Essential Qualities of Personhood

[stellar renegade]

I understand what he stated, but I was talking about the pseudo-problem that seemed to rise as a result. There was a seeming issue that said, 'once' God decided to become temporal, he couldn't take it back anymore because that would be logically inconsistent. He repeated that part several times. But since he's timeless, there was no 'once' in which he made that decision. It was no moment in time because there's no point in time in which time didn't exist. THAT would be logically inconsistent. Thus time is, in an ironic sense, eternal. (Thus why it makes perfect sense that the temporal aspect of God, the Son, is the creator of time, or at least contributes to its creation.)

So, since there was no point in time, no 'once' in which God decided to create time, it always was, and is thus an essential part of his being.

THUS the problem of God being limited by his own choice vanishes. He is limited only by his own being, which is not a limitation at all. Unless one believes (and perhaps he is saying) that it has always been a non-necessary choice, regardless of the fact that God has always been temporal (which means that if the Son is inherently temporal, God makes a non-necessary choice to produce and sustain His own Son, which feels heretical).

Yes, perhaps God does choose the nature of his own existence, being self-sustaining and all (though of course, at least for some attibutes, it would be a necessary choice). But my point is that God's timelessness is not a past attribute even while being a present one. God's timelessness, even his timelessness in 'the past' is always NOW. It cannot be past tense because there IS NO past in the timeless realm. It is ALWAYS NOW, thus why He is called the I AM and the God of the resurrection and the life and why Jesus said that Abraham saw His day, because in God, ALL is alive, and all is NOW.

We only experience time and death, which are not essential realities of existence at all, being on the outer edge of God's universe. The center where God is, is where everything is alive and thriving and ALWAYS present. And the closer one comes to God, the more one experiences this eternity, the more mortality is clothed with immortality.

[Michael]

"God has always been temporal"?

[stellar renegade]

"God has always been temporal"?

In the Son, yes. Why not?

[TGB]

Stellar: I understand what he stated, but I was talking about the pseudo-problem that seemed to rise as a result. There was a seeming issue that said, 'once' God decided to become temporal, he couldn’t take it back anymore because that would be logically inconsistent.

Tom: Right. But he has a good point here. If a temporal reality comes into being and endures for some time, then God subsequently annihilates it and returns to a pre-creation state in which God is the only reality there is, then it would be the case that this final state ‘followed’ the closure of time, or more simply, the ‘temporal’ status of the creation God created and then annihilated would remain temporal and, as such, be known by God temporally. That is, the temporal status of the annihilated world as “past” would by definition be “remembered” by God and THAT is something a timeless God cannot do. It’s Craig’s argument (and he’s convinced me) that temporal truths and temporal realities can only be ‘known’ (i.e., experienced) temporally.

Stellar: So, since there was no point in time, no 'once' in which God decided to create time, it always was, and is thus an essential part of his being.

Tom: Craig would disagree that God’s decision to create IS the first temporal moment (and not timeless), so that there was a point in time (namely, the first moment of time) at which point God chose to create, and this choice of course brings the world into being.

Here’s the thing (and Craig argues this as well). Let G = God. Let d = God’s choice to create. Let C = the coming into being of creation. Here’s the argument:

Gd ---> C (If Gd then C, or IF God chooses to create, then creation comes into being).

It seems just that simple to me. If God chooses or determines to create (that is, if God says “Let there be…”) then it follows necessarily that what he calls into being comes into being. God cannot call X into being (as an act of creation) and X fail to come into being. So if God’s calling X into being (or his creative command) is a ‘necessary’ or ‘essential’ part of his being, then so does that which he calls into being exist necessarily.

Aquinas tries (succeeds some think) to argue that God’s creative command or decision to create can be an essential or necessary part of his being while creation exists contingently. I can’t get it to work, so it’s not an option for me.

Stellar: Yes, perhaps God does choose the nature of his own existence…

Tom: But choice itself PRESUMES a concrete nature and set of dispositions BY WHICH one chooses.

Stellar: But my point is that God's timelessness is not a past attribute even while being a present one. God's timelessness, even his timelessness in 'the past' is always NOW. It cannot be past tense because there IS NO past in the timeless realm. It is ALWAYS NOW…

Tom: The problem is, Stellar, that in a timeless realm there is no “now” either (no past, no present, no future).

Those who employ the “eternal now” perspective talk about divine timelessness, but what they really mean is something more like Hugh Ross’s ‘supratime’ in which God has a real temporal existence that somehow incorporates the entirety of our past, present, and future. But at some point I just have to ask myself why come up with such elaborate schemes? What’s motivating it? Are we multiplying explanations needlessly?

Stellar: …thus why He is called the I AM and the God of the resurrection and the life and why Jesus said that Abraham saw His day, because in God, ALL is alive, and all is NOW.

Tom: God is also described in Scripture as the God “who was, and is, and is to come.” That sure looks like a straightforward ascription of temporal existence to God. God has a past, a present, and a future. When I think of God as the great “I am” I don’t imagine at all that the writer is speculating on the temporal status of God’s essence or anything like that. I think, far more simply, God wants to reveal himself as an ever-present, abiding and sufficient reality for his people.

I don’t at all get your reasoning for (first) ‘why’ the Father should exist timelessly but the Son temporally and then (secondly) ‘how’ the relation is real and experienced by the Father. Can you tell me again what this is supposed to explain?

Tom

[TGB]

Of course, the whole question of whether God could annihilate all created entitites and revert (assuming God is timeless sans creation) to a timeless mode of existence is pointless. We know God is intent upon the unconditional pursuit of creation and its fulfillment and enjoyment. Furthermore, in light of the incarnation, such a question is utterly beside the point. The hypostatic union which is the incarnation of God and the assumption of human nature by the Logos is an irrevocable, irreversible union with the temporal creation. God will forever be incarnate.

Tom

[Michael]

Tom: God is also described in Scripture as the God “who was, and is, and is to come.” That sure looks like a straightforward ascription of temporal existence to God. God has a past, a present, and a future

For any creature who exists in time, God "was, is, and is to come," but "I AM" does seem to imply more than that to me.

Also, I don't think even Zimmerman would ascribe an endless temporal past to God.

He speaks of there being "a sense in which time had a beginning," and a prior "quasi time" (consisting only of whatever actual change in mental states God experienced priour to the creation) before an immeasurable and amorphus block of "dead-time."

If actual, linear time (as we know it) existed endlessly before creation, how would God have transversed this endless past to arrive at the point of creation?

How would He remember His first thought, when there was no first (because there'd be no "first" in an actually infinite series)?

Remember that the future is only a potential infinite, not an actual infinite (and it's never actually transversed, so there's no problem there)--but if the past is an actual infinite, God would have to have transversed it to have arived at the point of creation.

The problem this raised has been framed by asking the question "why not earlier, or later," but that's not the real problem.

The real problem is that there's no way out of an infinite past

If the past is represented by an infinite timeline, there's no point on that timeline at which creation could have ocured, because there's no point at which that timeline ends (and another timeline, representing time since creation, could begin.)

Put another way, there's no present (and there was no time at which the moment of creation became present) because the infinite past never ends.

That's the problem Leftow, Zimmerman, and Craig are addressing.

And that's why simply saying that God has a "straightforward temporal existence" (and created the universe at a point in time as we know it) is a logical inconguity.

I think there's truth in what all three men say, but there must be some sense (as they all say) in which time had a beginning.

Do you disagree Tom?

If not, who do you think gives the bast solution to the problem (or could the best solution be a combination of two or more of their views)?

Anyone?

[stellar renegade]

Stellar: I understand what he stated, but I was talking about the pseudo-problem that seemed to rise as a result. There was a seeming issue that said, 'once' God decided to become temporal, he couldn’t take it back anymore because that would be logically inconsistent.

Tom: Right. But he has a good point here. If a temporal reality comes into being and endures for some time, then God subsequently annihilates it and returns to a pre-creation state in which God is the only reality there is, then it would be the case that this final state ‘followed’ the closure of time, or more simply, the ‘temporal’ status of the creation God created and then annihilated would remain temporal and, as such, be known by God temporally. That is, the temporal status of the annihilated world as “past” would by definition be “remembered” by God and THAT is something a timeless God cannot do. It’s Craig’s argument (and he’s convinced me) that temporal truths and temporal realities can only be ‘known’ (i.e., experienced) temporally.

I didn't say he could take it back, that wasn't my point. My point is that the FACT that he can't take it back is not an issue like the interviewer seemed at first to think it was. Furthermore, Craig's solution is not the most efficient one and doesn't even seem to incorporate his own viewpoint. To fully incorporate his own viewpoint, all he would've had to say is that there was never a "time" that God was timeless, because that would require a sequence, or in other words, "TIME" - obviously. If God is timeless at all it must be at the same time as being temporal. Make sense?

Stellar: So, since there was no point in time, no 'once' in which God decided to create time, it always was, and is thus an essential part of his being.

Tom: Craig would disagree that God’s decision to create IS the first temporal moment (and not timeless), so that there was a point in time (namely, the first moment of time) at which point God chose to create, and this choice of course brings the world into being.

Here’s the thing (and Craig argues this as well). Let G = God. Let d = God’s choice to create. Let C = the coming into being of creation. Here’s the argument:

Gd ---> C (If Gd then C, or IF God chooses to create, then creation comes into being).

It seems just that simple to me. If God chooses or determines to create (that is, if God says “Let there be…”) then it follows necessarily that what he calls into being comes into being. God cannot call X into being (as an act of creation) and X fail to come into being. So if God’s calling X into being (or his creative command) is a ‘necessary’ or ‘essential’ part of his being, then so does that which he calls into being exist necessarily.

Well yes, I did make a SLIGHT misstatement because technically God's decision to create time would be a part of time as well. His decision to create time was time, which demonstrates how tightly God's decisions (in the bible, His "words") and the resulting effects of those decisions are - they are, in fact, simultaneous realities that cannot be divided from each other. At the very least, in this case.

Aquinas tries (succeeds some think) to argue that God’s creative command or decision to create can be an essential or necessary part of his being while creation exists contingently. I can’t get it to work, so it’s not an option for me.

Let's put it this way. God's nature is unconquerable and undivided love. It is the supreme state of existence for a being. Therefore his decisions are not indecisive (divided in thought, as choosing between options) but absolute sovereign preferences that would not be any other way. Thus, God being love, his decisions are irrefutable reality and non-arbitrary. To put it concisely, being what He is, He would not have made any other decision. Thus in a sense His decisions are an essential or necessary part of His being. I would say the same therefore for His creation, yet of course both His creation AND His decisions are reliant upon both His nature and His being, thus both are contingent upon Him.

