Rrrrroger that partner. That's a 10-4. We're good to go.

Tom

Post Edited (themuzicman) : 3/22/2005 6:34:00 PM (GMT-6)

Muz,

You said,

"If God is truly atemporal, then creation must be in some way atemporal, as well, with time really just an illusion to us within it."

How does this follow? If God is atemporal, why must creation be atemporal?

Muz,

Also, you did not respond to my first question. I would love to get your thoughts on that. My question was, If God is atemporal, why must creation be atemporal? How does God's atemporality necessitate His creation of an atemporal world?

Muz,

You asked,
"How is it possible to have opposing relationships with one being?"

Post Edited (Matt) : 3/23/2005 8:56:43 PM (GMT-6)

Muz,

God existed alone without creation.  Then He created.  Now He's in relationship with a creation, a CHANGE in God.  A sequence, a state change.  Simple automata theory.   God and NO creation simultaneously with God and a creation is a contradiction.

Still not seen a refutation that an "atemporal" God would experience Jesus eternally NOW on the cross, separated from God eternally NOW, cursed and laden with sin eternally NOW.  Which contradicts an eternally NOW Jesus sinless and seated at the right hand of God eternally NOW. 

Eternally NOW cursed and eternally NOW blessed, a contradiction.

  Lord, is TGB married or a bachelor right now?

  Yes.

  Yes?  Which is it?

  Both.  Dang it, I had to ENTER time in order to have this conversation with you.  There goes my atemporality.

Remember, as soon as "atemporalists" say "God created", they are throwing away atemporality. 

God, no creation ------>creation/state change-------------->God in relation to creation

Post Edited (Laika) : 3/24/2005 12:50:00 PM (GMT-6)

Muz,

It's interesting that you think I am having a hard time following you. In my mind, it was you that was having a difficult time following me and answering questions. Apparently it is easy for people to misunderstand each other.

Muz, I realize that we are talking about God's relationship to Himself, if you may speak like that of God. It seems to be more accurate to speak of the Father's relation to the Son, and the Son's relation to the Father. This is a relation among persons, not beings. I am not sure what one could say about God's being insofar as it relates to His own being.

Anyway, you agreed that Christ as man is not necessary for the second Person of the Trinity. Doesn't that imply a real distinction between Jesus as God and Jesus as man? It may not necessarily be a distinction of being, but it is a real distinction. You seem to think that if I talk of the Father relating differently to Jesus as God and Jesus as man that I am necessarily implying some sort of division in being, when I am merely distinguishing between two natures.

No. And I said as much in the part you quoted. I said that "neither of us are wanting to make that distinction."

I meant that you cannot "totally divorce" a persons sin from their being. I am not saying that sin is a necessary attribute of being human. It is a natural activity of human beings though. I said that sin flows from human nature because all actions flow from a things nature. According to my metaphysical position (Thomistic) action follows being. Actions arise from a nature. Our actions arise from human nature.

Quick question. Do you think that Jesus as God was infinite? Do you think that Jesus as man was finite?

Laika,

Thank you for using the term sans creation. However, I am not sure why it is a contradiction to say that God exists eternally both sans creation and after creation. Again, this is only the case if the following are true.

1. An atemporal being must create an atemporal world.
2. An eternal God must have a created order that is eternally now alongside with Him.
3. ***That God must enter into time because He created a temporal world. ***

Your comment that, "no amount of b.s. and hand waving can obviate that" is telling. Aparently you are very sure of your position. I certainly don't have a problem with people holding strongly to a belief. In fact, if what they believe is true, I admire a person that stands by their convictions.

At this point, I would say that this is a complex question, on par with "When did you stop beating your wife?" To ask the question "when" assumes temporality. Dispite your claim that atemporality is eastern mysticism, I would beg to differ. You do realize that most of the church fathers believed that God was atemporal. I understand that I could not conclude that God is atemporal based on the pooled beliefs of the church fathers without committing an informal fallacy. I am just saying that what you said implies that most of the church fathers are eastern pantheists.

I do appreciate your giving reasons for you conclusion. I don't agree with them, but at least you are offering some arguments.

I don't think this follows. When you say, God existed and then... you appear to be assuming that God is temporal "before" creation. I would imagine, that like Craig, you don't think you are assuming that. To the best of my understanding Craig argues that God was atemporal before creation, but entered into time subsequent to creation. However, I don't think that necessarily follows.

I have to go now. I'll respond later. My friend is waiting for me. Talk to you soon.

