bruce culver

  • ***
  • 4626 Posts
    • View Profile
Question about God's change from Atemporal to temporal
« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2011, 08:38:44 am »
Do you mean to say that the justification for the scientific method, is evolutionary progress in the ability for animals to become more rational, and that we believe in evolution, according to the scientific method? I hope you see that this is circular. Please correct me if I misundestand your position.

   

   No, I'm just stating that as my opinion, which I think is rational. It wasn't meant as justification for the scientific method. The best justification for the scientific method is it's success. Evolutionary progress towards ever more intelligent and rational beings is fairly evident, I think.

   

   I understand the impossibility of proving that anything exists outside the mind. However, I would simply take the common sense view which rationally says: I see beings that appear to be just like me. I have a mind, and there is no reason not to assume they also have minds. Further, the world outside of me appears quite immune to my impressions of it, etc. I mean, if someone yells, Look out!, I  am going to look around to see what I am missing, not question whether he really has an independent mind capable of perceiving an objective reality that I am not presently aware of, no?

   

   Perhaps the unexamined life is absurd, but the over examined can be even more absurd.

   

   If indeed objective reality cannot be strictly logically proven, I would have to consider that a problem with logic, not objective reality. I used to be an idealist

   myself, and I am not 100% convinced I was wrong, but tending toward backing off on that. Perhaps metaphysically it is true. I'm not sure I can ever know that, but I live and breathe in a physical reality.

   

   OK, to my mind if Christ has two separate minds, then there are two separate Christs. If he has one mind that is both human and divine, then he is a paradox. Notice, I'm not saying metaphysically impossible, just paradoxical.
"The world is my country and my religion is to do good."

1

troyjs

  • ***
  • 2752 Posts
    • View Profile
Question about God's change from Atemporal to temporal
« Reply #16 on: June 28, 2011, 07:25:21 pm »

Perhaps the unexamined life is absurd, but the over examined can be even more absurd.


If left to our own devices, I believe that we can never discover the truth. I believe that Truth is a person, Jesus Christ who furnishes us with truth. If I were not a Christian, I believe I would be more of a skeptic than yourself.

Regarding Jesus having two minds, this is an interesting topic, and extremely important for the Christian not to misconstrue. I do not feel qualified to engage you on this, apart from saying that I see no logical fallacy in the assertion. Apparently however, this difficulty is regarded as trivially easy to solve by theologians, and I would refer you to the people at Reformed Forum.
For a discussion on Jesus having one mind, with both human and divine properties, the folks at Reformed Forum could engage with you, and it would be suitable to ask a Lutheran theologian, as it is part of Lutheran theology.

Here is the link: http://reformedforum.org/he19/

kind regards

“Knowledge of the sciences is so much smoke apart from the heavenly science of Christ” -- John Calvin.
“I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels” -- John Calvin

2

bruce culver

  • ***
  • 4626 Posts
    • View Profile
Question about God's change from Atemporal to temporal
« Reply #17 on: June 28, 2011, 11:28:59 pm »
I'm sorry, but that audio just struck me as a couple of theology nerds trying to impress with their knowledge of the rulings of the various councils and the different ways they tried to obfuscate the fact that they were peddling a bunch of nonsense. All I could wonder is how they could so blithely speak about a  group of men getting together and codifying nonsense that it would henceforth be a capital crime to question.
"The world is my country and my religion is to do good."

3

troyjs

  • ***
  • 2752 Posts
    • View Profile
Question about God's change from Atemporal to temporal
« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2011, 02:19:55 am »
All I could wonder is how they could so blithely speak about a group of men getting together and codifying nonsense that it would henceforth be a capital crime to question.

If you could provide a substantial reply, I think that would be more appreciated than to name-call and classify theology as nonsense.
“Knowledge of the sciences is so much smoke apart from the heavenly science of Christ” -- John Calvin.
“I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels” -- John Calvin

4

bruce culver

  • ***
  • 4626 Posts
    • View Profile
Question about God's change from Atemporal to temporal
« Reply #19 on: June 30, 2011, 06:45:23 am »
Ok, your reply is certainly justified. That is only my opinion.

   

    But does it not strike you as outright wrong for a council of men to sit and dictate metaphysical truths that it then becomes a capital crime to deny.

   

   There was certainly nothing in what I heard that solves the logical contradiction of Christ being wholly man and wholly God in a trivially easy way or at all. Two natures? Well I could see pointing out that we as human beings have two natures, emotional and rational, but we are not wholly rational and wholly emotional, we are partially each. Take out the "wholly" language and then it is trivial.  But then that would not be orthodox either, and the term "hypostatic union" I doubt explains anything. Just inventing a mysterious sounding term is not the same thing as solving the logical problem, but the logic seems clear.

   

   In fact, if you go to the thread on WLC's debate with Ismail, I think it was, you will see where I point out the schmozzle he gets himself into by arguing that "nothing can be red all over and green all over" when it suits him in one argument, and arguing that being able to imagine something is different than being able to understand it in another argument, but then resting his argument for how Christ can be wholly man and wholly God ( He avoids using the words "wholly") on the flimsy argument that if you can understand the incarnation in the movie Avatar, then you can understand Christ's incarnation, himself totally confusing imagining with understanding.
"The world is my country and my religion is to do good."

