ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[patman]

Thank you for a definition, now how about an explanation of how Quantum physics proves time is a dimension.

--Dave

Hi Dave.

I am not sure if time is a dimension or not. However, as an open theist, have no problem with time being a dimension if science proves it is one.

Imagine this line represents the dimension of time

____________________________

now lets put events on this time line

_:nono:________:madmad:__________:rapture:_____


Now lets take this time line and run it through our pretend physical universe. OK.. I don't have one of those, so just imagine one.

As it runs notice initally there is a blank space in our time line. Then we see :nono: as it was predestined to happen. Then it continues to play out but nothing is defined. Then a little later :madmad: happens. Then nothing is defined and finally :rapture: happens...

As you can see, the timeline can be empty with undetermined and unsettled events, and at the right time predetermined events can take place.

Since the timeline is being ran the empty places get filled with actual events, making the past of the timeline settled, but the future is still unsettled. Since I am the one running the film I can bring about predestined events faster.

So even if there is a dimension of time, it doesn't matter. The future is still open!

I hope that makes since.....

 

[DFT_Dave]

Hi Dave.

I am not sure if time is a dimension or not. However, as an open theist, have no problem with time being a dimension if science proves it is one.

Imagine this line represents the dimension of time

____________________________

now lets put events on this time line

_:nono:________:madmad:__________:rapture:_____


Now lets take this time line and run it through our pretend physical universe. OK.. I don't have one of those, so just imagine one.

As it runs notice initally there is a blank space in our time line. Then we see :nono: as it was predestined to happen. Then it continues to play out but nothing is defined. Then a little later :madmad: happens. Then nothing is defined and finally :rapture: happens...

As you can see, the timeline can be empty with undetermined and unsettled events, and at the right time predetermined events can take place.

Since the timeline is being ran the empty places get filled with actual events, making the past of the timeline settled, but the future is still unsettled. Since I am the one running the film I can bring about predestined events faster.

So even if there is a dimension of time, it doesn't matter. The future is still open!

I hope that makes since.....

I hear it said often that quantum mechanics proves this and quantum physics proves that; I would like an explanation of how it proves whatever. I like your graphics.

--Dave

 

[patman]

I hear it said often that quantum mechanics proves this and quantum physics proves that; I would like an explanation of how it proves whatever. I like your graphics.

--Dave

I agree, it would be interesting to know. Lately I find myself allowing my mind to explore the physics of time and I found something interesting.

Before I thought in order for the future to be open time can't be a thing. I still do not believe time is a thing, but if it ever turns out that time is a thing, the future is still open.

I have a blank DVD. I can write data two it with my camcorder and even though the "time" existed, the "events in time" didn't until they were recorded.

I could have filmed candid events or made a script and film a movie. Either way the data wasn't "settled" until it happened.

-sigh- I hate using analogies.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Know how you have a Calvinist nervous? He starts flinging words like, "Arminian" and "Pelagian" around in a vain attempt to smear his opponent.

I don't follow the catechisms of James Arminius, not do I adhere to the dogmas of Pelagius.

If you wish to fling a name at me, in order to separate my stance from yours, use the most appropriate label, "Bible-believing, Blood-bought, child of the Living God", or you can shorten it to "Christian."

Seems you have time to make drive-by posts and sling ad homs, but no time to answer the questions posed in the Calvinism thread you started, no? When are you going to show up there and substantiate your claims? Looks like you need to be pinned down, so I have left you a chance (see your Calvinism thread) to do just that. That is, if you ever get around to paying attention to the thread you started in the first place. :squint:

 

[godrulz]

Could you give a little explanation of this?

--Dave

He is uncritically assuming it has been proven. Even Hawking has been wrong on a number of issues and retracted/revised them. Many accepted his former ideas as dogmatism, then had to eat crow with him.

Quantum mechanics/chaos theory has been used by Open Theists to demonstrate their views.

These speculative arguments about 4th dimensions, etc. can be as goofy as pro-evolution/anti-creationism arguments. Secular scientists are not always right or objective.

