[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Nang

Of course it is settled in God's mind. For He has given you the shirt on your back.

What? So it is already settled in His mind what shirt I will choose to wear tomorrow? How is that a choice?

Every time you lose a hair, God sees it and knows it. God has ordained you will lose your hair, and He alone can keep track and control how many hairs you have left.

It's slow going. And apparently he has ordained that new ones will always grow in the place of the ones I lose.

Do you see how this kind of talk is nonsensical?

I see how your talk is, yes.

You are attempting to equate Godly determinism (which is Theology) with fatalism (which is a Philosophy).

God is not fatalistic, period.

You are claiming that in order for God to sovereignly control His creation, men are denied the capacity to cause and effect (willfully function). That is philosophic nonsense, seeing that God created all men in His image, giving them abilities that reflect His primary powers.

I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming the exact opposite. God does not need to control His creation meticulously in order to perform His will. He doesn't even need to know everything that will ever happen to declare the end from the beginning.

God does not lose control over His creatures, nor does He compete with them to accomplish His purposes, due to the fact He created them with a capacity to function volitionally.

He gave us control over ourselves. And does not need to compete with us in order to perform His supreme will, seeing as how He is God, and we are not.

My dog willfully chooses to drink out of his water dish, but I totally control my dog, in that I have settled when and where the dog will drink. That is because I am his provider, sustainer, and protector of his life.

Nang

You've settled when your dog will drink?

[Lighthouse]

AHEM!

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

Again, I ask, can an immutable God really be omnipotent?

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave
The closed, or settled view states that God determines and knows everything. A timeless deity decrees, knows, creates and determines everything at once. There is no foreknowledge in a timeless deity because nothing comes "before" or "after" in his thinking. He doesn't know anything before it happens, because, for him, it has already happened.

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

This is simplistic and incorrect. God transcends our concepts of time and describing His knowledge of temporal events as “it has already happened” is a gross misunderstanding of the “eternal now” of God.

Not according to C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity, "The difficulty comes from thinking that God is progressing along the Time--line like us: the only difference being that He can see ahead and we cannot. Well, if that were true, if God foresaw our acts, it would be very hard to understand how we could be free not to do them. But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call 'tomorrow' is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call 'today.' All the days are 'Now' for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday; He simply sees you doing them...He does not 'foresee' you doing things tomorrow; He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him."

God is infinite in relation to time. (Yes, infinite means all or unlimited in amounts of something. When we say God is omnipotent we mean that he has infinite or all power. When we say God is omniscient we mean he has infinite or all knowledge of things actual and things possible. God's relationship to time is the same, God is eternal means he has infinite or all time.) Time does not apply to God. God was before time began. (You mean before God created it and if God created time, then, there was a time in eternity before he created time for the created world.) God is not restricted by the dimension of time. That God is not bound by time does not mean that God is not conscious of the succession of points in time. God knows what is now occurring in human experience. God is aware that events occur in a particular order. God is equally aware of all points of that order simultaneously. God is aware of what is happening, has happened, and what will happen at each point in time. Yet at any given point in time God is also conscious of the distinction between what is now occurring, what has been, and what will be.

There is a successive order to the acts of God (Yes, this is what OV states, and a succession of events means, this before that, and that is time) and there is a logical order to his decisions, yet there is no temporal order to God’s willing. God’s deliberation and willing take no time. God has from eternity determined what He is now doing. (If you are saying that God is doing something "now" that he was not doing "before", then, you again are saying there is time in God, in the same way we are saying it. If you don't get this, then, it is obvious that you are not reading our posts carefully enough.) Therefore God’s actions are not in any way reactions to developments. God does not get taken by surprise or have to create contingency plans. (Despite all the scripture verses that say otherwise.)

[sentientsynth]

Minor correction, Dave.

DFT_Dave : He doesn't know anything before it happens, because, for him, it has already happened.

There's no past tense either ("already happened"). No present tense, too. But anyway ....

