# Can God go back in Time?



## RamistThomist

I was reading a medieval history and came across St. Peter Damian, who wrote _On Divine Omnipotence_. Essentially he argued that God was so sovereign he could go back in time. Has anyone else explored this type of statement?


----------



## etexas

Perhaps He could...there are things I am sure God could do that in His infinite wisdom does not do. Also we are not privy to the whole counsel of God. What he has revealed to His Elect is sufficient reveation.


----------



## Pergamum

For what purpsoe wold He need to go back in time...to correct a mistake?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Time is not linear for God, that's why the Father and the Son said, "I am" - time is no more limiting to God than any other dimension. He is "above all".


----------



## Devin

Pergamum said:


> For what purpsoe wold He need to go back in time...to correct a mistake?



That was my initial thought as well. I fail to see a reason why He'd need to go back. But, that still doesn't answer the question of the OP


----------



## panta dokimazete

a quick, weak example is that all creation from beginning to end is laid out to God - just like a tapestry. He can see all events simultaneously. For God, there is no "past, present or future" only "now".


----------



## VictorBravo

jdlongmire said:


> Time is not linear for God, that's why the Father and the Son said, "I am" - time is no more limiting to God than any other dimension. He is "above all".



 First thing I thought of. God created time, he owns it all.


----------



## etexas

Pergamum said:


> For what purpsoe wold He need to go back in time...to correct a mistake?


I think the question was could he...not what for what is intent would be. For my part I simply say some things are very far above our minds. I would be reluctant to say God could not do such a thing....would he....don't know. God is no mans debtor...He does not owe us an explanation of what He can or cannot do.


----------



## BrianLanier

Interesting question. Two quick thoughts:

(1) If God is atemporal, then the question appears to not make any sense.

(2) If God is temporal (this doesn't have to mean he has *always* existed temporally), then the question becomes: in what sense is the past necessary? And that is not an easy question to answer (even though it seems to be).


----------



## RamistThomist

BrianLanier said:


> Interesting question. Two quick thoughts:
> 
> (1) If God is atemporal, then the question appears to not make any sense.
> 
> (2) If God is temporal (this doesn't have to mean he has *always* existed temporally), then the question becomes: in what sense is the past necessary? And that is not an easy question to answer (even though it seems to be).



That's kind of what I was touching on, though I will come back to (1) in a moment. The answer to this question, as I see it, is related to God's relationship with time.


----------



## VictorBravo

Spear Dane said:


> That's kind of what I was touching on, though I will come back to (1) in a moment. The answer to this question, as I see it, is related to God's relationship with time.



Just a quick thought, I've got to run. Time equires at least two objects and some changeable relationship between them. Otherwise there is no meaning to time. So time is intimately intrinsic to creation. That's what I meant by God owning it.


----------



## panta dokimazete

God is supra-temporal, not atemporal. Atemporal suggests he is still "in" time, just not affected by it. God is _*over*_ and _*outside*_ time.


----------



## etexas

There has been for a long time a debate over the concept of time as we know it or understand it......the debate being, is time a "creation".


----------



## BrianLanier

jdlongmire said:


> a quick, weak example is that all creation from beginning to end is laid out to God - just like a tapestry. He can see all events simultaneously. For God, there is no "past, present or future" only "now".



Now this may be true, but it is not obviously true. There are very good arguments for God's 'eternality' to be defined as 'everlastingness' (see N. Wolterstorff "God Everlasting", 1975, W.L. Craig "Timelessness and Necessary Existence", etc.). That is there was never a 'time' when God did not exist, rather than God not existing in time at all (atemoral). So you would have to phrase your above statement with the qualifier that "now" refers to a 'timeless' concept. Now it is very hard to describe this in our natural language: 'now', 'eternal present', 'simultaneous', etc are are tensed. But on the other hand, Paul Helm (Eternal God) and Brian Leftow (Time and Eternity) have made good arguments for the atemporal concept. It appears as if the biblical texts are underdetermined in this respect.


----------



## BrianLanier

jdlongmire said:


> God is supra-temporal, not atemporal. Atemporal suggests he is still "in" time, just not affected by it. God is _*over*_ and _*outside*_ time.



Not true. 'Atemporality' does *not* suggest that God is "in time". In the literature, the correct phrase is 'atemporal' not 'super-temporal'.


