God and Time....

[seer]

This idea of God and time has come up in other threads. And I find this interesting, I'am not an open theist but they do make some good points.

First what do we mean when we say that God is outside of time? Time does NOT exist. It is a non-entity. It is simply an abstract way of keeping track of successive events. And God can not be "outside" a non-entity, or outside an abstract.

And if we say that God is outside of successive events, are we saying anything meaningful? What could that possibly mean? That events don't affect Him? If that is the case then God would not (or could not) interact with said events.

Does this also mean that God Himself could not have successive acts or successive thoughts? And if God does have successive acts and thoughts then He is also bound by succession,and must work within that model. And if God does not act and think in succession then God could not logically act. For acting in the human experience would require both a succession of acts and thoughts.

Think of of this way. God at one point created the Universe. Then rested (or stopped creating). That is a successive event: create - rest. And successive thought: purpose to create,purpose to rest. Now if God is not bound by succession then the above is a logical impossibility. For ANY act of God MUST be continuous. He must still be creating the universe and will for eternity.

[David O]

20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Because of this passage in Genesis, I have come to a lot of the same type of thinking that you mention here. "Knowing the future" may just be a pagan construct that has no meaning. I don't find reference to it in the Bible. Knowing is related to sex. You can't have sex with the future. God can easily make sure His predictions come true. Jesus reported back that He had lost none of those you gave me except for one that the scripture might be fulfilled. The only way I can make sense of these passages, without resorting to what I believe to be word games, is to think that God's omniscience doesn't include all of the things that we think it includes. He even says, I never knew you to the false prophets. I always bought that "outside of time" idea, but now find it untennable.

[yoki]

05-03-2003 @ 09:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86274#post86274)
seer:

This idea of God and time has come up in other threads. And I find this interesting, I'am not an open theist but they do make some good points.

First what do we mean when we say that God is outside of time? Time does NOT exist. It is a non-entity. It is simply an abstract way of keeping track of successive events. And God can not be "outside" a non-entity, or outside an abstract.

And if we say that God is outside of successive events, are we saying anything meaningful? What could that possibly mean? That events don't affect Him? If that is the case then God would not (or could not) interact with said events.

Does this also mean that God Himself could not have successive acts or successive thoughts? And if God does have successive acts and thoughts then He is also bound by succession,and must work within that model. And if God does not act and think in succession then God could not logically act. For acting in the human experience would require both a succession of acts and thoughts.

Think of of this way. God at one point created the Universe. Then rested (or stopped creating). That is a successive event: create - rest. And successive thought: purpose to create,purpose to rest. Now if God is not bound by succession then the above is a logical impossibility. For ANY act of God MUST be continuous. He must still be creating the universe and will for eternity.

Through the medium of the Holy Trinity, is it possible that God can be all that the pagan Greek philosophers accepted, but be as well what the Hebrew scriptures reveal? I believe it is possible, but it may be a bit heretical.

Regards,
Yoki

[mickiel]

Where i am now, i believe God is ignoreing mankind for now. I actually believe he has been since Christ was ressurected. I assume he has other eyes watching over events, other beings of power carrying out his will, but i just do not see his involvement since Jesus was manifested back to heaven. Because of this, i think time has been illrelevant since Christ assension. Only God knows the day and hour of his attention being put back on mankind. I think that is when time will gain some relevance, but even then it will be short lived, then time will be no more.

[SaintMorpheus]

Here's how I conceptualize it: The universe is at least 4-dimensional (if not 11 or so, as String Theory postulates). The 4th dimension, of course, is time. God created (but ignore the fact that this is a past participle) the universe in all its dimensions, i.e. God created the 4th dimension (in addition to all the others). Or rather, He created a universe in which human minds could conceptualize it in terms of dimensions. You know what I mean. I agree that time is a non-entity, as are the three extended spatial dimensions, but only non-entities in the sense that math is a non-entity, i.e. non-substantive "thing."
I don't think of God "outside" time (because this metaphor is spatial) necessarily; it's more like the universe is a complete package of many dimensions and God creates this complete package. Of course, the notion of creation is necessarily one that we conceptualize as taking place in time, but that's just because we're four dimensional (at least) and can't think of it in any other way.
Mickiel -- Interesting. How would you explain the notion of God "ignoring" something? This idea is a bit anthropomorphic for my taste; "to ignore" connotes "to be aware of someone or something, but to act as if that someone or something does not exist" -- this, of course, is nonsensical when applied to God. The word "ignore" may recall a different connotation to you (language is very ambiguous!). In that case, ignore what I just said.
Theologically speaking, the Apostle tells us that "He who is descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things." (Eph 4:10).
Christ fills all things, meaning He is "woven into the fabric of the universe" for lack of a better metaphor. He is eternally the Mediator between Man and God, between the Material world and the Spiritual world.
This, of course, means that, with a little piety and an illumined imagination (which you'll need to pray for), you can see God work in all things.

