think we can probably both agree that it is not a viciously circular argument, even granting that the conclusion is assumed in the premise." This is the definition of a vicious circular. The only way you can arrive at premises 3 is to assume that God is temporal. In other words if God is not temporal he does not know tensed fact. I repeat. The only way premises 3 is true is if God is temporal. Since God is temporal is the conclusion, which is assumed in premises 3, then the argument is circular, viciously! If you do not see how this argument is circular tell me I will explain it again. I think this is vital to the whole discussion. I think that the omnitemporalist does this in every argument, at least all the ones I have seen. 

[quote:dd3d406d3b][i:dd3d406d3b]Originally posted by JesusFan[/i:dd3d406d3b] In the same way, even if God is a timeless being (for sake of argument), if he knows a temporal being, then BY DEFINITION, he knows a tensed fact.[/quote:dd3d406d3b]

first, why?? I still do not see why. And (BIG and) this argument is detrimental to the omnitemporalist position, because God know these tensed facts (in their view) before he created (because God has had gets his knowledge from his decrees and he has decreed EVERYTHING before creation, so God has all his knowledge before creation), but their view says that before creation God was "outside" time. So if this knowledge, of tensed fact, means that God is temporal he would have had to have been temporal from all eternity. 
Second, if your argument is right then I am timeless. You said that (if my view is right) God is timeless and you can know that. Well if God's knowledge of time, tensed facts, is what makes him in or out of time then I would be out of time because I know God how is outside of time.

[quote:dd3d406d3b][i:dd3d406d3b]Originally posted by JesusFan[/i:dd3d406d3b] You seem to grant that IF God knows a tensed fact, then He is, in fact, not timeless, but in fact, temporal as I have been suggesting throughout the course of this discussion. If my response to your criticism above is legitimate, then my question to you is, &quot;Is it not you who are presupposing God's atemporality?[/quote:dd3d406d3b]

there is nothing wrong with thinking your view is right or presupposing your view when you make an argument. What is wrong is when one of the premises in your argument depends on the conclusion being true in order for the premise to be true. If you still do not see how the argument is circular I will explain it again and again if need be. 
You seemed to not care that I charged your (WLc's) argument with being circular. I think it is a big charge and you should defend it. One of the fallacies in a logical argument (like yours) is circular reasoning. Now please do not confuse agreeing for a necessary truth and arguing for God being in time. I do think the only way to argue for a necessary truth is circular, that is what makes it necessary. To affirm it is to affirm it, and to deny it is to affirm it. Your syllogism is not arguing for a necessary truth, so it cannot be circular and true.

p.s. an on line dicitnary of Philosophy definds a circular argument as, "Reasoning that improperly assumes the truth of what is at issue. A circular argument implicitly employs its own conclusion as a premise."


----------



## cupotea (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:b7d5f59bee][i:b7d5f59bee]Originally posted by johnny_redeemed[/i:b7d5f59bee]
I DO NOT agree that all arguments are circular, and I DO think this argument is circular. You said, "I think we can probably both agree that it is not a viciously circular argument, even granting that the conclusion is assumed in the premise." This is the definition of a vicious circular. The only way you can arrive at premises 3 is to assume that God is temporal. In other words if God is not temporal he does not know tensed fact. I repeat. The only way premises 3 is true is if God is temporal. Since God is temporal is the conclusion, which is assumed in premises 3, then the argument is circular, viciously! If you do not see how this argument is circular tell me I will explain it again. I think this is vital to the whole discussion. I think that the omnitemporalist does this in every argument, at least all the ones I have seen. [/quote:b7d5f59bee]
It appears that so far you have only made this &quot;circularity&quot; an issue in one of the arguments I presented, and I simply think that this &quot;circularity&quot; you seem to have found in the argument is a way for you to not really [b:b7d5f59bee]deal[/b:b7d5f59bee] with the subject being raised: namely, &quot;Does God know tensed facts?&quot; We should both agree that if He does, then He is temporal, but maybe we'll never really get there. Also, you say that all of the temporalist arguments you've seen argue circularly. What about the first argument/syllogism I presented? I'm sure if you try hard enough you can find something circular in it as well. (&quot;He argues that people breathe. In order to breathe, God must exist, therefore his premise that people breathe is circular!&quot;
[quote:b7d5f59bee]if your argument is right then I am timeless. You said that (if my view is right) God is timeless and you can know that. Well if God's knowledge of time, tensed facts, is what makes him in or out of time then I would be out of time because I know God how is outside of time.[/quote:b7d5f59bee]