----------



## panta dokimazete

BrianLanier said:


> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is supra-temporal, not atemporal. Atemporal suggests he is still "in" time, just not affected by it. God is _*over*_ and _*outside*_ time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. 'Atemporality' does *not* suggest that God is "in time". In the literature, the correct phrase is 'atemporal' not 'super-temporal'.
Click to expand...


I will concede that atemporality is most commonly utilized in the literature - I believe that *supra* - temporality more accurately describes the relationship of God to time.

Atemporal suggest that He does not interact with time...and we know that God (in Christ) did interact with time, yet was Lord *over* it simultaneously.


----------



## caddy

Oddly enough Kreeft has a very interesting Chapter in his book _Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven. _The chapter is Chapter Ten: Is there Time in Heaven? Chapter 11 is entitled: What is Eternity?

There are some interesting portions:

_The image of eternity as a point does, however, contain an essential truth: that eternity is not spread out like time. It is simultaneously present all at once, not piece by piece in passing. The answer to the question "What time is it in eternity?" is: Now. Thus Boethius' classic definition of eternity is "the simultaneous possession of all perfection in a single present"...One of the reasons we need eternity is so that our lives can finally have that wholeness, that oneness, that all-together-ness._

_But we need no dimensional analogy, for we can be literal about dimensions: if there are three dimensions of space and time is the forth dimension, then eternity is the fifth dimension. Eternity includes time as time includes space. _He then goes on to say that, _unfortunately, it is a bit more complicated that that. Eternity is the sixth dimension, kairos-time the fith, and eternity the sixth. Thus there are three temporal dimensions, just as there are three spatial dimensions. Chronos is the first temporal dimension, like a line; kairos is the second, like a surface; and eternity is the third, like a solid: the concrete reality of which the others are only abstract aspects._

_We need an image that will combine the truth symbolized by the point ( viz., that in eternity all time is present at once, rather than dispersed into past and future) with the truth symbolozed by the solid body ( viz., that time is only the abstract boundary of a fully eternity)._

_A medieval image for God was "a spiritual sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere". The universe images God in these two ways: its center is also everywhere, because there is no absolute center in relative space; and its circumference is nowhere because its boundaries ( finitude ) are everywhere in it, not outside it._

Anyhow, he deals a lot with Kairos and Chronos, but much of what he says seems speculative on the one hand but comes off as sounding sensible on the other. There are "some" scripture references here and there, but I think there is a lot philosophical reaching going on. I know this doesn't deal directly with your questionm but thought it might interest you.


----------



## panta dokimazete

jdlongmire said:


> BrianLanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is supra-temporal, not atemporal. Atemporal suggests he is still "in" time, just not affected by it. God is _*over*_ and _*outside*_ time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. 'Atemporality' does *not* suggest that God is "in time". In the literature, the correct phrase is 'atemporal' not 'super-temporal'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will concede that atemporality is most commonly utilized in the literature - I believe that *supra* - temporality more accurately describes the relationship of God to time.
> 
> Atemporal suggest that He does not interact with time...and we know that God (in Christ) did interact with time, yet was Lord *over* it simultaneously.
Click to expand...


To wit: Would you say that God is moral, *a*moral or *supra*-moral?


----------



## RamistThomist

caddy said:


> Oddly enough Kreeft has a very interesting Chapter in his book _Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven. _The chapter is Chapter Ten: Is there Time in Heaven? Chapter 11 is entitled: What is Eternity?
> 
> There are some interesting portions:
> 
> _The image of eternity as a point does, however, contain an essential truth: that eternity is not spread out like time. It is simultaneously present all at once, not piece by piece in passing. The answer to the question "What time is it in eternity?" is: Now. Thus Boethius' classic definition of eternity is "the simultaneous possession of all perfection in a single present"...One of the reasons we need eternity is so that our lives can finally have that wholeness, that oneness, that all-together-ness._
> 
> _But we need no dimensional analogy, for we can be literal about dimensions: if there are three dimensions of space and time is the forth dimension, then eternity is the fifth dimension. Eternity includes time as time includes space. _He then goes on to say that, _unfortunately, it is a bit more complicated that that. Eternity is the sixth dimension, kairos-time the fith, and eternity the sixth. Thus there are three temporal dimensions, just as there are three spatial dimensions. Chronos is the first temporal dimension, like a line; kairos is the second, like a surface; and eternity is the third, like a solid: the concrete reality of which the others are only abstract aspects._
> 
> _We need an image that will combine the truth symbolized by the point ( viz., that in eternity all time is present at once, rather than dispersed into past and future) with the truth symbolozed by the solid body ( viz., that time is only the abstract boundary of a fully eternity)._
> 
> _A medieval image for God was "a spiritual sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere". The universe images God in these two ways: its center is also everywhere, because there is no absolute center in relative space; and its circumference is nowhere because its boundaries ( finitude ) are everywhere in it, not outside it._
> 
> Anyhow, he deals a lot with Kairos and Chronos, but much of what he says seems speculative on the one hand but comes off as sounding sensible on the other. There are "some" scripture references here and there, but I think there is a lot philosophical reaching going on. I know this doesn't deal directly with your questionm but thought it might interest you.



