 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/9/2004 8:17 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hey all-
I’d like for the moment to assume that in the absence of creation God is absolutely atemporal or timeless. OK? So—
P1 God exists atemporally in the absence of creation
Not sure who was the first to argue this formally, but I recall somebody in church history (Boethius? Aquinas? Augustine? The Greeks?) arguing that whatever is eternal is by definition necessary. God’s existing timelessly in the absence of creation entails God’s existing necessarily. So—
P2 God exists necessarily
Now, it also seems to me that if the truths P1 and P2 are true, they are eternally true, that is, they’re logically necessary truths as opposed to logically contingent truths. So—
P3 P1 and P2 are logically necessary truths
Now it also seems to me that logically necessary truths don’t change their truth-value. They are timelessly true.
P4 Logically necessary truths are atemporally, or timelessly, true and so changeless
This would suggest that whatever is true about God “necessarily” is always, or unchangingly, true about God. So far so good.
Now I want to consider God’s choice to create. Creation is a “contingent” state of affairs. Creation is not eternal or timeless. God brought everything into being. Everybody likes that much. But consider this proposition:
P5 God exists without creation
It would seem to me that this true of God in the absence of creation. And if this is true in the absence of creation, it is true timelessly (for God is timeless in the absence of creation, P1). But if this is true timelessly then it’s also true necessarily (P4). And if it’s true necessarily, it’s unchangeable, for necessary truths, unlike contingent truths, must always be true. But P5 is obviously not now true.
What’s wrong?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/9/2004 8:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: How does God's existence imply the impossibility of His non-existence?
Tom: It's the ETERNALITY of God's existence that entails his existing NECESSARILY.
A necessary truth is one that is true in all possible worlds.
“God exists sans creation” is not true in all possible worlds. It is true in only one possible world, that in which God exists and creation does not.
So, if God sans creation is timeless (as many want to believe), then all truths in that world are timeless, or timelessly true. But if being timelessly true entails being necessarily true, then we’re in a bit of a fix if God is timeless sans creation, for in this case truths that we know to express contingent states of affairs, like creation’s existence, are necessarily true and we land ourselves in contradiction.
Either being timelessly true does not entail being necessarily true (something I have a hard time not believing) or there are no atemporal worlds, in which case necessary truth becomes truth everlasting in duration (as opposed to "timeless" as commonly believed). Deal with the impossibility of an actual infinite on this side or with the impossibility of a necessary creation on that.
I'm not trying to prove this or that. Just exploring. But it seems to me that WHATEVER is true and false in an atemporal/timeless world is necessarily true and false and so incapable of change. You could have no contingent states of affairs in an atemporal world. Creation could have never happened if God is atemporal sans creation. Craig's idea of "atemporality" being a "contingent" attribute is a contradiction of terms. Again, just wondering.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/9/2004 5:04 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Jeff: Does our world exist "in time" because time is eternal or because time was created with our world? That seems to be the pertinent question. If time was created with our world, then I couldn't rule out another created world without time.
Hm? Our world certainly is a temporal world. I don’t think our world’s being in fact temporal has anything to do with either of the options you mention in your question. That is, whether time was created or not, our world is temporal. Either answer to the question of “Was time created?” would be consistent with our present world being a temporal world. I guess I don’t get your question.
Dude, you and I are doomed to misunderstanding and talking past each other. 
quote:
Jeff: IF Einsteinian relativity is true, then human intuition about time can not be completely trusted, and we seem to be in a dilemma with respect to the above question - for how could we answer it with certainty? If Lorenentzian relativity is true, then human intuition about time is valid, and we have no reason to assume that time is not eternal. That's my thinking anyway.
I’m not sure what this has to do with my defining a “necessary” truth as one that is true in all possible worlds. All I mean is that necessary truths are true in all possible worlds, any sort of world God could have created, any conceivable world. If in fact there are multiple universes (ala David Lewis), a necessary truth would be one that is true in every universe. There is no conceivable world in which necessary truths are not true. They’re even true just in case God never created anything.