It is impossible for me to (truly) know God, except that He has revealed Himself in the scriptures, which are a temporal object. I do not &quot;see Him as He is.&quot; If I DID see God and know God in a personal and REAL way (not an anthropomorphic representation), then it would be necessary for me to be timeless, following the argumentation I set forth. What you are suggesting via your [i:b7d5f59bee]reductio ad absurdum[/i:b7d5f59bee] is a transition from arguing &quot;atemporal-to-temporal&quot; to &quot;temporal-to-atemporal.&quot; In other words, though your [i:b7d5f59bee]reductio[/i:b7d5f59bee] is very clever, I don't think that it is fitting to compare a (supposedly) timeless being's knowledge and a temporal being's knowledge, because we don't have actual timeless knowledge like God has temporal knowledge. This will not require a restatement of the tense principle which I made up in my last post that the status of the subject determines the tense (or whether there is one), since I would have to have perfect knowledge (or ever REAL, experiential-esque) in order to fit into the same category as God in your [i:b7d5f59bee]reductio[/i:b7d5f59bee].

[quote:b7d5f59bee]there is nothing wrong with thinking your view is right or presupposing your view when you make an argument. What is wrong is when one of the premises in your argument depends on the conclusion being true in order for the premise to be true. If you still do not see how the argument is circular I will explain it again and again if need be. 
You seemed to not care that I charged your (WLc's) argument with being circular. I think it is a big charge and you should defend it. One of the fallacies in a logical argument (like yours) is circular reasoning. Now please do not confuse agreeing for a necessary truth and arguing for God being in time. I do think the only way to argue for a necessary truth is circular, that is what makes it necessary. To affirm it is to affirm it, and to deny it is to affirm it. Your syllogism is not arguing for a necessary truth, so it cannot be circular and true.

p.s. an on line dicitnary of Philosophy definds a circular argument as, "Reasoning that improperly assumes the truth of what is at issue. A circular argument implicitly employs its own conclusion as a premise." [/quote:b7d5f59bee]

Personally, I am interested in whether other people who have viewed these posts really believes that the second syllogism I presented is circular. Even granting that the argument involves the conclusion in the premise, consider that you can find circularity all the time in arguments. When we argue for God, we argue circularly, as well, because God is a necessary truth. If God is actually temporal, wouldn't that also be a necessary truth, since it pertains to the nature of God?

Here's an idea, Johnny: You present to me a syllogism for your position (I don't care who you get it from, just quote them so you're not plagiarising  ), and I or someone else will show you the circularity that your argument uses. Everyone argues this way, and I'm hardly an exception.

Oh yes, on the question you raised about how God can be atemporal before creating, I propose this be our position: &quot;With the creation of the universe, time began, and God entered into time at the moment of creation in virtue of His real relations with the created order.&quot; God is timeless without the universe and temporal with the universe.

You may have the urge to fall back to your previously repeated charge that this involves a timeline for God, but I hope that the wording of this &quot;doctrine&quot; shall grant me immunity from your previously pressed point.

Until your respond, I remain,
Adam


----------



## cupotea (Jun 3, 2004)

Johnny,

I know that in our own private discussions, you have asked for the name of a prominent Christian theologian/apologist who you know that believes in omnitemporality. At Stand To Reason, apologist Greg Koukl has an article where he defends omnitemporality:

http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/philosophy/godntime.htm

Enjoy!