I had Kreeft in mind but I didn't want to invoke him because people would get mad at me for quoting a Catholic.


----------



## BrianLanier

jdlongmire said:


> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BrianLanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. 'Atemporality' does *not* suggest that God is "in time". In the literature, the correct phrase is 'atemporal' not 'super-temporal'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will concede that atemporality is most commonly utilized in the literature - I believe that *supra* - temporality more accurately describes the relationship of God to time.
> 
> Atemporal suggest that He does not interact with time...and we know that God (in Christ) did interact with time, yet was Lord *over* it simultaneously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To wit: Would you say that God is *a*moral or *supra*-moral?
Click to expand...


Well if you ground ethics in God's nature, then neither would be appropriate. Then you could ask, is God supra-his-nature? 

BTW, who uses 'supra-temporal' to discribe the relationship that God has to time? I don't remember seeing it in the discussions I've read (though I could have easily forgot or just haven't read enough!).

The atemporalist argument is that God *acting* in time does not entail God *being* in time. This seems to be identical to what you are saying, and if that is true, then why use a term that is not as prevalent in the literature to make the same point? Just wondering.


----------



## panta dokimazete

BrianLanier said:


> Well if you ground ethics in God's nature, then neither would be appropriate. Then you could ask, is God supra-his-nature?



"Moral" and "ethical" are words developed to define human characteristics - it is anthropomorphic to use them to describe God. *Supra-* takes the conversation/debate to the next level.



> BTW, who uses 'supra-temporal' to discribe the relationship that God has to time? I don't remember seeing it in the discussions I've read (though I could have easily forgot or just haven't read enough!).
> 
> The atemporalist argument is that God *acting* in time does not entail God *being* in time. This seems to be identical to what you are saying, and if that is true, then why use a term that is not as prevalent in the literature to make the same point? Just wondering.



Mostly to move the conversation from an elemental characteristic discussion to a sovereignty discussion.


----------



## BrianLanier

jdlongmire said:


> BrianLanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you ground ethics in God's nature, then neither would be appropriate. Then you could ask, is God supra-his-nature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Moral" and "ethical" are words developed to define human characteristics - it is anthropomorphic to use them to describe God. *Supra-* takes the conversation/debate to the next level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, who uses 'supra-temporal' to discribe the relationship that God has to time? I don't remember seeing it in the discussions I've read (though I could have easily forgot or just haven't read enough!).
> 
> The atemporalist argument is that God *acting* in time does not entail God *being* in time. This seems to be identical to what you are saying, and if that is true, then why use a term that is not as prevalent in the literature to make the same point? Just wondering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mostly to move the conversation from an elemental characteristic discussion to a sovereignty discussion.
Click to expand...


Is 'good' a moral term? Is God good by nature? If so, then God is moral *by nature*. I know that there are arguments that claim that God is not 'good' in the 'moral' sense and so we can't predicate moral terms to God, I am just not sure I buy it.

I still see no point to using the term 'supra'-temporal to denote a concept that is identical with the already accepted term 'atemporal'. It can create unnecessary confusion and therefore should not be preferred. in my opinion. However, I do like the fact that you are trying to direct conversations toward discussing our Lord's sovereignty!!


----------



## Anton Bruckner

Spear Dane said:


> I was reading a medieval history and came across St. Peter Damian, who wrote _On Divine Omnipotence_. Essentially he argued that God was so sovereign he could go back in time. Has anyone else explored this type of statement?