If that post was incoherent, blame it on my post-surgery happy drugs :)

[Theolog]

05-03-2003 @ 06:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86274#post86274)
seer:

This idea of God and time has come up in other threads. And I find this interesting, I'am not an open theist but they do make some good points.

First what do we mean when we say that God is outside of time? Time does NOT exist. It is a non-entity. It is simply an abstract way of keeping track of successive events. And God can not be "outside" a non-entity, or outside an abstract.

And if we say that God is outside of successive events, are we saying anything meaningful? What could that possibly mean? That events don't affect Him? If that is the case then God would not (or could not) interact with said events.

Does this also mean that God Himself could not have successive acts or successive thoughts? And if God does have successive acts and thoughts then He is also bound by succession,and must work within that model. And if God does not act and think in succession then God could not logically act. For acting in the human experience would require both a succession of acts and thoughts.

Think of of this way. God at one point created the Universe. Then rested (or stopped creating). That is a successive event: create - rest. And successive thought: purpose to create,purpose to rest. Now if God is not bound by succession then the above is a logical impossibility. For ANY act of God MUST be continuous. He must still be creating the universe and will for eternity.

Seer I mostly agree.

I would like to see just one reasonable defence for a “no time” existence.

As long as there is consciousness or awareness of any type, a subject/object relationship in some type of time and space must exist. It is painfully clear that the existence in the so-called “eternal state” is one big consciousness of the subject/object nature, thus time and space.

It seems clear to me that this meatball theology of the “eternal state” being “no time” stems from a warped understanding of the Neo-Plutonic concept of the states of “being” and “becoming”

A healthy dose of reason, rationalism and logic should clear the air.


Just because God can operate and interact with us and relate to us in the “now” is no proof that he cannot simultaneously operate in the past and future.

Whatever God is he is most certainly the God and master of time and space. As far as God not knowing future events I see no reason to doubt the traditional understanding and definitions of omniscience and omnipresence.

The open view evidence I have seen presented so far on this forum carries about as much weight as The KJV only arguments going around.

[geebob]

Through the medium of the Holy Trinity, is it possible that God can be all that the pagan Greek philosophers accepted, but be as well what the Hebrew scriptures reveal? I believe it is possible, but it may be a bit heretical.

Whether or not it should be heretical, that in fact has been the status quo throghout much of church history.

There is one good reason we should reject this claim though and that's that there are many claims in greek philosophy that simply aren't philosophically compelling. The most obvious example (and relevent to the topic) is that only imperfect entities change and perfect entities cannot change. A counterexample for instance would be a clock. A clock that is "perfect" in this sense is right only twice a day.

I would insist that if God has a perfect relationship with us (as far as his part is concerned) then he experiences temporal change with us, as that is the best way to know and understand temporal beings.

[johnnybanano]

When I use the term "outside of time", I generally mean not forced to comply w/ our continuum of the present, i.e. a being outside of time is able to be in what we perceive as the past or the future. I wrote a post that had to do with this. I was trying to explain how God could know what we were going to do before we decided to do it. The only explanation that I could come up with was that God "transcends" time, that is, he is able to simultaneously exist in the past, present, and future.

Here's my post:

Post 1

My idea:

The verse appears, in most of the versions that IronMetro posted, w/ the phrase, "I AM(!)". In addition to this implying the deity of Christ, and in addition to this implying that Jesus existed before Abraham, it may imply something deeper and more empowering than it would seem.

In a former post, IronMetro gave us the Lockman Foundation's response to the former NASB's rendering of "ego eimi" as "I have been" as a way of putting Jesus' words into a more English-friendly phrasing. They stated that a better rendering would have perhaps been, "...I have always been."