God Bless!
Matt

(Some would say "happily married" is the world's shortest contradiction.... )

Something cannot be A and ~A simultaneously.  Unless you're abandoning western logic.  

     Thanks!  A verb (implying duration, sequence) applied to a supposedly "atemporal" being.

Sorry, couldn't resist...    Well, maybe I coulda

Post Edited (Laika) : 3/24/2005 4:49:10 PM (GMT-6)

Laika,

Glad you are joining the conversation.

You gave the examples, "no creation exists" and "creation exists". TGB is not married, TGB is married etc. I certainly don't want to abandon "western logic". I hold that contradictories cannot both be true and not true at the same time and sense. Let me frame your problem to make sure that I understand it.

You are trying to reduce my argument to absurdity by showing that atemporality is contradictory. You argue that atemporality entails the contradictory state of affairs where God believes contradictory statements at the same time and sense. Am I correct so far?

Your argument??
1. If God is atemporal, He must hold all truths to be true at the same time. (which includes contradictory statements)

2. God cannot hold all truths to be true at the same time. (because some tensed truth claims held at the same time are contradictory)

Therefore, God is not atemporal.

If I have framed your argument incorrectly, please let me know. The problem with this, in my view, is that God may hold that 2004 is the year that George Bush will be, is, was re-elected and the war of 1812 will be, is, was fought in 1812. In this way, God may know all truths without holding contradictory statements to be true. God's knowledge is not contradictory, yet He still knows all truths. He simply does not know them in the same way we know them. He does not know them as one going through time. Only creatures that are in time say, "It is now 11:00", and then later say "It is not now 11:00". It would be the case that a creature in time could not hold both of those claims to be true at the same time, but it is not clear to me that an atemporal being must be in this situation.

I have not said anything to disprove this because no argument has been offered in support of it. You are pushing the burden of proof onto me. The problem is this: YOU made the claim that if God is eternal, then creation must be co-eternal with God. I'll offer rebuttals to an argument you make in favor of your position when you make your argument.

You made claims about the temporal language used in scripture. I would rather not bring that up now, but since you brought it up I should say something about that. I don't know what your full argument is, but if you are arguing that because the Bible describes God in temporal language, God must be temporal, then I don't think that conclusion follows. Again, I would not like to go into that now because I think it will take us off topic, but if you insist on it, I'll discuss it with you.

Also, I thought you were somewhat uncharitable with my comments about the church fathers. In my post, I specifically said I was not arguing from the fact that the church fathers believed in atemporality to the truth of the conclusion that God is atemporal. I said to argue that way would be to commit an informal fallacy. (appealing to authority) Rather than acknowledging this, you simply pointed out the very thing I pointed out, namely that to argue that way is to argue from authority. My point, which I specifically spelled out, was that the implications of your view (that atemporality implies eastern mysticism) implies that most of the church fathers were eastern mystics.

I would like to talk about this in more depth. To the best of my understanding, all change implies a subject that undergoes a change and accidents that modify the substance. I think I can make an argument for the fact that God does not have to undergo a change to create the universe. If possible, I would like to stay as focused as possible on one or two issues. Again, thanks for your thoughts. I look forward to your post.

God Bless.

Matt

Post Edited (Matt) : 3/24/2005 10:21:36 PM (GMT-6)

Muz,

I will respond to what I can respond to. Honestly, it is becoming more evident that you are not familiar with my termenology. Also, you are making claims that show that you merely skimmed through my posts. When I respond, I usually try to read your post several times.

Post Edited (Matt) : 3/25/2005 10:41:40 AM (GMT-6)

Muz,

Thanks for your response! Right now it's late and I can't give you much of a response. Also, I will be going out of state for the week so I probably won't be able to say much this week. (unless I find an internet connection) I really appreciate your thoughtfulness in your post. I want to return a post thoughtfully. I'll formulate my thoughts as best I can and explain what I believe an essence is, what a nature is, and what it means for the issue we are talking about. (Christs two natures) I also find your thoughts / questions about Adam and our fallen nature interesting. I'll think more about it and respond. Thanks again!

Laika,

You said,
"You just don't get it do you?"

You seem to be rather impatient. You have made a total of 3 posts on this thread, and because I haven't accepted your conclusion you say something like, "You just don't get it". Perhaps I do get it and I don't agree. In which case we could discuss the issue. Or perhaps, I don't get it, in which case you could explain it to me.

Post Edited (Matt) : 3/25/2005 11:10:09 PM (GMT-6)