PS: I know you asked for a CALVINIST in particular, but so far, this is the best I could do.


----------



## cupotea (Jun 3, 2004)

For the moment, I will grant you that the second syllogism's treatment of tensed facts requires that God be temporal. As such, it is subject to your circularity criticism. If your critique is correct, we may not discuss the idea of tensed facts and God, AT ALL, without entering a realm that involves an argument dependent on the truth of its conclusion.

In my opinion, you acknowledge that the tense argument is devastating, and this way, you do not have to face it, or deal with its implications. As such, let's move on to the first syllogism:
[quote:b51c7cfb3e][i:b51c7cfb3e]Originally posted by JesusFan[/i:b51c7cfb3e]
1. God is creatively active in the temporal world. 
2. If God is creatively active in the temporal world, God is really related to the temporal world. 
3. If God is really related to the temporal world, God is temporal. 
4. Therefore, God is temporal.*
[/quote:b51c7cfb3e]
As you may know, I also offered this argument in syllogistic form, earlier. It is based in the idea that God is really related to creation. Consider: if God is really related to creation, then He must be temporal.

Is there a back-door or a way out for the atemporalist? Perhaps, but it involves rejecting the idea that God is really related to His creation; i.e. Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas feared the idea of a God who was really related to his creation, because he wanted to avoid the idea of a God who undergoes extrinsic change. Consider this quote from Summa Contra Gentiles:
[quote:b51c7cfb3e]whatever receives something anew must be changed, either essentially or accidentally. Now certain relations are predicated of God anew; for example, that He is Lord or governor of this thing which begins to exist anew. Hence, if a relation were predicated of God as really existing in Him, it would follow that something accrues to God anew, and thus that He is changed either essentially or accidentally. . . .

Aquinas Summa contra gentiles 2. 12. 5
[/quote:b51c7cfb3e]
As you can see from this quote, Aquinas realized that the only way to avoid a temporal God (and extrensic or relational change in God) is to deny that God is really related to His creation. You may choose this route, and I would respect that, but it seems that you would have to give some justification or explanation then, for how God has anything to do with human beings or creation [b:b51c7cfb3e]at all[/b:b51c7cfb3e].

Defending the position that I am defending, it seems relatively simple to explain how a God who exists temporally can create and relate to a creation that is temporal. I am, however, curious how, holding an atemporal position, God can either 1) create, 2) sustain, or 3) interact with a creation that operates on a timeline that God is not also in.

Perhaps you might be willing to offer an explanation of how such a thing could even be possible, Johnny_Redeemed?


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:906eddf578][i:906eddf578]Originally posted by JesusFan[/i:906eddf578] 
I simply think that this &quot;circularity&quot; you seem to have found in the argument is a way for you to not really [b:906eddf578]deal[/b:906eddf578] with the subject being raised: namely, &quot;Does God know tensed facts?&quot;[/quote:906eddf578] 

you have not told me if you think this argument is circular or not. If it IS, as I say it is, then the argument falls on its face, it fails. That is how I dealt with it. You seem to think that me calling this argument circular is a "copout." I assure you it is not. Finding a whole in an argument is not a copout. That is how you deal with syllogisms; you try to find fallacies (mistakes) in them. That is what I have done. I found a mistake in this argument. I would like a yes or no answer to whether or not you think this argument is viciously circular. 
Second you said that the main issue is &quot;Does God know tensed facts?&quot; this question is at the heart of the circular charge. To answer one way or the other is to say God is or is not in time. So I think you missed the whole reason I am calling this argument circular. From my perspective, timelessness, God does not know tensed facts, but from your God knows tensed facts. 

[quote:906eddf578][i:906eddf578]Originally posted by JesusFan[/i:906eddf578] 
Oh yes, on the question you raised about how God can be atemporal before creating, I propose this be our position: &quot;With the creation of the universe, time began, and God entered into time at the moment of creation in virtue of His real relations with the created order.&quot; God is timeless without the universe and temporal with the universe.[/quote:906eddf578]

you missed my whole argument, on this point.!! Here is my argument again, then I will elaborate. 