Stellar: Yes, perhaps God does choose the nature of his own existence…

Tom: But choice itself PRESUMES a concrete nature and set of dispositions BY WHICH one chooses.

Right, but God is self-sustaining. I don't claim to know for sure the answer to this mystery, but somehow God is sovereign over everything and His nature is not dictated to Him (and something must dictate). OR, perhaps we could say that the trinity even solves this issue. God is dependent upon the existence of His Son to even be what He is - a Father. Therefore their relationship is interdependent upon each other - and the Spirit of their relationship and interdependence is a third Person upon which they are both reliant. And yet of course, the Spirit is dependent upon their existence to even exist. Thus it's an unending cycle and might even be like what some say the cell is like - an interdependent set of parts which cannot exist without each other.

Thus each of the persons in the Trinity wills the other to be what they are out of pure, undiluted love - the Son perfectly and absolutely submitting to the Father, yes, but the Father requiring this submission to even remain what He is.

Stellar: But my point is that God's timelessness is not a past attribute even while being a present one. God's timelessness, even his timelessness in 'the past' is always NOW. It cannot be past tense because there IS NO past in the timeless realm. It is ALWAYS NOW…

Tom: The problem is, Stellar, that in a timeless realm there is no “now” either (no past, no present, no future).

Those who employ the “eternal now” perspective talk about divine timelessness, but what they really mean is something more like Hugh Ross’s ‘supratime’ in which God has a real temporal existence that somehow incorporates the entirety of our past, present, and future. But at some point I just have to ask myself why come up with such elaborate schemes? What’s motivating it? Are we multiplying explanations needlessly?

Not necessarily. The whole point is to paint the picture of a God who is beyond all limitations, even that of the future. A God who has access to all things at once. I see nothing wrong with painting the picture of a supratime - in fact, I think it gives a much more dynamic, real and personable God.

Stellar: …thus why He is called the I AM and the God of the resurrection and the life and why Jesus said that Abraham saw His day, because in God, ALL is alive, and all is NOW.

Tom: God is also described in Scripture as the God “who was, and is, and is to come.” That sure looks like a straightforward ascription of temporal existence to God. God has a past, a present, and a future. When I think of God as the great “I am” I don’t imagine at all that the writer is speculating on the temporal status of God’s essence or anything like that. I think, far more simply, God wants to reveal himself as an ever-present, abiding and sufficient reality for his people.

That latter statement is exactly what I was trying to express. Why do you think that God described Himself as He who was, is and is to come? Do you think it's because He wanted to express His own limitations? Or to show just how limitless He is? From our perspective, YES - God was, and is, and is to come; however, this does not mean that from God's perspective, the past is not in present tense. Make sense?

I don’t at all get your reasoning for (first) ‘why’ the Father should exist timelessly but the Son temporally and then (secondly) ‘how’ the relation is real and experienced by the Father. Can you tell me again what this is supposed to explain?

It's supposed to explain how

A) God is limitless, and
B) How God is limited

Now that I think about the supratime scenario, though, I don't suppose there's a "need" for limitations as I was thinking before when the Father was "stuck" in a static state with only the Son to express Himself (as the scriptures say he does). I'll have to do some more thinking about this... fascinating, really...


EDIT: Quickly, though, I see a solution... God must be limitless. God must also be limited enough to be able to have a relationship with creation which causes Him to become, as it were, limited. So God must have a limitless 'side' in order to have these relationships. And this 'side' of God is, in that being which is the essence of all life, another person completely. So the Son partakes of the Father's limitless nature, while the Father partakes of the Son's limited nature as they interact. The ultimate loving relationship. And God the Father creates through His Son a world - creation - which is within, and held together by, their relationship. That last part would take some stringing together of verses to corroborate, but it is most beautifully illustrated by scripture (namely John 1 and Colossians 1).

So, in short I guess my solution is that they are not helplessly and statically shut off in their own modes of existence, limitlessness and limitation, respectively, but partake of each other's natures. But each is the essence of their own mode of existence that they take a part of (God being limitless because He is the Everlasting Father, and the Son being limited because He is the Perfectly Submissive Son).

[TGB]

M: For any creature who exists in time, God "was, is, and is to come"…

T: But where do you get that, Michael? The text doesn’t say it. It’s making a claim about God. HE is the God who was, is, etc. I’m not saying it’s impossible that the meaning is contextually limited as you suggest, but that position should be motivated by something in the text or by unambiguous claims made about God elsewhere, and I don’t see that we have either here. Besides, how’s God really viewed by us as temporally (as past, present, and future) realted to us if we all KNOW God to be timeless? If we know God is REALLY timeless and has no past, present or future, then shouldn’t that truth prevail and determine our faith? I think so. But once we're given over to the truth that God is timeless, it’s difficult to see the relevance in describing him as the GOD WHO was, is, and is to come. If divine timelessness works for a person, I wouldn't try to take it away. But it jus doesn't solve any problems for me.

M: …but "I AM" does seem to imply more than that to me.

T: How does one DO this, i.e., tease out the implications for such an important question, based on this text? I mean, how does one argue that the writer intends to imply something about the temporal status of God’s existence given the context? By what hermeneutic is this accomplished? What would even be the point (in context) for God (or the author) to introduce the consideration of God’s timelessness?

M: Also, I don't think even Zimmerman would ascribe an endless temporal past to God.

T: I don’t know. Maybe not. But no text in Scripture that I know explicitly takes up the question of God’s relation to time sans creation. These verses are describing a God in relation to the World, i.e., God ‘since’ creation. That’s our context, right?

M: If actual, linear time (as we know it) existed endlessly before creation, how would God have transversed this endless past to arrive at the point of creation?

T: Seems like I’ve heard that somewhere before! ;o)

M: How would He remember His first thought, when there was no first…

T: Well (to just play along), if there was no first thought then he WOULDN’T remember any particular thought as his first.

M: Remember that the future is only a potential infinite, not an actual infinite (and it's never actually transversed, so there's no problem there)--but if the past is an actual infinite, God would have to have transversed it to have arived at the point of creation.

T: I feel the force (well, ‘some’ force) of the argument. But again, find the notion of an atemporal God freely choosing to abandon timelessness for a temporal mode of existence equally (well, moreso actuall) unacceptable. I’m just working from what I ‘DO’ know (or believe)—i.e., that God is now temporal and related to the temporal world—and working back from there. I don’t know HOW to get God from this back to the frozen solid stare of primordial timelessness.

M: The problem this raised has been framed by asking the question "why not earlier, or later," but that's not the real problem. The real problem is that there's no way out of an infinite past.

T: As there seems to be no way “out of” an atemporal existence. So where do we go?

M: If the past is represented by an infinite timeline, there's no point on that timeline at which creation could have ocured, because there's no point at which that timeline ends (and another timeline, representing time since creation, could begin.) Put another way, there's no present (and there was no time at which the moment of creation became present) because the infinite past never ends. That's the problem Leftow, Zimmerman, and Craig are addressing.

T: Right. I get all the arguments against an infinite past.

M: And that's why simply saying that God has a "straightforward temporal existence" (and created the universe at a point in time as we know it) is a logical inconguity.

T: Oh well there I wasn’t talking about God sans creation at all. I was just quoting John’s description of God. I don’t think John had God’s temporal status SANS creation in mind at all. I think he was worshipping the REVEALED God—who speaks, acts, saves, chooses, etc. Whatever God is SANS creation, given John’s description, I’d say God is at least now (since creation) temporal. That much is Craig’s view too. No more atemporal anything since creation.

M: I think there's truth in what all three men say, but there must be some sense (as they all say) in which time had a beginning. Do you disagree Tom?

T: I can’t adjudicate my way through to a firm convinction on it. I wouldn’t mind buying Craig’s arguments against temporal eternity IF he or someone could really make sense of God’s fully personal, loving existence as timeless sans creation AND also how an atemporal God freely and contingently chooses to create. Basically I’m more troubled by ‘atemporal personhood’ than I am by an ‘infinite past’.

Tom

[TGB]

Stellar: If God is timeless at all it must be at the same time as being temporal. Make sense?

Tom: Not really. Sorry! I’m pretty familiar with Craig’s arguments on God and time, but I’m not following ya. Craig believes that God is timeless sans creation and temporal since creation. He doesn’t think that God is timeless AT ALL now. That is, when God decided to create, when he let go the “Let there be…” God abandoned a timeless mode of existence and irrevocably embraced temporal existence for our sake. He doesn’t think there’s anything “timeless” about God now that creation exists.

-------------------------

Stellar: Let's put it this way. God's nature is unconquerable and undivided love. It is the supreme state of existence for a being.

Tom: Then my default position is that God is temporal, for I believe temporal existence (for a being like God) to be superior to timeless existence in every conceivable way.

Stellar: Therefore his decisions are not indecisive (divided in thought, as choosing between options) but absolute sovereign preferences that would not be any other way.

Tom: Why in the world think that Stellar? If you take that view, then you’re bound to embrace the ‘necessity’ of creation. But why believe God can’t be faced with EQUALLY loving/good options?

Stellar: To put it concisely, being what He is, He would not have made any other decision.

Tom: Then we have different intuitions and beliefs about God’s “being,” for I can easily imagine God being the fullness of loving triune relationality and choosing NOT to create at all. Nothing about God’s nature or essence, as I understand it, ENTAILS his choosing to create.

----------------------------------

Stellar: …but God is self-sustaining. I don't claim to know for sure the answer to this mystery, but somehow God is sovereign over everything and His nature is not dictated to Him (and something must dictate).

Tom: Right. I don’t think God’s nature is dictated to him by someone or something outside God. But neither do I think it makes sense to say God “chooses his nature.” For volition (to choose) IS already nature.

------------------------------

Stellar: The whole point is to paint the picture of a God who is beyond all limitations, even that of the future. A God who has access to all things at once. I see nothing wrong with painting the picture of a supratime - in fact, I think it gives a much more dynamic, real and personable God.

