Deductive Atheist Argument from time

[wwatts]

Taken from one of William Lane Craigs papers

1. God is timeless
2. God is personal
3. If God is timeless, He does not exemplify properties x, y, z
4. If God does not exemplify properties x, y, z, He is not personal
5. Therefore God does not exist, or is not timeless, or is not personal

X, Y, and Z are any of your favorite personal properties like thinking, consciousness, or remembering etc.

Someone might say that God is in time (deny 1), but then they may have to deny that there was a first moment in time (the initial cosmological singularity), or at the very least that he created time. I personally think that he is timeless and created time while entering into time simultaneously (cause and effect occuring simultaneously). Notice I didn't say he is timeless and then created time.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Welcome to tweb, WWATS! :cheers:

Change is necessarily tied to time ASFAIKT. If there is a change, even from no universe to universe, then time must be involved. If God existed before the universe existed and there was any change whatsoever in God (such as thinking) then there had to be time. To even say "God existed before the universe" logically implies the existence of time then.

I think giving God attributes like "timeless," "formless," "partless," "in the clouds," "outside the universe," and such are philosophical ways of dealing with skeptical arguments against a God-concept that refuses to be discarded by mankind.

It's like moving Santa Claus to the North Pole so skeptical children can't disprove his existence.

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now an athe-ist or strong atheist.

[greyphilosophy]

Welcome wwatts, I encourage you to check out our discussions on the kalam cosmological argument. The argument you presented is usually bundled with the cosmological argument.

John Powell wrote:

I think giving God attributes like "timeless," "formless," "partless," "in the clouds," "outside the universe," and such are philosophical ways of dealing with skeptical arguments against a God-concept that refuses to be discarded by mankind.


That's one idea. I think some of those qualities are necessary for the "unmoved mover" to have. I personally find it more plausible for the universe to have had a beginning than for it to be eternal. For something to have existed before the universe, it must not have physically moving parts, otherwise its own movement would create time. And of course for it to have existed before the universe there must have been a point where it was indeed timeless. Once the universe and time were created however this being existed in relation to those two things, so God currently is neither outside of time, nor outside the universe.

I think you would have to argue that belief in God is not rational.


Something I want to ask you because of your background JP:
Is the 4th dimension time or movement? Or possibly both?


~Grey

[Hiramjr]

To Powell:


Change is necessarily tied to time ASFAIKT. If there is a change, even from no universe to universe, then time must be involved.

ES
Time, in this context, is a conventional unit of measure. In order for to there to be some measure of time there has to be some thing measured and some thing measurable.

For example, does a "inch" exist? No, it is a conventional unit of measure. To say, "Five inches exists," makes little since apart from some object that is measured and is measurable.

If there is a change in or about something that is measurable, then we can suppose that there is a measurable duration of time. To measure something is to have some reference for the measurement.

For example, how fast is a car moving when it is stopped at a stoplight? The question is inapplicable. When the driver drives away from the stoplight, then the question becomes applicable. We have a reference point form which to make a measurement. How far has the car traveled if it popped into existence at the stoplight? The question is inapplicable.

For the idea, "from no universe to universe," there is no reference point for a measurement. We can't measure "from" an absence of any thing "to" the existence of some thing. Absence is not a reference. Thus, the question of time "between" "no universe to universe" is inapplicable. We merely have the universe, time zero, and what is measured from that reference point.

If God existed before the universe existed and there was any change whatsoever in God (such as thinking) then there had to be time. To even say "God existed before the universe" logically implies the existence of time then.

ES
God doesn't exist before the universe, in terms of linear time units. At any point of time, God exists. God is the ground for the existence of every measurable object.

For example, suppose a ship is traveling from one destination to another. When it has traveled a certain distance, a person can look back from where the ship has traveled. He sees water. He looks forward to where the ship is going. He sees water. Even though the ship has traveled X amount of time, the ocean has, relatively speaking, always existed, meaning that at any point of the ship's travel there is water.

Even though the ship is moving through the water, the water isn't moving with the ship. The water is the "ground" for the ship's movement.

This is similar to the situation between God and His creation, except that God is not a measurable being. In other words, the conventional units of measure that we utilize are related to the physical universe. We measure dimensional objects with dimensional measurements. But God's nature of being isn't identical with the universe. He is, for lack of a better term, adimensional. It's a false assumption to infer that whatever is applicable to the creation is applicable to the creator.