5

William Bryant

  • **
  • 13 Posts
    • View Profile
Question about God's change from Atemporal to temporal
« Reply #20 on: June 30, 2011, 08:59:47 am »
I believe Dr. Craig has offered a model for consideration that says Jesus' mind was the mind of the Son.  In other words Jesus had only one mind and it was the divine mind.  When Jesus joined with human flesh he provided from His  divine mind what is necessary to have the human nature.  If Adam's soul was created in the likeness of God then God's nature should be comparable to Adam's before the fall.  Therefore when the Son took on flesh he had a complete human nature only without sin.  He was still fully divine but at the same time had a full human nature.  

It is probably best to refer you to where I read this because I probably flubbed up the presentation of his idea.  The book is "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview".

6

Mike Burke

  • **
  • 336 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Question about God's change from Atemporal to temporal
« Reply #21 on: November 19, 2014, 01:57:22 pm »
<FONT size=3>The concepts of time and motion, are meaningless in a metaphysical context. If time and motion began at the Big Bang, and exist only in relation to the universe, it is as meaningful to talk of God being 'frozen', as it is to talk of time before the Big Bang. The problem is we are using physical categories in a metaphysical context. Since metaphysics deals with the world of 'being' and 'essence', while physics deals with the world of 'becoming' or 'existence', it is necessary to use the language relevant to the argument being addressed.</FONT>
<FONT size=3></FONT>
<FONT size=3>Time and Eternity are relevant to the God's creation of the world, from the perspective of individuals existing within that creation. It is meaningful for us to say God created or chose to create the universe at the Big Bang, if we mean to say that God is the cause of the universe, and that is when it began. Aquinas was an Empiricist, which is why his cosmological arguments involve motion, time, and causes. In order to speak of God apart from physical categories, we need to use the language of metaphysics. Anselm was a Rationalist, which is why the Ontological Arguments,and Leibniz's argument from contingency use the categories of necessity and contingency.</FONT>
<FONT size=3></FONT>
<FONT size=3>
</FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=3>So my main question is this. If everything is "frozen" in a state of being without time. wouldn't god also be "frozen"?</FONT></DIV><DIV><FONT size=3>or.</FONT></DIV><DIV><FONT size=3>Doesn't free will/ thought/decisions only work in time? so If god existed outside of time. how did he make the temporal decision to make time or our universe?  </FONT></DIV><P><FONT size=3> 
</FONT>
<FONT size=3></FONT>
<FONT size=3>If you mean by frozen, timeless, then yes. As for God's Will, God does not learn anything new. According to Christian Theology, God knows everything and so there is no procession of ideas in the mind of God. God decided to create the universe from all eternity. From God's eternal perspective, time is a contingent created property of the contingent created universe.</FONT>
<FONT size=3></FONT>
<FONT size=3>But then, why are we in a certain moment of time? Why is it year 2011, and not year 38695? If God always existed, and God always willed for creation to exist, then is not the universe just as eternal as God is? Metaphysically, yes, and physically no. Metaphysically yes because God transcends time, and 'experiences' all of time, and all events. Physically no, because time in the universe presupposes motion, and cause and effect. Eternality is foreign to Physics, as Time and beginning are to Metaphysics. Since the time of the pre-Socratics, philosophers have struggled with the classic problem of 'the-one-and-the-many'. Is the world unchanging and one, or is everything always changing into something else, and many? This problem was solved by Plato and Aristotle by demarcating a world of essence (the one), as the metaphysical world, from the world of existence (the many) as the physical world. Since Aquinas was a student and advocate of Aristotle's philosophy, (Aquinas referred to Aristotle as 'The Philosopher'), and Craig is an advocate of Aquinas, this is relevant to the discussion.</FONT></P><FONT size=3>What is important is that we understand that if we want to talk of God 'before', or more precisely, 'apart' from the Universe, it is meaningless to use the concept of time. Conversely, we can have similar problems if we use the categories of metaphysics when talking of physical properties.</FONT>
<FONT size=3></FONT>
<FONT size=3>I must mention that the view I have espoused here, is not the same as Dr Craigs'.</FONT>

<FONT size=3></FONT>
<FONT size=3>kind regards</FONT>

As I understand it, Dr. Craig posits that God's mental life is both timeless and temporal (timeless sans creation, and temporal with creation), or that there is both a timeless and temporal dimension to God.

Did such an idea ever occur to anyone else (Aristotle, Aquinas, Boethius, Anslem, John Scotus, Leibniz, or anyone) ?

7

bruce culver

  • ***
  • 4626 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Question about God's change from Atemporal to temporal
« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2017, 11:31:52 am »
Troy,

   

   Actually I think your explanation is better than Dr. Craig's, with all due respect to him, and especially when he is supplying us this forum. I think it still leaves questions as does mine, with plenty of room doubt that any explanation is adequate. For all I know the materialists are right and the eternal is also material. Theists can argue that timeless spaceless matter is nonsensical, but so is a timeless spaceless person. there is no way for our time conditioned minds to really grasp what may or may not be possible in a timeless spaceless state, I think.

   

   One thing that somewhat makes me doubt materialism is that however likely or unlikey it is that life and consciousness could evolve from lifeless unconscious matter, and I think no one really has any idea how likely that might be, if it did evolve out of matter without divine assistance, then it at least has to be admitted

   that the potential for it is inherent in matter, and that potential seems to me more

    akin to idea than something physical. I suppose that it could be argued to be

   brute fact, but that is just as untestable an hypothesis, I think, as mine.

   

   

   Am I a rare bird? a radically skeptical, agnostic panentheist/deist?

Wow! In five years I've evolved from a radically skeptical, agnostic panentheist to a moderately skeptical, agnostic pantheist.
"The world is my country and my religion is to do good."