Is God Outside of Time?

[Jaltus]

In this thread, we are sticking to the concept of the Father and His relationship to time.

Frankly, I can make good arguemtns for God in time and God outside of time.

What do you think?

[Pilgrim]

I think you should get down off the fence and tell us which one you think is correct and we can go from there.

[Joe Corleone]

I would say that God is not constrained/limited/guided by time like we are. A day is as a thousand years, etc. I suspect there are at various times other more pressing situations going on somewhere in the universe or in another universe that we are not aware of, and these events or whatever they are called, if anything, may or may not have an effect on us here on planet earth.....and these events may require the presence or perhaps the intervention of God in some way that does not necessarily involve an errant meteorite or a winged armada of alien angelic beings form the far corners of some distant star system. We may be only one of many pitstops on His intergalactic travel itenerary.

My theory is that whatever the demise of time involves it will all happen simultaneously just like it all began with a big bang. The sky will roll up like a big curtain or I-Max screen and it'll be crystal clear as a bell what's about to happen cause we'll all be able to see and hear and smell the fiery end . Time as we know it will change into something else.....There won't be any of this twelve step stuff...Christians gettin free secret space travel time with Jesus while the rest of the world hangs out for 7 years terrorizing and being terrorized. Apache attack helicopters disguised as locusts firing rockets at a helpless Jesus and the cowering saints while they are holed up in the New Jerusalem compound. I don't think so.

I was reading about black holes recently. Around a black hole there is supposedly something called an event horizon, and if it were technically possible for you to jump into a high tech spaceship and travel to the edge of the event horizon without being sucked into the BH's oblivion by the massive amount of gravitational force which is there, and and if you could somehow survive and spend like just a few years there, and then return to earth, it would be 10,000 years or so later than when you left because time really slooooooooooows waaaaaaaaaaaaay waaaaaaaaay down on the event horizon of a black hole. So how do we know there are not other areas in the universe or in heaven, which BTW must be somewhere in the universe, right? or in another universe where time is irrelevant kinda like it is on the event horizon of this black hole. Make sense?

[Joe Corleone]

When we die, and if we have a soul, which I believe that we do, even though I cannot prove it, nor have any idea what one (a soul) looks like....Never-the-less, I think that our soul travels somewhere at or near the speed of light, which doesn't require very much time either as I understand Einsteinian relativity. I just don't accept this idea that our souls lie there dormant in the rotting smelly casket until the end of time and the last judgement. We go somewhere in some form, and time probably doesn't slow us down the nanosecond or two after we die. Right now this is giving me a headache and making me hungry as well, so I think I'll run out for pasta or calzone maybe. Some homemade bread and reggianno cheese would be nice too. Right now, time and dinner is important. Ciao.

[dizzle]

Hey Joe!!.... well I suspect that I am a molinist in the making. I am going to read Craig's Only Wise God which I was fortunate enough to find although it is out of print.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey jaltus--

In this thread, we are sticking to the concept of the Father and His relationship to time.

**7** i'm curious why you specified "Father" here?
ya said--

Frankly, I can make good arguemtns for God in time and God outside of time.
What do you think?

**8** i agree that good arguments can be brought forth for God being in (Richard Swinburne, for example) and out (Brian Leftow, for example) of time. that said, however, since the traditional view posits God outside of time, i believe in the atemporality of God.
philosophical arguments for this view are less than clear, and it is hard for me to be convinced by them.
however, turning to the self-revelation of God in history, one argument turns up which is very strong.
since God knows the future before it happens, God therefore is outside of time (argument to be expanded as needed :rofl:)
peace.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Questions like these sort of pull at the very fabric of Theology and our conceptions of the attributes of God. When this particular strand of the fabric is pulled, the whole interwoven matrix of humanly devised theological concepts is potentially affected.

For instance, if God is omnipresent, must we also conjecture that he might be omnitemporal? I have the suspicion that such questions begin to verge on nonsense. I remember doing a double take a few years back as I read one of Norman Geisler's pronouncements against the OV. He said that if God were not outside of time, he could move no faster than the speed of light. Of course, on the other end of the spectrum, we have folks like John Polkinghorne.

Though I'm really very interested in this question, I must say that---nobody knows! Like Jaltus, I've heard some good arguments for both sides....

[Jaltus]

Actually, I hold to a view that has serious problems, that God is Lord over time in that He can move in and out of time.

These means backwards causation is possible.

As said, I am still working on this.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Actually, I hold to a view that has serious problems, that God is Lord over time in that He can move in and out of time.

These means backwards causation is possible.

As said, I am still working on this.

That sounds interesting. If you care to sketch the parameters of your emerging view, I'd be eager to check it out.

BTW, the whole idea of God's moving "in and out of time" just shakes up our rather embryonic notions of immanence/transcendence as a binary opposition. I wonder how much our language-bound conceptions of time impede us. We speak of God as if he were a substance within a substance, a being within spacetime. Mindboggling.

[Gavin]

Actually, I hold to a view that has serious problems, that God is Lord over time in that He can move in and out of time.

These means backwards causation is possible.

As said, I am still working on this.
Could you elaborate on this?

[Jaltus]

I believe God created time, it is not something intrinsic. I think God experiences sequence, but not what we call time.

The difference for this is because I beleive, and physics backs me on this one, that time is bound to physicality alone. Time means the motion of matter. Sequence just means that more than one thing happens.

Thus, God does multiple things (experiencing sequence), but God is not by nature physical (not experiencing time as being part of His nature, hence not treating the Spirit and Son here).

If God created time, then He can move in and out of it at will, much like we can dip our arms into a fish tank. Just as the fish cannot leave the water, so can man not leave time. It is intrinsic to us. Time is superfluous to God.

Thus, God is master of time. But if He is master, that means He could go forward AND backward in time. That means if something happens He does not like (setting determinism aside), He could "rewind" and "retry" that part of time. Hence reverse causation, or at least temporal loops.

[Gavin]

Jaltus:

I essentially agree. I thought I disagreed, but it is just semantics on what you mean by God being "in time".

[GrayPilgrim]

Hey Jaltus, you're sounding very Calvinistic there!:hrm:

[efta777]

I just wrote this big long thing, but then I changed my mind. I think God exists within time but is not bound by it.

[Blake Reas]

Originally posted by Jaltus
I believe God created time, it is not something intrinsic. I think God experiences sequence, but not what we call time.

The difference for this is because I beleive, and physics backs me on this one, that time is bound to physicality alone. Time means the motion of matter. Sequence just means that more than one thing happens.

Thus, God does multiple things (experiencing sequence), but God is not by nature physical (not experiencing time as being part of His nature, hence not treating the Spirit and Son here).

If God created time, then He can move in and out of it at will, much like we can dip our arms into a fish tank. Just as the fish cannot leave the water, so can man not leave time. It is intrinsic to us. Time is superfluous to God.

Thus, God is master of time. But if He is master, that means He could go forward AND backward in time. That means if something happens He does not like (setting determinism aside), He could "rewind" and "retry" that part of time. Hence reverse causation, or at least temporal loops.

Interesting! I haven't delved into this topic being I have been only a Christian for about roughly 2 years. :huh:

[GrayPilgrim]

I've been a Christian 14 years, and I've only delved into because I'm friends with Jaltus.

[Jaltus]

I've been a Christian for....oh my...I think 23 years, and I have just gotten into it in the past 2 years. Part of it is because I was really delving into some other issues about God's nature and attributes, and I kept bumping into this one issue.

Besides, I heard Norm Geisler speak, and everything came back to God's timelessness, which seemed to be a sad place to BEGIN your theology proper.

[Pilgrim]

Jaltus, how can there be sequence without motion? I think you're splitting hairs too closely. I'm with you though, time is dependant on motion. In other words, when the physical creation occured, time started

[geebob]

I'd like to start out with the traditional view of timelessness.

If God is timeless, ie he experiences all of his life in one simultaneous whole (as boethius argued), or that he experiences no sequence of events from before to after, then God is not omnipotent.

Omnipotence as defined by Aquinace (and accepted by all reasonable people) is the ability to do anything that is logically possible.

To see how this works, lets start out with a crucial implication of the view of timelessness given. If God possesses all of his temporal life at once, if he experiences no temporal sequence from before to after, then everything that God has done or will do (from our perspective) is in fact what God is always perpetually doing.

So we may say that God parted the red sea, but the ultimate reality of that is that right now God is parting the red sea. He may not be parting the red sea in (or should I say at) 2003 A.D., but he is always acting in such a way that the red sea parted in the way that it did.

Just to draw out a little more of the weirdness of timelessness, I'll mention this much. Even before creation, God was acting in such a way that he was parting the red sea. There was no red sea, but the supposition is that if there was a red sea and had the exact same circmstances existed (he had a choosen people to save from a maurading egyptian army and wished to display his power to both) (we are for the moment taking for granted that we can speak of time before creation), God's perpetual action of parting the red sea would have taken effect thus parting the red sea.

So here is the simple consequence of all this that my arguement is concerned with. All actions that are to be attributed to God are actions that he is always doing.

So, what this means is that if God isn't doing it, he never will and never has. Now here's the problem. If He never has nor never will perform the action, he cannot do so without becoming temporal because there would be a temporal succession of action where God wasn't doing something, then he did it.

And if God is necessarily timeless, Then there is an infinite number of logical possibitities that he cannot perform.

Now Jaltus' view may not have this problem, but the picture of God that Jaltus paints is not one of a truly timeless God (not that I'm suggesting that that was Jaltus' intention). Of course it may have it's own problems.


Jaltus, I'm curious, what difference would it make for God to move "outside" of time. Did he really leave time and if so, when he is not in time, is he really absent from time? What would be the difference between a moment when God is in time and when he is outside of time?

[Jaltus]

PA,

Jaltus, how can there be sequence without motion? I think you're splitting hairs too closely. I'm with you though, time is dependant on motion. In other words, when the physical creation occured, time started Sequence can just be between one thought and the next. My thoughts are ordered, and so are sequential. They need not be in time, as the concept of "logical priority" points out.