Tom: I guess we have different intuitions and values motivating us, and that’s cool. Overall we’re standing within Orthodoxy, so I’m not passionate about changing other peoples’ views. BUT…I don’t think we make God greater by attributing to him concepts and statements that don’t mean anything to us (well, to me at least)—and supratemporal existence is as meaningless as it gets. It’s like wanting to avoid limiting God by saying he can draw a square circle or make a married bachelor, you know? Are we really ascribing greatness to God by saying he can do these things? I don’t think so. In short, I don’t find God’s being a fully temporal being to be a “limitation” upon him at all. I find timeless existence to be the ultimate straight-jacket and then I find Ross’s super-time to be quite limiting as well besides being providentially useless.

---------------------------

Tom: When I think of God as the great “I am” I don’t imagine at all that the writer is speculating on the temporal status of God’s essence or anything like that. I think, far more simply, God wants to reveal himself as an ever-present, abiding and sufficient reality for his people.

Stellar: That latter statement is exactly what I was trying to express.

Tom: But we can express it without supposing God to be timeless (or supratemporal).

Stellar: Why do you think that God described Himself as He who was, is and is to come?

Tom: To differentiate God for US who were not, who came into being, and who might not be here tomorrow because we’re created and frail beings. God never came into being and cannot pass out of existence. That, I take it, is the point. But that’s doable without supposing God to be supratemporal. Just plain temporal gets the job done as well, and fits the context better.

Stellar: From our perspective, YES - God was, and is, and is to come; however, this does not mean that from God's perspective, the past is not in present tense. Make sense?

Tom: I totally understand your point, Bro. Really. Been on this for a long time. The whole “eternal now” view is very popular too. ;o) I’m just disagreeing.

Tom

[Michael]

If we know God is REALLY timeless and has no past, present or future, then shouldn’t that truth prevail and determine our faith? I think so. But once we're given over to the truth that God is timeless, it’s difficult to see the relevance in describing him as the GOD WHO was, is, and is to come. If divine timelessness works for a person, I wouldn't try to take it away. But it jus doesn't solve any problems for me.

Only Lefow might be saying that God is really (and solely) timeless, and has no past, present or future.

That much is Craig’s view too. No more atemporal anything since creation.

I think you've misunderstood him.

That would be saying God was atemporal BEFORE creation, not that He is atemporal BEYOND creation.

I'm sure Craig would agree that God could no more wipe out His atemporal sans-creation existence by creating a temporal universe, than He could wipe out His temporal existence by annihilating this universe.

And "was" (having a temporal past) doesn't necessarily mean having an infinite temporal past.

Science would suggest that God's temporal past (in the time He created with space) is at least 14 billion years long.

Is that long enough to qualify as He who "was, is, and is to come"?

I think it is.

The fact that you don't see the logical difficulties involved in an infinite past eternity somehow leading up to the moment of creation (or that your able to shelve them so that they don't cause a problem for you) doesn't justify pretending that they don't exist.

Any theology (be it process or open) that would require us to believe in a God who exists only in time, and already existed for an unending eternity before He decided to create anything (when the logical difficulty here has been recognized for millennia) would in effect shut the door of heaven to anyone who was able to see the difficulties.

It's like saying "forget Gallileao, you must believe a stationary earth is at the center of the universe."

That's what you're doing here Tom.

[stellar renegade]

Any theology (be it process or open) that would require us to believe in a God who exists only in time, and already existed for an unending eternity before He decided to create anything (when the logical difficulty here has been recognized for millennia) would in effect shut the door of heaven to anyone who was able to see the difficulties.

Well I think that might be a bit strong, since that saying seems to be reserved for those who are oppressive and even violent, but I'll agree with the opinion that it's a viewpoint that seems quite a bit contrived.

I'll get to the rest later. I'm busy.

[TGB]

T: That much is Craig’s view too. No more atemporal anything since creation.

M: I think you've misunderstood him.

T: I don’t think so, Mike. Not on this. He’s pretty clear on this point himself (both in his book on God and time and on his online articles).

M: That would be saying God was atemporal BEFORE creation, not that He is atemporal BEYOND creation.

T: It wouldn’t involve making the “before” mistake at all. Craig’s explicit on this point. God abandons his atemporal, sans creation mode of existence and embraces temporality. Creation involves this ‘kenosis’ of one for the other on behalf of creation. God’s sans creation mode of existence IS gone because there is no sans creation existing for God now that creation is here and experienced by God.

M: I'm sure Craig would agree that God could no more wipe out His atemporal sans-creation existence by creating a temporal universe…

T: All I can say is, read Craig. There’s no mistaking his view on this. God absolutely abandons one contingent mode of existence (atemporal) for the other (temporal). He doesn’t have ‘two’ modes of existence (both timeless and temporal). That, Craig argues, is contradictory and meaningless.

M: Science would suggest that God's temporal past (in the time He created with space) is at least 14 billion years long.

T: Science suggests that God’s experience of the material world is at least 14 B years long. But Science can’t tell us about God’s own essential, interpersonal experience I don’t think.

M: The fact that you don't see the logical difficulties involved in an infinite past eternity somehow leading up to the moment of creation (or that your able to shelve them so that they don't cause a problem for you) doesn't justify pretending that they don't exist.

T: Oh I see them. And I only shelve them (if that’s what I’m doing) because I prefer the force of OTHER arguments over mathematical ones.

M: Any theology (be it process or open) that would require us to believe in a God who exists only in time, and already existed for an unending eternity before He decided to create anything (when the logical difficulty here has been recognized for millennia) would in effect shut the door of heaven to anyone who was able to see the difficulties.

T: That’s quite a stretch Bro. Nobody who think Gods is eternally temporal thinks one has to believe God is eternally temporal in order to experience the love and life of God. I’m not suggesting that eternal temporality be made a dogmatic belief of Orthodox Christianity that the Church insists upon. Not at all.

But I could just as easily ask whether your view shuts the door of heaven to people like me who find atemporal personal existence MORE impossible to embrace than arguments about actual infinites. Who is talking about requirements for heaven anyhow? ;o)

M: It's like saying "forget Gallileao, you must believe a stationary earth is at the center of the universe." That's what you're doing here Tom.

T: I don’t want to do that and don’t think I am doing that. All I’ve said is “I can’t adjudicate my way through to a firm conviction on the question.” That’s just being honest. I lean, or tend, to eternal temporality (for ME, not for anyone else going to heaven) so long as all I have are the present arguments I’m aware of. And I would never suggest that others who take a different view on God and time can’t enjoy a relationship with God. In the end, I don’t think all this matters that much at all. God has show us what matters—do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God.

Tom

[Michael]

God’s sans creation mode of existence IS gone because there is no sans creation existing for God now that creation is here and experienced by God.

No?

As I recall the t.v. interview, one reason Craig said that God couldn't return to His atemporal state by annihilating creation, is that He'd still remember it.

By the same token, God couldn't completely wipe out His sans-temporal existence, because He still remembers it--the experience is part of Him.

There’s no mistaking his view on this

Could you please provide a direct quote to the effect that God wiped out His own memory, and has no existense beyond temporal time?

M: It's like saying "forget Gallileao, you must believe a stationary earth is at the center of the universe." That's what you're doing here Tom.

T: I don’t want to do that and don’t think I am doing that

Whatever your intention, it seems to me that you're presenting an infantile and out-dated notion of God as the only viable alternative (which would effectively close the door of faith to anyone who found it necessary to think more deaply about these things than you seem willing to.)

[TGB]

Michael,

I hope I’m not frustrating you. I don’t mean to. So let me see if I can clarify where I stand without slamming heaven’s door in anybody’s face.

-------------------------------------

Tom: God’s sans creation mode of existence IS gone because there is no sans creation existing for God now that creation is here and experienced by God.

Michael: You say…Craig…made it clear in his paper that there’s no longer “any atemporal anything”--please provide a direct quote so I know you’re not oversimplifying his position to suit your own purpose.

Tom: Ouch. Thanks for the vote of confidence.

More to point, it’s Craig’s view that God is not now timeless. When he says “God is atemporal sans/without creation and temporal since creation” he means that God is no longer atemporal since creation. Craig’s careful and knows the meaning of words. He takes “temporal” and “atemporal” as jointly exclusive of the possible modes of being. There is no third option, for 'temporal' and 'atemporal' are contradictory modes of being. One cannot be BOTH atemporal and temporal. This is his whole point is arguing that both modes are ‘contingent’ ways of existing. God can give the former (sans creation) up for the latter (relating to creation).

Pick up a copy of his Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time (Crossway: 2001) and check it out. Great book. After arguing for God’s being temporal on the basis of his knowing tensed facts and sustaining real relations to a temporal world, he writes:

“Thus we can formulate the following argument for divine temporality:

1. A temporal world exists.
2. God is omniscient.
3. If a temporal world exists, then if God is omniscient, God knows tensed facts.
4. If God is timeless, he does not know tensed facts.
5. Therefore, God is not timeless.

Again, this argument does not prove that God is essentially temporal, but if successful, it does show that if a temporal world exists, then God is not timeless.” (p. 99-100).

His website if full of articles as well. There is no “sans creation timeless God” IF there is a creation. Creation spells the end of God’s existence sans creation.

I can understand a request for a reference, Mike. But I sensed a bit of suspicious condescension in “so that I know you’re not oversimplifying to suit your own purpose.” If I’m misreading you, sorry. If you suspect I’m rigging my representation of Craig selectively so that I can get him to say what I want, then let me politely suggest that you don’t know me well enough in the first place to suspect me of such a thing.

Michael: As to my Galileao analogy: Whatever your intention, it seems to me that you’re presenting an infintile and out-dated notion of God as the only viable alternative (which would effectively close the door of faith to anyone who found it necessary to think more deaply about the issues we've been dicussing here than you seem willing to.)

Tom: If I may:

1) To suggest my view is out-dated says more about your ignorance of the subject than it does about my view. Process theism is anything but out-dated. And besides process folk, there are plenty of other well-respected Christian theologians and philosophers who believe God is temporally eternal (the infantile Wolterstorff at Yale argues this very view, and other infinite minds). I could name others, but to what avail?

2) I do not believe my view is the only viable alternative. Of course there are other viable alternatives, divine timelessness (ala Leftow, or Aquinas), amorphorous time sans creation (ala Padget), and divine temporal eternity (Wolterstorff, Whitehead, Hartshorne, Boyd, and others). Take your pick. For the record, ALL of these (and any other alternative you want to name) are in my view viable. I would never question the salvation of a person based on their philosophy of time. My goodness no.