Keep up the debate. It's been good.

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by sentientsynth

Minor correction, Dave.

DFT_Dave : He doesn't know anything before it happens, because, for him, it has already happened.

There's no past tense either ("already happened"). No present tense, too. But anyway ....

Keep up the debate. It's been good.

Rev. 1:4 uses tensed expressions about God (past, present, future). Eternal now timelessness is simply not found in Scripture. Temporality in God does not take away from His eternality which is endless time with no beginning or no end.

Proof texts for eternal now simultaneity? I can't find any (possible ones are explained with word studies or contextual exegesis). e.g. 'I AM' or Alpha and Omega show that God is uncreated, self-existent, from everlasting to everlasting (Ps. 90:2). They are not statements of timelessness, a philosophical assumption popularized by Augustine and others.

[sentientsynth]

You miss the point, godrulz. But an A for effort, I guess.

Eternal now timelessness is simply not found in Scripture.

Yeah. i don't believe in it either.

Temporality in God does not take away from His eternality which is endless time with no beginning or no end.

You mean it took God infinitely long to think of making creation?

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Originally Posted by sentientsynth

You mean it took God infinitely long to think of making creation?

See last part of point #7 made here.

One response to said point here, and I quote:

"Indeed! This point I have to concede. Infinite regress is a significant paradox within the open view paradigm. One might call it an antinomy if the term weren't so abused by the Calvinist to the point that it is synonymous with the terms "contradiction" and "irrationality". The problem of infinite regress is a paradox but does not imply an incoherence within the open view paradigm. The only thing it implies is that there is something about the nature of infinity that we do not understand. Zeno, an ancient mathematician used a very similar paradox to argue that motion was impossible. Many believe his paradoxes to be unsolved to this day while others insist that Calculus gives us the tool we need to crack the nut but in either case, the existence of the paradox of infinite regress doesn't prove that we haven't made it to the present moment any more than Zeno had proved we can't walk across the room."

I prefer the alternative than to accept this antinomy.

From the two volumes of Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and his System of the World, we note that while he believed in the doctrine of creation from nothing (ex nihilo), Newton did not believe the creation event meant the beginning of space and time. Instead he believed in beginingless time wherein at some point the universe was created. Newton relied upon our notions of 'clock time' as a reasonable measure, ever flowing independent of external influences, which was "by another name is called duration".

Yet Newton also held a metaphysical view of time, writing, "All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing." For Newton, the beginning of creation did not imply time began, because God existed, infinitely enduring, prior to the moment of the universe's creation. Newton's contemporary, Gottfried Leibniz, held a relational view of time. For Leibniz, time could not exist when no changing things (events) existed, thus, for an immutable God, time began at the creation event, (See G. W. Leibniz, Mr. Leibniz’s Fourth Paper)

I mention both persons to give us some context to the underlying issue of the infinitude of the past. This was the subject of some correspondence between Leibniz and Newtonian supporter named Clarke. Leibniz challenged Clarke to explain why, if God existed in infinite time before creation, did not God create the universe sooner than he did.

Note that this whole conundrum could be avoided if we assume the universe has always existed. Both men believed as much, too. Kant argued as much in his Critique of Pure Reason, stating in an antithesis of his First Antinomy (don't get me started again, Clete), that "the world has no beginning". Of course, today we have very good evidence that the universe was created at the moment of the Big Bang, so this assumption is of no help. The cause of the Big Bang can be one of two things. Either a supernatural force or an event without a cause. Since we are all aware of the logical behind all events having a cause, I assume we are in the supernatural force camp on this point.

So we come back to the question, Why didn't God create the universe sooner? Here God has three options: not to create, create from eternity past, or selecting an arbitrary instant of infinite time to create.