Part of the problem with this entire issue is that most "experts" on this topic refuse to define time. I just happen to define it by an equation.

t = d/v where t=time, d=distance, and v=velocity

Since distance and velocity are both listed, it is obvious that time needs physicality to have reality.

1013,

Jaltus, I'm curious, what difference would it make for God to move "outside" of time. Did he really leave time and if so, when he is not in time, is he really absent from time? What would be the difference between a moment when God is in time and when he is outside of time? If God moves "outside" of time, then He can interact with more than one part of it at once (sequentially). He could be responding to prayer by sending out angels without Himself actually being in time. His agents by necessity are, but He would not need to be. After all, will "heaven" have time? I'd argue that it is no longer necessary.

As for Him being absent from time, that really depends what you mean. You see, God is omnipresent, and part of my view is that God is omnitemporal then as well, since time is but another aspect of physicality for God to be present in. In some real way, I'd say God is never absent from ANY time, at least until the judgment (a problem with both timelessness and my view).

[smilax]

Originally posted by Jaltus
After all, will "heaven" have time? I'd argue that it is no longer necessary.Side note: thermodynamic irreversibility is a feature of four dimensions and higher. If time doesn't exist in heaven, then neither will entropy. And this, strange as it seems, may be a fulfillment of such prophecies as Isaiah lxv, 21-23.You see, God is omnipresent, and part of my view is that God is omnitemporal then as well, since time is but another aspect of physicality for God to be present in. In some real way, I'd say God is never absent from ANY time, at least until the judgment (a problem with both timelessness and my view).Why not have God simply present in a base, limited, undetectable way, the opposite of the Shekinah presence? In the end, this seems like the same "contradiction" between omnipresence and hell.

[geebob]

Side note: thermodynamic irreversibility is a feature of four dimensions and higher. If time doesn't exist in heaven, then neither will entropy.

Is the second law of thermodynamics logically necessary to time. I don't see why the presence of sequence necessarily implies that energy must function this way.

But suppose the 2nd law is at work in a temporal heaven. That doesn't mean that God's power acts to perpetually preserve everything.


Jaltus, you views of time are in general fairly heavily influenced by reletivity, though your training is in High energy, which I assume involves more study of quantum mechanics. I've heard from several places that quantum mechanics favors presentism.

So what do you think of this statement from Greg Boyd's research assistent, Tyler De Armond?

In terms of quantum, time is not spatialized but space is temporalized. Nobel Prize winner Ian Prigogine is currently in the process of reconceiving all physical laws in terms of what he refers to as the principle of irreversibility. This is to say that the course of reality (time) is ultimately irreversible and real, which is fundamentally denied in the relativity view. This view squares solidly with what open theists proclaim about God's relationship with time.

[NSMinistries]

Originally posted by Pilgrim
Jaltus, how can there be sequence without motion? I think you're splitting hairs too closely. I'm with you though, time is dependant on motion. In other words, when the physical creation occured, time started

First question here is not can God move in and out of time but is He bound by any physcal laws that would prohibit it.

[geebob]

First question here is not can God move in and out of time but is He bound by any physcal laws that would prohibit it.

A more fundamental question is whether the nature of time is such that typical views of God on the outside of temporality have any coherence.

If the present is ontologically special, and/or the future and past do not exist, then such views of God as outside of time are meaningless.

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by Jaltus
[B]PA,

Sequence can just be between one thought and the next. My thoughts are ordered, and so are sequential. They need not be in time, as the concept of "logical priority" points out.

Part of the problem with this entire issue is that most "experts" on this topic refuse to define time. I just happen to define it by an equation.

t = d/v where t=time, d=distance, and v=velocity

Since distance and velocity are both listed, it is obvious that time needs physicality to have reality.



Here is where that assumption breaks down: Thoughts occur as the result of motion. They are not motionless. They are the result of nuerons firing and chemical interactions so even the sequence of thoughts rely on motion.

[GrayPilgrim]

Does God have nuerons to fire?

[NSMinistries]

Originally posted by Pilgrim
Here is where that assumption breaks down: Thoughts occur as the result of motion. They are not motionless. They are the result of nuerons firing and chemical interactions so even the sequence of thoughts rely on motion.

But we are the physical world not the spiritual one.

[Pilgrim]

NS, that is why I argue more for the God is outside of time point of view. But I think that a good argument could be made for God existing in all of time and space simultaneously.

[Dark Knight]

God is outside of time

He knows when you've been sleeping (and who with), he knows when you're awake; He knows when you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake!

The DARK KNIGHT has spoken!

[Philemon]

Dark Knight,
Your a cheese ball.:rofl:

[Jaltus]

Pa,

You just said thought has to have neurons. Does that mean God does NOT think?

Spirit thinks, flesh responds.

1013,

In terms of quantum, time is not spatialized but space is temporalized. Nobel Prize winner Ian Prigogine is currently in the process of reconceiving all physical laws in terms of what he refers to as the principle of irreversibility. This is to say that the course of reality (time) is ultimately irreversible and real, which is fundamentally denied in the relativity view. This view squares solidly with what open theists proclaim about God's relationship with time. First, theology does not come from physics, no matter how much easier that would make life for me.

Second, this research Assisstant is obviously as clueless about QM as Boyd is, and yes that is an insult. Boyd specifically makes the point that QM refers to indeterminancy, including chaos theory in the mix. However, chaos theory points toward TOTAL DETERMINANCY, with not a single shred of chance to the infinite mind. Chaos theory is only indeterminant to finite minds.

Just because a single physicist is working on something does not make it so. Mind you, his Nobel was for something OTHER than this theory. For that matter, space is not temporalized nor is time spatialized, both are turned into THE SAME THING. Semantic reframing does not change that.

[geebob]

First, theology does not come from physics, no matter how much easier that would make life for me.

that would make me happy. If you'd lay your educated smak down on anyone who tries to bring physics into these discussions, you win my eternal :thumb: award. Have you changed your view on this? I don't know why you'd say such things as "God is not subject to any part of creation, for He is the creator, a distinction you are clearly forgetting." if you were not bringing physics into theology. Because outside of physics, it is not clear in any way why we should consider time as a part of the creation (as opposed to the uncreated nature of reality).

You did show how time figures into a physics equation, but I don't see how that implies the created nature of time (or the falsity of presentism) any more than your use of an equation implies a created nature of mathematics itself. Time may figure into creation as much as the forms, but that does not make it created.

Just because a single physicist is working on something does not make it so. Mind you, his Nobel was for something OTHER than this theory.

It's hard to have faith in anything physicists say on these issues when they are all bumbling outside of their narrow scope. And I'd wonder if even a reletivistic physicist would have anything authoritative to say to the philosophy of time as the semantics and concepts are often going to diverge from the way they are used in his feild. For example, I don't think fourth dimensionalism as I read it in my metaphysics book is clearly the same thing as the fourth dimensionalism in reletivity.

Second, this research Assisstant is obviously as clueless about QM as Boyd is, and yes that is an insult.

As you said it'd be easy for you if theology could come from physics. I think it'd be easy for me if the whole field of philosophy of time could ignore physics, cause it really looks like it comes down to "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

[geebob]

Jaltus, DeArmond Recomended A book edited by David Ray Griffin that has essays from both physists and theologians called Physics and the Ultimate Significance of Time.

Also, He recomended The Arrow of Time by Coveney and Highfield, a physicist and a journalist (but not necessarily in that order).

I'm curious if you know about either of these and in your opinion, should I even bother?

[GrayPilgrim]

1013 to Jaltus:
Have you changed your view on this?

Sounds like the same old Jaltus to me.

[Jaltus]

Never heard of either, though David Ray Griffin IS a name that I know. I'd start there.

[geebob]

The arrow of time may be where Boyd gets his facination with fractals.

after the last question is where DeArmond describes it a bit.

http://www.opentheism.org/god_and_time.htm#The%20Question%20#%202

[Jaltus]

The big error is that, by definition, there cannot be an "omniscient" observer. The one thing this guy does not get is that NO inertial frame is privilidged. The only solution within relativity is that God is outside of time (in order to have the privilidged viewpoint, otherwise God does have an inertial frame).

[geebob]

The big error is that, by definition, there cannot be an "omniscient" observer.

Greg Boyd by the way no longer holds this view. I don't know exactly what he holds in it's place though. He said something about it at his forum.

The only solution within relativity is that God is outside of time (in order to have the privilidged viewpoint, otherwise God does have an inertial frame).

you perpetually confuse me on this.

I could've sworn that in our last thread on the subject, you admitted that reletivity is not a problem for presentism but said "minkowskian space time" but then proceeded to insist that the twinns paradox which to my understanding IS about reletivity is problematic for presentism.

BTW, that thread is archived.

[Jaltus]

LOL.

Relativity now accepts Minkoswkian space-time as part of it. They are not really separable (other than who proved them).

[geebob]

The things I said in that thread still seem reasonable to me. I recall I had the last word. If you think I'm a hopeless layman on it, well, okay, but as the understanding of reletivity I've put forth there stands, which is the understanding that they teach laymen in high school and college, I don't see a problem.

Now I found the thread where Greb Boyd takes back what he said in the God of the possible about relativity and resubmits something slightly different.

here's the link.

http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=515

[Jaltus]

Sorry, I was laughing at how incomprehensible I can be when I type "free-flowing."

My wife hates it when I try to teach her particle physics off the top of my head.

[Ishmael]

:yipee:

[Captain Ochre]

phantaz sunlyk:
since God knows the future before it happens, God therefore is outside of time (argument to be expanded as needed :rofl:)
peace.

God's knowledge is "outside of time" in the sense that omniscience implies knowledge of future events (not predicted based on causal determinism).
However, are not God's actions *in* time necessarily temporal (almost by definition)?
Acting in time non-sequentially leads to reverse causation, doesn't it?

[Jaltus]

Exactly, God acting in time non-sequentially can lead to reverse causation, but that would only be from our perspective, not from God's.

