 |
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/16/2003 10:49 AM (GMT -6) |   | To treat TIME as a thing in itself is a trap we inherit from medieval Nominalism. Nothing in the Creation is self-generating or self-sustaining.
With that in mind let me remind us of a post I placed on page nine of this thread:
quote:
Timothy Ware: "Time and eternity are not opposed. ...the Incarnation involves precisely an "intersection of the timeless with time," to use T. S. Eliot's phrase in The Four Quartets. As he puts it in The Rock, Christ's birth is an event within time and yet transforming time:
uote:
==========================================
Then came, at a predetermined moment, a moment in time and of time, A moment not out of time, but in time, in what we call history: transecting, bisecting the world of time, a moment in time but not like a moment of time, A moment in time but time was made through that moment: for without the meaning there is no time, and
that moment of time gave the meaning.
==========================================
"... that moment of time gave the meaning ... transecting, bisecting ... not out of time, but in time ... time was made through that moment ..." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/17/2003 6:06 AM (GMT -6) | | I've appreciated the thought that you've given this, Newcomb.
Perhaps you will enjoy -- as I have -- this bit of G. K. Chesterton's "Orthodoxy." (from chapter two)
quote:
"The general fact is simple. Poetry is sane because it floats easily in an infinite sea; reason seeks to cross the infinite sea, and so make it finite. The result is mental exhaustion, like the physical exhaustion of Mr. Holbein. To accept everything is an exercise, to understand everything a strain. The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits."
Free, from www.ccel.org/c/chesterton/orthodoxy/ch2.html | | Back to Top | | |
|
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 3/2/2003 5:53 AM (GMT -6) | | While I neither have the time nor inclination to read through that massive quote three posts above, I appreciate the effort.
Al wrote:
quote:
To treat TIME as a thing in itself is a trap we inherit from medieval Nominalism. Nothing in the Creation is self-generating or self-sustaining.
This is an interesting argument. Time is time, it is not something else. Everything is conditioned by time, but that does not make time something different from time, say, a tree. But note that I did not say time was self-generating I claim it is a fundamental dimension, uncreated and always present, in fact, it is what gives us “now.” Everything that exists, including God, exists in time. As Wm Craig Lane pointed out, if God is not temporal, one cannot claim God exists now, precisely because now is a language term relating to time. Therefore, anything that is not temporal cannot be claimed to exist now.
I don’t understand why you claim that defining time makes it nominalism unless I misunderstand your statement.
Nominalism claims that nothing is objective. I was claiming that time is discrete and objective which is the opposite claim. Your first sentence quoted above seems to be internally inconsistent at first review.
The second sentence implies that I said, thought, or believed that time was created, and thus “in the Creation.” I don’t. In fact, as above, I claim it is specifically note created. Lane claims it is. I think he is mistaken.
quote:
==========================================
Then came, at a predetermined moment, a moment in time and of time, A moment not out of time, but in time, in what we call history: transecting, bisecting the world of time, a moment in time but not like a moment of time, A moment in time but time was made through that moment: for without the meaning there is no time, and that moment of time gave the meaning.
==========================================
It is interesting historically that we play and have played games like the word game above to poetically or prosaically confuse and befuddle what time is. This indicates that we humans have analytical minds, because we also try to figure out what matter is, etc., however, the time issue is always open for tweaking by someone who claims it is a mystery of one sort or another.
The mind is least confused by what it can sense and can be directly observed and confirmed. Time is experienced in succession and not sensed per se but seen in retrospect: “It was that way, now it is this way, and perhaps it will be different in the future.” So claims about time must be considered carefully but this doesn’t mean it is necessarily complex, and I see no reason to think, like nominalism, that it only exists in our minds, not objectively. It is one of the most fundamental and objective things that exists.
Ciao.
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/2/2003 3:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Newcomb, when you write "nominalism" I'm gessing that you are thinking of a different word that I am.
I'm not a philosopher, or a historian (which seems closer to what matters here), but here is what I found at web.syr.edu/~nmagee/index.html:
quote:
It is this belief which is the core of Nominalist philosophy: that only particulars exist and universals are mere categories, contrived simply for our understanding. (This was preceeded by: "Ockham's metaphysics embraces one of the most extreme forms of Nominalism for the Middle Ages"...)