Assuming t ranges over time, the problem can be constructed thusly,
1. If the past is infinite, then God delayed, at t, creating until t + n. (P)
2. If God, at t, delayed creating until t + n, He must have possessed a good reason for so doing. (P)
3. If the past is infinite, God cannot have possessed a good reason, at t, for delaying creating until t + n. (P)
4. Therefore, if the past is infinite, God, at t, must have possessed a good reason for delaying creating until t + n. (HS,1,2)
5. The past is infinite.(P)
6. Therefore, God must have possessed a good reason, at t, for delaying creating until t + n.(M-P,4,5)
7. Therefore, God cannot have possessed a good reason, at t, for delaying creating until t + n. (MP,3,5)
8. Therefore, God must have possessed a good reason, at t, for delaying creating until t + n, and God cannot have had a good reason, at t, for delaying creating until t + n . (Conj.,6,7)
9. Therefore, if the past is infinite, God must have possessed a good reason, at t, for delaying creating until t + n, and God cannot have possessed a good reason, at t, for delaying creating until t + n. (CP,5-8)
10. Therefore, the past is not infinite. (RAA,9) (note: RAA = Reductio Ad Absurdum)

A note on Premise (3):
If at some moment God aquires a sufficient reason to create the universe, said reason must come from some change that is either within God or outside of God. Looking outside of God, we find that the only change going on is the absolute becoming of time itself. If, from eternity past, God has willed, at t, to create the universe, then the arrival of t as present could give God a new reason to create. Yet, when considering a perfectly rational God, it is initially plausible that God could not possess a reason to create at one specific instant or another. After all, there is nothing about any particular instant's position that makes its position especially appropriate for the beginning of the world. Thus, if God is to possess a new reason to create, that reason must come from within God himself.

But, God is from all time perfectly omnipotent, omniscient, and good. Therefore no change with God can occur that would prompt Him to create at some particular time rather than an earlier time. Therefore, God cannot, at some moment, acquire a sufficient reason to create the universe. And by the same token, neither could God have possessed a reason from eternity past to create the universe at some particular time. This analysis supports the use of premise (3).

For me, the challenge posed by Leibniz yields a cogent argument for finite time. No one who understands God's attributes can imagine Him idlying away in eternity continually delaying creation. We have solid ground here for confirming that the past is finite and time has a beginning. Moreover, we can claim that since time had a beginning and God is eternal, God must have existed outside of time before time was created. God's eternal existence cannot be assumed to be an indefinite extension of what we know as time. Rather eternity must be something else: a timeless existence, an eternal presence, with the most distant past or future present to God.

[patman]

Hey Everyone,

I have a thought, it may be a little hard to follow, but here-goes.

1. God cannot make a square circle.
2. God cannot make a stone so heavy he himself can't lift it

I think everyone agrees with that.

If God created time/future, that would mean there was a "time" that it didn't exist. So during that "time", if God was all knowing, but there wasn't a "future"(yet), he couldn't know what didn't exist.

Why? Knowing what doesn't exist is like a "square circle."

Therefore, God didn't know the future if he didn't create it. If he created it, there was a point that he couldn't know it.

Here is another thought.

If creation takes time then how did God create time? (If God created the future, creating is an act, and act's happen within time.)

One more.

If God created time, and it is settled, and God is unchanging, then he will not nor cannot change time. This is like God creating a rock so heavy he himself cannot move it.

I think I'll stop there. Let me know if that makes since........

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Originally Posted by patman

Hey Everyone,

I have a thought, it may be a little hard to follow, but here-goes.

1. God cannot make a square circle.
2. God cannot make a stone so heavy he himself can't lift it

I think everyone agrees with that.

If God created time/future, that would mean there was a "time" that it didn't exist. So during that "time", if God was all knowing, but there wasn't a "future"(yet), he couldn't know what didn't exist.

Why? Knowing what doesn't exist is like a "square circle."

Therefore, God didn't know the future if he didn't create it. If he created it, there was a point that he couldn't know it.

Here is another thought.

If creation takes time then how did God create time? (If God created the future, creating is an act, and act's happen within time.)

One more.

If God created time, and it is settled, and God is unchanging, then he will not nor cannot change time. This is like God creating a rock so heavy he himself cannot move it.