3) I don’t think God gives a rip in the end about our getting this particular question right—if indeed we presently know enough or ever will know enough to close ALL the loops and answer all the questions definitively. It’s ridiculous to suggest that I’m presenting my view “as the only viable alternative” when I’ve expressly affirmed otherwise. For the record, Mike, you can believe whatever you want to believe about God and time and I’ll not question your status as a heaven-bound brother in Christ. Want to think more deeply on it? Go for it. So do I! I think constantly about it. I go over the arguments again and again. I just haven’t heard anything new that brings closure for me on any particular position. I tend to temporal eternity because that makes more sense of all the evidence (though it is not trouble-free; no view is). If you think this infantile of me, that’s cool with me. I don’t really care. You do you. I’ll do me. What else can we do? I’ve got plenty of good company where I am so I don’t mind if you’re not sitting with me on this side of the issue or think my view infantile or fundamentalist.

Tom

[Michael]

I did not question your status as a heaven bound brother in Christ, I questioned your charity toward those with inquiring minds that are unable to shelve an obvious logical incongruity as easlly as you do.

If you were to successfully convince them that the God of the Bible is necessarily temporal, mightn't they be unable to believe in Him (and wouldn't that close the door of faith to them)?

As to process theology being up to date, aren't most process theologians anti-supernaturalists with a social agenda?

Is it possible they've overlooked some things because the existence of God is a side issue to them?

If so they could be very well educated and popular with the inteligensia, and still be totally out of date and infantile in their stated views on the topic under discussion here.

(And didn't you yourself say that they tended to be non-trinitarian and anti-supernaturalist in another post?)

BTW: I corrected my typo before you posted this Tom--it's "infantile," not "infintile" (and that's still my opinion.)

[Michael]

P.S. Wasn't process theology popular in the Anglican Communion when "The Posiden Adventure" was written?

I remember the character played by Gene Hackman giving a sermon on doing for youself, and the older priest (who stayed with the sick and dying when the ship capsised) telling him that he "spoke only for the strong."

While leading the strong to the stern of the ship, the Hackman character spoke of survival of the fitist being "God's Law"--and though he sacrificed himself for the group at the end, it wasn't without first cursing God for working against them (and for demanding a blood sacrifice.)

I believe the views of his caracter were based on some of the views expressed by process theologians, weren't they?

And I guess he was entittled to tell God off, and God may have learned something from him if He was listening (is that right?)

[TGB]

Michael: I did not question your status as a heaven bound brother in Christ…

Tom: I didn’t think you did. It sounded like you thought I was limiting heaven to those who took my view on God and time.

Michael: …I questioned your charity toward those with inquiring minds that are unable to shelve an obvious logical incongruity as easily as you do.

Tom: I have nothing but charity for anybody who takes these issues seriously. I would never, for example, say that ANY one of the views on the table was infantile. Hell, man, I have nothing but charity for those who DON'T take this seriously. It's all charity Bro.

I don’t shelve anything ‘easily’. Though I express where I am quickly because of time and space constraints here, I really do struggle over the options. And I haven’t shown any disrespect or impatience or unkindness toward you or Stellar for taking a view different from my own. How have I been “uncharitable” Michael?

Michael: If you were to successfully convince them that the God of the Bible is necessarily temporal, mightn't they be unable to believe in Him (and wouldn't that close the door of faith to them)?

Tom: You’re kidding right? What if you successfully convince me that math makes it certain for God to be timeless sans creation? Mightn’t I be unable to believe in God? Come on!

You really want me to stop promoting MY view on God’s relation to time because it might make belief in God impossible for those who think the view of God I’m promoting is impossible? I’m nothing if not tentative in my affirmations about this stuff and honest with those I talk to about there being other options.

Michael: As to process theology being up to date, aren't most process theologians anti-supernaturalists with a social agenda?

Tom: As for the social agenda, yes. So what? Is establishing a theology of caring for the earth, or the poor, or conservation, or promoting international peace out-dated? Many of them deny miracles, yes. But many of them affirm what you and I would CALL miraculous, they just don’t categorize it as “super” nature. Their view is that when God heals, or does anything else, it’s quite natural, i.e., there’s nothing unnatural about God acting in and through the material world. They just feel that the term “supernatural” artificially divides something (God and the world) that shouldn’t be divided.

Michael: Is it possible they've overlooked some things because the existence of God is a side issue to them?

Tom: The process friends I know are quite passionate about God. I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Of course there are some who take a process view who aren’t passionate about God’s existence or purposes for the world, but I haven’t met any of them. The energy it takes to wrap one’s head around process metaphysics to begin with would, I should think, scare off those who are less than passionate about God.

I’m not sure what the point of this is.

Michael: If so they could be very well educated and popular with the inteligensia, and still be totally out of date and infantile in their stated views on the topic under discussion here.

Tom: Perhaps you could provide an example of a process doctrine regarding God and time that you think is infantile because nothing comes to mind. Maybe you could take an example from Whitehead, Cobb or Hartshorne.

Michael: And didn't you yourself say that they tended to be non-trinitarian and anti-supernaturalist in another post?

Tom: Yes, but what in the world is infantile or out-dated about either of those positions?

Michael: BTW: I corrected my typo before you posted this Tom--it's "infantile," not "infintile" (and that's still my opinion.)

Tom: I wrote my response up with your post offline and then noticed after I posted it that you had changed your own post. Wasn’t paying attention. But I don’t mind at all that you think the belief that God is ‘temporally everlasting’ is an infantile position. I just wanted to note for the record that I don’t think YOUR view (or any of the alternative views) is infantile, nor do I think any particular view on this subject ought to be marginalized because promoting it might make belief in that view of God impossible for somebody. I’m supposed to worry that if I convince a mathematician that God is temporally eternal he’ll abandon belief in God? Perhaps others should worry that if they convince a psychologist or artist or counsellor that God is atemporal they’ll abandon belief in God because they only God THEY can imagine is a personal, loving, experiencing God. I mean, where’s it stop?

Tom

[Michael]

My feild of study was Behavioral Science, not Mathematics.

That doesn't prevent me from seeing the difficulty here.

And your not being a mathematician is no excuse for your minimizing it.

[TGB]

Michael: And your not being a mathematician is no excuse for your minimizing it.

Tom: I'm not minimizing it Bro. Really. Unless you think the only way to avoid minimizing it is just to adopt an atemporal view of God sans creation. But I don't think I have to bend that far to avoid minimizing it. I really do appreciate the force of the argument. I can't really conjur up an analogy from experience of an infinite series that's traversed. But I have an equally difficult time finding meaning in an experience of maximal loving relations that are timeless, and there's not a snowball's chance in hell I'm walking away from God's necessary maximally personal/loving trintarian relations, but that's what atemporal existence would require me to do. Would you like me to become an atheist? I could suggest that this is what you're asking me to do.

Atemporal personhood just doesn't mean anything to me. The two words simply can't conjointly describe a single entity. If it does to you, I'm glad. But I haven't heard anyting here (or in any of the books I read) that really makes the notion of atemporal personhood meaningful in terms I can grasp, and Craig pulls out all the stops in his writing to show that it IS a meaningful notion. I just don't see it.

Now, I could accuse you of minimizing personhood or love or experience or consciousness from MY point of view, but I don't think that would be charitable.

Tom

[Michael]

A infinite temporal past has no meaning to me, and it's psychologically imposible for a personal being to have had such a past

How would He remember it?

All at once?

No, that would be atemporal.

That's what you've been arguing against here.

So does He remember everything He thought in that infinite past in a sequential, temporal order?

Can He recall where the moment of creation ocured in a linear sequence of past thoughts (events, or mental states) that had no beginning?

Can He recall "Yes, I created the world three hundred and forty four billion moments after my first thought"?

No, because there was no first thought.

Think about a sequence of memories without a beginning, and you'll see (without using any math) that it's impossible.

The idea that we've been debating some abstract mathematical point here seems almost delusional to me.

And the problem is not that God had no beginning.

Only effects have to have causes, and a non-contingent being needs no cause (that's a given.)

The problem is in conceiving in a personal God who has an infinite linear past, a wholly temporal consciousness, and a wholly temporal memory.

It's that you're saying that a wholly temporal being consciously lived through an infinite past (without beginning, and therefore without end) and somehow then (after infinity) arived at the moment of creation.

That is what you're saying, isn't it Tom?

This position can't even be expressed without a contradiction in terms--an infinity of time, and then creation.

Do you think you have to be a mathematician to see the contradiction in terms here?

There could be no infinity of time, followed by "and then."

How could anyone who accepts such an obvious logical incongruity find any value in Tom Talbot't's argument that there's a logical incongruity in a rational being making a free-will choice of eternal conscious torment for himself?

There is simply no way to defend your position without throwing logic out altogether, and in that case there is no logical argument for UR, a loving personal God, a non-contingent being, the Trinity, or anything else.

[TGB]

M: A infinite temporal past has no meaning to me, and it's psychologically imposible for a personal being to have had such a past.

T: Then believe that God is atemporal sans creation.

M: That's what you've been arguing against here.

T: I have two things that don’t mean anything to me. One is traversing an infinite series of moments. The second is an atemporal conscious experience of loving personal existence that is unsurpassably aesthetically satisfying. But one of those (temporal eternity or atemporal personhood) IS possible even if I can't adjudicate my way to a resolution that satisfies you (or even myself fully and finally), so I choose to believe that which is true and that which is false based on which truth explains the most given my experience of God and the world. Either way I have to live for the moment with the folly of shelving the other.

You just prefer mathematical categories over FELT existential ones (as far as I can see) I guess. You don't have the problems I do imagining an atemporal experience of loving relations.

M: So does He remember everything He thought in that infinite past in a sequential, temporal order?
Can He recall where the moment of creation ocured in a linear sequence of past thoughts (events, or mental states) that had no beginning? Can He recall "Yes, I created the world three hundred and forty four billion moments after my first thought"? No, because there was no first thought. Think about a sequence of memories without a beginning, and you'll see (without using any math) that it's impossible.

T: You keep trying to convince me that traversing an infinite series is inconceivably bad math. Mike, you don’t have to argue this any more. I SEE IT. I have seen it for a long time. But I also see the impossibility (from MY point of view) of God’s being atemporal sans creation (as the math would require us to believe) and yet also LOVE—i.e., loving personal existence that is the full enjoyment of the beauty of personal address and response.

M: The idea that we've been debating some abstract mathematical point here seems almost delusional to me.

T: I find the supposition of atemporal personal/loving experience almost delusional as well. So I have to chose between two nearly delusional options which from my perspective are contradictor states of affairs—atemporal existence (on the one hand) and that existence being loving personhood.