....
Ockham's epistemological revolution came through his insistence that individual things could be known as individual things, that direct, unmediated knowledge of particulars was possible.
So, Newcomb, in my hands this leads to my having said:
quote:
To treat TIME as a thing in itself is a trap we inherit from medieval Nominalism. Nothing in the Creation is self-generating or self-sustaining.
And... what I meant was that to take Time and make it out to be something separate from the Creator, and even separate from being created, well... is just plain bad manners. 
A few curious things could be made from your post, though. Particularly about the limits of what can be expressed with language concerning what can not be defined within the limits of time. And in that way I think you went a long ways -- perhaps inadvertently -- in making my point.
"Al" | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/2/2003 3:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Newcomb, just to repeat the above: You seem to have the opposite from correct definition of "nominalism."
As you where you say, "While I neither have the time nor inclination to read through that massive quote three posts above, I appreciate the effort." that is your decision.
But your loss too. (But thanks for appreciating my effort.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 6/3/2003 1:37 PM (GMT -6) | | OK, Al, let's use this definition regardless of what it is called. . .
Al:
[quote]
And... what I meant was that to take Time and make it out to be something separate from the Creator, and even separate from being created, well... is just plain bad manners.[/quite]
Everything that is not the creator (God) is separate from the creator. Unless you hold to pantheism=everything is god.
How is it bad manners (or bad anything) to identify what seems to exist necessarily? (ref: two posts above this one), this is still not telling me why it fits your category of "nominalism," i.e. that only particulars exist.
I do not believe that "only" particulars exist. In fact, I usually use deductive logic to prove points, and this is dependent on universals. But simply because nomilalism (either one) is wrong, doesn't men the antithesis of it is the only possibility, i.e. that universals are all that exist. Both particulars and universals exist. In fact, that is my point, time, because it is a dimension it is a universal. It applies to absolutely everything, universally except certain particulars such as other dimensions. But for anything to exist there must be dimensions and domains, these are necessary for existence.
Again, I do not hold that necessary things existed BEFORE God, nothing can because God has always existed. However, to use the word "always" in this context necessitated time also be there whenever God is precisely because you apply it to God to describe him and time is requisite to the word's meaning. If time were created, then the word "always" would not apply to God. The word "has" doesn't either and neither does any word with time as requisite to its meaning. No verbs can be applied to God since they all require time.
Necessary things are not, by definition "self generated" They are not generated at all, and that is an important point. God is not self generated, he did not make himself, he merely is, he self exists (as do all dimensions) he is not generated, neither is anything that is necessary.
"Self existent" does not require that nothing else exists necessarily but the being that self exists if other things are necessary for existence. God is the only self existent living being.
A logical point: Nothing can self generate because at any given point in time it would have to exist to generate something (including "self") and either it exists or it does not, so, if it did not exist, it could not generate anything including "self."
For "Pot" the dictionary says of nominalism: "The doctrine holding that abstract concepts, general terms, or universals have no independent existence but exist only as names."
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/3/2003 3:27 PM (GMT -6) | | You know, time seems very much like a shadow: it's not something you can reach out and grab. It doesn't have substance because it isn't really anything but the blocked light of an object. In the case of time, it seems that it simply is the results of, and in concomitance with, the existence of God. In other words, because God exists, there is the existence of time; a bi-product, if you will, of the light of eternity upon Him, whose existence casts the shadow of time across the dimensions of the universe.
It seems to me,
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/3/2003 6:16 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"Neuk'em": For "Pot" the dictionary says of nominalism: "The doctrine holding that abstract concepts, general terms, or universals have no independent existence but exist only as names."
Thanks Newcomb. That's a fine definition by contemporaries to suit the contemporary brand that is called "nominalism." BUT.....
It is not the only, nor the first kind of thing that held that name.
Here's something contemporary that fits the "old" definition:
quote:
Al2Si2H4O9
To treat TIME as a thing in itself is a trap we inherit from medieval Nominalism. Nothing in the Creation is self-generating or self-sustaining.