[quote:906eddf578][i:906eddf578]Originally posted by johnny_redeemed[/i:906eddf578] 
And (BIG and) this argument is detrimental to the omnitemporalist position, because God know these tensed facts (in their view) before he created (because God has had gets his knowledge from his decrees and he has decreed EVERYTHING before creation, so God has all his knowledge before creation), but their view says that before creation God was "outside" time. So if this knowledge, of tensed fact, means that God is temporal he would have had to have been temporal from all eternity.[/quote:906eddf578]

I think this is a different way of saying that. If knowing tensed facts makes God "in time", temporal, then he has always been temporal because he has always know tensed facts. This means that the omnitemporalist view is wrong because it says that God was timeless then he came into time. So the omnitemporalist view is self-defeating.

[quote:906eddf578][i:906eddf578]Originally posted by JesusFan[/i:906eddf578] 
Here's an idea, Johnny: You present to me a syllogism for your position (I don't care who you get it from, just quote them so you're not plagiarising  ), and I or someone else will show you the circularity that your argument uses. Everyone argues this way, and I'm hardly an exception.[/quote:906eddf578]

first off this comment seems very close mind. You said, basicly, that ANY argument I can find for my positiopn will be wrong. I hope we can stay open to be wrong, I know I am open to that. I do not think I am wrong but I am open to that option.
Second, it is not a piece of cake to go and fine a syllogism already made up for that supports you view. You got "lucky" in finding these argument. If I find one I will post it, but for now lets deal with you first argument. 

[quote:906eddf578][i:906eddf578]Originally posted by JesusFan[/i:906eddf578] 
1. God is creatively active in the temporal world. 
2. If God is creatively active in the temporal world, God is really related to the temporal world. 
3. If God is really related to the temporal world, God is temporal. 
4. Therefore, God is temporal.*[/quote:906eddf578] 

I would have to say that the second premise is fatly here. I think God can create the world without being "really related to it. There is another option, the one that Aquinas used, which is to say God is *logically* related to the world. This is the distinction that many, in fact all I think, tomists make about God's relation to the world.

I have two argument that I came up with on my own. Here it is...

1) In order for there to be time three things MUST be present 1) mass (matter) 2) velocity (motion) 3) gravity
2) God does not have mass (matter)
3) Therefore God is not in time

1) In order for there to be time three things MUST be present 1) mass (matter) 2) velocity (motion) 3) gravity
2) God does not have velocity (motion)
3) Therefore God is not in time

Odiously if God does not have mass or velocity he does not have gravity. I think those will do for now.

I would really like you to deal with my criticism of you argument about God know tensed facts from all eternity, please.


----------



## 2legit2quit (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:859e58d308][i:859e58d308]Originally posted by johnny_redeemed[/i:859e58d308]
I have two argument that I came up with on my own. Here it is...

1) In order for there to be time three things MUST be present 1) mass (matter) 2) velocity (motion) 3) gravity
2) God does not have mass (matter)
3) Therefore God is not in time

1) In order for there to be time three things MUST be present 1) mass (matter) 2) velocity (motion) 3) gravity
2) God does not have velocity (motion)
3) Therefore God is not in time

Obviously if God does not have mass or velocity he does not have gravity. I think those will do for now.
[/quote:859e58d308]

Since both these arguments basically say the same thing I will deal with them together.
1. I don't think gravity is [i:859e58d308]neccessary[/i:859e58d308] for time to exist. I think a better definition would be Matter space and motion.
Second, even with my correction, this is a wrong definition of time in relationship to what we are discussing. The definition of time, atleast the time that we are talking about, is time as a sequence of events; as a chronology. This is a satisfactory defintion becaseu it not only covers the natural realm but also the supernatural. This leads me to my next point
3. Angels are not subject to mass space or motion since you need to be physical for these things to apply to you, and they are beings in time. 