I believe that even this more explicative rendering might have lost something. I believe that Jesus may have made the phrasing sound awkward for a reason. He may have been luring us to understand a greater truth.

If the prase had been rendered, "...I have always been!", then we would be able to understand that, before Abraham, Jesus existed. However, the important difference here is that Jesus didn't say that he "existed" before Abraham. He says that he "exists" before Abraham! That he is presently existing, at that moment before Abraham was born! Now, I conceded that this is simply an idea that I have gotten from this scripture and that it is not necessarily a fact. However, does it not make sense?!?


Post 2


Try this: I am going to say a word. I have not yet decided what word I am going to say. That is to say, I have not consciously decided. I therefore am not aware of what word I am going to say. This being the case, I have not yet chosen which word I am going to say.

Now let's shift from my perspective, to God's perspective.

According to what you seem to be saying, "...God knows what we will chose." In this case, God knows what I will say. Let's say that he knows that I will say word A.

If I may, I would assume that you believe that there was no specific point at which God gained this knowledge, that he always knew which word I was going to choose to say.

Here's the problem: If God always knew which word I was going to say, then there is no way that I could have chosen to say any word other than the one which He knew I was going to say. Hence, I could not have said any other word.

This is the question: At what point was I given a choice?

If God has always known, w/o any possibility of being wrong, which word I was going to say, then how could I be free to choose anything but what God knew I was going to choose. I would not have been able to choose to say word B, or <gasp> even word C!


Now here's one solution:

If God were to exist outside of time, then he would be able to be in the past as well as the present just as much as he is able to be here w/ me and there w/ you at the same time. If this is possible, then God may be here at the present w/ me and may also be here at the future w/ the future me. This of course would require God to "time-travel". Nonetheless, if God can transcend space, why can he not transcend time. If he can exist in more than one place, why not in more than one time. In my other post, which you can access via the above link, I suggest that in Jn 8:58 Jesus may have suggested that God is currently existing in both the present time, at which Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees; as well as the past, before Abraham was. Go there if you would like to see it or reply to it. I don't want to get this thread off track any more than I already have.

Anyhow, in this situation, all that God would have to do to know which word I was going to choose to say, would be to hear me say it a couple minutes in the future. It would be the same as travelling a few miles spatially to hear me say it; the only difference is that the "travel" would be temporal.

As I stated in the other thread, this is simply an idea of mine. I am thinking about it. I can by no means prove it, however, it has not yet been refuted to my knowledge.


Well, those are my attempts at a unique explanation of how foreknowledge and free will coincide and, while that was not the topic of the thread, I hope that my utilization of my definition of "outside of time" made it on-topic.

I know that they are crazy ideas so let me know what you think...I can take it! (I hope) :brow:

Until next time,

Love and Respect

[Undomiel]

He defines Himself to Moses as "I am," which essentially means, He is in all places Present - I believe this refers to time as well as place. He is continually in the present, which is the estate of the Eternal. No matter where or when you go, there you are. As you are also eternal (i.e. resurrectable or translatable to eternal life), you are and will always be present - this is His gift to you of eternal life. We are made in His image, eternal.

[seer]

Through the medium of the Holy Trinity, is it possible that God can be all that the pagan Greek philosophers accepted, but be as well what the Hebrew scriptures reveal? I believe it is possible, but it may be a bit heretical.

Why would that be heretical? BTW - good to see you here Jim, I just got booted from CARM again! I must be doing something right! :cheers:

[Theolog]

I strongly suspect that all reality only exists in the present or now and we only suspect the illusion of a glimpse of the past and future. Of course God was and is going to be in all places in the past and future as He is in the present but can and does He actually cognize any or all future events?

I have had recurring detailed dreams of future events that amazingly enough have came true right down to every detail. Pre-cognizing future events must surely be possible and perhaps even commonplace for God. God being a mystic adds a new dynamic to our search for the true equation for reality.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 03:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134005#post134005)
Theolog:

I strongly suspect that all reality only exists in the present or now and we only suspect the illusion of a glimpse of the past and future. Of course God was and is going to be in all places in the past and future as He is in the present but can and does He actually cognize any or all future events?