With that in mind let me remind us of a post I placed on page nine of this thread:
quote:
----------------------------------------------
Timothy Ware: "Time and eternity are not opposed. ...the Incarnation involves precisely an "intersection of the timeless with time," to use T. S. Eliot's phrase in The Four Quartets. As he puts it in The Rock, Christ's birth is an event within time and yet transforming time:
quote:
==========================================
Then came, at a predetermined moment, a moment in time and of time, A moment not out of time, but in time, in what we call history: transecting, bisecting the world of time, a moment in time but not like a moment of time, A moment in time but time was made through that moment: for without the meaning there is no time, and
that moment of time gave the meaning.
==========================================
--------------------------------------------------------
"... that moment of time gave the meaning ... transecting, bisecting ... not out of time, but in time ... time was made through that moment ..."
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 06/03/2003 11:20:36 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/3/2003 6:19 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
PotOnWheel
Newcomb, when you write "nominalism" I'm gessing that you are thinking of a different word that I am.
I'm not a philosopher, or a historian (which seems closer to what matters here), but here is what I found at http://web.syr.edu/~nmagee/index.html:
quote:
-------------------------------------------
It is this belief which is the core of Nominalist philosophy: that only particulars exist and universals are mere categories, contrived simply for our understanding. (This was preceeded by: "Ockham's metaphysics embraces one of the most extreme forms of Nominalism for the Middle Ages"...)
....
Ockham's epistemological revolution came through his insistence that individual things could be known as individual things, that direct, unmediated knowledge of particulars was possible.
------------------------------------------
So, Newcomb, in my hands this leads to my having said:
quote:
---------------------------------------
To treat TIME as a thing in itself is a trap we inherit from medieval Nominalism. Nothing in the Creation is self-generating or self-sustaining.
----------------------------------------
And... what I meant was that to take Time and make it out to be something separate from the Creator, and even separate from being created, well... is just plain bad manners.
A few curious things could be made from your post, though. Particularly about the limits of what can be expressed with language concerning what can not be defined within the limits of time. And in that way I think you went a long ways -- perhaps inadvertently -- in making my point.
"Al"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
bellings
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 9
| Posted 6/4/2003 10:13 AM (GMT -6) | | I haven't had time to read through the last 13 pages of discussion, so I hope I am not repeating anything.
Personally, I don't think that God is constrained by any law of physics. We are walking on thin ice if we try to describe God using the rules of this world. We have a hard enough time figuring out the rules of this world.
Let's look at Newton's second law: F=ma. This can be written as F=dp/dt. (where p=mv, p is momentum, m is mass, and v is velocity) This has been the fundamental law of physics for quite some time. It beautifully explained motion in our world.
One problem though, sometimes it just didn't work. Well, along comes Einstein and it turns out the mass isn't truly constant:
m(v) = m0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), where m0 is the resting mass and c is the speed of light. (I guess that would mean that mass is four-dimensional in your way of defining dimensions, since is also depends on speed). So, since mass depends on speed, it turns out that Newton's second law isn't true afterall. (And we haven't even gotten into quantum mechanics.)
Here's the point. It may appear that God is governed by our laws, but there is really a more fundamental expression for Him that we can't even begin to understand because we are stuck in this world. Just like we could never begin to understand relativity with normal speeds, because the 'true' expression just appears to be F=ma if you're moving slowly. We shouldn't constrain God.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 10/4/2003 5:42 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by bellings
Personally, I don't think that God is constrained by any law of physics. We are walking on thin ice if we try to describe God using the rules of this world. We have a hard enough time figuring out the rules of this world.
(snip)
Here's the point. It may appear that God is governed by our laws, but there is really a more fundamental expression for Him that we can't even begin to understand because we are stuck in this world. Just like we could never begin to understand relativity with normal speeds, because the 'true' expression just appears to be F=ma if you're moving slowly. We shouldn't constrain God.
Who created? God did. The world as we know it was created by God, our scientific laws are an attempt to describe that creation. We can also describe God: Omniscient, etc. etc. These attributes describe the God that revealed himself in the Bible and to a handful of select people from time to time. The word “omniscient” is debated as to exactly what is means, but most agree that the word itself applies with some legitimate definition. This is not confining God it is describing him just like the laws describe the creation we see.
