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 "shebang" (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. "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" (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, "Velocity," as long as you are willing to rephrase it as "Change," 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.