This also does not resolve the biblical, logical, philosophical issues of time, eternity, free will, foreknowledge, etc. that are outside the realm of empirical science.

 

[godrulz]

Thank you for a definition, now how about an explanation of how Quantum physics proves time is a dimension.

--Dave

I will eat my hat if he really understands these issues. He probably also accepts string theory despite the concerns and problems about it (many gullibly accepted it without even understanding it).

Time is not space. Einstein was wrong about his understanding of past, present, future (not surprising from a guy who did poor in math and could not remember his own phone number...did not want to clutter up his brain).

 

[DFT_Dave]

I agree, it would be interesting to know. Lately I find myself allowing my mind to explore the physics of time and I found something interesting.

Before I thought in order for the future to be open time can't be a thing. I still do not believe time is a thing, but if it ever turns out that time is a thing, the future is still open.

I have a blank DVD. I can write data two it with my camcorder and even though the "time" existed, the "events in time" didn't until they were recorded.

I could have filmed candid events or made a script and film a movie. Either way the data wasn't "settled" until it happened.

-sigh- I hate using analogies.

In your example the space existed, but not time. For events to take place there must exist something or someone to move or change in some way in that space. Time has a relationship to the thing, not the space. The term the "open view" is not a reference to the future, per se, it is a reference to God. The term comes from the book, The Openness of God. That's why I prefer to call this view of God as dynamic, free, theism.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

He is uncritically assuming it has been proven. Even Hawking has been wrong on a number of issues and retracted/revised them. Many accepted his former ideas as dogmatism, then had to eat crow with him.

Quantum mechanics/chaos theory has been used by Open Theists to demonstrate their views.

These speculative arguments about 4th dimensions, etc. can be as goofy as pro-evolution/anti-creationism arguments. Secular scientists are not always right or objective.

This also does not resolve the biblical, logical, philosophical issues of time, eternity, free will, foreknowledge, etc. that are outside the realm of empirical science.

Yes, theoretical physics has predicted multiple universes, time travel, etc., it all depends on what is put into an equation; a lot has to do with imagination.

--Dave

 

[Evoken]

Thank you, I don't mind when someone will take the time to critique my site. I will continue to make adjustments and corrections when they are pointed out to me. On a website I try to say what I need to say in the shortest possible way, but as you saw, that can lead to misconceptions.

In my first quote of Augustine I simply wanted to shorten it. The term "ironic" is not derogatory, and I do quote exactly what Augustine said. There are actually two ironies that I see in his comments on time; the other one is that he says he cannot define time but then goes on to define it.

I think that it is important that both sides of any debate represent each other accurately. In so doing dialogue is improved. While you do provide the complete quote further down your page, by giving the shortened (and thus inaccurate) quote first, you predispose the reader towards a mistaken view and by leaving out the conclusions of the saint about time, which as you say you even agree with, you do not prevent the reader from coming to the conclusion that St. Augustine doesn't knows what time is.

My site is not about all that Augustine says about time, it's about his synthesis with Plato, which needs to be understood.

What you say on this point is not quite right either. In your site you say:

“Augustine was faced with a dilemma; God is active--not timeless, according to the Bible and the world is not eternal, but God is timeless--not active, according to Plato and Aristotle and the world is eternal. Augustine forms a synthesis, he takes the timelessness of an immovable God and combines it with the God who is active”​

You make it sound as if the saint introduced the belief that God is timeless and immutable into The Church. He didn’t and neither did St. Ambrose, who was the one to convince him of the truth of the faith. The belief in God as timeless and immutable is found in very much all the Church Fathers before St. Augustine. He was born in 354 AD, yet in the second and third centuries and up to the time of his birth in the fourth, Christians affirmed that God is timeless and immutable. Even before and during the time of Christ, among the Jews we also see this belief. I could post some quotes if you are interested.

As to the issue of Augustine's motives, I believe he was willingly deceived into thinking he was doing God's work when he was not.