M: The problem is in conceiving in a personal God who has an infinite linear past, a wholly temporal consciousness, and a wholly temporal memory.

T: I appreciate the problem of imagining this. But there’s also the problem of conceiving of an atermpoal God who is the fullness of loving existence.

M: It's that you're saying that a wholly temporal being consciously lived through an infinite past (without beginning, and therefore without end) and somehow then (after infinity) arived at the moment of creation. That is what you're saying, isn't it Tom?

T: That would be ENTAILED in my affirmation about God as love, yes. But I’m not making mathematically claims per se. I’m just stating about God what I cannot abandon belief in without embracing atheism—and that is that God is love. Now, I let the mathematically chips fall where they may. I realize this is an affront to math. But the alternative to me is WORSE than bad math. I wish you would try to get on the inside of the views you argue against.

M: This position can't even be expressed without a contradiction in terms--an infinity of time, and then creation.

T: But M, what you seem reluctant to even countenance is how impossible it is to express the view that God is atemporal AND the fullness of love without (in MY view) a contradiction in terms—an atemporal consciousness, a loving relation that is not a felt experience of satisfaction?

M: There is simply no way to defend your position without throwing logic out altogether, and in that case there is no logical argument for UR, a loving personal God, a non-contingent being, the Trinity, or anything else.

T: Mike, when faced with two claims each of which seems true (‘atemporal existence’ and ‘fullness of loving existence’) given the evidence but which are also contradictory states of affairs, it’s quite respectable to suppose that you don’t have all the evidence, that one of them is actually not the impossibility you suppose. I admit that either “atemporal personal loving existence” IS possible (as you suppose under the weight of your math) OR “personal loving existence is necessarily an ‘experience of aesthetic satisfaction’ in temporal terms.” With what poor light I have to view things, I’m SUPPOSING that when we see things clearly it will be the math that we had not fully comprehended and not the nature of loving relations.

If that much is delusional and infantile of me, then you’ll want to write me off I guess.

Tom

[Michael]

T: But M, what you seem reluctant to even countenance is how impossible it is to express the view that God is atemporal AND the fullness of love without (in MY view) a contradiction in terms—an atemporal consciousness, a loving relation that is not a felt experience of satisfaction?

Why would an unchanging feeling of satisfaction be temporal?

They say that electronically stimulating a certain part of the brain will allow a human being to experience a transentental, atemporal feeling of loving satisfaction.

I knew a young man who claimed to have experienced it through drugs, and some of us have experienced it in dreams.

It is not inconceivable, and doesn't involve the contradiction you insist.

In contrast, your position involves a contradiction to anyone who tries to think it out (and that's not something I suggest under the weight of math--I'm not a mathematician, and probably couldn't demonstrate it algebraicly if I tried.)

Why do you do this?

Is it because process theory requires an anthropomorphic God who doesn't know what you're going to do in advance, can learn from you, and can be pulled down to your level?

Would you like me to become an atheist? I could suggest that this is what you're asking me to do.

You mean do I want to "shut the door of faith" to you, and lock you out of the Kingdom of Heaven?

No Tom (I wouldn't even want to do that to those dreaded matematicians), but I do think your argument could do that to a great many thoughful souls.

[JasonPratt]

I don't like interrupting a good conversation going between two members; but I'm thinking of suggesting a week's break on this particular thread, to let things simmer down a bit.

(Besides, I've been wanting to comment here, too, for a while, but I'm going to need time to catch up. And I'm not at all sure when I'll have the time and energy to do that yet! )

[TGB]

Jump in anytime Jason. I don't know that I have anything more to add.

Michael, I appreciate the so-called evidence from drug-induced visions, but those are anything but "atemporal" states. They are entirely temporal. They began in time, endured for a time, and then ended at a later time. If the subject lost a "sense" of time, that does not constitute a short spell of timeless existence.

Anyhow, like I said, I can't wrap my head around atemporal personal and loving experience/existence. If you find somebody whose faith is teetering because of my view, send him to me and I'll assure him that there are other alternatives he can embrace that'll keep his faith afloat!

The so-called Process interest in making God too much like created beings in order to secure their belief in an open future isn't anywhere within a hundred miles of my thinking on this issue.

Hugs and kisses all!

Tom

[Michael]

Jump in anytime Jason. I don't know that I have anything more to add.

Michael, I appreciate the so-called evidence from drug-induced visions.

So much for our break.

but those are anything but "atemporal" states. They are entirely temporal. They began in time, endured for a time, and then ended at a later time. If the subject lost a "sense" of time, that does not constitute a short spell of timeless existence.

Speaking from what point of view Tom?

Mathematics, physics, or psychology?

Psychologically speaking, if the subject had no sense of the passage of time, it was an entirely atemporal, timeless experience.

(And if I understand Zimmerman correctly, what he's saying is that psychological time is the only time that exited prior to the laws of physics.)

BTW: I spoke of the stimulation of the right temporal lobe, a drug induced experience shared by a young man I met at a Church convention back in 1980 something, and the atemporal sense of love and wellbeing sometimes experienced in dreams.

I in no way advocated the recreational use of drugs, and the young man I was thinking of died of a drug overdose (when he relapsed a year or two after the conversation we had.)

[TGB]

I think Michael and I are stuck in a timeless debate! Ha.

Sorry about mis-stating the place of drugs...and about your friend.

Peace,
Tom

[Michael]

Sorry about mis-stating the place of drugs...and about your friend.

Thank you Tom.

Now I'd like to ask you (and anyone who watches the interview) to pay close attention to what Zimmerman suggests is "the best way for anyone who thinks that God is in time, and that creation had a beginning, to think about time before creation."

He talkes about our diferent perceptions of time, and says that if there were no clocks, "and couldn't even be any clocks. because thee were no laws of nature" (i.e. no laws of physics) "maybe long and short don't apply."

What he's saying is that psycholoigical time (which we humans can experience as atemporal when our right temporal lobes are stimulated, we're under the influence of certain drugs, or we're in a dream state) is the only time that existed before the laws of physics.

The only time that existed was time as God experienced it in His mind.

Zimmerman says it may have had length, but it had "no particular length" (and I would say that it may have had no length at all.)

What he's not saying is that there's an infinite length of linear time prior to creation, and he's not saying that because he knows that it would be an assault on human reason (something you haven't at all shyed away from doing here Tom.)

I think Michael and I are stuck in a timeless debate! Ha.

We've been discussing a legitimate question--and of the three men who offer answers (Leftow, Craig, and Zimmerman), I actually think Zimmerman offers the best answer (but in fairness to him, you should recognize that he's not saying the same thing you've been saying here.)

[stellar renegade]

I'm still gonna get back to earlier comments.

I liked that interview. I think that Zimmerman is smarter than Craig. He seems to avoid inconsistencies and be able to come up with solutions for them (it also seemed like he was thinking out part of his rationale in the moment, which I admire).

Anyway, I'll admit that it makes more sense for there to have been some kind of sense of time (psychological at least) before the moment of creation. Like he says, God would be outside of the entire "hull" of space-time. I like the notion of him surrounding it and not just above it all.

This reminds me of something C.S. Lewis wrote about God's timelessness, though (and being able to see all times at once). He said it was like writing a book. He could put the pen down at any time and come back whenever he liked without having to sacrifice lost time in the story. He could just come back to the same exact moment of time that he left.

A metaphor that would be even more accessible to people these days is that of being able to pause, rewind or fast-forward a movie. God can do that with time. He can take AS MUCH TIME AS NEEDED on each and every one of us... so, He may operate in time, but in His own, all the while in control of our own time.

Not that a perfect God would need to, but it's a nice thought at least.

[TGB]

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, but to be honest, Michael, a lot of it is VERY speculative philosohpically and appeals to intricate and difficult theories of time that are beyond me. I'm not that smart when it comes to this stuff! But 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.

Peace,
Tom

[Michael]

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.)

[firstborn888]

Thanks for a really interesting thread Michael.

[TGB]

Michael: 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.)

Tom: What’s wrong Michael? Why so upset with me? I haven’t suggested we not get into these questions or do our very best trying to answer them. Quite the opposite. I don’t see anybody else (besides Stellar) jumping in here to think through this with you (for whatever reason--I'm not judging them). But I’m here. I am into this. It does concern me. I haven’t read Helm, Craig, Padget, Polinghorne, Boyd, and others repeatedly on exactly this question because I think it’s unimportant to me.

What I have said here is that after one has done all one can to answer a question and one still cannot claim to “know” (i.e., possess justified true belief), then one will have to live with the tension of not having the certainty one would like to have. Being honest about what I can and cannot claim to know with certainty doesn’t make what I don’t know unimportant, and it shouldn't earn me your anger. It just means my faith doesn’t require an absolutely certain answer on this in order to survive. I don’t know the answer to the question of God and time sans creation, Michael. But I know God loves me and offers himself in relationship to me.

Michael: 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.

Tom: This will be my final post. I’m obviously not being heard at all. It’s like you haven’t read anything I’ve written for four pages. I have offered real thoughts, and I haven’t said this issue doesn’t trouble or concern me. Just the opposite actually. But what not knowing the answer to “time” doesn’t do is trouble my faith and experience of God, and I’ve tried to suggest that it need to trouble or shipwreck anybody’s faith. If it was absolutely necessary to our faith that we have certain answers to the questions you’re asking about God and time, then I suppose God would have made the evidence unambiguous enough for us to find the answer with final certainty. But it doesn’t seem he’s done that, since no view on this has won the day. Heck, the professionals can’t even agree on what time is! Do we really want to say that our faith in God should require final certainty on the metaphysical question of time (and God and time)? I don’t think we should (or need to). But that doesn’t make the subject unimportant to me. We can continue to work on it for the rest of our lives. I imagine I’ll be doing just that too. But what may be more important than finding an answer to these questions, Michael, is finding out why not having final answers to them troubles us so. That’s been MY experience at least. It’s all I have.

Blessings,
Tom

[Michael]

Tom: What’s wrong Michael? Why so upset with me? I haven’t suggested we not get into these questions or do our very best trying to answer them.

I'm sorry, I thought that's what you were doing the many times you said it wasn't important to you.

I thanked you for your comments regarding the views offered by Zimmerman and Padget, and they seem to try to answer these questions--but it was only in that last post that you gave us any idea of what they actually say.

I worked pretty hard to get that out of you Tom.

I had re-state the problem in psychological terms to demonstrate that it wasn't some abstract issue only of interest to mathematicians, and I had to quote Zimmerman himself to show that he was saying much more than you were.

