Originally posted by LemonJelloTherefore, when you state that God exists outside of time, you are saying nothing more or less than that God is not subject to change.
[b]So an eternal God who is not trapped within time (like we are) cannot logically enter into time in anyway? Please explain......
I've explained it many times in the past. I don't understand why you still don't get it. You're a reductionist with respect to time, remember? So talk of time is for you reducible to talk of events/changes, remembe ...[text shortened]... ntradictions. Your God simply doesn't exist. Your God is not even logically possible![/b]
-------------------lemon-----------------------------------
That's your assumption not mine. For all I know there is such a thing as a completely independent eternal series of events that is utterly distinct from our bounded space/time as we know it.
Maybe I should have been more specific. God is not within space/time as we know it. Whether that means that any time at all does not apply to him is unknown.
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo how do we know if something is only apparently contradictory or actually?
You are right. So how do we know if something is only apparently contradictory or actually?
One thing I have noticed about the FW v O debate is how readily many try to find objections and how few (if any) seem to give the ideas a chance and think about them.
If one decides in advance that an idea won't make sense then it probably won't. The self fulfilling prophecy principle will take hold.
We try to figure out if the set of propositions actually entails a contradiction (of the form P and not-P) or not. Yours really is contradictory: it entails a contradiction. The contradiction comes from the fact that you are committed to both that God is subject to change (P) and that it is not the case that God is subject to change (not-P).
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterThat's your assumption not mine.
Therefore, when you state that God exists outside of time, you are saying nothing more or less than that God is not subject to change.
-------------------lemon-----------------------------------
That's your assumption not mine. For all I know there is such a thing as a completely independent eternal series of events that is utterly distinct from ou ...[text shortened]... e/time as we know it. Whether that means that any time at all does not apply to him is unknown.
No, it follows directly from your own reductionist view of time that we discussed some time ago in the forum. If you wish to revise your conception of time, then I'm listening...
For all I know there is such a thing as a completely independent eternal series of events
If it is a series of events, then in what sense is it 'eternal'? In what sense would the series be outside time or constitutively independent of temporal relations? You already stated previously that for you talk of time simply reduces to talk of events/changes; so your 'eternal' series of events is more contradictory nonsense. Again, if you would like to revise your view of time to be consistent, then what is your revision?
Maybe I should have been more specific. God is not within space/time as we know it
I don't know what that means.
1 edit
-Removed-Since it is the best presentation that I’ve seen yet, I’ll simply reproduce something that LemonJello posted on another thread:
In particular, here would be my initial argument for the conclusion that infallible foreknowledge (or just infallible belief about our future actions) precludes libertarian freedom. Here, G is assumed to be an infallible knower:
1. G knows in advance that S will do A.
2. It is not possible both that G believes S will do A and that S refrain from doing A (infallibility condition).
3. G believes S will do A (entailed by 1). So from 1 and 2, it is not possible that S refrain from doing A.
4. If it is not possible that S refrain from doing A, then it is not within the power of S to refrain from doing A.
5. If it is not within the power of S to refrain from doing A, then S is not free with respect to A.
6. Hence, if G (infallibly) knows in advance that S will do A, then S is not free with respect to A.
__________________________________________
EDIT: This is not strictly the same thing as saying that perfect foreknowledge determines the outcome; it does show that perfect foerknowledge precludes the (libertarian) freedom of the person to choose any alternative outcome.
Originally posted by LemonJelloI don't know what that means.
[b]That's your assumption not mine.
No, it follows directly from your own reductionist view of time that we discussed some time ago in the forum. If you wish to revise your conception of time, then I'm listening...
For all I know there is such a thing as a completely independent eternal series of events
If it is a series of events, th ...[text shortened]... specific. God is not within space/time as we know it[/b]
I don't know what that means.[/b]
-------------lemon-----------------------------
Nobody really does precisely , but it would probably mean that God would not be constrained by time as we know it and would have an overview of space/time rather than stuck within it.
Originally posted by LemonJelloHow do you know that it is not just your own perceptions and assumptions that create the contradictions?
[b]So how do we know if something is only apparently contradictory or actually?
We try to figure out if the set of propositions actually entails a contradiction (of the form P and not-P) or not. Yours really is contradictory: it entails a contradiction. The contradiction comes from the fact that you are committed to both that God is subject to change (P) and that it is not the case that God is subject to change (not-P).[/b]
Originally posted by LemonJelloIn what sense would the series be outside time or constitutively independent of temporal relations?
[b]That's your assumption not mine.
No, it follows directly from your own reductionist view of time that we discussed some time ago in the forum. If you wish to revise your conception of time, then I'm listening...
For all I know there is such a thing as a completely independent eternal series of events
If it is a series of events, th ...[text shortened]... specific. God is not within space/time as we know it[/b]
I don't know what that means.[/b]
---------------lemon------------------------------------
It would be outside the space/time of our universe and thus independent of it. Just like in the multiverse idea . In the multiverse scenario it's possible for time to run in one universe independently of another universe.
