Posted: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:54 pm
I'm happy there are a multiplicity of views out there on this stuff to show that theism doesn't require any particular positoin on it.
There wouldn't be much value to that multiplicity of views out there if we didn't actually get into them (and saying the questions asked aren't important to you isn't doesn't really offering a view.)
Zimmerman's position is basically the same as Alan Padget (Luther Sem, St. Paul). Both argue NOT for atemporal divine existence sans creation (Alan for some of the same reasons I oppose atemporal existence) but for what Alan terms "amorphous time" or metaphysical time. When they unpack it, it's basically what Dean describes--divine psychological time that is not absolute timelessness but an unmeasued flow of consciousness. There's no "sense" of time because one is so caught up in the "moment." And if there is no "metric" or measurement, ther are no "discrete" moments. Nothing to count, so to speak. So no actual infinite is generated by saying God is temporal in this sense. It's qualified temporality to be sure, not qualified timelessness. It's timeless in the sense that no measurement of time is taken or perceived (by God). But it's temporal in the sense that there is conscious self-awareness and the perception/experience of personal loving being.
I suppose one could add that in this case the CONTENT of God's self-perception (the only perception or experience there would be) is unchanging. There's a past, present and future to it but no measurement of it. The content of the present is identicle to that of the past (and to what the future shall be), and because the content is unchanging, and that content is all there is to speak of, there is no change, though--technicaly speaking--there is the unchanging flow of conscious experience.
If Dean or Padget or somebody can really make this work, all the better. But it's been out there for some time. Padget has written quite a bit about it, and Craig treats it pretty thoroughly. I'm not sure it works...
I think it might, and I thank you for this post.
(When someone is searching for the answer to a troubling question, it's always helpful to offer real thoughts instead of just saying that it doesn't trouble you.)