Well, as a bishop of The Church, he was. However, I don’t think that is what you have in mind here. It is not clear but it seems that you think the saint saw himself as someone who had received a direct revelation from God, a prophet of sorts that everyone had to agree with. If that or something along these lines is what you think of him, then I would suggest you take a look at what he says On the Trinity (Book III, Preface, 2) and On the Gift of Perseverance (Chapter 55) so you can see how far removed from this mindset he is.


Evo

 

[Lon]

Time is not a created thing. Can you see it in a museum? If God responds in real space-time, our choices did not exist yet to be seen or known in eternity past. I could never wrap my head around 'eternal now' ideas, but accepted them as tradition and truth. Now that I understand a more biblical, coherent view, the theological and practical ramifications are thrilling. Rather than shrug shoulders and accept tradition as mystery or beyond or comprehension, why not embrace a view that is logically, philosophically, biblically sound (even if it does not always support speculative, theoretical, modern physics)?

How about Love? created or not created? Just because it already exists in God doesn't mean that we are eternal spirit beings as well. We have battery-insert dates (life 'began' for us). Perhaps 'injection' or something of the like instead of create? Is love a thing? Can you see it in a museum?

Love is real, time is real. Both are experiences: one emotional, one duration. Time for us is rather a measurement of one activity to the next.

God, however, is unconstrained by succession. All OVers must/have-to acquiesce that their God already is beyond such measurements but relational to them. In other words, God is not lying, He is relational to our duration and in a genuine relational way has a past, present, and future, but He also has more. You cannot deny this. His past is both eternal and everlasting. If you are confused, welcome to the club. Truth that is given by God doesn't always make perfect sense to us. Does it make perfect sense? Yes. God is consistent and logical, we aren't. We understand a lot about this creation He's placed us in. We are logical beings, BUT His existence is much bigger than the universe. It is beyond us. We are still delving in the 'mysteries' of the cosmos. We are still studying the 'mysteries' of the ocean. We are still trying to figure out the cure for the cold and cancer. Why? Some things still don't make sense. Learn to live with a bit of dichotomy, like it or not.

 

[Lon]

Theologian R.C. Sproul states, "It is often said of Augustine that as Aquinas achieved a synthesis between Christian theology and Aristotelian philosophy, so Augustine achieved a synthesis between Christian theology and Platonic philosophy."18

If you knew who Sproul is you would know that he is not an OVer, but he is a scholar and simply acknowledges what is historically true.

Here is the only link I know that deals with this subject accurately.

http://www.dynamicfreetheism.com/

--Dave

Thanks Dave,

I really appreciate your willingness to redress your website and listening to Evoken. Thanks for the work of grace and accurate representation.

We'll still have disagreements but it really helps when we are discussing actual counter-factuals.

I'm aware of Sproul but I'd be a bit surprised if the context surrounding this quote was pointing to what you assume it does. I don't believe Sproul thinks our theology is derived from Augustine, influenced, yes.

Thanks again, and kudos.

In Him

Lon

 

[Lon]

I will eat my hat if he really understands these issues. He probably also accepts string theory despite the concerns and problems about it (many gullibly accepted it without even understanding it).

Time is not space. Einstein was wrong about his understanding of past, present, future (not surprising from a guy who did poor in math and could not remember his own phone number...did not want to clutter up his brain).

No, time applies within space. Think of it this way, with the 3-dimensional box we are in (space), there is movement. The box (experience/observation/senses) can move with us such that we see progression is affected and vise-versa: the dimensions we live in help us observe duration. Einstein isn't wrong about the connection, without the interaction we couldn't observe progression. Dimension and duration are integrally connected.

 

[godrulz]

In your example the space existed, but not time. For events to take place there must exist something or someone to move or change in some way in that space. Time has a relationship to the thing, not the space. The term the "open view" is not a reference to the future, per se, it is a reference to God. The term comes from the book, The Openness of God. That's why I prefer to call this view of God as dynamic, free, theism.