But time is what was. It no longer exists. How can God go to something that doesn't exist? He would have to re-ordain it, and then it would become the present. The whole thing is illogical. Burn that book.


----------



## RamistThomist

I am surprised no one raised Possible World Semantics. That could solve one area of it.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

Spear Dane said:


> I am surprised no one raised Possible World Semantics. That could solve one area of it.


then it wouldn't be the past.

But I do fantasize of going back in time and not committing certain sins.


----------



## BrianLanier

Spear Dane said:


> I am surprised no one raised Possible World Semantics. That could solve one area of it.



Jacob, can you elaborate a little about what you had in mind with modal logic?


----------



## RamistThomist

BrianLanier said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am surprised no one raised Possible World Semantics. That could solve one area of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob, can you elaborate a little about what you had in mind with modal logic?
Click to expand...


Not too much, because I am weak in modal logic. But I remember reading something from Kelly James Clark's _Return to Reason_, a few essays by Bill Craig, and a chapter in William Rowe's _Philosophy of Religion_. I will see if I can find them later.

However, here is what I was thinking: If I can exist on certain worlds, and these worlds do exist (don't ask how), then I would ask "Do they exist simultaneously?" If so, then my question is moot. If not, then the question of God and time might be related.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Possible Worlds? Sounds like this.


----------



## SolaScriptura

I don't know if God can go back in time... but I sure wish I could!


----------



## Mushroom

Space and time are equivalencies. Do you believe that God is limited in any way by space? If not, why would you believe that He is limited by time? If so, where could you go in the universe that He would not be? I believe His omnipresence indicates His *omnitemporence* (new word).


----------



## panta dokimazete

Not trying to stifle the discussion, but much of this rationale seems like it could easily lead to Open Theism.


----------



## BrianLanier

Spear Dane said:


> BrianLanier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am surprised no one raised Possible World Semantics. That could solve one area of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob, can you elaborate a little about what you had in mind with modal logic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not too much, because I am weak in modal logic. But I remember reading something from Kelly James Clark's _Return to Reason_, a few essays by Bill Craig, and a chapter in William Rowe's _Philosophy of Religion_. I will see if I can find them later.
> 
> However, here is what I was thinking: If I can exist on certain worlds, and these worlds do exist (don't ask how), then I would ask "Do they exist simultaneously?" If so, then my question is moot. If not, then the question of God and time might be related.
Click to expand...


I don't remember a discussion on modal logic and God's (a)temporaliy in Clark's book, but it's been a while since I've read it. Let me know what you find, I have Rowe's and a number of Craig's materials.

It seems what you brought up would depend on what or not you were a modal realist or an actualist. I am more of an actualist (I think it accords better with Christian theology [am *I* saved in all possible *real* worlds sufficently similar to ours]-while not saying that it is essential to it), so I would say that *you* don't exist in any other world but the actual world. But if you were a Lewisian realist, maybe. Though perharps I am missing your point.


----------



## BrianLanier

jdlongmire said:


> Not trying to stifle the discussion, but much of this rationale seems like it could easily lead to Open Theism.



What "rationale" in particular are you referring to? Given the the fact that we are all committed to the doctrine of predestination, and deny libertarian free-will, how so? It seems to me that as soon as you deny libertarian free-will, open theism goes bye-bye.


----------



## caddy

Spear Dane said:


> caddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly enough Kreeft has a very interesting Chapter in his book _Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven. _The chapter is Chapter Ten: Is there Time in Heaven? Chapter 11 is entitled: What is Eternity?
> 
> There are some interesting portions:
> 
> _The image of eternity as a point does, however, contain an essential truth: that eternity is not spread out like time. It is simultaneously present all at once, not piece by piece in passing. The answer to the question "What time is it in eternity?" is: Now. Thus Boethius' classic definition of eternity is "the simultaneous possession of all perfection in a single present"...One of the reasons we need eternity is so that our lives can finally have that wholeness, that oneness, that all-together-ness._
> 
> _But we need no dimensional analogy, for we can be literal about dimensions: if there are three dimensions of space and time is the forth dimension, then eternity is the fifth dimension. Eternity includes time as time includes space. _He then goes on to say that, _unfortunately, it is a bit more complicated that that. Eternity is the sixth dimension, kairos-time the fith, and eternity the sixth. Thus there are three temporal dimensions, just as there are three spatial dimensions. Chronos is the first temporal dimension, like a line; kairos is the second, like a surface; and eternity is the third, like a solid: the concrete reality of which the others are only abstract aspects._
> 
> _We need an image that will combine the truth symbolized by the point ( viz., that in eternity all time is present at once, rather than dispersed into past and future) with the truth symbolozed by the solid body ( viz., that time is only the abstract boundary of a fully eternity)._
> 
> _A medieval image for God was "a spiritual sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere". The universe images God in these two ways: its center is also everywhere, because there is no absolute center in relative space; and its circumference is nowhere because its boundaries ( finitude ) are everywhere in it, not outside it._
> 
> Anyhow, he deals a lot with Kairos and Chronos, but much of what he says seems speculative on the one hand but comes off as sounding sensible on the other. There are "some" scripture references here and there, but I think there is a lot philosophical reaching going on. I know this doesn't deal directly with your questionm but thought it might interest you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had Kreeft in mind but I didn't want to invoke him because people would get mad at me for quoting a Catholic.
Click to expand...

