For OV Christians

[Bill the Cat]

Can somoene who holds the OV use Kalam as an argument??

I only want the OV'ers to answer. No arguments, just explanations of yes or no responses and how you concuded your answer.

[themuzicman]

You mean Kalam?

[Bill the Cat]

That's what I said.....:metro:

[themuzicman]

From what I read, that's an Islamic argument about the cause of the universe...


Here is an outline of the argument:

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.ht

Is that what you mean?

[Bill the Cat]

Not quite, more along the lines of this facet...


It follows from this that the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite. 1993 would never have arrived had it been preceded by a infinite number of years, because one cannot cross an infinite number of years to reach 1993 anymore than the man running up the stairs can cross an infinity of steps. Thus the number of years before 1993 must be finite and potentially infinite, but not actually infinite.


http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

For God to be infinite, but experiencing time as we do, then He can not be actually infinite. I'm trying to see and understand how God can experience time as we do, but still be infinite in the OV model.

[themuzicman]

Ah. I think that would be an argument for the existance of God, but not necessarily the Open View.

I might modify that to say that God exists outside of time and outside of our universe in a timeless and spaceless manner, but that when He interacts with His creation, He has to interact within the confines of space and time.

But that's an interesting argument, nonetheless.

Michael

[Bill the Cat]

:bump:

[Bill the Cat]

double :bump:

[themuzicman]

DOUBLE POST! DOUBLE POST! SOMEONE CALL BILL THE ADMIN... err..uh....

[Bill the Cat]

:rofl:

[yxboom]

no. God is finite in that He is a living God not an unliving God therefore experiences consecutive experiences. God is infinite in that His consecutive experiences are not limited as ours.

[geebob]

I tend to agree with what boom just said. God has an infinite temporal past.

However, the open view is mainly commited to the notion that God is in time now.

The Kalam arguement was brought into prominence by William Lane Craig of recent and many open viewers that I've spoken with (that is professional philosophers and theologians) agree that his view on God and time is one that an open viewer can agree with.

God, in creating a temporal universe placed himself in that temporal universe so that he may interact with His creatures.

Now I don't think that this is the case and there is one reason why open viewers could disagree with this view, though there may be a way to work around it and as far as the rest of the open view is concerned, it is not an issue.

Open viewers are almost all social trinitarians and believe that God has eternally loved the son and vice versa. Love involves give and take thus temporal sequence is let into the mix.

In light of that I would point out that there is a flaw in the arguement that you've advanced as the kalam arguement. Before I do that though, I'd like to mention that I believe musicman is right about what the kalam arguement is about. What you've asserted as the kalam arguement may be one way of bringing about the kalam arguement or it most it may be an essential part, but it is not itself the kalam cosmological arguement.

As for the flaw:


It follows from this that the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite. 1993 would never have arrived had it been preceded by a infinite number of years, because one cannot cross an infinite number of years to reach 1993 anymore than the man running up the stairs can cross an infinity of steps. Thus the number of years before 1993 must be finite and potentially infinite, but not actually infinite.

another way to put this is as the following. we could represent now with zero and place the future on the positive side of a number line and the past on the negative side. The future of course terminates with infinity. The past begins with negative infinity. Th problem here is the assumption that a negative past begins with negative infinity. So if we label each second starting from the past in a sequence like the following: negative infinity, negative infinity + 1, negative infinity +2, negative infinity + 3... and so on, you would never reach zero. No amount of time could ever pass to get rid of that negative infinity sign.

The fundamental flaw in this arguement is treating the infinite past as if it had a beginning. Without a beginning, no problem can arise. God never began in his temporal journy. He just always was.

So unlike your stair climber who begins climbing the stairs, God has always been climbing, and where ever he is on that timeline, there the present is.

[Bill the Cat]

Thanks Michael Boom and Geebob... Like i said in post 5, I'm trying to understand OV better as not to misrepresent. While I am not an OV, I still respect your position and would like to learn more. That's why I asked the question, not to try to prove the view wrong.