I have had recurring detailed dreams of future events that amazingly enough have came true right down to every detail. Pre-cognizing future events must surely be possible and perhaps even commonplace for God. God being a mystic adds a new dynamic to our search for the true equation for reality.

Seth: "The universe will begin yesterday. The universe began tomorrow. Both of these statements are quite meaningless. The tenses are wrong, and perhaps your time sense is completely outraged. Yet the statement: 'The universe began in some distant past,' is, in basic terms, just as meaningless."

"In fact, the first two statements, while making no logical sense, do indeed hint of phenomena that show time itself to be no more than a creative construct. Time and space are in a fashion part of the furniture of your universe."

"The very existence of passing moments belongs to your psychological rooms in the same way that clocks are attached to your walls. Whenever science or religion seeks the origin of the universe, they search for it in the past. The universe is being created now. Creation occurs in each moment, in your terms. The illusion of time itself is being created now. It is therefore somewhat futile to look for the origins of the universe by using a time scheme that is in itself, at the very least, highly relative."

"Your now, or present moment, is a psychological platform. It seems that the universe began with an initial burst of energy of some kind. Evolutionists cannot account for its cause. Many religious people believe that a god exists in a larger dimension of reality, and that he created the universe while being himself outside of it. He set it into motion. Many individuals, following either persuasion, believe that regardless of its source, the universe must run out of energy. Established science is quite certain that no energy can now be created or destroyed, but only transformed. Science sees energy and matter as being basically the same thing, appearing differently under varying circumstances."

"In certain terms, science and religion are both dealing with the idea of an objectively created universe. Either God "made it", or physical matter, in some unexplained manner, was formed after an initial explosion of energy, and consciousness emerged from that initially dead matter in a way yet to be explained."

"Instead, consciousness formed matter. As I have said before, each atom and molecule has its own consciousness. Consciousness and matter and energy are one, but consciousness initiates the transformation of energy into matter. In those terms, the "beginning" of your universe was a triumph in the expansion of consciousness, as it learned to translate itself into physical form. The universe emerged into actuality in the same way, but to a different degree, that any idea emerges from what you think of as subjectivity into physical expression."

"The consciousness of each reader of this book existed before the universe was formed (in your terms) but that consciousness was unmanifest. Your closest approximation - and it is an approximation only - of the state of being that existed before the universe was formed is the dream state. In that state before the beginning, your consciousness existed free of space and time, aware of immense probabilities. This is extremely difficult to verbalize, yet it is very important that such an attempt be made. Your consciousness is part of an infinitely original creative process."

"I will purposely avoid using the word "God" because of the connotations placed upon it by conventional religion. I will make an attempt to explain the characteristics of this divine process throughout this book. I call this process "All That Is". All That Is is so much a part of its creations that it is almost impossible to separate the "creator form its creations," for each creation also carries indelibly within it the characteristics of its source.

from: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5484/seth18.htm

[Trinitarian]

Just a little plug for a good book that pertains to the topic in question. Act and Being: Toward a Theology of the Divine Attributes by Colin Gunton has some very interesting things to say on the issues of the attributes, God and Time, and the (un)holy union of Greek Philosophy and Christian Doctrine. I highly recommend it and all other books by Gunton.

[geebob]

He defines Himself to Moses as "I am," which essentially means, He is in all places Present - I believe this refers to time as well as place.

That is highly speculative. There's no indication in the text that time is being reffered to at all let alone as a place.

There are also many other reasonable understanding's of "I am" that don't even imply omnipresence (not that an affirmative on that decides the issue such as the notion that God is faithful to his character thus dependable (and it would then really have been beneficial to Moses in the situation).

[Trinitarian]

The I AM statement of God, more likely means nothing about the metaphyics of time, but rather refers to God's self definition through his historical actions. When Moses says that the children of Israel will ask what God's name is, God replies I AM, or I WILL BE (There's no way to tell which is meant in Hebrew as there is no tense). What I take this to mean is that God is known (named) in and through himself. His actions reveal who he is, he defines his name through his actions as seen supremely in the liberation of the Jews from Egypt and in the Father raising Jesus Christ from the dead throughthe power of the Holy Spirit.