--Dave

Gregory Boyd suggests it is more about the openness of creation or the future, not God. I agree more with this. Creation is open or partially unsettled...with implications to God's ways and omniscience.

 

[godrulz]

Yes, theoretical physics has predicted multiple universes, time travel, etc., it all depends on what is put into an equation; a lot has to do with imagination.

--Dave

Time travel is definitely impossible since time is unidirectional. The potential future becomes the fixed past through the present. God cannot literally travel forward or back in time. The past is memory; the future is imagination/possible; the present is real/actual.

 

[godrulz]

No, time applies within space. Think of it this way, with the 3-dimensional box we are in (space), there is movement. The box (experience/observation/senses) can move with us such that we see progression is affected and vise-versa: the dimensions we live in help us observe duration. Einstein isn't wrong about the connection, without the interaction we couldn't observe progression. Dimension and duration are integrally connected.

Succession or sequence is not a constraint on God. Clearly, creation happened before incarnation before Second Coming. It is 2008 for God and us. SO? This is not a limitation on God. He is able to respond to the non-yet future without knowing it exhaustively.

I must reject hard determinism or simple foreknowledge in light of a better alternative.

Time is more fundamental than space. We locate events at a certain time in space, but there was duration in the Godhead's relations even before creation. Keep it simple. Time is a simple concept unless we get too sci-fi about it.

 

[DFT_Dave]

I think that it is important that both sides of any debate represent each other accurately. In so doing dialogue is improved. While you do provide the complete quote further down your page, by giving the shortened (and thus inaccurate) quote first, you predispose the reader towards a mistaken view and by leaving out the conclusions of the saint about time, which as you say you even agree with, you do not prevent the reader from coming to the conclusion that St. Augustine doesn't knows what time is.

What you say on this point is not quite right either. In your site you say:

“Augustine was faced with a dilemma; God is active--not timeless, according to the Bible and the world is not eternal, but God is timeless--not active, according to Plato and Aristotle and the world is eternal. Augustine forms a synthesis, he takes the timelessness of an immovable God and combines it with the God who is active”​

You make it sound as if the saint introduced the belief that God is timeless and immutable into The Church. He didn’t and neither did St. Ambrose, who was the one to convince him of the truth of the faith. The belief in God as timeless and immutable is found in very much all the Church Fathers before St. Augustine. He was born in 354 AD, yet in the second and third centuries and up to the time of his birth in the fourth, Christians affirmed that God is timeless and immutable. Even before and during the time of Christ, among the Jews we also see this belief. I could post some quotes if you are interested.

Well, as a bishop of The Church, he was. However, I don’t think that is what you have in mind here. It is not clear but it seems that you think the saint saw himself as someone who had received a direct revelation from God, a prophet of sorts that everyone had to agree with. If that or something along these lines is what you think of him, then I would suggest you take a look at what he says On the Trinity (Book III, Preface, 2) and On the Gift of Perseverance (Chapter 55) so you can see how far removed from this mindset he is.

Evo

The quote is not the main content, where I make my case. I know Augustine was not the first to say God is timeless, but I'm not dealing with the others. What I think about his motive is only an opinion and I am not concerned with what he says about other subjects. That a synthesis has occurred is a matter of fact and history and what that means is what I am concerned about.

--Dave

 

[eveningsky339]

eveningsky339:

One thing needs to be clarified: was Aristotle (I think you mean Augustine) trying to purposefully force a synthesis between Christian theology and Platonic philosophy or was he interpreting the Bible in light of the culture in which he was raised?

What is the difference, and what is your point?

Sorry I did mean Augustine... And the point being that you gave the impression that Augustine was struggling to work out a synthesis between Biblical and Greek philosophy because Biblical philosophy is obviously different than the Platonic view of time. But I would argue that this is not the case; Augustine was stating his view of time in light of what he was taught all his life.