I think giving God attributes like "timeless," "formless," "partless," "in the clouds," "outside the universe," and such are philosophical ways of dealing with skeptical arguments against a God-concept that refuses to be discarded by mankind.

It's like moving Santa Claus to the North Pole so skeptical children can't disprove his existence.

ES
I don't quite understand what this means.

[wwatts]

Yesterday @ 04:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=100392#post100392)
Hiramjr:

To Powell:




ES
Time, in this context, is a conventional unit of measure. In order for to there to be some measure of time there has to be some thing measured and some thing measurable.

For example, does a "inch" exist? No, it is a conventional unit of measure. To say, "Five inches exists," makes little since apart from some object that is measured and is measurable.

If there is a change in or about something that is measurable, then we can suppose that there is a measurable duration of time. To measure something is to have some reference for the measurement.

For example, how fast is a car moving when it is stopped at a stoplight? The question is inapplicable. When the driver drives away from the stoplight, then the question becomes applicable. We have a reference point form which to make a measurement. How far has the car traveled if it popped into existence at the stoplight? The question is inapplicable.

For the idea, "from no universe to universe," there is no reference point for a measurement. We can't measure "from" an absence of any thing "to" the existence of some thing. Absence is not a reference. Thus, the question of time "between" "no universe to universe" is inapplicable. We merely have the universe, time zero, and what is measured from that reference point.



ES
God doesn't exist before the universe, in terms of linear time units. At any point of time, God exists. God is the ground for the existence of every measurable object.

For example, suppose a ship is traveling from one destination to another. When it has traveled a certain distance, a person can look back from where the ship has traveled. He sees water. He looks forward to where the ship is going. He sees water. Even though the ship has traveled X amount of time, the ocean has, relatively speaking, always existed, meaning that at any point of the ship's travel there is water.

Even though the ship is moving through the water, the water isn't moving with the ship. The water is the "ground" for the ship's movement.

This is similar to the situation between God and His creation, except that God is not a measurable being. In other words, the conventional units of measure that we utilize are related to the physical universe. We measure dimensional objects with dimensional measurements. But God's nature of being isn't identical with the universe. He is, for lack of a better term, adimensional. It's a false assumption to infer that whatever is applicable to the creation is applicable to the creator.



ES
I don't quite understand what this means.

Good answer, Hiramjr, about the time vs timeless piece. But do you deny any of the premises?

[Benjamin]

I think premises 2,3, and 4 need a lot of qualification, to the point that the argument fails. Mainly, what is meant by the statement "God is Personal". Clearly God is not personal inasmuch as "personal" is defined by human personality - God is omniscient and omnispresent for a start, something clearly unimaginable to the human mind.

What then, is meant by "Personal"? Here are my thoughts (Any Uber Theologians with a better way of looking at this stuff I'd honestly love to hear from you):


A. That God is not Impersonal.
Imagining God as a "human being but bigger" is a flawed way of imagining him, but to try and imagine him as anything else is worse. God is not some sort of cosmic ooze, God is not some ether permeating the universe; although such metaphors can be useful in understanding certain aspects of God's nature, they are overall inferior to the metaphor of God as a "human but bigger". God is far more aware and conscious than we are.

B. That somehow the entirety of "Godness" can be contained within a human being.
The Incarnation is one of Christianity's mysteries. Somehow the fullness of abosolute being that underpins and illuminates the very fabric and form of the cosmos can take on flesh and become a human infant in 1st century Judea. I'll grant you that I have no idea how that one worked. It is for me the greatest glory of space and time that it did.

C. That we can confidently relate to God as a person
Prayer is not, as Pratchett suggested "Like trying to argue with a thunderstorm." God is not a cold, impersonal absolute that is innacessable to us.

Ultimately, though, Christians don't make the claim (or at any rate I don't make the claim) the God is wholly knowable to human reason. I cannot imagine the infinite, I cannot imagine the absolute. I don't see how that demonstrates that the Infinite or the Absolute cannot exist, or how the Infinite or Absolute can have no meaningful bearing on my life.

I find an "illuminating" metaphor is that of the Sun - itself to bright to look at, and too far away (as well as far to hot) to touch, but it sheds light and perspective (that is, grounded in worship, reason and morality have a firm basis and a totally coherent world picture can be built), and brings warmth and life (that is, to walk in his prescence is to live with vigour and purpose and hope).

[wwatts]

Today @ 03:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101131#post101131)
Benjamin:

I think premises 2,3, and 4 need a lot of qualification, to the point that the argument fails. Mainly, what is meant by the statement "God is Personal". Clearly God is not personal inasmuch as "personal" is defined by human personality - God is omniscient and omnispresent for a start, something clearly unimaginable to the human mind.