Would you acknowledge here that he has more than his own inner uncertainty and tension to offer?

(Offering more than that is what I meant by real answers Tom.)

I have offered real thoughts

Unless it was in that last post (that I thanked you for) I haven't seen any.

I've seen you criticize the answers offered by others (like Leftow and Craig), but I haven't seen you offer an answer of your own (and you gave us no reason to think Zimmerman, Padget, or anyone else you knew of had any answer to offer--I had to dig into what Zimmerman was saying and show it to you.)

What I have said here is that after one has done all one can to answer a question and one still cannot claim to “know” (i.e., possess justified true belief), then one will have to live with the tension of not having the certainty one would like to have

If you offered a multiplicity of possible answers, and suggested we hold them in tension (instead of suggesting the question was abstract and unimportant) I might have thanked you, but you didn't even do that.

If it was absolutely necessary to our faith that we have certain answers...

"Certain" answers?

I've been trying to discuss possible answers (and it might be necessary for some thinking people to have such answers and hold them in tension.)

But what not knowing the answer to “time” doesn’t do is trouble my faith and experience of God, and I’ve tried to suggest that it need to trouble or shipwreck anybody’s faith.

Has it ocured to you that boasting of your own faith doesn't really help anyone else, and that making that faith seem entirely irrational by ignoring a logical incongruity (and the solutions offered by men who have actually taken the time to think about it) could actually hurt?

That's what I meant by "shutting the Kingdom of Heaven" to those who are more intellectually inclined than you are (or who are weaker in faith, if you prefer.)

I give Zimmerman, Craig, Leftow, and (maybe) Padget (though I haven't actually read him) credit for getting into the question and offering answers (and we could perhaps hold all their views in tension), but in most of your posts here you've tried to suggest that we shelve our intellects and ignore it.

I resent that Tom.

I would also point out that there's no such thing as a private online discussion.

There are always others reading along, and when questions have been raised it's probably more helpful to them to offer possible answers (no matter how many there are) than it is to focuss on any internal uncertainty or tension (or discomfort) the question causes us.

Thanks for a really interesting thread Michael.

I'm glad you find it interesting.

I saw your post on a related thread, and I'll try to reply when I can.

[TGB]

Hi Michael,

Well, I can't let my former post be my final one now. I'm sorry this has become a high maintenance conversation, and for such avoidable reasons.

Michael: Has it ocured to you that boasting of your own faith doesn't really help anyone else...

Tom: I haven't "boasted" about my faith at all, Michael.

Michael: ...and that making that faith seem entirely irrational by ignoring a logical incongruity (and the solutions offered by men who have actually taken the time to think about it)...

Tom: I offered (and not just in my previous post, but earlier) what I thought was a completely rational option: when faced with two contrary claims both of which appear to have their own independent evidence for being true, then you have to hold them in tension and suppose either that there are other options you can't perceive or that one of the two options before you isn't true. You keep claiming I haven't suggested we hold the options in tension when that's pretty much all I've been doing from the start.

And I've not "ignored" the logical problems of actual infinites. I've from the start conceded the value of the argument. But I've suggested other reasons for thinking atemporal personhood is JUST as problematic. Now, you can disagree with me on about atemporal personhood (and you have) but you're incorrect to accuse me of having "ignored" the problem of actual infinites or of having offered no reasons for thinking God may not be atemporal sans creation. And I've pointed out to you that along with there being many great minds who have given this matter much thought and who think "atemporal sans creation" is the only valid option, there really are other respected and accomplished thinkers and persons of faith who have taken just as much time to think about this as anyone else and who yet reject divine timelessness. My having mentioned all this is in the record, Michael, so you'll have to excuse me for not being able to take you seriously after accusing me of suggestig we turn our brains off, shelve them, and ignore intellectual questions.

Michael: ...but in most of your posts here you've tried to suggest that we shelve our intellects and ignore it...

Tom: I've done no such thing.

Michael: ...I resent that Tom [my suggesting that we shelve our intellects].

Tom: That's a shame, friend, because you've entirely misread me, but I don't resent you for it.

Blessings,
Tom

[firstborn888]

For what it's worth - I am one who doesn't believe that a past or future exists, only a perpetual now. I would like to comment more about our perception of time and even the drug story I read in one of the posts, when I have time.

[Michael]

Well, I can't let my former post be my final one now

And you couldn't let us take a week's beak either.

Tom: I haven't "boasted" about my faith at all, Michael.

You've said more than once that you can only conceive of a personal God existing temporally, and if that implies He transversed an actual infinite (despite the logical incongruity you now say you recognize) it doesn't disturb your faith at all.

Tom: I offered (and not just in my previous post, but earlier) what I thought was a completely rational option: when faced with two contrary claims both of which appear to have their own independent evidence for being true, then you have to hold them in tension and suppose either that there are other options you can't perceive or that one of the two options before you isn't true

Saying that options "A" and "B" cancel each other out, so there must be an option "C," doesn't constitute an option "C" (and when we let an "accomplished thinker and person of faith" do the talking, option "C" was perceivable.)

Option "C" would be a sans-creation teporality that didn't involve transversing an actual infinite (as suggested by Zimmerman, who you still seem to think was saying the same thing you are.)

there really are other respected and accomplished thinkers and persons of faith who have taken just as much time to think about this as anyone else and who yet reject divine timelessness.

I'll take Zimmerman as evidence of that (but I had to point out how he avoided the problem of an actual infinite, and you still do him an injustice here.)

you'll have to excuse me for not being able to take you seriously after accusing me of suggestig we turn our brains off, shelve them, and ignore intellectual questions.

That's precisely what you did on this thread, time and time again (and yes, the record is here.)

[TGB]

Bro, why is this so hard? Dang.

T: How did I ‘boast’ about my faith?

M: You've said more than once that you can only conceive of a personal God existing temporally, and if that implies He transversed an actual infinite (despite the logical incongruity you now say you recognize) it doesn't disturb your faith at all.

T: I qualified it just tiny bit differently (that is, it included what I said about assuming there’s a resolution between contradictory options that I can’t see), but never mind that. How in the world is this “boasting”? How am I “boasting” if I say I cannot conceive of a personal God existing atemporally? I don’t get it. You can’t conceive of a God traversing an actual infinite but your faith doesn’t seem to have a problem with atemporal personhood. Should I accuse you of boasting about your faith?

----------------------

T: I offered (and not just in my previous post, but earlier) what I thought was a completely rational option: when faced with two contrary claims both of which appear to have their own independent evidence for being true, then you have to hold them in tension and suppose EITHER that there are other options you can't perceive OR that one of the two options before you isn't true...

M: Saying that options "A" and "B" cancel each other out, so there must be an option "C" doesn't constitute an option "C"…

T: You're quite right. But if you'd look at what I actually said you'll see that I didn’t say A and B cancel each other out and there must be a C. Once more…

Let’s say we have independent support for thinking that both A and B are true. Fine.

Let’s then say we have good reasons to suppose that A and B can’t BOTH be true. They’re either contradictory or contrary propositions, but we don’t know which. If they’re truly contradictory, then by definition (I know you like logic!), and given bivalence, one is true and the other is false. If they’re contrary propositions, then by definition they may both be false but may not both be true.

My point, Michael, is that if A and B can’t both be true but we have independent reasons for thinking they’re both true, THEN either a) we’re mistaken in thinking they can’t both be true (and they both are). This isn’t likely to be the case with temporal vs atemporal existence, or b) both are false (because they’re contrary and not contradictory propositions) and some other option we haven’t even considered yet might be what’s in fact true, or c) they’re contradictory props, in which one of A or B is false and one is true but we can’t yet adjudicate which is which.

I never said A and B cancel each other out and that there MUST be a C. There might not be a C. A might be true and God is atemporal sans creation. Or B might be true and God is necessarily temporal (in which case we’ll find out more about math and infinites that we can’t presently perceive). I’m not claiming what the truth in fact is, Michael. Please hear me. I’m just saying that until God pulls back the curtain and gives me more light, I’m inclined to favor the argument for God’s necessarily temporal existence based on my intuitions and experience about loving personal relations. I know this means ASSUMING there is more about actual infinites we don’t know that will surprise us. But I'm slightl encouraged in this by the fact that there are some very great minds who after much thought were not persuaded by the argument re: the impossibility of acutal infinites (although I confess to not being able to follow the math that I've seen in some aritlces that argue this back and forth). But anyhow, I can more easily favor my intuitions re: personal reations and love than incline to the math and ASSUME that there is more about loving experience and relations that we don’t know.

I COULD BE WRONG. Somebody might write a book that solves it all. But right now, given the light I’ve got, I’m holding to the truth B over A, but both in tension—i.e., I hold to them lightly. I’m prepared to be proven wrong.

However, in the meantime, none of this undermines the love of God demonstrated for me on the cross. So I can still be a happy and fulfilled person without having to figure out time. If that’s boasting, Bro, then let’s all boast! I’m happier than I can say to tell the world that we can experience God’s love in Christ without having all the answers. I think that’s good news, not bad news.

--------------------------

M: I'll take Zimmerman as evidence of that (but I had to point out how he avoided the problem of an actual infinite, and you still do him an injustice here.)

T: I did Dean an injustice? Dude, I can’t even nail his view down. I said it seems to me like he’s arguing the same thing I know Padget argues—i.e., an amorphous (i.e., non-metrical) time. Conscious experience ‘flows’ and there’s a before and an after, but there is no measurement taken of it or even an awareness of it.But that much does him no injustice.

---------------------------

T: You'll have to excuse me for not being able to take you seriously after accusing me of suggesting we turn our brains off, shelve them, and ignore intellectual questions.

M: That's precisely what you did on this thread, time and time again (and yes, the record is here.)

T: Wow. Then we've got no basis to continue. No hard feelings, Michael.

Blessings and peace.
Tom

[Michael]

T: How did I ‘boast’ about my faith?

M: You've said more than once that you can only conceive of a personal God existing temporally, and if that implies He transversed an actual infinite (despite the logical incongruity you now say you recognize) it doesn't disturb your faith at all.

T: I qualified it just tiny bit differently (that is, it included what I said about assuming there’s a resolution between contradictory options that I can’t see)

You mean in the last post, right?

Yes you did make that qualification there (and I thank you for that Tom.)

but never mind that. How in the world is this “boasting”? How am I “boasting” if I say I cannot conceive of a personal God existing atemporally? I don’t get it. You can’t conceive of a God traversing an actual infinite but your faith doesn’t seem to have a problem with atemporal personhood. Should I accuse you of boasting about your faith?