The nature of creation has been debated since the earliest days of the church. The Hebrew word for day, YOM, actually has three different meanings, and the structure of the Genesis account seems to indicate some sort of literary framework as opposed to literal recounting. Augustine argued for an instantaneous creation.

By studying the world around us, as God commanded, we have finally clarified the nature of creation: it was a lengthy process taking billions of years.

So theistic evolution is not a synthesis, it is the result of years of debate and study.

The Bible does not say the world evolved through natural selection it says God created it, which is why it is a synthesis.

Yes, God created the world. Natural selection does not contradict this, it simply explains how the world progressed after God created it.

Natural selection/evolution is the backbone of modern medicine and genetics, so be thankful that most anti-evolutionists aren't doctors. Otherwise they would be prescribing old medicines for diseases which have since evolved.

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.

Psalm 19:1-2

It is absurd to think that a God who created time cannot even enter it.

A God who is timeless cannot enter time because he would no longer be timeless. If God created time their would be a time in God before he created time.

--Dave

Actually I disagree with Augustine on the "timeless" concept of God. Rather, God exists along an infinite number of timelines, each intersecting our own single timeline at an infinite number of points. So, God is present now, future now, and past now. Not only can God enter our timeline, but He already exists inside and outside of it.

His name says it all: I AM.

Thank you for a definition, now how about an explanation of how Quantum physics proves time is a dimension.

Certainly. Einstein stated that as an object approaches the speed of light, time for that object slows down. So I could take a year-long trip at light speed and come back to earth, and I would have only aged a year, whereas 50 years would have passed on earth.

Which brings us to an interesting experiment. We can't very well put an atomic clock at light speed to measure how time slows down, but we can certainly try. Not too long ago scientists had two atomic clocks, accurate to one billionth of a second. One clock was left on the ground, one was put in a supersonic jet and flown in the air for as long as humanly possible.

I guess I don't need to tell you which clock was slower. If time slows down as an object approaches the speed of light, then that proves that time is very much a part of this universe.

 

[Lon]

Succession or sequence is not a constraint on God. Clearly, creation happened before incarnation before Second Coming. It is 2008 for God and us. SO? This is not a limitation on God. He is able to respond to the non-yet future without knowing it exhaustively.

I must reject hard determinism or simple foreknowledge in light of a better alternative.

Time is more fundamental than space. We locate events at a certain time in space, but there was duration in the Godhead's relations even before creation. Keep it simple. Time is a simple concept unless we get too sci-fi about it.

I don't agree. I believe logically, that God has the power to remake any past event if He so chose. He could easily wipe Abraham Lincoln from ever being any kind of impact on our history and minds without us even knowing about it. His power demands the ability. What we'd then have is an illusion of time, nothing that stops God from going one way or the other. You should be able to comprehend that time is no factor where God is concerned by pure omnipotence alone. It is only logical to assume He is beyond limits of time.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I don't agree. I believe logically, that God has the power to remake any past event if He so chose. He could easily wipe Abraham Lincoln from ever being any kind of impact on our history and minds without us even knowing about it. His power demands the ability. What we'd then have is an illusion of time, nothing that stops God from going one way or the other. You should be able to comprehend that time is no factor where God is concerned by pure omnipotence alone. It is only logical to assume He is beyond limits of time.

Excellent!

Only a person who assigns to God humanistic thinking would view God's omnipotence as not really possessing all power, but as something limited to finite thought processes. To do so is to claim our thoughts are God's thoughts.

 

[godrulz]

I don't agree. I believe logically, that God has the power to remake any past event if He so chose. He could easily wipe Abraham Lincoln from ever being any kind of impact on our history and minds without us even knowing about it. His power demands the ability. What we'd then have is an illusion of time, nothing that stops God from going one way or the other. You should be able to comprehend that time is no factor where God is concerned by pure omnipotence alone. It is only logical to assume He is beyond limits of time.

I give up. Trust me. The past is fixed. Even an omnipotent, omniscient God cannot change it.

You really need to give up on square circles and married bachelors.

You are smart, yet dull, at times.