What then, is meant by "Personal"? Here are my thoughts (Any Uber Theologians with a better way of looking at this stuff I'd honestly love to hear from you):


A. That God is not Impersonal.
Imagining God as a "human being but bigger" is a flawed way of imagining him, but to try and imagine him as anything else is worse. God is not some sort of cosmic ooze, God is not some ether permeating the universe; although such metaphors can be useful in understanding certain aspects of God's nature, they are overall inferior to the metaphor of God as a "human but bigger". God is far more aware and conscious than we are.

B. That somehow the entirety of "Godness" can be contained within a human being.
The Incarnation is one of Christianity's mysteries. Somehow the fullness of abosolute being that underpins and illuminates the very fabric and form of the cosmos can take on flesh and become a human infant in 1st century Judea. I'll grant you that I have no idea how that one worked. It is for me the greatest glory of space and time that it did.

C. That we can confidently relate to God as a person
Prayer is not, as Pratchett suggested "Like trying to argue with a thunderstorm." God is not a cold, impersonal absolute that is innacessable to us.

Ultimately, though, Christians don't make the claim (or at any rate I don't make the claim) the God is wholly knowable to human reason. I cannot imagine the infinite, I cannot imagine the absolute. I don't see how that demonstrates that the Infinite or the Absolute cannot exist, or how the Infinite or Absolute can have no meaningful bearing on my life.

I find an "illuminating" metaphor is that of the Sun - itself to bright to look at, and too far away (as well as far to hot) to touch, but it sheds light and perspective (that is, grounded in worship, reason and morality have a firm basis and a totally coherent world picture can be built), and brings warmth and life (that is, to walk in his prescence is to live with vigour and purpose and hope).

Good answers Benjamin!

I would like to know how you reconcile:

C. That we can confidently relate to God as a person

with a denial of

2. God is personal

I think that God cannot be both personal and non-personal at the same time and in the same sense.

Also, if you deny (4), what properties are essential to a personal being? I see that you said "God is far more aware and conscious than we are". So does mean that you believe that consciousness is an essential property of a personal being? Does consciousness require any change at all? Does consciousness require thinking? What is consciousness by your definition? We can probably get into your denial of (3) after these questions have been answered.

[wwatts]

POWELL:
Welcome to tweb, WWATS! :cheers:


It's nice to be here, thanks :)

Change is necessarily tied to time ASFAIKT. If there is a change, even from no universe to universe, then time must be involved. If God existed before the universe existed and there was any change whatsoever in God (such as thinking) then there had to be time. To even say "God existed before the universe" logically implies the existence of time then.

I think ES answered this nicely. I'll see what you have to say about his post.

I think giving God attributes like "timeless," "formless," "partless," "in the clouds," "outside the universe," and such are philosophical ways of dealing with skeptical arguments against a God-concept that refuses to be discarded by mankind.

But we know of things that are timeless, ie logic. So if logic exists (ie if there were no humans, and only rocks, and the rocks STILL can NOT be a rock and not a rock in the same sense) then we have an example of something that is timeless. Usually philosphers regard any abstract object as timeless.

It's like moving Santa Claus to the North Pole so skeptical children can't disprove his existence.

I would think that if physical time is a property of matter, and I have a concept of an immaterial thing, I would say that immaterial thing did not have a property of physcial time by default. Ie I would use occam's razor and only make that immaterial thing as complicated as it needs to be.

[Hiramjr]

To wwatts:

Good answer, Hiramjr, about the time vs timeless piece. But do you deny any of the premises?

ES
In principle, I would have to deny all of them ;) And that is because of the inherent presupposition that the only reality that exists is, in some way, identical to our own.

In our world, persons exist in time and are measurable by time.

Thus, the argument reduces to:

1. Every personal being operates in time.
2. God is described as a personal being.
3. Hence, God must operate in time.
4. But God is described as timeless.
5. Therefore, something is really wrong here.

Yes, something is wrong. What is wrong is arguing from "earth to heaven," in other words, applying finite parameters to a nonfinite being.

But God's ontology, His nature of being, is fundamentally different from our own. To infer God's attributes from our own is to make a faulty inference.

I certainly affirm that "God is timeless," but by that I only mean that our finite measurements of time are not applicable to God. God is immeasurable.