Which frame of reference is priveledged?

[Captain Ochre]

Jaltus:
Exactly, God acting in time non-sequentially can lead to reverse causation, but that would only be from our perspective, not from God's.

Which frame of reference is priveledged?

Hmmm--I'm not sure that frame-of-reference is necessarily the issue. If, for instance, God tells prophet X that event Q will happen at later time T based on God--from God's frame-of-reference--causing or noting event Q, we have events in *our* frame-of-reference being caused by later events in *our* frame of reference.
(Occurrence of event Q leads to event 2Q(prophet's knowledge of event Q))

Or perhaps I should be asking: Why should the fact that the events are sequential from God's frame of reference have any bearing on the fact that the events are reversally causal from *our* frame of reference?
Is the message that it's okay for reverse causation to occur if that causation *isn't* reverse causation from at least one other frame of reference? If so, why?

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey--

God's knowledge is "outside of time" in the sense that omniscience implies knowledge of future events (not predicted based on causal determinism).

**7** i'm sorta uncomfortable with refering to God's knowledge of events as "future" knowledge. i agree that it is not a conjecture on God's part; however, the common move amongst most in imagining God's eternity to consist of no more than t1 through tn (from our frame of reference) being experienced simultaneously by God is certainly false.
this isn't to say that i have anything to replace it with--i don't speculate much about it.

However, are not God's actions *in* time necessarily temporal (almost by definition)?

**8** similarly, the universe "contains" Mozart's Requiem Mass (as sound).

Acting in time non-sequentially leads to reverse causation, doesn't it?

**7** again, i don't see why God's action in time would need to be thought of as non-sequential. this seems to make the error of thinking that eternality is et-simultaneity, when in fact eternality is atemporality.
therefore, eternality should be *thought of* not as the abscence of time (which, when translated into imagination = "static abscence of being"), but rather, as "the fullness of time", or something along those lines. eternality is not less than time, it is more than time. it stands in relation to time as a cube stands in relation to a square.
sorry if i misunderstood ya!
peace in Christ.

[geebob]

phantaz, was(for lack of a better word) it ever the case that God was but the world was not?

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey coolman--

phantaz, was(for lack of a better word) it ever the case that God was but the world was not?

**7** like i said, i haven't put much time into thinking this issue out, mostly because it has never bothered me.
that said, to see where i stand right now you can check out Sergius Bulgakov's _The Bride of the Lamb_.
to say "yes" without qualifying it severely would result in placing God and the universe on the same timeline, and this, i hold, is certainly false. i doubt seriously the ability of analytic philosophy to be able to do justice to this issue.
sorry i can't be more definite.
peace in Christ.

[geebob]

i doubt seriously the ability of analytic philosophy to be able to do justice to this issue.

then on what grounds should we give this view credence?

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey--

then on what grounds should we give this view credence?

**7** what view?
and in saying that i doubt the ability of analytic philosophy to come to terms with it, this isn't to deny that we can't talk about it at all. rather, the analytic school is too one dimensional in my opinion.
peace in Christ.

[geebob]

OK but what grounds do we have at all for holding this notion.

[Jaltus]

Or perhaps I should be asking: Why should the fact that the events are sequential from God's frame of reference have any bearing on the fact that the events are reversally causal from *our* frame of reference?
Is the message that it's okay for reverse causation to occur if that causation *isn't* reverse causation from at least one other frame of reference? If so, why?

The reason that is true is because there is such a thing as reverse causation in the world today. There was an experiment done in Italy in the late 90's where a long tube of radon gas was injected with a charged particle. Just as the charged particle was about to enter the radon, the same particle (more accurately: the same type of cluster of electrons) was ejected from the other end.

The reason si that radon is a noble gas, totally balanced in all respected. Due tot he type of particle being introduced, the radon had to expel the same thing in order to keep balanced.

Thus, "reverse causation" occurred from our viewpoint, but QM speaking it did not.

[geebob]

Thus, "reverse causation" occurred from our viewpoint, but QM speaking it did not.

So which one represents reality. Our view or qm

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey--


OK but what grounds do we have at all for holding this notion.

**7** what notion? and you didn't answer my last question either.
peace

[Jaltus]

So which one represents reality. Our view or qmI have no idea.

:huh:

[geebob]

phantaz

what notion? and you didn't answer my last question either.
peace

Unless "what notion?" is the same question as your last one, I don't know what last one you are talking about.

I mean the notion that God's eternality is in terms of a "fullness of time."

Jaltus

, do you have an opinion of Boyd's most recent stab at the issue? (I provided the link).

He uses support from an essay from the Griffin book.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey--

I mean the notion that God's eternality is in terms of a "fullness of time."

**7** because the view that God is in time in the same sense that we are is heretical, and the average understanding of the orthodox view needs to be amped so as to address the very legitimate concerns that the openness view poses, along with attenuating some nonsensical notions that tend to establish themselves--therefore i'm inclined to view eternality as the fullness of time.
i'm not so much concerned with coming to a conclusion as i am concerned with holding to the traditional view whilst not thereby requiring my thoughts of God to be static and lacking in vitality. ya dig?
now i ask you, why are you inclined towards your view?
peace.

[Bob Hill]

When I began to see the Open View in 1958, there was very little written about it. As I studied the Bible, I came to understand that the whole concept of God outside of time and seeing all things as an eternal now was from Greek philosophy and, in modern times, from the theory of relativity.

Now, I understand from the Bible that God can know the future. But the Bible shows us when He does, He determines it. When He determines it, He makes it happen. Therefore, He can know that it will happen, but that does not mean that He knows it because He looks at the future to know it.

I have not seen it mentioned on this site yet but the Hebrew word nacham, repent, is used in the Bible in reference to God about 30 times. The one that really affected me greatly at first, was found in Deuteronomy, but I prefer the passage in Exodus where it shows God repented of stated harm because of Moses’ prayer. Ex 32:9-14 And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! 10 Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.” . . . 12 . . . Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people. . . . 14 So the LORD repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

From this and many other passages containing that Hebrew word in relation to God, I have drawn this conclusion. If God was outside of time and saw the future actions of men, God could never be wrong about predictions. I also believe this: If the future actions of men are unknowable because they have not been decided, our all knowing God would not know them. None of them actually exist, so there is nothing to know.

God always exists in time. But, time is no restraint to Him like it is to us. We need to rest at times. But He doesn’t. We are growing old. He is always the same. Most of us have deadlines to keep and other time responsibilities that are measured by time. With God, time is no burden. I see time as the measure between two events. Since God can control every event, if He so desires, time is never a burden to Him at all. He created the universe. We haven’t even seen the farthest galaxy in this tremendous universe. When God created it, it seems like it was instantaneous.

In Christ,
Bob

:no:

[yxboom]

Wow! Bob Hill comes out strong :yipee:

[smilax]

So if "God remembers," does that imply that He can forget? That He does not have exhaustive knowledge of the past? (Which in turn implies that He is affected by time identically the way we are, considering that He would be locked to the present.)

I smell inconsistency.

[truthman]

smilax, do you believe that God forgets or remembers sins that you've repented for?

truthman

[smilax]

God "forgets" sin repented of in the sense of synthetic forensic justification, not divine amnesia. But the question stands: is it consistent to have God literally repenting while explaining away forgetting in legal terms?

[geebob]

now i ask you, why are you inclined towards your view?


I too am concerned for the tradition, and we need to sort out what is most important to the tradition, and when tensions arise, I think we need to consider the very real possibility that even the great minds of the church did not always make the best choices.

My two biggest objections to the various timeless views is that I intuit that it makes God's interactions in the world less genuine (divine repentence As BH pointed out, and petitionary prayer) and free will is less self determining, no longer sufficiently so for the purposes of the free will theists in the tradition.

I understand that timelessness has been put forward as a mechanism for the purpose reconciling free will with foreknowledge, but I believe to that end, it fails.

[geebob]

But the question stands: is it consistent to have God literally repenting while explaining away forgetting in legal terms?

why should there be a connection? Do we have legal terms for repentence that would have the desired effect for the classical theists. And if we did, why should we assume that the judicial metaphores rule all of scripture?

[smilax]

geebob:
why should there be a connection?If God remembering is as literal as God repenting, then God can forget things and thus does not have exhaustive knowledge of the past.

[Das Gort]

Jaltus:
Thus, God is master of time. But if He is master, that means He could go forward AND backward in time. That means if something happens He does not like (setting determinism aside), He could "rewind" and "retry" that part of time. Hence reverse causation, or at least temporal loops.


---Maybe this is just an amazing example of God's grace in his ability to undo sin, but letting Jesus die for a beautiful and terrible expression of his love for us.

[geebob]

If God remembering is as literal as God repenting, then God can forget things and thus does not have exhaustive knowledge of the past.

Right. That we take remembering literally or metaphorically does not entail that we should do the same with repentence or forgetfulness and so on.

[smilax]

So... why should repenting be taken literally?

[geebob]

So... why should repenting be taken literally?

My paradigm example is from exodus 32.

God tells Moses that he is going to destroy the israelites. Moses tells God to change his mind (repent, relent, change plans, what have you) regarding these actions. Then the narrator concludes that God changed his mind. So however you wanna take it, If you lose site that moses wanted God to do other than what God said he would do, ie change his plans, (not just feel bad about it), then you have not been faithful to the text. Another attempt to take the force out of divine repentence passages is to insist that the change is really in us, as we repent. But that's not going on, God relents even before Moses confronts the people. Also, we take away the force of scripture when it says something of God saying it isn't really about God but us.

[Captain Ochre]

phantaz sunlyk:
**8** say hey--


sorry if i misunderstood ya!
peace in Christ.

If I understood what you've written better, I'd have a clearer idea of whether or not you understood me properly!
:)

It's a pet subject of mine, so I'll be sure to return to it. Let's allow the exchange of ideas to occur over the course of time--with luck (just kidding, Calvinists) I'll get around to expressing myself so clearly that I compel a similarly lucid response.