Now, my question was for those who believe God IS timeless in the absence of any creation, and it hinges on the age-old claim that whatever (beings or truths) is eternal (or timeless) is by definition necessary, and thus unchanging. This is not a problem for ‘necessary’ truths, obviously. But it is a problem (or I’m exploring whether it is or not) for ‘contingent’ truths that stand logically prior to creation; truths like “There exists no creation,” and “God does not relate to creation.” That these are logically ‘contingent’ truths is proved by the present existence of creation and God’s relationship to it, though they ARE true in the absence of creation. The point I’m exploring is: if these are timelessly true in the absence of creation, then aren’t they unchangingly true, being timeless? But how can a truth be both logically contingent and timelessly unchanging?
I think what Craig would argue is that timelessly true propositions can express logically contingent states of affairs provided they are temporally indexed, in which case there's no problem. But does this really help Craig? I don't think so. For if “JFK is assassinated in 1963” (note the temporal indicator) is timelessly true, then it’s necessarily true (by virtue of being timeless). But necessary truths, I thought, can only describe necessary states of affairs. Craig essentially claims that necessary truths can describe logically contingent states of affairs. This seems contradictory. Necessary truths that posit contingent states of affairs?
Here's my question: Does being eternal or timeless entail being necessary? I'm thinking yeah it does. If so, this can't be good news for folks who believe time was created.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/10/2004 1:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid: You've illustrated just one way how this assumption ends up not making sense. Time is an idea, a concept. It's not anymore a part of creation than the number 3 is.
Tom: Yes, well, I was "assuming" for the sake of argument timeless divine existence in the absence of creation. I was trying to get those who believe that time is a creation to see this by facing the problems entailed in affirming their belief. Or I guess I could just take your shorter path and tell them they're wrong. Hmm.
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/10/2004 6:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
quote:
Dude, you and I are doomed to misunderstanding and talking past each other.
Well, I just don't think "existing timelessly" has meaning. "Exist" is a verb, which implies a time relation. Thus, any proposition in a syllogism about "existing timelessly" is automatically out of bounds to me. Maybe I've been born without the same categories as other human beings, but I don't think so, because even people I've talked to who believe in the timelessness of God admit their view is counter-intutitive. Kind of like Huguenot claiming he can know things without any analogy, whatsoever. You argued against him, if I remember correctly. Does ANYONE have ANY idea about timelessness which they can truly say is rooted in analogy?
I guess I'm trying to understand the epistemological warrant for our knowing what is necessary to other possible worlds. As I see it, we have intuitions about being, relation, time, space, causality, finality, etc. So my question is this: How can I know that my intuitions about relation (non-contradiction, more/less) are any truer (with a capital, transcendent "T") than my intuitions about time, space, causality, and finality? Or, in other words, how can I know that my intuitions about the rules of deduction are "TRUE" in all possible worlds but my intuitions about time and space need NOT be "TRUE" in all possible worlds? What epistemological warrant do I have for such a belief?
I haven't read enough philosophy to know what philosophers claim about this. Maybe you can help me out on why philosophers feel justified in questioning their intuitions about time and space, but not questioning the intuition of non-contradiction, etc.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/10/2004 7:16 AM (GMT -6) | |
quote:
Another way of saying this is that a proposition is logically possible if and only if there is some coherent way for the world to be, under which the proposition would be true. Thus, "the sky is blue" (and all other actually true propositions) is logically possible: there is a logically coherent way for the world to be under which it is true, viz., the way that the world actually is. But this "way for the world to be" need not be the way the world actually is; it need only be logically coherent. So, for example, the false proposition the sky is green is also logically possible, so long as we are able (as we indeed seem to be) to conceive of some logically coherent world in which the sky is green.