Now on to the WLC argument. It is not circular. If you still dont see that it is circular I will explain it again. (You said that to Jesusfan so I can say it to you.):bs2: Look at premise 3 again. I think you are missing that within that &quot;premise&quot; there is an argument. Here is what you said in an ealier post: 


[i:859e58d308]i think the crux of this argument is found in the 3rd premise and i think here is the answer. this premise is circular (in fact the whole argument is circular), to make this statemant you must assume that God is temporal. if God is atemporal then he would not know tense fact. that is NOT to say that God is not omniscient.[/i:859e58d308]

craig is not assuming anything here he is seeking to prove that God is temporal but where, other than in his conclusion, do you see Craig say that God is temporal? I will post 
the argument agian so that you don't have to continue to scrol up to find it:

1. A temporal world exists. 
2. God is omniscient. 
3. If a temporal world exists, then if God is omniscient, God knows tensed facts. 
4. If God is timeless, He does not know tensed facts. 
5. Therefore, God is not timeless. 

If you see in premise three there is a problem with it but like I said before it is not circular. Craig says a temporal world exists (we agree with that), then he says God is omniscient, (we agree with that), then, he says, it follows that God knows tensed facts (some of us might not agree with that)&lt;--do you like the ambiguity here. So then the problem is not an issue of circularity, it is not even a problem of God's omniscience*, but the problem comes when he makes the inference that God knows tensed facts becasue he know the temporal world. This needs further explanation if it is to be taken as true. So Jesusfan how is it that if God knows the temporal world he then has to know tensed facts?


*I don't think God's omniscience needs to be part of the argument at all, because if God knows just one thing about the temporal world, then if you follow the omnitepralist point of view, then that one thing is tensed. But since you say this is where the circularity is I will state the agrument without it:

1. A temporal world exists. 
2. God knows atleast one thing about the temporal world. 
3. If a temporal world exists, and God knows one thing about it, God knows atleast one tensed fact. 
4. If God is timeless, He does not know tensed facts. 
5. Therefore, God is not timeless. 
lets use this argument now.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Jun 3, 2004)

[quote:734e6154d8][i:734e6154d8]Originally posted by 2legit2quit[/i:734e6154d8]
craig is not assuming anything here he is seeking to prove that God is temporal but where, other than in his conclusion, do you see Craig say that God is temporal? I will post 
the argument agian so that you don't have to continue to scrol up to find it:


If you see in premise three there is a problem with it but like I said before it is not circular. Craig says a temporal world exists (we agree with that), then he says God is omniscient, (we agree with that), then, he says, it follows that God knows tensed facts (some of us might not agree with that)&lt;--do you like the ambiguity here. So then the problem is not an issue of circularity, it is not even a problem of God's omniscience*, but the problem comes when he makes the inference that God knows tensed facts becasue he know the temporal world. This needs further explanation if it is to be taken as true. So Jesusfan how is it that if God knows the temporal world he then has to know tensed facts? If you see in premise three there is a problem with it but like I said before it is not circular. Craig says a temporal world exists (we agree with that), then he says God is omniscient, (we agree with that), then, he says, it follows that God knows tensed facts (some of us might not agree with that)&lt;--do you like the ambiguity here. So then the problem is not an issue of circularity, it is not even a problem of God's omniscience*, but the problem comes when he makes the inference that God knows tensed facts becasue he know the temporal world. This needs further explanation if it is to be taken as true. So Jesusfan how is it that if God knows the temporal world he then has to know tensed facts?[/quote:734e6154d8]

This is the crux of what you posted as far as the WLC issue is concerned. I will deal with your criticism of my arguments later will take it one section at a time:

[quote:734e6154d8][i:734e6154d8]Originally posted by 2legit2quit[/i:734e6154d8]
craig is not assuming anything here he is seeking to prove that God is temporal but where, other than in his conclusion, do you see Craig say that God is temporal? I will post 
the argument agian so that you don't have to continue to scrol up to find it:[/quote:734e6154d8]