:cheers:

[Iceman]

I've read a few things about this topic and have also come to a similar conclusion as Jaltus.

I've always like the idea of God as an "author" best. He writes a book (which is the history of the world, every person, etc) and can then flip to any page he wants and interact with the characters, but he can also close the book and take a step back. (This analogy is so flawed, but it helps a little.)

Maybe I'll post more tomorrow about it. I've got to go grade some papers now.

[Captain Ochre]

Iceman:

Indeed, the book illustration is flawed in that the author (we may assume) is the only effiicient cause of any & all actions in the literature. We could say, in fact, that causation within the work itself is illusional. Rather, that causation rests with the author throughout.

IOW, "from our frame of reference" probably has no chance of having any relevance at all.

[geebob]

He writes a book (which is the history of the world, every person, etc) and can then flip to any page he wants and interact with the characters, but he can also close the book and take a step back. (This analogy is so flawed, but it helps a little.)

and this just isn't a timeless God. He is very much a citizen of temporality. He may not be in our time, but time he is in.

The closest thing you can come to describing the actions of a timeless God is "He is doing...","He is doing...", and "He is doing...",.

But never is it true of him that "He was doing but no longer" or "He will... but not yet..." and so on.

[yxboom]

Put in other words. God was always Creator before He created because He created before He was Creator and row your boat.......row your boat gently down the stream.

[Captain Ochre]

geebob:
and this just isn't a timeless God. He is very much a citizen of temporality. He may not be in our time, but time he is in.


Hmmm. Maybe not. If God is the only efficient cause, and cause & effect are illusional except for those things directly caused by God, then the order in which God acts is irrelevant. He doesn't have you read page two of a book because he already had you read page one. He can have you read page two and then later decide "later" (not really temporally later) that you should read page one before you read page two.

Uh . . . not that I think that this is particularly useful way to view the situation . . .
:)

[JCA]

Predestination and Free Will have been one of the things I have tried to find as much about as I can.. these things are specifically important to a God that moves or does anything in, or out, of time.

But first let me see if I can explain what I think:

In the end, it doesn't matter whether or not God created or has time as a part of Himself etc.. what IS important is how He interacts with it, especially concerning us.

This is backed by first believing that God is all the Omni's.. if He is, then there isn't anything that cannot be done. The only limitation is, exactly what is God. After all, the Atheist argument of building a bigger rock can only work if you accept that there is something "outside" of God. If God is literally everything, then God cannot make something bigger than Himself, BUT how do you difine infinity? Can you create something that is larger than something that has no end?

But, back on track.. I believe that God can interact within time pretty much as Jaltus says.. forwards backwards, sideways.. whatever way He wants to.. but it is much different from the book example.

God knows every outcome of every possible decision that can be made.. every choice you make God has already followed the time line down, and every decision thereafter... However, the EXACT path you will take is NOT known before hand.. ALL paths are known, but you have a free will that allows you to say, I choose this, instead of this..

Imagine the points of a compass.. God is the whole compass, and when you are born, you are placed in the middle.. You decide to go NNW.. well, Gods there, waiting for your next choice.. just as He would have been had you decided to go SSW or N or any of the other infinite directions you could have chosen. And God, with Omniscience AND Omniprescence, can be there when you make that choice to be ready for the next one.

It's very complicated to explain, and what I have put here barely scratches the surface of the cause and effect issues etc.

Now, although I said it wasn't really important whether God was inside or out of time, I prefer to thin as time as being a part of God.. He is not governed by it, but neither can it be seperated from Him without taking away the Universal Law of time that seems to exist, and therefore ending all that is in progress.. and by the same token, time has to be left to run it's course, otherwise we don't grow and come to the choices that we eventually have to make to come to God.

As I have said before, it's like a Maze.. God has created a Universal Maze for us, He knows where all paths lead, and where everyone is within the Maze etc.. within the Maze, time exists, because we need it for linear growth and understanding. However, I do not believe ANYTHING can be "outside" of God, as to me that begs the question of what or who made the "outside" that God would have to be "in".. and then you fall into the Atheist question of can God create a rock so large etc.

I'm sorry this is disjointed, they like me to work sometimes when I'm here at work, even though I try and avoid it.

Rather than beat me into the ground, please ask for clarification on parts I have goofed in your eyes, and I'll try and explain better :)

Loe and Peace

JCA

PS - Did you already know that Science has something similar to predestination, prediction and time?

The thought experiment called the "Divine Calculator"
by French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749~1827).

The basic thesis is this, and is based upon the Newtonian Laws of Motion:

If I knew the position and velocity of every particle in the Universe, at any given time, I could then use Newton's Laws to predict the position and velocity of those particles at any given time in the future. Of course, it would take Godlike prowess to be able to calculate such a thing - hence the name of the thought experiment - but in principle, the calculation could be done.

Laplace pointed out that if said particle happened to be in your hand at the time, it would be possible to predict where your hand might be at any given time in the future as well!

Food for thought :)

[geebob]

In the end, it doesn't matter whether or not God created or has time as a part of Himself etc.. what IS important is how He interacts with it, especially concerning us.

Well it is a question of consistency with a genuine relationship with free creatures (arguably libertarian free creatures).

I think a more fundamental question though is what time itself is like. If it's as the presentists say, speaking of God as outside of time is merely incoherent and meaningless, unless you want to change the definition so it is no longer compatible for those who hold to the classical view of timelessness, or so that it is of no use to those who wish to reconsile free will and foreknowledge.

God is the whole compass, and when you are born, you are placed in the middle.. You decide to go NNW.. well, Gods there, waiting for your next choice..

I would agree with God knowing all possibilities, but I don't know that saying that there is a place where we make a decision and God is there, I don't see how that's meaningful unless we say that all possible worlds are in fact actual (thus speach of the actual world becomes indexical and is no longer a marker for something that is ontologically special). If you make that move though (which I assume you wouldn't), I'd say that there is no longer libertarian freedom as the you in this world is determined to do what it is that you can only do in this possible world.

If you're not familier with the language of possible world's ontology, I might be able to explain it. The basic use I put it too here is fairly simple.

[geebob]

2nd post, scroll up.


But, back on track.. I believe that God can interact within time pretty much as Jaltus says.. forwards backwards, sideways.. whatever way He wants to.. but it is much different from the book example.

the one thing about this is that if we are dealing with a presentist picture, God going back in time is simply the equivalent of rewinding the entire universe, and if we are dealing with indeterminism (with libertarian free will), rewinding the universe practically amounts to erasing the future such that letting the universe proceed normally, the future would turn out differently (different from what it was!).

[JCA]

geebob:
2nd post, scroll up.

the one thing about this is that if we are dealing with a presentist picture, God going back in time is simply the equivalent of rewinding the entire universe, and if we are dealing with indeterminism (with libertarian free will), rewinding the universe practically amounts to erasing the future such that letting the universe proceed normally, the future would turn out differently (different from what it was!).

Yes, that may be so.. but then maybe not. :)

Seeing as it is based upon our free will and choices, even rolling things back doesn't mean that anything will change, unless God makes some fundemental changes Himself.

Plus, sort of in response to your first post, I happen to believe it is quite possible that alternate realities are "made" and all quite visible and percievable by God, but I'm not sure I see the necessity of such constructs when it comes to God, but then maybe they are a part of the Universal Laws that God has laid down.. after all, didn't Stephen Hawkins do some work on Alternate Universes and their possibilities and probabilities that showed that they may be being created all the time? I beleive he did.

The other thing is, I don't see it as God actually moving through time, as I said, time is part of God.. He has no need to move, any more than I believe He had to move to know what was happening with Adam and Eve, or what will be happening in hell etc..

Being Omnipresent means being everywhere at once.. being Omniscient means knowing everything (at that time). The combination of these Omni's makes it that God is not only everywhere, but at every time as well. You may have thought I meant in a conscious fashion when I said God is at each and every choice.. I believe it is as easy to God as it is for us to breath, to be able to do such things.

I do agree that one of the hardest things to do, as it is with God, is adequately define time itself. It is a subject we really know little about, other than it happens, and we measure it this way.

We also know that it is 'fickle', as the measuring can be altered by several factors.. such as distance, speed, gravity even.. SO I do agree that defining such an abstract may well be the correct way to approach the main topic :)

I must also say that I'm not speaking from any orthodox point of view, or in fact from anyone elses point of view and opinions other than my own. I haven't taken anyone elses theory as 'gospel' yet, and still seek the truth in this matter.. so I hope this isn't looked at as a 'hard stance' on my side. :)

Love and Peace

JCA

[Captain Ochre]

JCA:
Plus, sort of in response to your first post, I happen to believe it is quite possible that alternate realities are "made" and all quite visible and percievable by God, but I'm not sure I see the necessity of such constructs when it comes to God, but then maybe they are a part of the Universal Laws that God has laid down.. after all, didn't Stephen Hawkins do some work on Alternate Universes and their possibilities and probabilities that showed that they may be being created all the time? I beleive he did.


How many alterate realities? Infinite? If not, then how many & where do you draw the line?
The ramifications of infinite realities are considerable.
Who are "you"? There are an infinite number of "you"'s playing out all of your possible choices. Coke or Pepsi? What does it matter what you choose when alternate you(s) will always take whatever choices you leave behind? In this scenario, it doesn't really matter what you choose becaue the infinite you's have it all covered.

My two cents, with considerable help from sci-fi author Larry Niven.

[JCA]

Captain Ochre:


How many alterate realities? Infinite? If not, then how many & where do you draw the line?
The ramifications of infinite realities are considerable.
Who are "you"? There are an infinite number of "you"'s playing out all of your possible choices. Coke or Pepsi? What does it matter what you choose when alternate you(s) will always take whatever choices you leave behind? In this scenario, it doesn't really matter what you choose becaue the infinite you's have it all covered.

My two cents, with considerable help from sci-fi author Larry Niven.