These propositions, then, are to be contrasted with logically impossible propositions, i.e., propositions which could not possibly be true because they are formal contradictions
Broadly speaking, a contradiction is when two or more statements, ideas, or actions are seen as incompatible. One must, it seems, reject at least one of the ideas outright.
In logic, contradiction is defined much more specifically, usually as the simultaneous assertion of a statement and its negation ("denial" can be used instead of "negation"). (See: the Law of non-contradiction.) This, of course, assumes that "negation" has a non-problematic definition.
While it is logically possible for the sky to be green, it is not logically possible for the sky to be both green and not green at the same time and in the same respect. To conceive of the sky as green is to exclude it being non-green, and to conceive of it as non-green is to exclude it being green
Note in the above discussion about necessary truths the emphasized words and phrases that imply time relations. Can a proposition be made without a least a "state of being" verb? And wouldn't that imply a time relation?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/10/2004 10:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: Well, I just don't think "existing timelessly" has meaning. "Exist" is a verb, which implies a time relation. Thus, any proposition in a syllogism about "existing timelessly" is automatically out of bounds to me.
Tom: I'm suspicious of God's existing timelessly in the absence of creation. But this belief has one very strong argument in its favor, and that is the impossibiliy of an actual infinite. That's another thread.
Jeff: Maybe I've been born without the same categories as other human beings, but I don't think so, because even people I've talked to who believe in the timelessness of God admit their view is counter-intutitive. Kind of like Huguenot claiming he can know things without any analogy, whatsoever. You argued against him, if I remember correctly.
Tom: I did. Right.
Jeff: Does ANYONE have ANY idea about timelessness which they can truly say is rooted in analogy?
Tom: I think so, yes. But this shouldn't surprise you. I mean, we have no empirical evidence for infinite sets, yet we do find the 'concept' meaningful. Though actual infitites are impossible, CONCEPTUAL infinites are not. We can never finish counting all the positive integers beginning with 1, 2, 3, 4...and so on and hope to ever reach the end. There is no end. We will never actually finish. But we still find the 'concept' of the set of all positive integers a meaningful notion. Likewise, I find the concept of timeless existence meaningful. True, we don't have any actual timeless state of affairs to examine empirically (unless mathematical states of affairs count, like 2 + 2 = 4). And yes, the word "exists" is a present tense verb, but it's all we've got to describe timeless existence. So we do our best. But conceptually, I don't have a problem wrapping my brain around timeless existence (there's a noun!). Nothing else but God. No movement. No change. No subsequence of thought or anyting else. Just one unblinking cosmic stare (as Dallas Willard calls it).
What I can't wrapp my brain around is conceiving of this timeless deity as a loving Trinity. Love just doesn't fit the rest of the picture. I also have a hard time figuring how HOW a timeless God creates at all. How does a timeless being do anything? How do you get off the dime, so to speak.
Jeff: I guess I'm trying to understand the epistemological warrant for our knowing what is necessary to other possible worlds.
Tom: Do you think there are other possible worlds in which God does not exist? So, you believe God exists 'necessarily'. Reality couldn't be otherwise. How about possible worlds in which God is not love? In which God rejoices in falsehood? In which God sends the repentant to hell and rewards only the wicked with eternal life?
Jeff: As I see it, we have intuitions about being, relation, time, space, causality, finality, etc. So my question is this: How can I know that my intuitions about relation (non-contradiction, more/less) are any truer (with a capital, transcendent "T") than my intuitions about time, space, causality, and finality?
Tom: Do what Descartes did. Go rent a room in a small village and lock yourself in until you have a vision of the truth. Gee, dude, I don't know. Some truths give every evidence of being 'necessary' truths. They are self-evident.
Jeff: I haven't read enough philosophy to know what philosophers claim about this. Maybe you can help me out on why philosophers feel justified in questioning their intuitions about time and space, but not questioning the intuition of non-contradiction, etc.
Tom: Allllaaaaan!