Anyway , I don't believe in time really just series of events. There's a series of events in our universe and maybe a series of events in eternity. Neither of them constitute "time" neccesarily.
Originally posted by AgergNow suppose at the correct time to do X I instead do Y. Does this seem totally fine and dandy given your God's knowledge of me doing X is infallible?
suppose it is known by your God that I will do X (or to keep KM happy, that I did X from its perspective)
Now suppose at the correct time to do X I instead do Y. Does this seem totally fine and dandy given your God's knowledge of me doing X is infallible?
------------------------agerg-------------------------------------
If at the time you actually chose Y instead of X then God would know that you chose Y , and vice versa. His knowledge is infallible because it's not based on a prediction but on what you ACTUALLY DID.
HE DOES NOT MAKE PREDICTIONS. Right "now" (in eternity) he is watching you in what you call "tomorrow". It's not a question of what you are "going to do" but what you ARE doing in that very moment.
If God is omnipresent eternally to all points in time and space then you can't second guess him - he's always going to know.
You are free in THAT MOMENT to do what you like (x or y) but whatever you do will always be seen by God. He does not know "in advance" (in the sense that this places him on your timeline) He knows eternally.
Originally posted by knightmeisterOh cool! God can sort of hop around in space and time, tweaking it here and there. I wonder, can he go back and change something when he makes a mistake? What if he hops back a few years and meets himself making changes?
Nobody really does precisely , but it would probably mean that God would not be constrained by time as we know it and would have an overview of space/time rather than stuck within it.
God A: Hey what are you doing here? I don't remember being here before.
God B: Oh I'm from your future, I am here to tell you that the change you are about to make is all wrong because 200 years from now it causes all sorts of problems, so don't do it.
Time travel not only creates paradoxes within the time-line being traveled but also within the time-line of the traveler. Either space-time is ever changing within an orthogonal time-line, or no such orthogonal time-lines exist.
Either:
1. God is static within our time-line ie he appears and tweaks every given moment only once.
2. Our choices are truly free because we actually make them in multiple different ways along different time-lines.
3. God is not separate from our time-line and does not know the future.
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterI really need to know how you define your God to exist because this omniscient creator of the universe (which wouldn't have a timeline associated with it until it was made, but would have been known to your God in its entirety at the point of creation because your God is not bound to it) you argue can only ever see my past, and that this knowledge is first contingent upon what I do.
Now suppose at the correct time to do X I instead do Y. Does this seem totally fine and dandy given your God's knowledge of me doing X is infallible?
------------------------agerg-------------------------------------
If at the time you actually chose Y instead of X then God would know that you chose Y , and vice versa. His knowledge is infallible b n advance" (in the sense that this places him on your timeline) He knows eternally.
This requires amongst other things, discontinuities (for want of a better word) of your Gods existence.
Originally posted by AgergIt's logical that God cannot know what you do with your life unless he actually creates you in the first place. So God's knowledge of you depends upon him creating a universe. So in that sense he cannot know in advance of creating the universe what you will do.
[b]I really need to know how you define your God to exist because this omniscient creator of the universe (which wouldn't have a timeline associated with it until it was made, but would have been known to your God in its entirety at the point of creation because your God is not bound to it) you argue can only ever see my past, and that this knowl ...[text shortened]... s amongst other things, discontinuities (for want of a better word) of your Gods existence.[/b]
You have to actually exist for it to work. I suppose if we are being technical about it God cannot know something that does not exist ,so he is not omniscient , but that's a bit lame really.
In essence , he can't know a future that doesn't exist. If you hadn't made the last post God could not know about it. This is why I say that God does not know things in advance of them happening , because if you don't ACTUALLY make that post he will never know it.
Originally posted by knightmeisterAgain KM please state how you suppose your god exists because to put it another way,
It's logical that God cannot know what you do with your life unless he actually creates you in the first place. So God's knowledge of you depends upon him creating a universe. So in that sense he cannot know in advance of creating the universe what you will do.
You have to actually exist for it to work. I suppose if we are being technical about it ...[text shortened]... e of them happening , because if you don't ACTUALLY make that post he will never know it.
I hear you telling me that 2+2 = 7 but I want to see your working!
Originally posted by AgergI imagine God to be without boundaries both in time or space and having no beginning or end.
Again KM please state how you suppose your god exists because to put it another way,
I hear you telling me that 2+2 = 7 but I want to see your working!
Pure speculation would lead me to imagine the universe existing as a small ball , funnel whatever within a vast expanse of white light of unimaginable power and holiness.
Within this context I see space/ time as an illusionary facet of the universe but not really existing. Existence in it's pure form would be timeless.
I certainly don't see God as a singularity though.
Are you going to ask me if he has eyes now?