Possibly true.. however, this is God we are dealing with here, and using the priciple of the Divine Calculator, who can say whether or not these alternate realities even actually need to be played out, or is it possible that God can do it all "in His head" so to speak?

And I happen to think Larry wrote some good stuff :)

Love and Peace

JCA

[Captain Ochre]

JCA:


Possibly true.. however, this is God we are dealing with here, and using the priciple of the Divine Calculator, who can say whether or not these alternate realities even actually need to be played out, or is it possible that God can do it all "in His head" so to speak?

And I happen to think Larry wrote some good stuff :)

Love and Peace

JCA

I think that omnipotence should be expected to include anticipation of any possibility, thus if there is such a thing as time before creation, God knows the possibilities heading in, and could even set some (or many, or most, or all ftm) events in stone "prior" to creation.
If there is free will, then it's got to play itself out. The notion of planning & causing free will seems contradictory. Knowledge of future actions based simply on knowledge of future actions (knowledge "caused by" the events themselves" do not present any conflict with free will, afaics. Attempts to prove a contradiction between omniscience & free will have invariably been flawed, in my experience.

[JCA]

Captain Ochre:


I think that omnipotence should be expected to include anticipation of any possibility, thus if there is such a thing as time before creation, God knows the possibilities heading in, and could even set some (or many, or most, or all ftm) events in stone "prior" to creation.

If there is free will, then it's got to play itself out. The notion of planning & causing free will seems contradictory. Knowledge of future actions based simply on knowledge of future actions (knowledge "caused by" the events themselves" do not present any conflict with free will, afaics. Attempts to prove a contradiction between omniscience & free will have invariably been flawed, in my experience.

I agree that it is in fact Free Will that has, I believe, become part of the reason, or was the reason in the first place that all this has to be played out in linear time. Obviously, if God knew the exact outcome of all of our choices, then having to do all this is pretty pointless in the first place. What kind of God would put everyone through everything if He knew exactly what the end result was? The difference here is that God does know the end result, but of EVERY outcome, but only mans free will will decide whether he is with God or not in the end.. which was Gods plan, I believe.

I wholeheartedly believe that God is infinite and powerful and clever enough to conceive of a plan that can invole ALL of these things..

I'll see if I can explain this Maze idea again, because it helps to visualize.. :)

Imagine the most intricate and largest maze you can possible imagine.. it's even 3 dimensional ( maybe more! ). From within one small part of it, life is created and given directions on how to get to the center.. and are even given pointers along the way.. but still fail to get there. All this is happening in a 'linear fashion'. However, they do not seem to be able to find the middle.. so another, even more important 'sign' is posted, that not only summerizes the last directions, but gives the key to the whole maze! No other directions are given, and you are left to learn how to get to the middle with these summerized directions,and a "key" that will save you.

Obviously, God is the maze and all that is within and without of it. We are the people created, and the initial directions are the commandments of God. However, being the dumb creation that we are, we don't understand, and so we are given the last 'Sign', the final 'key' that leads us to the center.. if we only know how to follow it. Being the Maze, God does not need to move, God does not need to expand any awareness to know where and what is happening at any given time.. the very ground walked upon, the very air breathed, the very "hedges" that make the maze, ARE God. And so is the experience of the passage of Time.. ALL God.. every single spec. And all that is beyond it.

This 'maze' is full of dead ends, and has only a single narrow path that leads to the center.. and without the "key", you cannot find it. God knows which paths you walk, and maybe will even guide you more with a russle of the "hedge", or a stiring of the 'dust' on the path, or even a feeling.. but He will not FORCE you to take a path.. you have the "key" and the tools to find it, and that is why you have free will. You can search and learn and grow, until you discover that path and the place for the key, or you can ignore the maze and it's quest, and wander aimlessly forever through it's many passages.

And I guess that is pretty much how I see the majority of life.. The directions where written on my heart and mind, and the key was given to me at rebirth. The rest is up to me, to do in my own time - and preferably before I die :)

IMHO

Love and Peace

JCA

[JCA]

I forgot to say what the "key" actually says, or 'does'..

It says:

"Love the Maze, and all those within it.. as you love yourself"

;)

Love and Peace

JCA

[Captain Ochre]

JCA:


I agree that it is in fact Free Will that has, I believe, become part of the reason, or was the reason in the first place that all this has to be played out in linear time. Obviously, if God knew the exact outcome of all of our choices, then having to do all this is pretty pointless in the first place.


In the case of causal determinism, yes.
In the case of epistemic determinism, no.


What kind of God would put everyone through everything if He knew exactly what the end result was? The difference here is that God does know the end result, but of EVERY outcome, but only mans free will will decide whether he is with God or not in the end.. which was Gods plan, I believe.

I wholeheartedly believe that God is infinite and powerful and clever enough to conceive of a plan that can invole ALL of these things..

I'll see if I can explain this Maze idea again, because it helps to visualize.. :)



The maze illustration is useful for conveying the idea that God suffuses creation (without being part of the creation).
Thanks.

[geebob]

Seeing as it is based upon our free will and choices, even rolling things back doesn't mean that anything will change,

If we are dealing with a presentist picture, and ideterminism, the likelyhood that nothing would change is virtually zero. There's a greater likelyhood that your computer would fall right through your computerdesk without breaking it or making a hole in it.

unless God makes some fundemental changes Himself.

If it is limited to him, then I don't see how you're not dealing with a deterministic picture.

I happen to believe it is quite possible that alternate realities are "made" and all quite visible and percievable by God, but I'm not sure I see the necessity of such constructs when it comes to God

you said God is there-at the end of the paths. Thus, if there's a place for God to be, then the place is.

after all, didn't Stephen Hawkins do some work on Alternate Universes and their possibilities and probabilities that showed that they may be being created all the time? I beleive he did.

I have no clue. I'm speaking of possible worlds ontology. I'm sure philosopher David Lewis would be happy with what Hawkings would have to say about it (because he believes all possible worlds have obtained actuality), but in general, alternate worlds in physics and possible worlds ontology are apples and oranges. The possible worlds I speak of are comparable to Plato's platonic heaven. I prefer to think that they don't actually have being in the same sense that the actual world has being. If there was an actual world for every possible outcome, I don't see how we'd escape determinism. Sure you in one universe chooses one thing and another you in another universe chooses something else, but then you must do accordingly to what universe you are in because someone else (I cannot think that in any true sense, you's in other unverses really are you) will choose otherwise.

Possible world's ontology was invented to solve several philosophical problems such as working out a rationality of modal logic (the logic of the possible, impossible, necessary, and so on), and as a way of speaking of possibilities meaningfully. It is one of the greatest boons to twentieth century metaphysics and logic.

Being Omnipresent means being everywhere at once.. being Omniscient means knowing everything (at that time). The combination of these Omni's makes it that God is not only everywhere, but at every time as well.

But again, if there is only the present, then it is meaningless to speak of God being where there is no being.

We also know that it is 'fickle', as the measuring can be altered by several factors.. such as distance, speed, gravity even.. SO I do agree that defining such an abstract may well be the correct way to approach the main topic

there is a question as to whether time as the philosopher and theologian speaks of it is the same as time according to the physicists, in terms of how relevent the different discussions are. There is a relation, but although it is not to be ignored, I have no intention of letting the physicist dictate on this issue. If it could be demonstrated that all of time exists from the standpoint of modern physics, I would simply point out that physics isn't finished and the next paradigm shift may bring new angle that may be more conducive to what I believe is philosophically sound.

I haven't taken anyone elses theory as 'gospel' yet, and still seek the truth in this matter.. so I hope this isn't looked at as a 'hard stance' on my side.

bueno! so you know where I'm coming from, I am very close minded on the issue. :yipee:

[JCA]

geebob:
If we are dealing with a presentist picture, and ideterminism, the likelyhood that nothing would change is virtually zero. There's a greater likelyhood that your computer would fall right through your computerdesk without breaking it or making a hole in it.

No, I was dealing with possibility, and just because something is improbable, does not make it impossible. So, the likelyhood IS that if things where rolled back and started again, that it wouldn't be the same, but that does not discount the possibility that it could also turn out exactly the same.

If it is limited to him, then I don't see how you're not dealing with a deterministic picture.
And what does this mean exactly? Is what limited to Him? If you mean am I saying that if God makes major and radical changes to the Universe after a roll back, that the possibility of something happening exactly the same way again then may become impossible, you would be correct. Otherwise, your statement doesn't say anything.

you said God is there-at the end of the paths. Thus, if there's a place for God to be, then the place is.
You seem to want to put God ina box, and limit Him. God is also Omnipotent.. it is your assumption only that the 'place' would have to exist.. how about looking at it this way, it did exist, in Gods mind when He thought up His plan.. before He even started it all in motion.. if it still exists or not is irrelevent.. stating 'thus' makes it seem like you know Gods mind and full "power", and are saying that God cannot be in any place in time, or manipulate time and space to do His will.

In other words, you are making a statement that is not necessarily backed by anything BUT physical science.. you are saying if God creates something, it has to exist in some way that you can understand it for it to be 'real'. I'm saying God can do whatever God chooses, an if He wants to know what happens at any particular moment, he doesn't have to move. shift, change or do anything to time, He just "knows".

I see paradox when this is all tried to be put together, but I don't have a problem with that. I don't think God is effected by Paradox, as His will WILL be done.. no matter what.

I have no clue. I'm speaking of possible worlds ontology. I'm sure philosopher David Lewis would be happy with what Hawkings would have to say about it (because he believes all possible worlds have obtained actuality), but in general, alternate worlds in physics and possible worlds ontology are apples and oranges. The possible worlds I speak of are comparable to Plato's platonic heaven. I prefer to think that they don't actually have being in the same sense that the actual world has being. If there was an actual world for every possible outcome, I don't see how we'd escape determinism. Sure you in one universe chooses one thing and another you in another universe chooses something else, but then you must do accordingly to what universe you are in because someone else (I cannot think that in any true sense, you's in other unverses really are you) will choose otherwise.
I suppose it comes down to whether or not these 'test' Universes actually lasted longer than the moment they where needed for. You make it sound like the test Universe would have to be something that had a linear history and future, or in other words would have to be like our 'Universe'. I don't see it that way. :smile:

But again, if there is only the present, then it is meaningless to speak of God being where there is no being.
There is only the present for us to experience.. you cannot say that the future or the past exist at all when you get right down to it, only the NOW. But, but the same token, when driving from Detroit to Chicago, I'm pretty sure the road is already made, even if I'm only experiencing the part I am driving at the time.