Blessings,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 10/10/2004 8:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: I’d like for the moment to assume that in the absence of creation God is absolutely atemporal or timeless.
P1: God exists atemporally in the absence of creation.
Alan: Not sure what you mean by "absolutely" atemporal as opposed to just plain atemporal, but anyway, I'll grant the assumption provided that "absolutely" does not carry the force of "essentially" or "necessarily". I think Craig is right in arguing that God's existence sans creation is atemporal, but not essentially atemporal.
Tom: I recall somebody in church history ... arguing that whatever is eternal is by definition necessary. God’s existing timelessly in the absence of creation entails God’s existing necessarily. So—
P2: God exists necessarily.
Alan: I don't know who first came up with the idea that whatever is eternal is necessary. Aquinas invokes it in some of his Five Ways and, here's what interesting, he applies it to angels as well as to God. The idea seems to be that something is eternal if it is not subject to generation and corruption, and so it is "necessary" in the sense that IF it exists, then it always exists. Angels can be created, but as pure spiritual beings they can't die, so they are, in this sense, "necessary" beings. The notion of necessity here ranges not over possible worlds, but over times. We're not talking about logical necessity.
Tom: Now, it also seems to me that if the truths P1 and P2 are true, they are eternally true, that is, they’re logically necessary truths as opposed to logically contingent truths. So—
P3: P1 and P2 are logically necessary truths.
Alan: Here you equate the sense of "necessary" in "whatever is eternal is necessary" with logical necessity. I think this is a mistake. Aquinas, for example, would say that angels are eternal and "necessary" beings, though he wouldn't say that they are logically necessary beings, for they are created. Nor would he equate being eternal with being absolutely atemporal. Angels, for him, are eternal, but can still change in some respects (e.g., by falling away from God). God is absolutely atemporal, in his view, not because God is eternal, but because God is Pure Act. As such, He cannot change in any respect.
Tom: Now it also seems to me that logically necessary truths don’t change their truth-value. They are timelessly true.
P4: Logically necessary truths are atemporally, or timelessly, true and so changeless.
Alan: I agree with this.
Tom: Now I want to consider God’s choice to create. Creation is a “contingent” state of affairs. Creation is not eternal or timeless. God brought everything into being. Everybody likes that much. But consider this proposition:
P5: God exists without creation.
It would seem to me that this true of God in the absence of creation. And if this is true in the absence of creation, it is true timelessly (for God is timeless in the absence of creation, P1). But if this is true timelessly then it’s also true necessarily (P4). And if it’s true necessarily, it’s unchangeable, for necessary truths, unlike contingent truths, must always be true. But P5 is obviously not now true. What’s wrong?
Alan: The problem is that your argument equivocates on the term "necessary". In P4 you're talking about logical necessity, but P2 refers to a different kind of necessity that is unfamiliar to us moderns. In the broadly Aristotelian framework that Aquinas works in, "necessary" means "not susceptible to substantial change", where a "substantial change" is a change from one kind of substance to another. Because they are incorporeal, angels cannot die or become anything fundamentally different in kind from what they are. On the other hand, if Bessie the cow dies she undergoes a substantial change--whereas once there was a cow, now there is only beef.
Make sense?
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/11/2004 11:14 AM (GMT -6) | | I seem to recall noting in the Q&A section on the http://www.opentheism.info website someone saying that most Open Theists view eternity as endless (and "beginning-less") existence, not atemporal existence.
Here's a quote from Dr. Sanders:
quote:
Does this mean that time is uncreated? "Time" in the sense of the measurement between objects was indeed created. Prior to there being a creation, time in this sense did not exist. "Time" in the sense of the duration of consciousness and relations between persons is uncreated since the trinity is everlasting. The triune godhead has eternally related in conscious love. Does God experience created time as we do? The Bible portrays God in this way but does note that as everlasting, God does not suffer decay and is not at risk of having his purposes thwarted by running out of time as we do.
http://www.opentheism.info/god_and_time.htm#The%20Question%20of%20God%20and%20Time
If there were no time prior to creation, then God could have never DECIDED to create, for thought, deliberation, and action all require duration/time/sequence of thought.