I certainly affirm that "God is personal," in that He has attributes that we recognize as being personal (thought, emotion, expression of love, etc), but I have no idea of how His personhood operates.

How exactly does omniscience consider propositions? I don't know. There are lots of speculations but little substance beyond thinking of God as a very big human being.

[greyphilosophy]

In principle, I would have to deny all of them ;) And that is because of the inherent presupposition that the only reality that exists is, in some way, identical to our own.


Do you not believe the argument would hold true in all possible worlds? I see no reason why it would not.

[Hiramjr]

To greyphilosophy:

Do you not believe the argument would hold true in all possible worlds? I see no reason why it would not.

ES
I'm not a proponent of "all possible worlds" argumentation. In my opinion, any possible world that we imagine is merely an extension of what we have observed in this world. So, I would rather just deal with the real world.

I don't believe that the argument holds in the real world, so imagining a possible world is, to me, immaterial to the subject.

[greyphilosophy]

I'm sorry, I misread a critical part of one of your posts :bonk:

What I should have been doing was asking for a clarification of your statement

In principle, I would have to deny all of them ;) And that is because of the inherent presupposition that the only reality that exists is, in some way, identical to our own.


It seems you are saying in that statement that your denial comes from your disagreement with the idea that only a reality identical to this one exists.

I think your reason for not agreeing with the argument is because every action of God which is observed is done so in time.

~Grey

[wwatts]

Double post ...

[wwatts]

Today @ 05:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101782#post101782)
Hiramjr:

To wwatts:



ES
In principle, I would have to deny all of them ;) And that is because of the inherent presupposition that the only reality that exists is, in some way, identical to our own.

In our world, persons exist in time and are measurable by time.

Thus, the argument reduces to:

1. Every personal being operates in time.
2. God is described as a personal being.
3. Hence, God must operate in time.
4. But God is described as timeless.
5. Therefore, something is really wrong here.

Yes, something is wrong. What is wrong is arguing from "earth to heaven," in other words, applying finite parameters to a nonfinite being.

But God's ontology, His nature of being, is fundamentally different from our own. To infer God's attributes from our own is to make a faulty inference.

I certainly affirm that "God is timeless," but by that I only mean that our finite measurements of time are not applicable to God. God is immeasurable.

I certainly affirm that "God is personal," in that He has attributes that we recognize as being personal (thought, emotion, expression of love, etc), but I have no idea of how His personhood operates.

How exactly does omniscience consider propositions? I don't know. There are lots of speculations but little substance beyond thinking of God as a very big human being.

Well I think I am misunderstanding your posts. You are saying that you deny all of the premises but then it seems that you agree with God being timeless. I think we have our definitions mixed up. Here are some definitions we can start with (from www.dictionary.com:)


time·less ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tmls)
adj.
Independent of time; eternal.
Unaffected by time; ageless.


per·son·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrs-nl)
adj.

Relating to or having the nature of a person or self-conscious being:

per·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrsn)
n.

3. A living, self-conscious being, as distinct from an animal or a thing; a moral agent; a human being; a man, woman, or child.


I'd like you to define timeless and personal in your own words so that we can move forward. Specifically, what are the properties that are essential for timelessness and personhood. Properties that are essentially NOT part of timelessness and personhood are welcome too.

[Hiramjr]

To greyphilosophy:

gp
I'm sorry, I misread a critical part of one of your posts :bonk:

What I should have been doing was asking for a clarification of your statement


In principle, I would have to deny all of them ;) And that is because of the inherent presupposition that the only reality that exists is, in some way, identical to our own.


It seems you are saying in that statement that your denial comes from your disagreement with the idea that only a reality identical to this one exists.

ES
My disagreement is with the presupposition, I believe, is inherent in the argument. That presupposition is that the only reality that exists is, in some way, identical to our own.

For example, if it is presupposed that any reality that exists must be measured by time, then when God is proposed, He is immediately placed into the category of measurable things. That placement is based on a faulty assumption.

gp
I think your reason for not agreeing with the argument is because every action of God which is observed is done so in time.

ES
I don't quite understand your assessment here. God's actions aren't observed. The product/effects of some of His actions are observed and we observe them in time, that is, in specific points of our history. But God's nature of being isn't defined by the effects He causes in our world.

[Hiramjr]

To wwatts:

wwatts
I'd like you to define timeless and personal in your own words so that we can move forward.

ES
But I already did this. I said:

I certainly affirm that "God is timeless," but by that I only mean that our finite measurements of time are not applicable to God. God is immeasurable.

time·less ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tmls)
adj.
Independent of time; eternal.
Unaffected by time; ageless.