My question to you is, how would you know if there was a “more fundamental expression for Him that we can't even begin to understand because we are stuck in this world”??? Hello Plato.
Have you special knowledge of God beyond his revealed word? What you are doing is escaping into a defensive posture that is often the case when people are confronted with ideas foreign to them about God, everything is dumped into the great unknown. If it is unknown, how do you know it?
Einstein screwed up on several points. His theories are only relevant in a gravity situation. He was a naturalist and believed there are no absolutes of any kind. You extract a postulate from a naturalist that didn’t believe in God or absolutes. (When he referred to “God” he was speaking of nature, not a living God.)
Also, everything someone says about God constrains God. I agree we should be careful to postulate restrains (comments) that are reasonably concluded from his word or strongly implied from his creation that do not contradict his expressed revelation, however, your closing statement above wipes out all theology completely simply because, as stated, all comments describing God constrain him.
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/4/2003 6:06 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Newcomb
Have you special knowledge of God beyond his revealed word? What you are doing is escaping into a defensive posture that is often the case when people are confronted with ideas foreign to them about God, everything is dumped into the great unknown. If it is unknown, how do you know it?
KNOWLEDGE of God is "the thing."
quote:
Isaiah 12:4
In that day you will say: "Give thanks to the LORD , call on his name; make known among the nations what he has done, and proclaim that his name is exalted.
Isaiah 45:3
I will give you the treasures of darkness, riches stored in secret places, so that you may know that I am the LORD , the God of Israel, who summons you by name.
Jeremiah 24:7
I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart.
Jeremiah 31:34
No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD ,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD . "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
This knowledge is not just information. It is not just knowledge of a text. It is knowledge of the Living Word. And that si experiential knowledge: written on the heart.
So, the available "special knowledge" aside from the Biblical text is the Christ in us by the Spirit. But that is not a "great unknown."
And the "name" that God gives does not exhaust what might be known about God -- that is known by God about himself. Both by our own limitation and by God's choice he only gave us "I AM."
But the line of limitation is not a barrier. At the crucifixion the temple curtain was torn. IN CHRIST we can participate in the uncreated, eternal life of God, by grace (not by nature). Our live is in Christ -- for we have none of our own. But the barrier that used to be delineated by the curtain is made accessible with Christ's ascension into Heaven. Christ's glorified body is our spiritual food -- our eternal life.
And so, while we in our finiteness are limited in degree, we can participate perichoretically with the WHOLE of the Trinity. (Just as a small portion of a fire is truely 100% of the nature of the fire as a whole, participation in Christ is participation in the whole of the Trinity. Similarly, having one of the Fruits of the Spirit is having all of them.) By grace we become infinite. (Again, not by nature.) We take on eternal life.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 11/14/2003 12:37 PM (GMT -6) | | I will leave off POW and his own infinity, he obviously thinks he has special knowledge.
quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
What is a "dimension"?
It seems to me that a dimension is a class of things that is "orthogonal" to all other classes of things. That is - a dimension is that class of "things" that cannot be put into terms of another class of "things".
Thus, if the X-axis is a dimension then the Y-axis is a different dimension because the Y-axis cannot be described in terms of the X-axis - it is orthogonal to it.
The term “orthogonal” means and relates to the 3 dimensions. The term means “at right angle.” I understand what you mean, that is, to say that is does not relate to others, but this term is improperly used.
quote:
Then we could say that change only occurs when God makes the very first choice which is to choose (something). Thus, change only occurs when God makes an active choice - when God chooses to actualize some possibility. Upon this first choice a change is made and thus the dimension of time comes into actual existence from the "non-existence" or "non-being" of sheer possibility.
Things don’t pop into existence because they are used. They must already exist to be used. My car didn’t come into existence because I used it, it existed in reality before the possibility of being used could have arisen.
quote:
This notion of dimensions coming into actual being based on some deeper relationship or "network" of other "things" is supported by the latest theoretical thinking in Loop Quantum Gravity. The book "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity" by Lee Smolin shows that in order to unify General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics we must conceptualize a notion of spatial dimension that is not absolute but rather relative to an underlying network of relationships. The factual observations that support this notion is the success of Riemannian geometry in predicting what is actually observed to happen in situations of a large gravitational field. It is clear that our current conception of spatial dimensions as an absolute and fixed construct has been experimentally shown to be invalid.