I see craig saying God is temporal in premise 3, it is there IMPLICITLY. This is why I am still charging the argument with circularity. Ok let me ask you this, could God know tensed facts if he is atemporal? No, (you have said this to me before). I agree. Now let me ask you this, if God knows tensed facts is he temporal? YES. So when craig says in premise 3 that God knows tensed facts he is saying God is not timeless, which is the conclusion. Thus we see the circularity. 
(I do not even see how we get from premise 1 and 2 premise 3 any way) 

[quote:734e6154d8][i:734e6154d8]Originally posted by 2legit2quit[/i:734e6154d8]
So then the problem is not an issue of circularity, it is not even a problem of God's omniscience*, but the problem comes when he makes the inference that God knows tensed facts becasue he know the temporal world. [/quote:734e6154d8]

I agree with the one problem you have stated, but I also think that to say that an omniscient being knows tensed facts is to say he is in time. So I think the problem is also with Gods omniscience. God is limited by his nature!!! We MUST keep that in mind. I think that is central to the circular claim. The second we say God knows tensed fact we are saying he is in time. That is why the argument is circular. 

[quote:734e6154d8][i:734e6154d8]Originally posted by 2legit2quit[/i:734e6154d8]
Since both these arguments basically say the same thing I will deal with them together. 
1. I don't think gravity is neccessary for time to exist. I think a better definition would be Matter space and motion. 
Second, even with my correction, this is a wrong definition of time in relationship to what we are discussing. The definition of time, atleast the time that we are talking about, is time as a sequence of events; as a chronology. This is a satisfactory defintion becaseu it not only covers the natural realm but also the supernatural. This leads me to my next point 
3. Angels are not subject to mass space or motion since you need to be physical for these things to apply to you, and they are beings in time.[/quote:734e6154d8]

First you said you "do not think gravity is necessary for time to exist." First I do not think time "exists" anymore then a inch exists. An inch is a unit of measure you can not show me an inch, you can show me an inch of grass, or wood, or paper, but you cannot show me just the thing called an "inch". Second, could you show me a reason for this. You cannot just say I don't think so and it is sop. If that were the case I could say I do not think God is in time and that would settle it.
Third, none of my arguments dealt with gravity so I kind of think it is a mute point. 
Fourth, you gave a "new definition of time" and with it my argument still holds. God is not is space either. 
Fifth, you cannot give a counter example to show my argument is wrong you need to find a flaw *within* my argument.
Sixth, you say that angels do not have mass yet are in time. Could you prove that please? Please show from the text of Scripture that angels do not have mass (physicalness and that they are in time)


----------



## cupotea (Jun 4, 2004)

Thanks, Paul! You're the bomb!

There you are, Johnny_Redeemed: A reformed theologian/apologist who holds to omnitemporality.


----------



## cupotea (Jun 4, 2004)

I know you said you didn't think my last post was all that long. I guess I am trying to impress you with the length of this one, or something, I don't know...

[b:c8434d4149]Another Possible (Non-Circular) Formulation of Syllogism #2[/b:c8434d4149]
I would like to present another variation on 2Legit's syllogism, which I think also avoids Johnny's charge of circularity:

1. If God knows even one thing about a temporal subject, then He knows a tensed fact.
2. God knows at least one thing about temporal creation.
3. Therefore, God knows a tensed fact.
4. If God knows a tensed fact, then He is temporal.
5. Therefore, God is temporal.

Johnny, this formulation is no longer subject to your circularity charges. Now, let's get down to business on discussing tensed facts, shall we?