 
LOL

I can take the heat.  I like Kreeft. He has some good things to say, but it's fairly easy to discern when he's doing philosophy and not theology. So much of your question, and the things that surrround it, is speculative. On the one hand we have j.Budziszewski telling us things "We Can't Not Know" ( Great book by the way ), on the other we have Kreeft, telling us things "We Can't Know" but Like to think we Do!


----------



## caddy

SolaScriptura said:


> I don't know if God can go back in time... but I sure wish I could!


 
*** Pondering *** Amen to this. I think we would all change a number of things. 

This is strange because I just finished watching a Nicholas Cage movie called "NEXT" where he has the ability to see 2 minutes into the future. It has some pretty neat twists to it. How nice it would be to be able to see the bullet that hits you two minutes into the future and move slightly to the left or right.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> am *I* saved in all possible *real* worlds sufficently similar to ours?



This seems like a similar track, in essence, to:



> For many open theists, the “future” is not a present reality — it does not exist — and God knows reality as it is


 link

Why even open the door for multiple worlds or a "fuzzy futures"? It seems like dangerous and unproductive speculation.


----------



## RamistThomist

caddy said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly enough Kreeft has a very interesting Chapter in his book _Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven. _The chapter is Chapter Ten: Is there Time in Heaven? Chapter 11 is entitled: What is Eternity?
> 
> There are some interesting portions:
> 
> _The image of eternity as a point does, however, contain an essential truth: that eternity is not spread out like time. It is simultaneously present all at once, not piece by piece in passing. The answer to the question "What time is it in eternity?" is: Now. Thus Boethius' classic definition of eternity is "the simultaneous possession of all perfection in a single present"...One of the reasons we need eternity is so that our lives can finally have that wholeness, that oneness, that all-together-ness._
> 
> _But we need no dimensional analogy, for we can be literal about dimensions: if there are three dimensions of space and time is the forth dimension, then eternity is the fifth dimension. Eternity includes time as time includes space. _He then goes on to say that, _unfortunately, it is a bit more complicated that that. Eternity is the sixth dimension, kairos-time the fith, and eternity the sixth. Thus there are three temporal dimensions, just as there are three spatial dimensions. Chronos is the first temporal dimension, like a line; kairos is the second, like a surface; and eternity is the third, like a solid: the concrete reality of which the others are only abstract aspects._
> 
> _We need an image that will combine the truth symbolized by the point ( viz., that in eternity all time is present at once, rather than dispersed into past and future) with the truth symbolozed by the solid body ( viz., that time is only the abstract boundary of a fully eternity)._
> 
> _A medieval image for God was "a spiritual sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere". The universe images God in these two ways: its center is also everywhere, because there is no absolute center in relative space; and its circumference is nowhere because its boundaries ( finitude ) are everywhere in it, not outside it._
> 
> Anyhow, he deals a lot with Kairos and Chronos, but much of what he says seems speculative on the one hand but comes off as sounding sensible on the other. There are "some" scripture references here and there, but I think there is a lot philosophical reaching going on. I know this doesn't deal directly with your questionm but thought it might interest you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had Kreeft in mind but I didn't want to invoke him because people would get mad at me for quoting a Catholic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> I can take the heat.  I like Kreeft. He has some good things to say, but it's fairly easy to discern when he's doing philosophy and not theology. So much of your question, and the things that surrround it, is speculative. On the one hand we have j.Budziszewski telling us things "We Can't Not Know" ( Great book by the way ), on the other we have Kreeft, telling us things "We Can't Know" but Like to think we Do!
Click to expand...