I see no reason to subject deductive chains of logical thought to any current state of physical science. The theories change regularly and physical sciences are (though they are not considered to be) inferior to rational discourse, particularly deductive reasoning, at determining truth. Relativity is subject to gravity, period. QM has major issues to deal with at the smallest levels of existence where it becomes random, and this is garbage, one doesn’t build order on top of random disorder, regardless of the currently popular theory.
I hold my original thesis at the start of this discussion.
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/14/2003 4:46 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Newcomb
I will leave off POW and his own infinity, he obviously thinks he has special knowledge.
PoW: I had said: "By grace we become infinite. (Again, not by nature.) We take on eternal life."
YES. I believe in eternal life for those reborn according to John 3:16. That "special knowledge" is the special revelation of scripture.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 11/19/2003 5:02 PM (GMT -6) | | OK Al, I’m trying to think what you mean and to me I keep coming up with a mystic reality that would better fit Hundu thought. I can’t unravel any meaning from the last posts going back to June:
quote:
PotOnWheel
---------------------------------------
To treat TIME as a thing in itself is a trap we inherit from medieval Nominalism. Nothing in the Creation is self-generating or self-sustaining.
----------------------------------------
And... what I meant was that to take Time and make it out to be something separate from the Creator, and even separate from being created, well... is just plain bad manners.
Do you view everything as an expression of the creator or as part of the creator?
God created things that are not himself. I can paint a picture, it is my expression but it is not “me.” It is different from me; it is apart from me not a part of me. So also are the things God created. They are not him. The physical universe is not God. That would be pantheism. I hope you don’t man this, but that is what is sounds like you are claiming. Creation is not God.
Time is not a created thing though. This is my claim. It is a necessary dimension for everything that is in any domain, physical or “spiritual” (whatever you want to call Angels and God). Without is God cannot operate.
We can invent word phrases to explain how God could do things without time, Lane struggles with this in his book and fails to produce a convincing argument.
Nothing is without time, not even the self existent three-in-one.
Am I failing to follow your point? Your statement seems to indicate that because Ockham was medieval, was a nominalist (in someone’s view), doesn’t mean he was wrong. I am not sure what he means by “particulars,” but because a thing is particular does not mean its ultimate origins were not from the creator. The opposite would be pantheism.
From there to now (immediately above) I can’t make sense of what you are trying to communicate.
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 11/21/2003 6:20 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Newcomb
OK Al, I’m trying to think what you mean and to me I keep coming up with a mystic reality that would better fit Hundu thought. I can’t unravel any meaning from the last posts going back to June:
quote:
PotOnWheel
---------------------------------------
To treat TIME as a thing in itself is a trap we inherit from medieval Nominalism. Nothing in the Creation is self-generating or self-sustaining.
----------------------------------------
And... what I meant was that to take Time and make it out to be something separate from the Creator, and even separate from being created, well... is just plain bad manners.
Do you view everything as an expression of the creator or as part of the creator?
God created things that are not himself. I can paint a picture, it is my expression but it is not “me.” It is different from me; it is apart from me not a part of me. So also are the things God created. They are not him. The physical universe is not God. That would be pantheism. I hope you don’t man this, but that is what is sounds like you are claiming. Creation is not God.
Time is not a created thing though. This is my claim. It is a necessary dimension for everything that is in any domain, physical or “spiritual” (whatever you want to call Angels and God). Without is God cannot operate.
We can invent word phrases to explain how God could do things without time, Lane struggles with this in his book and fails to produce a convincing argument.
Nothing is without time, not even the self existent three-in-one.
Am I failing to follow your point? Your statement seems to indicate that because Ockham was medieval, was a nominalist (in someone’s view), doesn’t mean he was wrong. I am not sure what he means by “particulars,” but because a thing is particular does not mean its ultimate origins were not from the creator. The opposite would be pantheism.
From there to now (immediately above) I can’t make sense of what you are trying to communicate.