[b:c8434d4149]Does my argument that the subject of God's thought determines the tense of God logically imply that a man who knows God is timeless as well?[/b:c8434d4149]
I don't think that your [i:c8434d4149]reductio ad absurdum[/i:c8434d4149] you presented above, essentially stating that my argument regarding the tense of the subject determining the thinker's temporality/atemporality works. I've been thinking about it for a couple of days, exactly how to put my answer into words, and I think I have it:

1. Man already exists on a timeline. Gaining knowledge of a being that is outside of that timeline does not change that. Why? Because man is already temporal. Consider that man does not present himself to God, God presents himself to man. Were God to remain silent, man would not know God. However, were man to remain silent, God would still know man, by virtue of the particulars of their relationship to one-another. Therefore, for us to gain knowledge of God changes nothing, because we are already temporal and cannot ever become atemporal.
2. A being who does not exist along a timeline CAN enter the timeline he creates. This is the only way that the (previously) timeless being is able to even know about or interact with his creation.

And thus, your [i:c8434d4149]reductio[/i:c8434d4149] does not apply, because it suggests an impossible situation.

It is important also, to note that my statement that the subject of an individual's thought determines the tense of that thought was only meant to prove that God knows tensed facts, not that God is temporal. The argument was not properly meant to swallow up the whole argument and prove the whole &quot;shebang&quot; (as we like to say in Kansas).

[b:c8434d4149]Is God's atemporal knowledge of creation before time an indication that God has always been temporal?[/b:c8434d4149]
First of all, God's knowledge of creation before He created it would have been tensed in one sense: namely, He knew that He [i:c8434d4149]would[/i:c8434d4149] create. In another sense, since existence was changeless and static before creation, I propose that we regard it as timeless, since change is necessary in order for time to exist (Hopefully we can agree on that). Before creation, God timelessly knew something that He would do: namely, create. However, we should not regard this as a temporal act, because temporality never came to occur until after creation began. It is when creation began that time began. Brian Ellis argues that before creation, it is perfectly reasonable to say that God was able to apprehend all of His acts, which would occur in a temporal manner, but would not be metrically measurable without creation's existence. This does not make God temporal before creation, it only means that He timelessly knew a temporal creation before it actually came about.*

Does this undermine the tensed fact argument?

I don't believe it does. It really comes down to how we think about time. It is proper only to speak of before time in an imaginative and logical sens, but not in a real sense. Anything before time is too difficult for us to imagine. Should we consider the time before God created to be a temporal time also? Perhaps to us it would seem temporal, but in reality, there was nothing existent to measure time, so it is most proper to say that before creation, God was timeless. &quot;To say there is no time before the first event is like saying there is no temperature -273 C. Both express limits beyond which only the mind can travel. Whitrow remarks in this connection that many people have difficulty imagining a beginning to time because they think of it as a boundary similar to a boundary of space&quot; (Quote source withheld so that the person's name does not get in the way of discussion). 

I want you to know that in order for me to discuss this question any more, I should probably wait ten years until I have my PH.D. My brain is already starting to ooze out of my ear, and also the fact that I said alot leaves me open to alot of criticism from you, but go ahead. Chip away.

[b:c8434d4149]Johnny_Redeemed Deals With Syllogism #1[/b:c8434d4149]
[quote:c8434d4149][i:c8434d4149]Originally posted by johnny_redeemed[/i:c8434d4149]
[quote:c8434d4149][i:c8434d4149]Originally posted by JesusFan[/i:c8434d4149] 
1. God is creatively active in the temporal world. 
2. If God is creatively active in the temporal world, God is really related to the temporal world. 
3. If God is really related to the temporal world, God is temporal. 
4. Therefore, God is temporal.*[/quote:c8434d4149] 
I would have to say that the second premise is fatly here. I think God can create the world without being "really related to it. There is another option, the one that Aquinas used, which is to say God is *logically* related to the world. This is the distinction that many, in fact all I think, tomists make about God's relation to the world.[/quote:c8434d4149]
Can you explain how God can be logically related to His creation, but not be REALLY related to creation? It would seem that even a logical relationship is still a REAL relationship. Does He not still regard creation as His creation? Does He not still act and create and destroy and regenerate people who are in creation?