[Theolog]

06-27-2003 @ 09:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134138#post134138)
garthoverman:

from: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5484/seth18.htm

Your article is pure brown pudding oozing from the pit of hell. While demonic communications may seem to have some substance you must keep in mind they are from the master liar.

My being does not create time and space, an easy thing to prove. Time and space exist outside of human awareness, another easy thing to prove.

The big bang theory is the nuttiest thing I have ever heard.

Channeling demons is a no-no.

Time and space exist as they are and they are eternally changing. We are the watchers not the creators.

[yoki]

Today @ 10:39 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136704#post136704)
Theolog:



Your article is pure brown pudding oozing from the pit of hell. While demonic communications may seem to have some substance you must keep in mind they are from the master liar.

My being does not create time and space, an easy thing to prove. Time and space exist outside of human awareness, another easy thing to prove.

The big bang theory is the nuttiest thing I have ever heard.

Channeling demons is a no-no.

Time and space exist as they are and they are eternally changing. We are the watchers not the creators.

Say there Garth, I take it that Theolog didn't care much for your material.
:hi:

[Warcraft3]

06-26-2003 @ 11:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133736#post133736)
Theolog:The open view evidence I have seen presented so far on this forum carries about as much weight as The KJV only arguments going around.
Gotta disagree with that statement. I find the open view to explain scripture that the closed view has a difficult time explaining. The closed view has some good arguments, but the open view has better ones.


Russ

[Theolog]

Today @ 09:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136778#post136778)
steadele:


Gotta disagree with that statement. I find the open view to explain scripture that the closed view has a difficult time explaining. The closed view has some good arguments, but the open view has better ones.


Russ

If you like a wimpy God that is sitting around chewing his fingernails waiting to see if his guesses about the future come true the open view is great.

I would like a God that at the very least knows what he has created.

Oh I know GB will say "We affirm that God knows what he has created He just doesn't know what it will do"

I fail to see how making God into "less is better" sheds greater light on scripture.

"God doesn't know" is the cry of the otheist.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 03:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136704#post136704)
Theolog:

Your article is pure brown pudding oozing from the pit of hell.
Gee, Theolog.... tell us what you really think....:huh:

While demonic communications may seem to have some substance you must keep in mind they are from the master liar.
What demonic communications?

My being does not create time and space, an easy thing to prove. Time and space exist outside of human awareness, another easy thing to prove.
Then, by all means, present these proofs. I'll be particularly interested to see you explain exactly how you can be aware of something that you've just said exists outside human awareness...

The big bang theory is the nuttiest thing I have ever heard.
Really? You should read Walt Brown's squirtgun-Earth explanation for the dissipation of Noachian flood waters. Now that is a nutty theory...

Channeling demons is a no-no.
What demons? Who said anything about demons?

Time and space exist as they are and they are eternally changing. We are the watchers not the creators.
Maybe.... maybe not.

Yours,
Garth

[garthoverman]

Yesterday @ 05:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136772#post136772)
yoki:


Say there Garth, I take it that Theolog didn't care much for your material.
:hi:

Well..... its not really my material... :wink:

Yours,
Garth

[Theolog]

Today @ 04:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137136#post137136)
garthoverman:


Gee, Theolog.... tell us what you really think....:huh:


What demonic communications?


Then, by all means, present these proofs. I'll be particularly interested to see you explain exactly how you can be aware of something that you've just said exists outside human awareness...


Really? You should read Walt Brown's squirtgun-Earth explanation for the dissipation of Noachian flood waters. Now that is a nutty theory...


What demons? Who said anything about demons?


Maybe.... maybe not.

Yours,
Garth

The source of the slim is Seth “a Demon”

"The Seth Material is a system of philosophy presented by Jane Roberts and her husband Robert Butts as a consequence of the trance communications of an entity named Seth."


The demon teaches that "Instead, consciousness formed matter.” Not God. ---a clue.

The demon teaches our consciousness creates reality. If this is true why does reality still exist after people are dead? When we sleep everything disappears?? Time and space exist whether we are aware or not aware of it.

All matter has consciousness??? Right!!!