I love Kreeft. I have listened to all of his lectures and read much of his works. The Official Peter Kreeft Site


----------



## Jim Johnston

If God went back in time and met his past self would that disrput the space time continuum? 

Also, what if time travel is logically impossible? Could God "go back" (seems strange, like he's not there) to before he created time (and everything) and then not create it all? But then he wouldn't have went "back in time" because there would be no time. Nothing to "go back" to. (This is my variation on the grandfather paradox - don't know if it works, but it seems to raise a paradox, at least. And, yes, I know people have tried to offer answers to the grandfather paradox. Both sides make good points. My only point is that is seems possible that time travel could be a logical impossibility - in which case, given certain views of omnipotence (like inability to do the logically impossible), God could not go back in time.)

On most schemes of time travel, if you went back to when you existed, say, as a teenager, then there would be two of you. Does this view, then, assume that polytheism could be the case? Would both "Gods" be identical? Could we ascribe properties to one and not the other? Say, one is a time traveler and the other isn't? Or, if you say that there would not be two Gods, then did the past not have a god? If you say that God was already "back in time", then does God need to "go back" in time? Wouldn't he already be there?

hmmmmm


----------



## RamistThomist

Has anyone seen Michael Crichton's _Timeline_? I forgot the major how-to, but he doesn't link Time travel with time.


----------



## BrianLanier

jdlongmire said:


> am *I* saved in all possible *real* worlds sufficently similar to ours?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This seems like a similar track, in essence, to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For many open theists, the “future” is not a present reality — it does not exist — and God knows reality as it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> link
> 
> Why even open the door for multiple worlds or a "fuzzy futures"? It seems like dangerous and unproductive speculation.
Click to expand...


Well, like I said, I'm *not* a modal realist. But I'm not quite sure how modal logic is "dangerous and unproductive"? In fact it has helped clear up several logical problems that our other tools ostensibly couldn't.

Does the future qua future exist now? If it did it would not be future. One can (easily) be a temporalist and a Calvinist. The future can still be future (seems to make the most since out of the term, in my opinion) and still be determined by God. Open theists maintain God knows everything that there is to know but that the future qua future is *unknowable* because it is impossible to know the future free actions (meaning libertarian) of men. BTW, Bahnsen has (depending on whether or not you like him) some good lectures on this in this The Philosophy of Christianity CD series. It is a good introduction to philosophical theology. However, there are far more rigorous treatments available.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Devin said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what purpsoe wold He need to go back in time...to correct a mistake?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was my initial thought as well. I fail to see a reason why He'd need to go back. But, that still doesn't answer the question of the OP
Click to expand...


Well, perhaps we could make something out of this yet!

Let's see....

Now, depending on how "can" is being used in the OP, the only (or one of the) way to argue for the negative is to come up with some sort of logical contradiction.

But, we could at least offer some reasons which suggest strong(er) prima facie reasons against the OP (and, depending on how we work with the below, perhaps contradicts could be manufactured; but it's notoriously hard to show a genuine contradiction in topics like these).

Okay, let's apply a (seemingly) uncontroversial proposition: for any event contingent fact F, there is a reason for F. Call this the principle of sufficient reason PSR. Let's also stipulate a (seemingly) uncontroverisal premise for an evangelical Christian - God never does something for no reason. God does everything for a reason. Call this GR.

So, since it doesn't seem *necessary* that God would have to go back in time, it would be a contingent event.

What reasons would there be for going back in time? it would seem like all we could think of wouldn't serve for a reason for God. To "fix" something that went wrong? Not on our view. To "see" some historical person? No, he would've already. To "change" some state of affairs? Why change his plan? So, there seems like there would be no reason for God to go back in time.

This would lead us to this:

If God went back in time, it would be for no reason. Thus it seems like the assumption that God would go back in time violates PSR and GR.


----------



## caddy

Spear Dane said:


> caddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had Kreeft in mind but I didn't want to invoke him because people would get mad at me for quoting a Catholic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> I can take the heat.  I like Kreeft. He has some good things to say, but it's fairly easy to discern when he's doing philosophy and not theology. So much of your question, and the things that surrround it, is speculative. On the one hand we have j.Budziszewski telling us things "We Can't Not Know" ( Great book by the way ), on the other we have Kreeft, telling us things "We Can't Know" but Like to think we Do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love Kreeft. I have listened to all of his lectures and read much of his works. The Official Peter Kreeft Site
Click to expand...