Once again I only see what you are saying as limiting God to a preconceived notion that He has to follow ANY of the rules that we do.

there is a question as to whether time as the philosopher and theologian speaks of it is the same as time according to the physicists, in terms of how relevent the different discussions are. There is a relation, but although it is not to be ignored, I have no intention of letting the physicist dictate on this issue. If it could be demonstrated that all of time exists from the standpoint of modern physics, I would simply point out that physics isn't finished and the next paradigm shift may bring new angle that may be more conducive to what I believe is philosophically sound.

To be honest, I think they both talk about the same time, but just different aspects of it. Life and science deal with subjective and linear time as it relates to the physical Universe.. The Philosopher and Theologian are dealing with concepts that move around the physical time sense, and even discuss entities that can be inside or outside of time.. but in general speak of time in a more metaphysical sense. A Philosopher can create a paradox with thought that relaity totally denies.. time didn't change, just the perception of it :smile:

bueno! so you know where I'm coming from, I am very close minded on the issue. :yipee:

That's okay, I try and keep an open mind, but there are some things I have a stubborn streak for as well. And anyway, there is no offense taken by me when in the act of open and honest sharing. I appreciate your thoughts, and want you to know that I don't consider myself to be perfect, or right :smile: And I mean that in the sense that I know that there is always the possibility I can be wrong, and that I can learn from someone else.

Basically, don't worry, a civil discussion about such an abstract and actually emotional subject (as any religious discussion can be) is what we appear to be having.. and I'm happy with that :wink:

Love and Peace

JCA

[geebob]

And what does this mean exactly? Is what limited to Him? If you mean am I saying that if God makes major and radical changes to the Universe after a roll back, that the possibility of something happening exactly the same way again then may become impossible, you would be correct. Otherwise, your statement doesn't say anything.

you said that you didn't think anything would change unless God changed it. Well if God is turning the clock back, I would assume that running it forward would entail that the world would go forward in the capacity that it always moves foward with regard to causal laws and the actions of free beings. If that happens, then the world would most likely turn out differently. Now if God moves it foward in an artificial sense (probably in the same sense that he would have to move it backwards, since the universe most likely doesn't function correctly going backwards) then I suppose that you would be right to say that nothing would change unless God changed it.

One thing I don't like about this notion of rolling back the clock, is there a point to it? Why would God want to roll back the clock? I can only think that it's because he didn't like the way something turned out, but if that's the case, if he does it because he didn't like something he did, then we have a problem with the perfection of God. If it's because of something we did that he wants to readjust, then he hasn't fully accepted the real risk entailed in creating free creatures and our interactions with him are less final and less absolute. Also, another fella here, RightIdea has pointed out that similar notions are useless to our piety. We are biblically urged to pray for God to make changes in the present and the future, but we have no precedent for petitioning God to change something in the past.

I suppose it comes down to whether or not these 'test' Universes actually lasted longer than the moment they where needed for. You make it sound like the test Universe would have to be something that had a linear history and future, or in other words would have to be like our 'Universe'. I don't see it that way.

I have no opinion on test universes. It's an interesting idea but I have little use for them.

You seem to want to put God ina box, and limit Him.

I merely insist on a coherent and meaningful picture, (and of course that does not exclude mystery, but that term is often abused to justify nonsense in our thinking about God)

it is your assumption only that the 'place' would have to exist.. how about looking at it this way, it did exist, in Gods mind when He thought up His plan..

It seems a rock solid assumption, unless you've got a better idea. Now you suggest the other idea is that it's there in God's mind. Well, it's fine for God to consider possibilities, but that's no different than us. We know that concepts aren't the same things as places and to loose the distinction is to live in a fantasy world.

Once again I only see what you are saying as limiting God to a preconceived notion that He has to follow ANY of the rules that we do.

I don't think God has to follow our rules. We have to follow rules of meaning when exploring a theology of God if we expect to say anything that can truly communicate understanding. If our descriptions are incoherent, even when ascribing those incoherencies to the way God acts or is, we say nothing.

In other words, you are making a statement that is not necessarily backed by anything BUT physical science

My interest in physics is quite minimal and what I said has no backing in physics that I am aware of.

I'm saying God can do whatever God chooses, an if He wants to know what happens at any particular moment, he doesn't have to move. shift, change or do anything to time, He just "knows".

If the moment does not exist though, there may be no certain truth about it to be known. That God is omniscient of course means that God knows his creature as it truly is.

The Philosopher and Theologian are dealing with concepts that move around the physical time sense, and even discuss entities that can be inside or outside of time.

some of them do. many of them challenge the idea as useful or coherent when applied to persons or concrete objects.

And anyway, there is no offense taken by me when in the act of open and honest sharing.

:thumb:

[JCA]

geebob:

you said that you didn't think anything would change unless God changed it. Well if God is turning the clock back, I would assume that running it forward would entail that the world would go forward in the capacity that it always moves foward with regard to causal laws and the actions of free beings. If that happens, then the world would most likely turn out differently. Now if God moves it foward in an artificial sense (probably in the same sense that he would have to move it backwards, since the universe most likely doesn't function correctly going backwards) then I suppose that you would be right to say that nothing would change unless God changed it.
And so I did :teeth:

But I agree, it most likey would turn out differently.. just no guarentee it will. However, I'm not sure what you mean by God moving it forward in an artificial sense.

You are speaking of our understanding of linear time, and how for us the future hasn't happened yet, it seems. I, on the other hand am going from the assumption (and I do agree, it's *MY* assumption) that God already knows ALL possible outcomes of ALL possible futures, because Time is part of God..

And to draw another picture (although not as pretty as the Maze), if Time was Gods arm, then we are but a single bloodcell working our way from the finger to the elbow.. we experience the passage from within the arm, have no real concept of where we came from, or where we are going.. God on the other hand (pardon the pun :teeth: ) can not only see the whole arm at once, but it intimately aware of ALL the bloodcells and molecules and parts that go to make up this arm, and what they do, and when.

What you are calling 'artificial' would be our (mans) best guesstimate at a possible future and exmaning things from there.. God doesn't play dice with the universe.. He need not guess.. Man is a 'random factor' only because of free will.. but much like a ball in the pin-ball machine, no matter how many times he goes around the 'pins' etc., in the end, everyone goes through the 'hole'.

One thing I don't like about this notion of rolling back the clock, is there a point to it? Why would God want to roll back the clock? I can only think that it's because he didn't like the way something turned out, but if that's the case, if he does it because he didn't like something he did, then we have a problem with the perfection of God. If it's because of something we did that he wants to readjust, then he hasn't fully accepted the real risk entailed in creating free creatures and our interactions with him are less final and less absolute. Also, another fella here, RightIdea has pointed out that similar notions are useless to our piety. We are biblically urged to pray for God to make changes in the present and the future, but we have no precedent for petitioning God to change something in the past.
I don't particularly like to think God needs to roll back the clock either, nor will I say He has, for sure. I am of the opinion that once put in motion, Gods plan requires no further refinements or tinkering. It is Gods "plan", and so inherently 'perfect'. But then, He gave Man free Will, so who knows for sure how this effects the "plan".

I have no opinion on test universes. It's an interesting idea but I have little use for them.
Understandable.. in fact, I beleive that none of US have need for them at all.. if they exist.. or not :tongue:

I merely insist on a coherent and meaningful picture, (and of course that does not exclude mystery, but that term is often abused to justify nonsense in our thinking about God)
Well, I'm not perfect, but I'm trying my best to bring a subject that, by rights, we cannot answer unless God or some new radical Science comes up with some information about time that will expand out current knowledge of it.

However, I too like to have a coherent picture of things.. but cannot always describe what my mind is capable of coming to grips with. Sometimes a reasonable way of explaining it fails me.. which is why I fall to metaphor.

I apologise if I cannot make it, or myself, any more understood. Also, I try not to 'justify' my thinking at all.. unless it is a requirement of salvation, I try not to make too rigid a stand on anything. Notice I said try.. :wink:

It seems a rock solid assumption, unless you've got a better idea. Now you suggest the other idea is that it's there in God's mind. Well, it's fine for God to consider possibilities, but that's no different than us. We know that concepts aren't the same things as places and to loose the distinction is to live in a fantasy world.

This is probably one place where we may differ the most in our thinking it seems. I think God considering possibilites is a great deal different from us. We are not God.. we do not have the ability to spontaneously create things from 'dust', or create heavens with a mere thought.. How God can work out possibilities that we can't even begin to comprehend to me seems like one of the lesser of Gods innate abilities. Just because your thoughts do not, or cannot create a reality that others can experience directly, or that can render all possibilities known, does not mean that God is limited to such conditions.

In other words, just because you may call something a fantasy, you have no basis for saying that to God it could not be a reality (His own 'fantasies' I mean) for His own purposes, if He so chooses.

I don't think God has to follow our rules. We have to follow rules of meaning when exploring a theology of God if we expect to say anything that can truly communicate understanding. If our descriptions are incoherent, even when ascribing those incoherencies to the way God acts or is, we say nothing.
I'm sorry, I suppose my problem would be that I didn't know there where any rules God made about 'meaning' when exploring Theology. My understanding is that I am commanded to look at all things through the context of Christs commandments, and to Love my God. Yes there is some understanding I am to have about God and Christ. There is no command to understand more than that. Our understanding is limited, and will remain so until the final revelations.

However, I understand what you are saying.. and in a way agree.. even this topic falls into the realm where we will actually say nothing in that respect, as there is nothing that either of us can say that will decide or expand upon this issue.. there simply isn't anything to go by but our individual presumptions and beliefs.