This could, in a sense, be subsumed into what I said. When I say "immeasurable," I'm not referring to God being so big that He can't be measured, like trying to find the last number of the set of whole numbers. I mean that the very measurement of time is not applicable to His nature of being.

Suppose a man is standing on a shore looking at an ocean. If was in the ocean he would be wet. Since he is standing outside of the ocean he is dry. The very concept of "wetness" is applicable to his physical body. In other words, his body could be wet.

Now suppose we have an angel standing next to him. The concept of "wetness" is not applicable to his spiritual "body." It's not that he is not wet because he isn't in the ocean. The concept of physical "wetness" is applicable to physical things, but he is not a physical thing.

So, it isn't that the angel is "outside" of wetness. It is inapplicable. In a similar fashion, I believe that time measurement is inapplicable to God. It's not that He is "outside" of time.

I also said:

I certainly affirm that "God is personal," in that He has attributes that we recognize as being personal (thought, emotion, expression of love, etc), but I have no idea of how His personhood operates.

per·son·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrs-nl)
adj.

Relating to or having the nature of a person or self-conscious being:

per·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrsn)
n.

3. A living, self-conscious being, as distinct from an animal or a thing; a moral agent; a human being; a man, woman, or child.

This could be subsumed into what I said, however this illustrates the distinction that I made. Here, in this definition the word is being defined, in part, by a reference to something that is a person, namely, a human being.

To define "person" as one particular thing that is called a person opens the door to assume that "personhood" is tied to the attributes of that thing. In other words, instead of viewing a person as a "moral agent," one begins to view a person as a particular type of moral agent, namely, a human moral agent.

And thus, what pertains to humans is (whether knowingly or unknowingly) used as a definition. So, "God is a person" becomes, "God is a being like humans."

Yes, humans are persons, but not all persons are humans.

wwatts
Specifically, what are the properties that are essential for timelessness and personhood.

ES
Timelessness: immeasurability, i.e. the measurement of time is not applicable to the essential nature of existence.
Personhood: the laundry list of personal attributes, i.e. thought, emotion, the expression of love, moral comprehension, self-awareness, intentionality, etc.

wwatts
Properties that are essentially NOT part of timelessness and personhood are welcome too.

ES
I'm not sure I understand your question.

[Benjamin]

wwats:
Good answers Benjamin!
I would like to know how you reconcile:
C. That we can confidently relate to God as a person
with a denial of
2. God is personal


Because I'm asserting that God is more than personal, not less. So when I speak to him I can be confident that he is at least as aware of and as comprehensive of what I'm saying as a human being would be.

In retrospect, I agree with your argument - understanding God's "personhood" as being the same as our own human personhood is flawed, one reason being he is eternal and our own personalities are not. What I'm rejecting is a personal/impersonal dichotomy. God is more aware, more conscious, more comphrehensive than we are, not less. Could we say that God is trans-personal?

Oh, and one other thing - I believe God's trans-personality and our own personalities are in certain ways analogous. Our experience of Love could be considered a metaphor (albiet an imperfect metaphor) for God's own love, our sense of Justice can be considered metaphorical of God's own justice. So it is actually meaningful to talk of God's love and God's justice, and to understand them as we understand love and we understand justice.

A helpful analogy here might be the relationship of the square to the cube - there is a whole realm of being not expressed in the square that is expressed in the cube - yet the entirety and fullness of the square is totally expressed by the cube itself. The argument might be made by flatlanders that "A 'cube' cannot be a shape because it does not exist in two dimensions," and in a sense they would be right - the cube is not a "shape" in the way that they understand the word "shape" - but it is more, not less, than the shapes they are used to.

So it is with Us and God. "God cannot be personal, because he transcends time" - this is in a sense true, he is not a "person" in the limited sense that we understand "person" - but he is more, not less, than a person.

[wwatts]

ES
Timelessness: immeasurability, i.e. the measurement of time is not applicable to the essential nature of existence.
Personhood: the laundry list of personal attributes, i.e. thought, emotion, the expression of love, moral comprehension, self-awareness, intentionality, etc.


Looks good. I think an essential property of time is temporal becoming. That is, things that are in the future begin to exist or are actualized in the present. To be sure there are many ways of looking at time.

Timelessness in my definition would be the lack of change, or temporal becoming.

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by immeasurable.