Time is simply the measurement of change. As such, God, being perfectly cognizant of reality (which would include his own mental processes), would be aware of the passage of time (duration/sequence), even in the absence of a creation to mark time by.
My 2c.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/17/2004 6:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
Sorry to be so late replying. I get covered up and get behind on these threads.
quote:
Tom: I'm suspicious of God's existing timelessly in the absence of creation. But this belief has one very strong argument in its favor, and that is the impossibiliy of an actual infinite. That's another thread.
I'd be interested in such a thread, because I don't see why an actual infinite is problematic. After all, we're going into a future infinite.
quote:
Jeff: Does ANYONE have ANY idea about timelessness which they can truly say is rooted in analogy?
Tom: I think so, yes. But this shouldn't surprise you. I mean, we have no empirical evidence for infinite sets, yet we do find the 'concept' meaningful. Though actual infitites are impossible, CONCEPTUAL infinites are not. We can never finish counting all the positive integers beginning with 1, 2, 3, 4...and so on and hope to ever reach the end. There is no end. We will never actually finish. But we still find the 'concept' of the set of all positive integers a meaningful notion.
The fact that I can't actually count out an infinity is beside the point. The mind has no choice but to conceptualize infinity as the correlate of the finite. That's why folks have no problem believing they will live forever (infinitely).
quote:
Likewise, I find the concept of timeless existence meaningful. True, we don't have any actual timeless state of affairs to examine empirically (unless mathematical states of affairs count, like 2 + 2 = 4). And yes, the word "exists" is a present tense verb, but it's all we've got to describe timeless existence. So we do our best. But conceptually, I don't have a problem wrapping my brain around timeless existence (there's a noun!). Nothing else but God. No movement. No change. No subsequence of thought or anyting else. Just one unblinking cosmic stare (as Dallas Willard calls it).
How can we conceptualize "no change" without time? To say there is no change means that, given a duration of time, there is no difference of state when a comparison is made - doesn't it?
quote:
What I can't wrapp my brain around is conceiving of this timeless deity as a loving Trinity. Love just doesn't fit the rest of the picture.
Yeah, even a stream of consciousness seems to me to be necessary to the concept of a person.
quote:
I also have a hard time figuring how HOW a timeless God creates at all. How does a timeless being do anything? How do you get off the dime, so to speak.
I agree. That seems like a causality problem to me.
quote:
Tom: Do you think there are other possible worlds in which God does not exist? So, you believe God exists 'necessarily'.
I don't know that the late Fred Hoyle's one-time speculation is inconceivable (philosophically, at least). He speculated that as you go back into the infinite past, there may have been a series of creations, with earlier beings having greater creative abilities than later ones. Each created kind of being creates another, lessor creation, etc. It seems problematic, but I've never spent any time trying to disprove it.
quote:
Jeff: As I see it, we have intuitions about being, relation, time, space, causality, finality, etc. So my question is this: How can I know that my intuitions about relation (non-contradiction, more/less) are any truer (with a capital, transcendent "T") than my intuitions about time, space, causality, and finality?
Tom: Do what Descartes did. Go rent a room in a small village and lock yourself in until you have a vision of the truth. Gee, dude, I don't know. Some truths give every evidence of being 'necessary' truths. They are self-evident.
That's my point. Our intuitions of space and time ARE self-evident and, hence, necessary truths. I think that relativity and quantum mechanics has caused people to doubt their own intuitions. But there are scientists who accept the math of these theories while denying their conceptual interpretations. I don't think we have come to a point where we can justifiably question our intuitions simply because there are scientists who are willing to do so. Many scientists under-estimate the importance of epistemology and metaphysics.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:05 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|