Actually, I did have a problem with atemporal personhood, which is why the title of this topic heading is "What are the Essential Qualities of Personhood."

If we say they're "feeling," "knowing", and "willing," then I would say (since these don't necessarily involve sequential thought processes) that there is no problem (but I think you disagreed with that in your first post here--saying that you couldn't conceive of personal atemporality, that you saw no problem with temporality, and not much more.)

T: You're quite right. But if you'd look at what I actually said you'll see that I didn’t say A and B cancel each other out and there must be a C. Once more…

Let’s say we have independent support for thinking that both A and B are true. Fine.

Let’s then say we have good reasons to suppose that A and B can’t BOTH be true. They’re either contradictory or contrary propositions, but we don’t know which. If they’re truly contradictory, then by definition (I know you like logic!), and given bivalence, one is true and the other is false. If they’re contrary propositions, then by definition they may both be false but may not both be true.My point, Michael, is that if A and B can’t both be true but we have independent reasons for thinking they’re both true, THEN either a) we’re mistaken in thinking they can’t both be true (and they both are). This isn’t likely to be the case with temporal vs atemporal existence, or b) both are false (because they’re contrary and not contradictory propositions) and some other option we haven’t even considered yet might be what’s in fact true, or c) they’re contradictory props, in which one of A or B is false and one is true but we can’t yet adjudicate which is which

Right, got it.

You still objected to the every atemporal view of God offered, without offering an anternative (and if you understood the alternative offered by Zimmerman or Padjet, you made no attempt to enlighten us.)

That amounts to "suggesting we turn our brains off, shelve them, and ignore intellectual questions."

M: I'll take Zimmerman as evidence of that (but I had to point out how he avoided the problem of an actual infinite, and you still do him an injustice here.)

T: I did Dean an injustice? Dude, I can’t even nail his view down. I said it seems to me like he’s arguing the same thing I know Padget argues—i.e., an amorphous (i.e., non-metrical) time. Conscious experience ‘flows’ and there’s a before and an after, but there is no measurement taken of it or even an awareness of it.But that much does him no injustice.

And please show us where you contributed to this discussion by sharing Padjet's view.

Anywhere on this thread (except for that one post I thanked you for on page four.)

[firstborn888]

Kudos to you for reaching into this deep thought process. It's a noble endeavor for sure

There's nothing noble about it, but there are times when we all question our faith (and at such times it's sometimes necessary to delve into things you've comfotably shelved in the past.)

I wish to God I still had other, more important things to do.

I just finished taking care of my Father-in-law for a year and a half, after caring for both he and my mother-in-law during the two years preceding that. I'm guessing I may possibly be able to relate to some of the challenges you're facing. The seeming randomness and apparent purposelessness of events can lead one to a belief in an impersonal God - at least it did for me to some extent.

Yet, it remains my conviction that God's personality is manifest through humans, hence the whole "waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God" concept. I am not at all saying that God doesn't exist outside of space/time but I am saying that His existence within space/time is manifest through us.

[Michael]

If I didn't believe in a personal God who has a purpose for all this (and that "all live unto Him"), I believe I'd end my life right now.

[firstborn888]

If I didn't believe in a personal God who has a purpose for all this (and that "all live unto Him"), I believe I'd end my life right now.

Copy that. I never thought I would experience the level of doubt I have experienced because of the fact that my rebirth was so real and profound/supernatural. Plus the many many confirmations in corporate worship etc.

I've seriously wondered sometimes if my subconscious imagination just made the whole thing up but yet - there's no way I imagined a complete transformation from the inside out, confirmed and witnessed by everyone I knew.

Lifting you up my brother...

[TGB]

M: You still objected to the every atemporal view of God offered, without offering an alternative…

T: My alternative to ‘a’-temporal being is its contradictory: temporal being. There is no third alternative between contradictories. A or ~A. One of them has to be true and one false. That goes without saying—unless somebody wants to argue that ‘atemporal’ and ‘temporal’ are contrary and not contradictory modes of being. I don’t know anyone who tries to make that claim, not even Zimmerman or Padget, who basically argue a form of temporal being (with no ‘counting’).

M: …(and if you understood the alternative offered by Zimmerman or Padjet, you made no attempt to enlighten us.) That amounts to "suggesting we turn our brains off, shelve them, and ignore intellectual questions."

T: It doesn’t amount to that actually. You chose to understand me that way, but my not saying more, or as much as you wished, might be explained in other ways. For example, it might be that I simply assumed you understood that if ‘atemporal’ and ‘temporal’ are contradictories and I was rejecting one (atemporality), then my alternative was to hold that God is temporal. If you offer me A or ~A and I reject ~A, then by definition I've affirmed A. I didn’t know I ‘had’ to spell it out. But nevrtheless, that may be poor communicating on my part. But it doesn’t amount to suggesting that we turn our brains off, shelve them, and ignore intellectual questions.

Just wanted to clear that up.

As I understand Zimmerman and Padget (Padget’s easier to understand than Zimmerman), they’re basically offering a qualified version of temporal being, not a THIRD option in addition to ‘temporal’ and ‘atemporal’ modes of being. And their qualification is that sans creation God is psychologically unaware of the passage or flow of conscious experience. There are no clocks or any discrete ‘moments’ of experience that could serve as ‘countable’. So the actual infinite is avoided and God still gets enough flow to his experience. I might be understanding them wrongly, Bro.

But let me ask you about these, Michael, ‘cause I wann understand. You said two things that are confusing me:

“Actually, I did have a problem with atemporal personhood, which is why the title of this topic heading is ‘What are the Essential Qualities of Personhood’.”

and

“If we say [those essential qualities of personhood are] ‘feeling’, ‘knowing’, and ‘willing’, then I would say (since these don't necessarily involve sequential thought processes) that there is no problem.”

So first, let me ask: Do you take temporal and atemporal to be contradictory or contrary modes of being?

Secondly, if being a person requires feeling, knowing, and willing, and these can constitute the fullness of personal existence while being absolutely unchanging in every respect, then what ARE your problems with atemporal personhood? You say first here that you did (or do?) have a problem with atemporal personhood. Just what problems do you have with it? In other words, if unchanging feeling, knowing, and willing are not problematic qualities, what qualities constitute the objectionable sort of atemporal experience that you do have problems with? Hope my question here is clear.

Thanks!
Tom

[Michael]

As I understand Zimmerman and Padget (Padget’s easier to understand than Zimmerman), they’re basically offering a qualified version of temporal being, not a THIRD option in addition to ‘temporal’ and ‘atemporal’ modes of being. And their qualification is that sans creation God is psychologically unaware of the passage or flow of conscious experience. There are no clocks or any discrete ‘moments’ of experience that could serve as ‘countable’. So the actual infinite is avoided and God still gets enough flow to his experience. I might be understanding them wrongly, Bro

I don't know about Padget, but Zimmerman seems to be saying more.

He doesn't just say "what if there were no clocks ticking," he says "what if there were no clocks, and couldn't even be any clocks, because there were no laws of nature"--no laws of physics, and no time to be measured (other than whatever experiential, phenomenal, psychological "time" God does consciously remember.)

Zimmerman ackowledgs that "time was, in a sense, created."

M: …(and if you understood the alternative offered by Zimmerman or Padjet, you made no attempt to enlighten us.) That amounts to "suggesting we turn our brains off, shelve them, and ignore intellectual questions."

T: It doesn’t amount to that actually. You chose to understand me that way, but my not saying more, or as much as you wished, might be explained in other ways. For example, it might be that I simply assumed you understood that if ‘atemporal’ and ‘temporal’ are contradictories and I was rejecting one (atemporality), then my alternative was to hold that God is temporal. If you offer me A or ~A and I reject ~A, then by definition I've affirmed A. I didn’t know I ‘had’ to spell it out. But nevrtheless, that may be poor communicating on my part. But it doesn’t amount to suggesting that we turn our brains off, shelve them, and ignore intellectual questions.

The only alternatives I was considering were temporal (in the sense of time as we know it) and atemporal, and for you to assume that I (or anyone else reading along) would understand you as offering a qulified temporal alternative (without bothering to explain it) was offering no alternative at all.

if being a person requires feeling, knowing, and willing, and these can constitute the fullness of personal existence while being absolutely unchanging in every respect, then what ARE your problems with atemporal personhood? You say first here that you did (or do?) have a problem with atemporal personhood. Just what problems do you have with it? In other words, if unchanging feeling, knowing, and willing are not problematic qualities, what qualities constitute the objectionable sort of atemporal experience that you do have problems with? Hope my question here is clear.

I said "did" Tom.

I started this topic heading when I came across the suggestion that feeling, knowing, and willing are the essential qualities of personhood, and before that I "did" have a problem with atemporality--you're the one who said you still had a problem with it (without offering an alternative.)

Do you take temporal and atemporal to be contradictory or contrary modes of being?

No more so than conscious and unconscious.

Do you take them to be "contradictory or contrary modes of being?"

[TGB]

Michael: He doesn't just say "what if there were no clocks ticking," he says "what if there were no clocks, and couldn't even be any clocks, because there were no laws of nature"--no laws of physics, and no time to be measured (other than whatever experiential, phenomenal, psychological "time" God does consciously remember.) Zimmerman ackowledgs that "time was, in a sense, created."

Tom: I wonder why only “in a sense” if ‘atemporal’ and ‘temporal’ are contradictory. Just thinking out loud. I mean, metric time (the measuremnt of time by means of physical laws) only comes into being with the coming into being of matter). I have no objection to this. But it doesn't follow that apart from a physical creation there can be no 'succession' or flow of time in any sense. It's at least traditionally believed that angels as immaterial beings were created prior to the pysical world. It's conceivable at least. But this would mean a genuine temporal before and after prior to there being ANY physical laws. So "temporal passage" doesn't by definition require a physical world at all (if angels are immaterial spirits and precede the creation of matter).

Machael: The only alternatives I was considering were temporal (in the sense of time as we know it) and atemporal, and for you to assume that I (or anyone else reading along) would understand you as offering a qulified temporal alternative (without bothering to explain it) was offering no alternative at all.