I'm a little outspoken I will admit, worse yet I am highly opinionated. I was a little taken aback about finding a link to trance chanelers on a theology forum. But you're tough and won't hold it against me.:teeth:

[garthoverman]

Today @ 01:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137162#post137162)
Theolog:



The source of the slim is Seth “a Demon”

&quot;The Seth Material is a system of philosophy presented by Jane Roberts and her husband Robert Butts as a consequence of the trance communications of an entity named Seth.&quot;
So? Big deal. Moses talked to a freakin' bush for cryin' out loud....


The demon teaches that &quot;Instead, consciousness formed matter.” Not God. ---a clue.
Don't you think that God has consciousness? With what do you think God could have awareness if not consciousness?

The demon teaches our consciousness creates reality. If this is true why does reality still exist after people are dead?
Who said that it doesn't? Do you think that you will NOT be conscious after you die? Do you think you will NOT be aware of your after-death environment?

When we sleep everything disappears??
Where is this stated?

Time and space exist whether we are aware or not aware of it.
You said you could prove that, yet I do not see the proof.

All matter has consciousness??? Right!!!
Your matter has consciousness (i.e. the matter of your body), and it is fundamentally indistinguishable from any other matter in the universe.

I'm a little outspoken I will admit, worse yet I am highly opinionated. I was a little taken aback about finding a link to trance chanelers on a theology forum. But you're tough and won't hold it against me.:teeth:
Of course not. :smile:

Yours,
Garth

[Belteshazzar]

seer:

Time does NOT exist. It is a non-entity. It is simply an abstract way of keeping track of successive events. And God can not be &quot;outside&quot; a non-entity, or outside an abstract.

Einstein showed us that we can't even agree upon 'successive events' in all references, and thus time is relative to the observer. Or put into other words, the architecture of the universe prevents us from agreeing upon what is inside or outside the concept of time. So, when trying to place similar restrictions upon God, it is simply inapplicable. It gives new insight into some of the literature of the ancient Hebrews:

Psalms 13-2

How long, LORD? Will you utterly forget me? How long will you hide your face from me?

Jerry

[David O]

Well..... its not really my material... :wink:

Yours,
Garth

If you're mind is creating reality, technically it is yours.

[Warcraft3]

Hello Theolog :

If you like a wimpy God that is sitting around chewing his fingernails waiting to see if his guesses about the future come true the open view is great.
Why does one need to look at the open view from such a negative perspective? Is God limiting Himself for the benefit of man a negative thing? He did so during the incarnation of Christ, and that certainly was not a negative thing. Christ limited Himself for us out of love, not "wimpyness". Likewise, God limits His knowledge of the future so that we might have true free will and so that the institution of prayer is a dynamic relationship where we can actually affect Gods decisions. So it is a positive reflection of the love God has for us, not some negative reflection of His strength.

I would like a God that at the very least knows what he has created.
And He knows everything He chooses to know.

Oh I know GB will say "We affirm that God knows what he has created He just doesn't know what it will do"
Who is GB?

I fail to see how making God into "less is better" sheds greater light on scripture.
I am not trying to make God less God here. I am not trying to remove anything from Him either. Since He is limiting Himself, I fail to see how this makes Him less than God in any way.

"God doesn't know" is the cry of the otheist.
My "cry" is....."God loves you and I so much that He is willing to limit His knowledge of the future for our benefit"

Russ

[garthoverman]

Today @ 01:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137424#post137424)
David O:

If you're mind is creating reality, technically it is yours.

Hows about we compromise and say that its ours--yours, mine, Seth's, and everyone else's? :smile:

Yours,
Garth

[David O]

My family tends to go insane, so it's best that we not create any reality when we're old. It'd look like a big Dali painting or a Warner Bros. cartoon.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 04:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137571#post137571)
David O:

My family tends to go insane, so it's best that we not create any reality when we're old. It'd look like a big Dali painting or a Warner Bros. cartoon.
Oh that's not quite the problem that you think it is (or at least, seem to think it is). My reality has appeared cartoonish and distorted at times (a consequence of some organic hallucinogens)--but that doesn't make everyone's reality appear that way. They each create their own reality too on an individual basis. Therefore, it will appear to them exactly as they expect it to.

Yours,
Garth

[David O]

How did you decide that?