I can only share what I have, and if there is anything that rings true for you, it is yours to take,and leave the rest. If not, that's fine too.. I'm sharing, offering.. not ramming it down yor throat (not that you are saying I am.. it's just my addiction to metaphor again :wink: ) I too will take anything you say that I can fit into my understanding without breaking everything, and see how it sounds to me. As I said, I appreciate the candid offering and sharing.

My interest in physics is quite minimal and what I said has no backing in physics that I am aware of.
Well some.. but it's not important.

If the moment does not exist though, there may be no certain truth about it to be known. That God is omniscient of course means that God knows his creature as it truly is.
I still maintain that for God, all moments exist. It is only us that experience the passage of 'moments'.

One thought did spring to mind though. I did say I don't think God would turn back the clock, but I think I can possibly see one instance where it may have happened, and the very thing we discussed about a repeated future becoming impossible.

I think, because even though God has the plan, this Maze I speak of, if it turns out that nearly everyone makes the same mistake and ends up down a "dead end", then God may decide to go back to a point where a change might make a better outcome. Obviously Gods decision.. and it would fall into a believable realm where Mans Free Will messed up a desired outcome for God.

I think it is possible that the Flood of Noah is maybe one of these instances. God could see that Mans future choices took them to a path of destruction, and so at that point God finished it quickly, and reshaped the world so as to not allow for the exact same circumstances, kept a few "people" that where the most righteous He could, and started again.

Of course, that is just something I came up with while writing this, so be gentle with it :teeth:

Anyway, that's enough waffling for now.. the yellow line under this post box is bothering my old eyes.. :tongue:

Love and Peace

JCA

[JCA]

In essence, I am saying my answer to the thread heading, "IS God Outside of Time", the answer is yes..

AND He is inside of Time too.

Just as I am outside of my heart, so am I inside it, and that is how I currently percieve it.

Love and Peace

JCA

[geoff]

geebob:


and this just isn't a timeless God. He is very much a citizen of temporality. He may not be in our time, but time he is in.

The closest thing you can come to describing the actions of a timeless God is "He is doing...","He is doing...", and "He is doing...",.

But never is it true of him that "He was doing but no longer" or "He will... but not yet..." and so on.

My 10c worth, my 2c is free (to quote eminem).

We forget, or perhaps dont know, or dont realise, or have never thought, that the problem resolution is simple.

The ESSENCE of God is timeless, and must be, however, His interaction in time is in the form of the father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Time can not exist for God, not in any sense that is intelligible to human beings, so we MUST say God is timeless. God is incapable of intervening in creation as a timeless entity, so He manifests Himself in time, in the form of the Trinity.

In my opinion it is impossible resolve the problem any other way... at least, I have not read or heard any explanation that solves more problems than it causes.

[geebob]

Hello Geoff, perhaps with a new board we will start with a new slate.

That answer of course will be rejected by anyone who holds that the trinity is a part of God's essence.

It also fails to address what is quoted. If you reject that nothing could be said of God that "He was doing but no longer" or "He will... but not yet..." and so on then you don't have this problem. But I think such statements can be meaningfully applied to God and I believe that such statements must be applicable to God if we are to meaningfully ascribe omnipotence to him (I explain this in my first post in this thread).

The ESSENCE of God is timeless

and of course, even I can say this in the sense that the forms, such as mathematical truths and logical rules are timeless. That is in the sense of immutability and not in the sense that all time exists for them.


JCA,

I don't see how this

I, on the other hand am going from the assumption (and I do agree, it's *MY* assumption) that God already knows ALL possible outcomes of ALL possible futures, because Time is part of God..

is really an alternative to this..

You are speaking of our understanding of linear time, and how for us the future hasn't happened yet, it seems.

I believe that God knows all possibilities. That isn't really decisive with regard to issues of his relation to time.

What you are calling 'artificial' would be our (mans) best guesstimate at a possible future and exmaning things from there..

no, that would be an issue of how time flows IF God rewound time and fastfowarded it.

How God can work out possibilities that we can't even begin to comprehend to me seems like one of the lesser of Gods innate abilities.

I don't see why he can't work it all out in his mind.

Just because your thoughts do not, or cannot create a reality that others can experience directly, or that can render all possibilities known, does not mean that God is limited to such conditions.

Here's where the road meets the rubber with regard to my difficulties with the picture. Is each possibility that I choose one thing just as actual as what is the case now? In other words is there a "me" that actually exists that chooses one thing and a "me" that chooses another? If so, than I maintain that those people are not free in the liberatarian sense. Or if they were, each one should be able to choose to act or refrain with regard to the same choice and if that was the case, then it should be possible that I choose one thing, and the person in the other possible world chooses the same thing! And once you grant that, you've lost what you were trying to articulate with the possible worlds.

I'm sorry, I suppose my problem would be that I didn't know there where any rules God made about 'meaning' when exploring Theology.

As a platonist, I don't believe that they were made. They just are. They are just a fundamental part of existence.

I still maintain that for God, all moments exist. It is only us that experience the passage of 'moments'.

What I said of the possible worlds applies here. If the moment that I will choose one thing always exists, then it was never true that I could choose otherwise.

[geoff]

geebob,

I dont recognise you...

That answer of course will be rejected by anyone who holds that the trinity is a part of God's essence.

But of course, you dont reject God as a trinity, do you?

If you reject that nothing could be said of God that "He was doing but no longer" or "He will... but not yet..." and so on then you don't have this problem. But I think such statements can be meaningfully applied to God and I believe that such statements must be applicable to God if we are to meaningfully ascribe omnipotence to him (I explain this in my first post in this thread).

These statements can be meaningfully applied to the manifestation of God in time, the TRINITY, but not to the essence of God. Simply put, if the essence of God can not occupy a particular place in space, "God is at this point and not at this point", it is also safe to say that God (the essence) can not occupy a particular place in time; "God is at this time and not at this time". If God does not occupy a certain place in space, He also does not occupy a certain place in time, for the same reasons.

As I said, we can not comprehend what *time* might be like for God, it certainly can not resemble any definition of time that a human being can concieve. God is a different kind of being. The best we can do is say "God is timeless"- and try and resolve it as best as possible.

[Jaltus]

I have not read or heard any explanation that solves more problems than it causes.LOL, why do I think he is talking of me?

;)

geebob is 1013.

Good to have you around, geoff. I've missed ya! I'll post something of substance when I have time, no pun intended.

[geoff]

Missed you too, Jaltus. You and Graypilgrim are the best :)

ahh 1013...
hmmm

ah well :)

I wasnt talking about you particularly... hehe

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

geoff:
The ESSENCE of God is timeless, and must be, however, His interaction in time is in the form of the father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. .... God is incapable of intervening in creation as a timeless entity, so He manifests Himself in time, in the form of the Trinity.

Just so that we all understand what you mean, can you clarify? In particular, are you saying:

1.) God's essence is timeless
and
2.) To accomodate to time bound entities like us, God (who is in essence timeless) manifests himself via the Trinity, which is not essential to God, but is simply a manifestation that God uses to interact in time.

Is this a fair portrayal of what you've said?

Glenn

[geoff]

hi Glenn,

Fair, yes:)

I would correct you though, in saying the Trinity is "simply" a manifestation of God in time. I would say that it makes the Trinity necessary, rather than "not essential".

Without the Trinity, God can not interact with creation. The Trinity is essential to this process. It enables us to have an omnitemporal God. Which is, as I understand it, a God who is both in, and out of time.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

geoff:
I would correct you though, in saying the Trinity is "simply" a manifestation of God in time. I would say that it makes the Trinity necessary, rather than "not essential&quot

Then further clarification must be given. "Essential" means "required by one's ESSENCE." You've said, it seems, that God's essence is timeless, but the Trinity on the other hand interacts in time. This - by definition - means that the Trinity would not essential to God's nature.

And so I would ask - is the Trinity part of God's essence, or can God exist without it? I for one am a Trinitarian at this point. Are you?

Glenn

[JCA]

geebob:
I don't see how this
is really an alternative to this..

I don't think I was making them alternatives, but in addition to. In other words, both instances are active and correct.. Linear time for us, which God is not limited to.

I believe that God knows all possibilities. That isn't really decisive with regard to issues of his relation to time.

We cannot proper;y understand Gods realtion to time. This was already covered I thought. We can only guess at it. However, this does hint at a relationship between Himself and time, as it points out a way in which God interacts with it in my opinion.

no, that would be an issue of how time flows IF God rewound time and fastfowarded it.

Maybe I'm not being clear enough, but God doesn't rewind or fast forward it.. there is no need.

God is looking at the whole picture as it runs, if He wants to change the future, He only needs to make an alteration in the past, and the change in teh future, and all points and choices in between, are changed in realtion to the 'new' history. No one need know of, experience etc. the change.. it just happens.

If I write a weather prediction program, I can watch the predictions change by simpley changing a starting variable.. I do not need to reverse engineer the code, and then reconstruct it.. I simply let the rules already defined create the change from the point I make it happen.

This is how I see God doing it as well, if He needs/wants to.

I don't see why he can't work it all out in his mind.


I agree, and in fact, that is exactly what I was saying. Ther is no other "you", there aren't (IMHO) alternate universes created (although theyu could be, I cannot say for sure), as God IS quite capable of working out in His mind every option and choice you may ever have, and where each one will lead you etc.

Here's where the road meets the rubber with regard to my difficulties with the picture. Is each possibility that I choose one thing just as actual as what is the case now? In other words is there a "me" that actually exists that chooses one thing and a "me" that chooses another? If so, than I maintain that those people are not free in the liberatarian sense. Or if they were, each one should be able to choose to act or refrain with regard to the same choice and if that was the case, then it should be possible that I choose one thing, and the person in the other possible world chooses the same thing! And once you grant that, you've lost what you were trying to articulate with the possible worlds.