1. I'm really not on this board anymore.
2. If someone says that time was invented, and then sustains itself, then that is "bad manners."
3. YOU are saying that time is something larger than God. What's that?
I agree, we agree, in both saying: "The physical universe is not God. ... Creation is not God."
But then you always, and have here always, assumed that time was the exception to the rule. I guess you anthropomorphize God.
You seem to mean well.
Bye. | | Back to Top | | |
|
SIM
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2002
Total Posts : 90
| Posted 11/29/2003 7:47 AM (GMT -6) | | OK. From another perspective: Peter Kreeft,in his book, "Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Heaven But Never Dreamed of Asking!", has some intriguing things to say about time and eternity.
He first talks about how difficult the whole subject is to think about ("When you don't ask me, I know what it is, but when you ask me, I don't know." St. Augustine, Confessions, XI, 14.) He also says that any kind of thinking we have about Heaven has to be an analogy, incomplete truth.
So he talks about "What Time Is Eternity?" He says there is a literal analogy about Time: Dimensions. "if there are three dimensions of space and time is the fourth dimension, then eternity is the fifth dimension. Eternity includes time as time includes space."
He then says "Eternity: The Sixth Dimension". "Eternity is the 6th dimension, not the fifth. Chronos-time (calendar-clock time) is the 4th dimension, kairos-time (human experience time) the fifth, and eternity the sixth. Thus there are three temporal dimensions, just as there are three spatial dimensions. Chronos is the first temporal dimension, like a line; kairos is the second, like a surface; and eternity is the third, like a solid: the concrete reality of which the others are only abstract aspects."
Another "threesome", Dr. Boyd.
Kreeft goes on to use the image of a cone as symbol that shows how the truths relate: the truth of the point (viz., in eternity's "point" all time is present at once, rather than dispersed into past and future); and the solid (time is only the abstract boundary of a full eternity).
Kreeft says a cone includes all three temporal dimensions. kairos is seen as the cone. All its radii come together at its point, eternity. The cone is bounded externally by chronos as an arc. (Kreeft,156).
He also talks about the Principle of "In-ness". That our world is "in Heaven" as a baby in the womb is "in the world." We are as cognizant of our in-ness in Heaven as the baby is in being in the world.
www.peterkreeft.com
Psalm 139:4 "Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/1/2003 3:50 AM (GMT -6) | | I suppose, PoW, if talking about time ontologically--viz., time is a thing of itself--then yes, you would be correct to say that time cannot be before God; only God is eternal. Time, however (as I see it), has the same non-ontological characteristics as, say, possibilities. Think of all the possibilities in the mind of God that could have been or could be; they have been there eternally, just as God is eternal; however, these possibilities are not ontological things. They are not eternal, yet they accompany the charactistic of one who is eternal.
Relationship, to give another example, has always existed within the Trinity, but relationship is not an ontological thing in and of itself, just an accompaniment of eternity.
As God exists eternally, both time and relationship (to name just two entities) accompany eternity. Personage functions in this context. But one can never find time and say, "Look, here is a piece of time; it's been around since eternity."
Well, time to get on with it here ...
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/1/2003 3:35 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
I suppose, PoW, if talking about time ontologically--viz., time is a thing of itself--then yes, you would be correct to say that time cannot be before God; only God is eternal.
1. God IS NOT "Eternal." Eternal denotes continuous time. As specifically designating independence from time you can say "pre-eternal." But in saying "Creator and sustainer" God's imminance in creation is also designated.
(Why am I posting on this site?)
quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
Time, however (as I see it), has the same non-ontological characteristics as, say, possibilities. Think of all the possibilities in the mind of God that could have been or could be; they have been there eternally, just as God is eternal;
2. THAT's a lot to presume. Also, it presumes two things: the eontinuousness of those "thoughts" (I don't like that at all, HM.) with God's entire "existence." And that God is a kind of creature -- tied to the thoughts of creation that he will create. Simply, it seems very presumptuous to speculate about that, and ....
quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
however, these possibilities are not ontological things. They are not eternal, yet they accompany the charactistic of one who is eternal.
3. Specific possibilies as eternal?
What we relate to as Love and Freedom, yes. But specific possibilities, like neucluotides? Go fish.
quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
Relationship, to give another example, has always existed within the Trinity, but relationship is not an ontological thing in and of itself, just an accompaniment of eternity.