I should think that with nearly 600 (or so) years of Thomistic thinking, you should be able to explain a little more how God is [b:c8434d4149]not[/b:c8434d4149] really related to creation. If this is your defeater for syllogism #1, then it surely deserves a little more explanation.

[b:c8434d4149]Johnny_Redeemed's Syllogisms[/b:c8434d4149]
[quote:c8434d4149][i:c8434d4149]Originally posted by johnny_redeemed[/i:c8434d4149]
I have two argument that I came up with on my own. Here it is...

1) In order for there to be time three things MUST be present 1) mass (matter) 2) velocity (motion) 3) gravity
2) God does not have mass (matter)
3) Therefore God is not in time

1) In order for there to be time three things MUST be present 1) mass (matter) 2) velocity (motion) 3) gravity
2) God does not have velocity (motion)
3) Therefore God is not in time[/quote:c8434d4149]
I know that when it comes to discussing time, it gets quite touchy just how we should define time. We are all probably able to define time in a way that is more benefitial to our own particular views. I recognize this. I COULD even be guilty of it, myself. I must say, however, that your definition of what is necessary for time's existence comes close to crossing that obvious line. I have never, in all of my reading, encountered a theologian or philosopher who considered all three of these necessary in order for time to exist. (That doesn't mean there isn't one, it just means this is new to me.) Could you find for me the source for your assertion that matter, velovity, and gravity are all necessary in order for time to exist? I am profoundly interested in why we should all come to see those three as necessary. Out of charity, I am prepared to accept #2, &quot;Velocity,&quot; as long as you are willing to rephrase it as &quot;Change,&quot; instead. However, without the matter and gravity in your argument, it is a bit boring, isn't it?

I also think that 2Legit's argument that angels are non-physical and yet that they experience time is a very important criticism of your P1. Johnny_Redeemed, do you really believe that angels are physical? If you DO believe that they are basically physical, I would like to hear your argument.

Personally, I have always believed that angels are basically non-coporeal spirits. Rarely, and on special occasions, God grants them physical form for a short period of time so that they may perform particular acts (talking to shepherds, Mary, being at the tomb, etc.)

[b:c8434d4149]A special message for Johnny_Redeemed[/b:c8434d4149]
Please note, however, that I am very proud of you for doing what I could not: making up a syllogism. Does the one I presented above count? I guess, even then, I didn't MAKE IT UP, I actually just did a variation on 2 Legit's. Someday I'll be a cool philosopher... Someday...



*Brian Ellis, 'Has the universe a beginning in time?', Australasian (Yes, Australasian. The spelling is right!) Journal of Philosophy XXXIII (1955), 33.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Jun 4, 2004)

i think i have had enough of this conversation for now. this does not mean i will not say any thing more about this later, but for now i am going to be done with this conversation on the board. if JesusFan and/or 2legit2quit wants to call me and talk personally i would do so gladly.
the main reason for this is that the issue being discussed is of such a technical nature that 1) none of us are really adequately equipped to talk about this issue. 2) i am not as good as writing on this subject as i am at talking about it, so i would rather use that medium. 
feel free to continue discussion this issue, i will be looking forward to reading what you guys/gals post.

[Edited on 6-5-2004 by johnny_redeemed]


----------



## cupotea (Jun 7, 2004)

Okay, Johnny.

I am a little saddened, though, because this is the first time since the end of the school year that I've been using my brain. The XBox was getting alot of my attention until this little discussion, but I guess I'll just have to go back to killing bad guys... :-(

Your friend,
Adam

PS: I WAS starting to feel a little like our discussion would have ended up being a book, given about 10 or 20 more posts, am I right?


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Jun 7, 2004)

I hope you are not stoping on my account. i tought i was clear is saying that &quot;I&quot; was done posting. there was more then just me who was posting with you JesusFan. You and 2legit can still chat if you want.

[Edited on 6-7-2004 by johnny_redeemed]


----------



## cupotea (Jun 10, 2004)

You're a lovely person.


----------