Tom: It’s like our conversing is fated by the gods to frustration and doom. Gosh I wish it weren’t so. Mike, if you read what I said again, you’ll see that I wasn’t offering a third alternative to ‘atemporal’ and ‘temporal’ modes of being. Those are the only two alternatives as far as I can see. God is one OR the other. Given THAT, what I assumed you (or anybody reading) would understand is that if I rejected ‘atemporal’ being in God’s case I’d necessarily be settling for ‘temporal’. That goes without saying. And my posts from the earliest pages of this thread made that clear—I think God is essentially temporal. But you chide me for rejecting ‘atemporal’ witout offering an alternative. But Mike, there is no alternative to ‘atemporal’ BUT ‘temporal’. Maybe you were chidding me for not offering an argument that defeats the argument from actual infinites. But I've made it clear also from the beginning that I have no knock down argument that silences that argumnt. I only have contradictory intuitions that entail (in my view) the essentially temporal nature of personal being. You don't buy this entailment I realize. You think it makes me look irrational and silly. That's OK with me. But it doesn't mean my alternaive to atemporal existence hasn't been on the table.

Michael: I said "did" Tom.

Tom: Yes, I know. But “did” doesn’t require that that what ‘was’ no longer ‘is’. I “did” have a problem with Calvinism last year. I still do. I did love my wife yesterday. I still do. But anyhow, I’m just trying to understand where you are, that’s all. We seem to be cursed with having to misunderstand each other, so I’m just trying to be careful. Please don’t be short-tempered with me Bro.

Michael: I started this topic heading when I came across the suggestion that feeling, knowing, and willing are the essential qualities of personhood, and before that I "did" have a problem with atemporality--you're the one who said you still had a problem with it (without offering an alternative).

Tom: My alternative to atemporal personhood is the only alternative I know of in the case of contradictory modes of being—temporal personhood. I’ve said that from the start.

-------------------

Tom: Do you take temporal and atemporal to be contradictory or contrary modes of being?

Michael: No more so than conscious and unconscious. Do you take them to be "contradictory or contrary modes of being?"

Tom: Contradictory (as does Zimmerman I believe). A thing that exists, exists EITHER temporally or atemporally. These two are the jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive options. There is no third option which is neither ‘atemporal’ nor ‘temporal’ OR some mixture of the two—not if they’re ‘contradictory’ states. THAT is why I’m confused at your chiding me for having rejected one (atemporal) without offering an alternative. The alternative to rejecting a position is—by definition—to affirm its contradictory. If we both agree that X is either y or ~y, and I say X is not ~y, then do I REALLY need to say X is y?

I’m sorry if this was all so confusing, Michael. It wasn’t intentional. Even less was it a veiled attempt to suggest that we turn our brains off and ignore intellectual questions.

If I may, can I ask another question?

Given the fact that you agree that ‘atemporal’ and ‘temporal’ are contradictory [and so by definition incompatible] modes of being (and if I remember correctly from a small group discussion of this where Zimmerman was present, he agrees that these are contradictory and incompatible states), and given your understanding of Zimmerman’s psychological time (etc.)—would you say Zimmerman is promoting the view that God is ‘atemporal’ or ‘temporal’? In other words, this ‘psychological’ or ‘amorphous’ time that Zimmerman (and I think Padget) promotes—is it in your opinion essentially ‘temporal’ or ‘atemporal’ existence?

Thanks again,
Tom

[Michael]

Given the fact that you agree that ‘atemporal’ and ‘temporal’ are contradictory [and so by definition incompatible] modes of being

I do not accept the proposition that temporal and atemporal are any more mutually exclussive modes of being than is being one and being three (or conscious and unconscious.)

given your understanding of Zimmerman’s psychological time (etc.)—would you say Zimmerman is promoting the view that God is ‘atemporal’ or ‘temporal’? In other words, this ‘psychological’ or ‘amorphous’ time that Zimmerman (and I think Padget) promotes—is it in your opinion essentially ‘temporal’ or ‘atemporal’ existence?

I would say that any non-metric "quasi-time," having no objective length but what God consciously experienced (and not necessarily infinite) is so different from what we normally mean by temporal time, that some qualification is in order (and Zimmerman seemed to think so too, otherwise he wouldn't have found it necessary to explain himself more fully than you did.)

It's at least traditionally believed that angels as immaterial beings were created prior to the pysical world. It's conceivable at least. But this would mean a genuine temporal before and after prior to there being ANY physical laws. So "temporal passage" doesn't by definition require a physical world at all (if angels are immaterial spirits and precede the creation of matter).

I know of no reason to believe angelic being were created before time, space, energy, and matter (though I think it's quite possible that they were created before the stars, planets, and galaxies.)

[TGB]

Michael: I do not accept the proposition that temporal and atemporal are any more mutually exclussive modes of being than is being one and being three (or conscious and unconscious).

Tom: That helps, Michael. Thank you. This is a point on which we'll differ, and on which (my guess is) you'll differ from Zimmerman, for he surely believes that temporal and a-temporal are mutually exclusive states. This was Craig's point too.

I should think that your issues are pretty much solved then. If you don't think 'temporal' and 'atemporal' are mutually incompatible states, then you're free to say God is both, even fully both. Go for it. When you need God to be timeless, just say he's timeless. When you need him to be temporal, just say he's temporal. If they're compatible states, and all the brass out there think so, then I don't see why any of this remains such a thorny issue. I mean, if one can do that, then I can't think of why one would need to find any kind of middle ground at all, viz., something like psychological or amorpous time. It seems to me that Dean and others seek to qualify temporal existence in the terms they do because they want the benifits of temporal existence without affirming an obvious actual infinite. But if they thought both atemporality and temporality were compossible states, then they would just affirm both without qualifying either and be done with it.

As for the Trinity, Orthodoxy does not claim (as I'm sure you know) that God is one in the sense that he's three and three in the sense that he's one. In other words, there's never any sense in which what's affirmed is denied and what's denied is affirmed. So no obvious contradiction is generated by claiming that God is three hypostates and one essence/nature. One can try to affirm that God is in one sense timeless/atemporal while also being in another sense temporal, but a) that's just to admit their mutual incompatibility it seems to me, and b) I'm happy to say that I'm not the only one who thinks the marriage of both in one undivided being is a meaningless supposition.

Blessings,
Tom

[Michael]

Tom: That helps, Michael. Thank you. This is a point on which we'll differ, and on which (my guess is) you'll differ from Zimmerman, for he surely believes that temporal and a-temporal are mutually exclusive states. This was Craig's point too.

I believe Zimmerman (at one point in the interview) said that they "would certainly seem to be mutually exclussive."

I don't think he'd hold to their mutually exclussivity as tenaciously as you do Tom.

Why do you do this?

You say that you're not trying to promote your view as the only view, but you'll argue to the death that there's no way God could be both temporal and atemporal.

Why?

One can try to affirm that God is in one sense timeless/atemporal while also being in another sense temporal, but a) that's just to admit their mutual incompatibility it seems to me, and b) I'm happy to say that I'm not the only one who thinks the marriage of both in one undivided being is a meaningless supposition.

There are plenty of Unitarians (some of them here on this board) who would say that supposing God to be three persons in one essense is just as much of a "meaningless supposition" (though I think their agument is as faulty as yours.)

A human being is both conscious and unconscious.

The conscious mind is aware of the passage of time, but...

there is nothing in the Unconscious that corresponds to the idea of time, no recognition of the passage of time and no alteration in its mental processes

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Book ... h7-pre.htm

I'm happy to say that I'm not the only one who thinks the marriage of both in one undivided being is a meaningless supposition.

And why would you be happy about that?

[TGB]

Michael: You say that you’re not trying to promote your view as the only view, but you’ll argue to the death that there’s no way God could be both temporal and atemporal. Why?

Tom: I’ve repeated several times, often enough for all to notice, that “I could be wrong” about my view. I can’t say it any plainer than I have, Michael. If you don’t want to believe me, that’s your choice. I promote it because it makes best sense to me at the present. I have never claimed any kind of finality to my belief that God is temporal (and not BOTH atemporal and temporal). I’ve repeatedly admitted not only that I could be wrong, but that I hold to my view lightly—tentatively—and am prepared and willing to be convinced otherwise when the argument comes along. So long as I admit that I can be wrong, I’m admitting that you could be right. I just can’t say with any kind of finality which is which, but I do "tend" to my view. But that’s not claiming that my view is the ONLY view. I've never suggested that I couldn't be wrong.

So, for the record: All views on the temporal status of God that are different than my own are rational and possibly true views. Any one of them could be the truth and I could be the farthest from the truth.

--------------

Tom: I’m happy to say that I’m not the only one who thinks the marriage of both in one undivided being is a meaningless supposition.

Michael: And why would you be happy about that?

Tom: I’m happy about it because I, like others, am encouraged to know that I’m not the only one who believes what I believe about a controversial issue. Nobody WANTS to be the only person who believes what he believes. I’m not a professional philosopher or mathematician, so I am not dogmatic about my view. But when some of the brass (as it were) promote the same view, I’m encouraged to think not that I'm right, but just that I’m not an anti-intellectual irrational nutcase.

Tom

[Michael]

I don't believe I ever called you an "anti-intellectual, irrational nutcase," but it should be recognized that non of "the brass" (and certainly not Zimmerman) has argued for the transversing of an actual infinite that would be involved in the unqualified temporality you seemed to be arguing for (up until page four of this thread.)

If it was never your intention to argue for such a logical incongruity (and you simply assumed that I would know what you were saying), I apologize for misunderstanding you.
"

[TGB]

Michael: ...none of "the brass" (and certainly not Zimmerman) has argued for the transversing of an actual infinite that would be involved in the unqualified temporality you seemed to be arguing for.... If it was never your intention to argue for such a logical incongruity (and you simply assumed that I would know what you were saying), I apologize for misunderstanding you.

Tom: I've tried not to argue FOR traversing an actual infinite per se (as if I need that to be the case) as much as I have argued FOR the essentially loving and interpersonal nature of divine being. I'd love to find a way to affirm the mutual given-and-take of personal being and the movement of experience which I think it entails while avoiding the whole actual infinite thing. That would be ideal.But if I can't get there, then I'll prefer the former over the latter and let the chips fall where they may as far as the traversal of time is concerned. I do admit that this involves me in a particular contradiction. But it's a less egregious contradiction in my view than giving up the movement of loving relations seems necessary to the sort of personal being I think God is. So I'm kinda stuck between having to live in the tension of ostensibly affirming what is incongruous.

If Zimmerman really fixes things, then that's the ticket. I wrote him an email yesterday and asked him to clarify. Let's see what he says!

Tom