[garthoverman]

Today @ 05:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137623#post137623)
David O:

How did you decide that?
Such a simple question--such a complicated answer.:uneasy:

First, I have noticed lately that I, personally, have a bad habit of hijacking threads on Tweb. I think it is a result of the posting habits I developed on CARM where thread hijacking or off-topic tangents are better accomodated by the format and therefore interfere with on-topic discussions to a much lesser extent. So... If you would like to pursue a complete answer to your question, I suggest a new thread be initiated. The answers to your question, however, are so vast in scope that this hypothetical thread would require a significant time committment by myself and you. That is not to mention my having to contend with any others that would possibly join into the discussion.

To be honest, at this point I don't feel inclined to commit myself in such a fashion. At the moment, there are several threads on the Philosophy Forum in which I have other posters awaiting involved responses from myself, and I have been battling to muster the ambition to tackle those. I can hardly see how I might motiviate myself to address an issue as expansive as this.

Furthermore, although it is relatively unbeknownst to you yet, I doubt that such a committment is something that you really would desire. Or, at least, I doubt you would desire the type of committment to comparably involved participation that I would expect from someone interested in resolving this issue as opposed to someone merely interested in coercing several long and detailed posts from me only to dismiss them out-of-hand despite my efforts.

So with that, I'll leave it up to you. My personal preference would be rather just to abandon the discussion at this point since I fear that such a committment would detract from my enjoyment of the rest of the opportunites offered on this forum, and likewise yours.

Yours,
Garth

[David O]

Don't worry about it.

[markporter]

much as I like the idea of God transcending time in some way, I have problems trying to understand it (not that that makes it untrue, I don't know)....but to address one point "if he can exist in more than one place, why not in more than one time." No problem here, but he can only exist at that time when that time actually is, he can't exist in it in another time, he can't be in tomorrow from now, because tomorrow is not now, if you get the idea?

[Theolog]

I see no need for God to transcend time and space. Transcendence is actually a Buddhist mental exercise in which they claim to travel through time. Kinda like a self induced acid trip.

The whole idea of “Free will” is some kind of straw man and irrational childish response dreamed up by the Armenian camp, like the futile attempt of a dieing mans one last gasp for a breath of air.

Our will is absolutely controlled by our fickle desires that are fashioned by our circumstances and warped minds.

We are truly slaves to sin.

Strangely enough the Bible never mentions “free will”. Hard to understand why so many people would defend it.

The Bible does however teach that man has volition to choose whatever he desires.

Sure enough man desires sin more than God.

We sin because we love sin.

God is not silent about our choices. He threatens us with the ultimate threat, death, if we do not believe Him. We know that the wages of sin are death yet we knowingly choose sin.

God has chosen to have mercy on some men even though they have chosen sin instead of Him, and grace them with faith and save them from the death that they have chosen. This is called election in the Bible. The elect are those that God chose to save.

Thus election to salvation is something that God chooses to do not man.

I suppose you could say God does this of His own free will.

[geebob]

much as I like the idea of God transcending time in some way, I have problems trying to understand it (not that that makes it untrue, I don't know)....but to address one point "if he can exist in more than one place, why not in more than one time." No problem here, but he can only exist at that time when that time actually is, he can't exist in it in another time, he can't be in tomorrow from now, because tomorrow is not now, if you get the idea?

God might exist in more than one time if a B theory of time is true which says that the present is only a matter of perspective and there is no real objective present. Yesterday exists just as much as today does. I myself could care less for this view.

on the other hand, an A theory of time says that the present is ontologically special, or to pur it another way, today's existence is special and it is an existence that is more concrete than the existence of yesterday or tomorrow (if yesterday and tomarrow exist at all). If an A theory it true, it is meaningless to speak of God as being present in the past or future. He was present yesterday with in yesterday, but he is not present in yesterday now. And he will be present in the future but he is not there now. (if you could ignore that "now" typically indicates the present).

And to say that God is present in the present or to say that he is present in all times as if a B theory held, actually denies that he is timeless.

I'm a presentist and I believe that God is in time but I'd still say there is a sense that God transcends time to which I could hold to. Bob Hill had an excellent statement on this pointing out that God does not experience the "ravages of time." He does not age and he is not rushed nor is he impatient. He can do anything in any short or long amount of time. God would not be limited by the effects of reletivity. He can respond and observe normally and competently in any region of space no matter how time is being dialated there.