I think I'll stop there. Let me know if that makes since........

Yes, an omnipotent God cannot do things that are illogical or inconsistent, such as making rocks that He cannot lift. But, your other observations ignore the idea that God's eternal existence is outside of time in every way we can think of time and has to do with God's pure actuality. See also here.

[patman]

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

Yes, an omnipotent God cannot do things that are illogical or inconsistent, such as making rocks that He cannot lift. But, your other observations ignore the idea that God's eternal existence is outside of time in every way we can think of time and has to do with God's pure actuality. See also here.

That's just more wood on the fire. If you say he is outside of time, and created time, it is like you say he is actively making round squares(He makes them round because he is outside of shapes).

[DFT_Dave]

There is no paradox for OV, because time is not a thing in itself, it is an aspect of the activity of God, just as love is an aspect of fellowship in Trinity.

Time has always existed because God has always been a Trinity.

Aristotle was logically correct when he stated that a timeless God is singular and inactive (unmoved mover)and is the cause of activity in a world that must also be eternal.

The only logical way to explain the creation of a temporal world is to believe in an eternal and active God, which is what the Bible says, and OVer's.

Once we say God is active we cannot logically say he is timeless.

God is actively engaged within a Trinity of infinite potentiality.

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by patman

That's just more wood on the fire. If you say he is outside of time, and created time, it is like you say he is actively making round squares(He makes them round because he is outside of shapes).

Excellent post and perfect response.

He "gotcha" AMR

[DFT_Dave]

Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion

Yes, an omnipotent God cannot do things that are illogical or inconsistent, such as making rocks that He cannot lift. But, your other observations ignore the idea that God's eternal existence is outside of time in every way we can think of time and has to do with God's pure actuality. See also here.

"Pure actuality" is a term authored by Aristotle, not Geisler, Aquinas, nor Augustine. The proper and logical conclusion of "pure actuality" is that the world is eternal; if you ever read an original work you would know that and you would also know that Augustine's and Aquinas's theologies are a "synthesis" of Biblical revelation and Greek philosophy.

[themuzicman]

Mr. Religion's error is imposing our chronological existence on God. God being temporal only means that He experiences before and after. That doesn't mean that God isn't in control of His own temporality, and when He decides to stop, time stops.

Muz

[Philetus]

Originally Posted by DFT_Dave

"Pure actuality" is a term authored by Aristotle, not Geisler, Aquinas, nor Augustine. The proper and logical conclusion of "pure actuality" is that the world is eternal; if you ever read an original work you would know that and you would also know that Augustine's and Aquinas's theologies are a "synthesis" of Biblical revelation and Greek philosophy.

And there you have it. The beginning of the Calvinistic 'square circle'.

Calvinists are more guilty of brokering Grace than the 'indulgences' the reformers fought against.

What may be know of God as God has revealed himself in all scripture, in the flesh, and through creation, by the Spirit, etc. involves both circles and squares. Calvinism must toss one out and fill all the holes they create with the other, forcing squares to look like circles and/or circles to look like squares. (Square pegs in round holes.) Perhaps no other doctrine has done more to suppress the truth about God than Calvinism. To preserve their view of God, Calvinists must exaggerate and distort the fallenness of man. To preserve their view of man they must exaggerate and distort what may be know about God. To even hint at reconciliation they must distort the simple beauty of the love of God, limit Grace, distort scripture to create categories for God to relate, and eliminate hope.

God so loved the WORLD that God choose to send His Son (in the fullness of time) to die for everybody, AMR! Get over it. There isn't a darn thing you can do about it. Just accept it while your future (by grace) remains open to HOPE through FAITH and share it like its Good News for your neighbor as well.

'Christ in you, the hope of glory.'
Philetus

That's just more wood on the fire. If you say he is outside of time, and created time, it is like you say he is actively making round squares(He makes them round because he is outside of shapes).

Awesome, Patman!