So forgetting the possible worlds thing, as I say, it's a possibility, but certanly not a requirement for God, this still doesn't changfe the basis of what I'm saying..

No, there aren't two 'yous'.. but there is a splitting of ways for each decision you have made.. taking the example of a Maze, the 'grounds' are already laid out, each possible directional path is already made for each possible choice you could ever have, as God knows what each choice will be.. however, when you get to the fork or the crossroads, the actual path you take is decided by YOU, and not God.. He just happens to know already what is down the path you are now heading, and what choices you will have etc.. and has ALL possible paths already laid out, based upon what choices you will be confronted with.

Just because the actual road(s) are made, it doesn't mean that you have had to have travelled them before, God is more than capable of anticipating, I would think.

As a platonist, I don't believe that they were made. They just are. They are just a fundamental part of existence.

Maybe they are.. are you saying that you believe you have the ultimate understanding then of these rules? Not being fascitious, just wondering if you think that it is possible for anyone to have a full understanding of these 'rules', and that you do. As I wonder what makes you believe they are 'a fundemental part' of existance.

Please understand, I'm not always against what you say when I ask such things, just want a deeper understanding of where you are coming from, and what took you there :smile:

What I said of the possible worlds applies here. If the moment that I will choose one thing always exists, then it was never true that I could choose otherwise.

No, that is once again a linear point of view. However, I understand what you are saying, and as I have said, this is one of the big issues with Free Will and predestination for me.

What logic says that just because a moment in which you have a choice always exists (to God), then it is true that you (a Man) never had choice?

If I put you in the middle of a Crossroads, and *I* know where each road leads, and I say pick a direction, are you saying that just because I know where all roads lead, you don't have a choice of which direction to take?

Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying, could you elaborate more for me? :smile:

However, in a lot of ways, yes, you are right.. we don't have a choice.. for instance, I don't have a choice about life or death.. at some stage I will die.. no choice. But I don't think that's what you meant..

Love and Peace

JCA

[Jaltus]

God is looking at the whole picture as it runs, if He wants to change the future, He only needs to make an alteration in the past, and the change in teh future, and all points and choices in between, are changed in realtion to the 'new' history. No one need know of, experience etc. the change.. it just happens. The problem with this view is that it has no answer to the Problem of Evil (PoE). If God is able to rewind and delete, as it were, then why is there evil at all? The PoE defeats this understanding, which is why my theoretical construct of God and time does not work (it leaves itself open to this possibility).

Essentially, to understand how God relates to time, you make God evil. that is not a viable tradeoff.

[geoff]

Glenn:

Then further clarification must be given. "Essential" means "required by one's ESSENCE." You've said, it seems, that God's essence is timeless, but the Trinity on the other hand interacts in time. This - by definition - means that the Trinity would not essential to God's nature.

And so I would ask - is the Trinity part of God's essence, or can God exist without it? I for one am a Trinitarian at this point. Are you?

I dont know that I have a good explanation for this, as I have not got it quite sorted (which is why i am discussing it lol).

The only analogy I can think of is along the lines of this:

I have a fish tank, full of water and fish. I can not live in water. In order to interact with the things inside the tank I have to stick my hand in. My hand is capable of existing in water for as long as I need it to. The hand doesnt cease to be a part of my "essence" when I put it in the fishtank, but when it is in the fishtank it is limited by the various properties of water, etc etc.

Do you get the picture? The Trinity is a manifestation of the essence of God in time. The Trinity is essential to God in order to do so. I am of the opinion that prior to creation, the trinity was not manifest. There is no need for the Father, the Son and the Spirit apart from creation, they are God, and there was only God. I am digressing however.

Thus we can say "God is one (essence - timeless) and God is three (manifestations in time - Father, Son Spirit)". God is always one, and always three, however, the three are not "manifested" apart from creation.

Perhaps there are a lot of holes in that, however, for me, it explains God's timelessness, his temporality, the nature of God and the trinity.
I affirm the Trinity as essential to God's nature. Perhaps I should redefine "essence" as "divine substance". *casts his mind back to theology A trying to remember which homo -- oozeystuff it was..*

"God is one essence manifested in three persons" - it is the essence that is timeless, the persons which are manifested in time to intereact with creation.

[Jaltus]

Hey, the fishtankn was my analogy!

Seriously, though, I think it makes the most sense, even if it does fall apart rapidly when pushed.

[geoff]

Thanks Jaltus..

Yeah it makes a big mess too :)

However, I am sure mr Glenn will have some objection too it... about the only thing we agree on is conditional immortality these days (incase you didnt know, we know each other in real life - although, he sold out and moved to the opposite end of New Zealand... afeared of my mighty intellect I suspect *chuckle*)

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

geoff:
Do you get the picture? The Trinity is a manifestation of the essence of God in time. The Trinity is essential to God in order to do so. I am of the opinion that prior to creation, the trinity was not manifest. There is no need for the Father, the Son and the Spirit apart from creation, they are God, and there was only God.

Well then, as much as you might like to keep insisting that the Trinity is essential to God's nature, your theological construct of God's relationship to time denies this.

The above quote entails that before creation there was no Trinity. You say the Trinity was not "manifest," but if I've followed your reason this far, that just means that before creation, God had not chosen to manifest His existence via the Trinity.

In other words, this would mean that prior to creation, Christ was not a person distinct from the Father. Your Trinitarian instincts might immediately reject such a view of Christ, and rightly so, but how can you avoid it now that you've made the above claim?

Glenn

[geoff]

Glenn,

I dont see a need to.

The pre-existant Christ is God. The Holy Spirit is God. I cant see how God is "separate persons" prior to creation, and I cant see how it is necessary. However I affirm that "contained within" God is all that makes up the Trinity. If you catch my drift.

The persons of God are manifest for particular purposes, at least, as far as we know or are instructed. Prior to creation these purposes are not in existence, and God has no need to manifest in order to fulfil them.

My opinion is that the Trinity is the manifestation of God in time, without time, God can not, would not, and has no need to manifest himself in anyway other than the form of existence He eternally exists in.

Does this mean there is no trinity prior to creation? No. The trinity exists, they are God, just not manifest. Does this mean should creation pass away, there would be no trinity? No. God would still exist, and therefore so would the trinity, just not manifest.

I have a feeling you are going somewhere... if you are, please get there soon, lol

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

geoff:
Does this mean there is no trinity prior to creation? No. The trinity exists, they are God, just not manifest. Does this mean should creation pass away, there would be no trinity? No. God would still exist, and therefore so would the trinity, just not manifest.

So what do you mean by "manifest"? It seems to me that your view requires that there is no Trinity before creation, but you soften it by saying the Trinity was just "not manifest." So what does that mean?

[JCA]

Jaltus:
The problem with this view is that it has no answer to the Problem of Evil (PoE). If God is able to rewind and delete, as it were, then why is there evil at all? The PoE defeats this understanding, which is why my theoretical construct of God and time does not work (it leaves itself open to this possibility).

Essentially, to understand how God relates to time, you make God evil. that is not a viable tradeoff.

Jaltus, there is ALWAYS the PoE..

Even in the fishtank analogy.. there's the fish swimming about, evil is in the tank too.. why doesn't God get rid of it?

If my fish crap in my fishtank, I clean it out.. if I could get fish that didn't crap, that's what I would do.. otherwise once a month or so, I have to change the water etc.

In other words.. just how do you deal with the PoE with an Omnipotent God?? It exists, in both my analogy, and yours.. and God didn't change in either of them.

Makes no difference how God manipulates time, or how He interacts with it, in that respect. In fact, in my model, if it turns out that all the choices made lead people away from God, what is wrong with God changing something in the past that brings us to a point where our choices DO bring us to God?

He doesn't change ourindividual right to choice, but changes the world around us so certain choices can no longer be made..

Of course, God doesn't need to do any of this.. His plan is perfect. Which makes me wonder how it was that the Old Testament got so misunderstood that God had to send Christ.. seems to me that things don't always go the way God wants it to when it comes to Man, as we seem to have the capability to deny Him.. which He gave us.

Heres a simple test:

Is God everything, and is everything created through God, and is there Scriptural support for such an assumption?

Is God outside of Time, and if so what else is outside of God, and what is the scriptural support for such a thing?

Looking at that, according to the Word of God, He created everything. I see no mention of being outside time, I see no mention of God not creating time, or Evil for that matter (for a purpose).

Also, I take it then that you also don't believe that God is Omnipresent and Omniscient.. as if that was the case, there is no "putting of the hand in the fishtank" as God is already there, in teh fishtank, and without it..

IMHO.

Love and Peace

JCA

[geoff]

Glenn.

hmmm...

Evident to the senses, esp. to the sight; apparent; distinctly perceived; hence, obvious to the understanding; apparent to the mind; easily apprehensible; plain; not obscure or hidden.

God can not be apparent to humanity, or "real" to us, because by nature He is timeless. He interjects himself (manifests) into time, and we percieve him in the form of the TRINITY.

[wienerdog]

OK, you guys asked for it:

"God does not exist. He is eternal." (Kierkegaard)

Does God exist NOW? In order to do so he would have to exist in time. If he does not exist in time, he does not exist now. If God does not exist now, then he does not exist.

I'm just being obnoxious to make a point (the point being that I'm obnoxious). I like the traditional view of God's timelessness, but I can't ignore William Lane Craig. Much of the discussion about God moving in and out of time views time like space; but time isn't space. The past does not exist, so it doesn't MEAN anything to say that God can go into the past.

I would also like to point out that God does not need to exist timelessly in order to know the future. This seems to assume that God has to SEE the future in order to know it. But God is omniscient. He knows what will happen by his very nature. Future-tense statements (like "it will rain in Brussels on Oct. 14, 2054 AD") are either true or false. God doesn't have to see Brussels in 2054 AD to know whether it's raining there. To ask how God could have such knowledge is just asking how omniscience works.

Now all of this is based on our intuitive sense of time, that only the present moment exists. The past DID exist and the future WILL exist; but neither have any reality whatsoever NOW