 
Same here. I have had his site bookmarked for years. His lectures are very good.


----------



## VictorBravo

Tom Bombadil said:


> Devin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> For what purpsoe wold He need to go back in time...to correct a mistake?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was my initial thought as well. I fail to see a reason why He'd need to go back. But, that still doesn't answer the question of the OP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, perhaps we could make something out of this yet!
> 
> Let's see....
> 
> Now, depending on how "can" is being used in the OP, the only (or one of the) way to argue for the negative is to come up with some sort of logical contradiction.
> 
> But, we could at least offer some reasons which suggest strong(er) prima facie reasons against the OP (and, depending on how we work with the below, perhaps contradicts could be manufactured; but it's notoriously hard to show a genuine contradiction in topics like these).
> 
> Okay, let's apply a (seemingly) uncontroversial proposition: for any event contingent fact F, there is a reason for F. Call this the principle of sufficient reason PSR. Let's also stipulate a (seemingly) uncontroverisal premise for an evangelical Christian - God never does something for no reason. God does everything for a reason. Call this GR.
> 
> So, since it doesn't seem *necessary* that God would have to go back in time, it would be a contingent event.
> 
> What reasons would there be for going back in time? it would seem like all we could think of wouldn't serve for a reason for God. To "fix" something that went wrong? Not on our view. To "see" some historical person? No, he would've already. To "change" some state of affairs? Why change his plan? So, there seems like there would be no reason for God to go back in time.
> 
> This would lead us to this:
> 
> If God went back in time, it would be for no reason. Thus it seems like the assumption that God would go back in time violates PSR and GR.
Click to expand...


Mundane concerns prevented me from joining in earlier (no time!). I think this is a pretty elegant proof. That hits from a different direction what I was thinking. That is: God is coherent and therefore not one to reverse direction or change what is.

But even more fundamental, I think, is Jesus' statement "Before Abraham was, I am." When I ponder that for very long, I want to throw ashes on my head and put my face in the dirt. The Everlasting Father, Ancient of Days, holds together the past just as much as the present and the future. Past and future are real, even if we can never actually go (right now) there in our time-bound created nature.

But God is everlastingly "in" the past, present, and future. He cannot _go_ there any more than he can "go" to Cleveland. He's already there.


----------



## RamistThomist

I figured out how time-travel might be theoretically possible for humans. There is a key passage in Michael Crichton's _Timeline_ that I need to reread. Also, given certain themes of Herman Dooyeweerd's thought, and it is not too far-fetched. But it is too late in the evening for that.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

victorbravo said:


> But God is everlastingly "in" the past, present, and future. He cannot _go_ there any more than he can "go" to Cleveland. He's already there.





Very nicely thought out! 

I'm adding this to my "List of things to quote when I want to sound smarter than I really am."


----------



## Megaloo

Has GOD made promises in HIS word? Yes, HE keeps HIS promises. And, HE is PERFECT. HE is so PERFECT in fact that there would be no reason for HIM to have to go "back in time" because anything HE does/says/sets, is. HE cannot make mistakes. That is hard to fathom and a blessing to believe!! I don't know anyone around me who is like this. I get so excited and awe struck when I think about how PERFECT our LORD is. Just writing about it is a joy! 
What I have written does not mean much w/out verses, but this is what I believe. When I was at Sunday school last weekend, we were told that GOD keeps HIS promises. There you go, I don't know if I am on the same page as the rest of you, but it just seems simple. We are not given "time traveling" options so, why don't we just go with what we know as day to day folks. (of course this is kind of vague to say)
I guess in asking these questions though, it gets us thinking about how AWESOME our GOD truly is and we get to talk/write/think about our FATHER. Good times.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

The idea of God having limitations is not necessarily wrong. We understand that God does not act contrary to his holy nature. The Christian God will not create a rock he can't lift. We understand that he is able to accomplish all his holy will and good pleasure and that he controls all things toward that end. So to argue that God cannot go back in time is not necessarily incorrect. The question should instead be, is time-travel consistent with the nature of God?


----------