4. "RelationshipS" may not be -- Fatherhood, etc. That's a personal characteristic, not an ontological one. But "Relationship" (Communion, Trinitarian Love) is very much ontological.
quote:
Originally posted by Starkman
As God exists eternally, both time and relationship (to name just two entities) accompany eternity.
5. As above, God is not "eternal." Pre-eternal is good devotional language.
6. "Time and relationship (to name just two entities) DO accompany eternity." But God is "pre-eternal" (which does NOT specify "before" in chronology; but consideration without attachment to...)
(I appreciated you Starkman!) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 12/10/2003 1:13 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by SIM
. . . he talks about "What Time Is Eternity?" He says there is a literal analogy about Time: Dimensions. "if there are three dimensions of space and time is the fourth dimension, then eternity is the fifth dimension. Eternity includes time as time includes space."
He then says "Eternity: The Sixth Dimension". "Eternity is the 6th dimension, not the fifth. Chronos-time (calendar-clock time) is the 4th dimension, kairos-time (human experience time) the fifth, and eternity the sixth. Thus there are three temporal dimensions, just as there are three spatial dimensions. Chronos is the first temporal dimension, like a line; kairos is the second, like a surface; and eternity is the third, like a solid: the concrete reality of which the others are only abstract aspects."
Eternity, according to the dictionary, which is correct, is:
“2. infinite time. . . . 5 : a seemingly endless or immeasurable time.”
Eternity viewed as something else is revisionism, it denies A=A and claims A=non-A.
Time does not include space. This was Mach’s view, a naturalist, passed on through Einstein’s errors. This is false.
It is cute to try to define different types of time descriptions (Chronos, Kaisos) as dimensions but there is no basis for this so should be rejected. Calling eternity a dimension is, again, an error, it denies what eternity actually is (see def. above). However, then someone builds on the error which is the rest of his post.
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 12/10/2003 1:56 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
1. God IS NOT "Eternal." Eternal denotes continuous time. As specifically designating independence from time you can say "pre-eternal." But in saying "Creator and sustainer" God's imminance in creation is also designated.
5. As above, God is not "eternal." Pre-eternal is good devotional language.
I fully concur that eternity is continuous time. Great job there, however, you might want to change that other point:
quote:
Gen 21:33 And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God.
Psa 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
Psa 93:2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isa 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.
Isa 63:16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.
Rom 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
Deu 33:27 The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Hbr 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Hmm, seems Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all explicitly called eternal.
quote:
2Cr 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
If the house in heaven is eternal, this must also be a characteristic of heaven. I think it is safe to conclude that the triune God and heaven are eternal.
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/11/2003 10:57 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Newcomb
eternal God
his eternal power and Godhead;
eternal Spirit
eternal.
eternal in the heavens.
Speaking in comparison to us, the above speaks well. But that does not exhaust God. Got the creator is incomparable to his creation. God became incarnate, entered his own creation. But that is remarkable and not runofthemill.
There is a difference between God's actions towards creation and the fellowship of the Trinity. The first is temporal and the second not. St. Basil compares two DOXOLOGIES in his Tretis "On the Holy Spirit." Here the two are. We can see the difference: one is about the ACTS of God in the economy of salvation; and the other is about the Trinity itself. BOTH are accurate and pious praises of God.
- 1. "with the Son together with the Holy Ghost,"
- 2. "through the Son in the Holy Ghost"
The first ("with the Son together with the Holy Ghost") does not mention and sequence at all -- and none is approptriate. God's Trinitarian fellowship is a perichoresis, or in English, a co-inherence -- a sharing (Which we can only imagine in temporal terms as simultaneous; even though is paradoxically has a source, in the Father.) in common of the Divine Essence. The second ("hrough the Son in the Holy Ghost") shows the economy of Creation, and of salvation, and of our ultimate fellowship with God: "through the Son...and...in the Holy Spirit."
Considering God's Essense and considering the Economy of God -- sometimes spoken of as the "essential Trinity" versus the "conomic Trinity" are widely recognizesd as two separate things.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 296 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:26 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 |
|
|