Let me ask you a couple of questions

1. Are Gods thoughts distinct from one another?
2. Does God have more then one thought?
2. Did God have a first thought?

[wwatts]

Today @ 05:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=102839#post102839)
Benjamin:



Because I'm asserting that God is more than personal, not less. So when I speak to him I can be confident that he is at least as aware of and as comprehensive of what I'm saying as a human being would be.

In retrospect, I agree with your argument - understanding God's "personhood" as being the same as our own human personhood is flawed, one reason being he is eternal and our own personalities are not. What I'm rejecting is a personal/impersonal dichotomy. God is more aware, more conscious, more comphrehensive than we are, not less. Could we say that God is trans-personal?

Oh, and one other thing - I believe God's trans-personality and our own personalities are in certain ways analogous. Our experience of Love could be considered a metaphor (albiet an imperfect metaphor) for God's own love, our sense of Justice can be considered metaphorical of God's own justice. So it is actually meaningful to talk of God's love and God's justice, and to understand them as we understand love and we understand justice.

A helpful analogy here might be the relationship of the square to the cube - there is a whole realm of being not expressed in the square that is expressed in the cube - yet the entirety and fullness of the square is totally expressed by the cube itself. The argument might be made by flatlanders that "A 'cube' cannot be a shape because it does not exist in two dimensions," and in a sense they would be right - the cube is not a "shape" in the way that they understand the word "shape" - but it is more, not less, than the shapes they are used to.

So it is with Us and God. "God cannot be personal, because he transcends time" - this is in a sense true, he is not a "person" in the limited sense that we understand "person" - but he is more, not less, than a person.


I have basically the same questions for you as I did for the other poster, since he is more then personal.

1) Is thinking essential to personhood and "superpersonhood"?
1) Does God think?
2) Are God's thoughts disctinct from one another?
3) Did God have a first thought?

[Benjamin]

No, I'd reject your time/timeless dichotomy. God is not atemporal, but trans-temporal. In my Cube analogy - The flatlanders (people who live in a two-dimensional world) describe a "cube" as being "not in two dimensions". This confuses many of them:

"Does a cube have an area?" asks one.

"Clearly it cannot," says another," as only two-dimensional figures can have area. Being non-second-dimensional, it can only have length."

So it is with us and God. We hear that he is "eternal" and think that this must mean that he is limited - like a "time-less" person would be, basically a still freize. Of course, the truth is that God is beyond time, that he is trans-temporal, that he is not limited by time as we are.

Of course the nature of this existence is totally beyond our ability to imagine. But then, of course, neither could a two dimensional being imagine what was meant by the word "depth."

A very, very limited but perhaps useful analogy might be that of warp ten in the star trek series - moving so fast that you occupy every point in the universe at once.

[wwatts]

No, I'd reject your time/timeless dichotomy.

Does that mean you wont answer any of my questions directly?

[Benjamin]

Actually, Yes, but to understand why you'll have to read the rest of my post. You're asking questions about the nature of God's consiousness, clearly questions the can't be answered. I can't imagine what it's like to be God, any more than I can count to infinity or move in a fifth dimension.

But the argument that God is "Timeless, therefore he can't think." falls down for the same reason that the argument that a cube is "non-two-dimensional, therefore it can't have area." It would be true if we had a two-dimensional/one dimensional dichotomy, but of course there's a whole other dimension of being in which a cube exists. So with God, it is not that he is time-less, that he is "frozen in an eternal moment", but that there is a whole other dimension of being in which he exists and in which he transcends the normal boundraries of time which limit us.

And of course it is not possible for us to imagine what this eternal transcendent existence is like. I don't see how it could be.

[wwatts]

But the argument that God is "Timeless, therefore he can't think." falls down for the same reason that the argument that a cube is "non-two-dimensional, therefore it can't have area." It would be true if we had a two-dimensional/one dimensional dichotomy, but of course there's a whole other dimension of being in which a cube exists.


For the record, I think you are on to something, but I think you are presenting it wrong, or not the best way. IMO analogies are useful only if you accept the authority of the person presenting the analogy. Basically when you say 'God is like XXX' I have to believe you when you say 'is like'. If I have no reason to do that, then there’s a problem. I think you need to present your view in a different way. I was trying to see what that way could be by asking you those questions but I think we are at an impasse?

[Benjamin]

Actually that brings up another way of looking at what I'm trying to say: "Personal" and "Timeless" are metaphors, analogies of certain aspects of God's nature, and as metaphors, are imperfect. The sort of tension that exists between them in our conception is a result of those imperfections.