How does Bob view time?
- Thread starter wwww
- Start date
- Status
I suspect the only reason time is measured, is because of death. :rip:
Without death, there is no need to measure time.
When death ceases to exist, time will be measured no more.
This might be a little to simplistic, but why measure something that has no end? Thus time will end. 1 Cor 15:55 Rev 21:4 and Praise Him, so will death!
Without death, there is no need to measure time.
When death ceases to exist, time will be measured no more.
This might be a little to simplistic, but why measure something that has no end? Thus time will end. 1 Cor 15:55 Rev 21:4 and Praise Him, so will death!
It couldn't be the same.
The universe and everything in it is stamped with contingency, it takes place in a spatio temporal environment.
Anything that changes has potentiality that must be realized through something that is already actual. To say that God is potential in any way is to say something must proceed God to realize God's potentiality.
Time is the environment like the spatial in which emergents occur. You cannot separate time and and space. "the more fundamental" argument is nonsensible.
The eternal is not incoherent it is the antithesis of time and we can know of it in a relational way to time. By saying God is infinite, we are saying he is not finite.
We are also saying God is ETERNITY, the similitaneuos perfection of all limitless life. We not saying God is ETERNAL like eternity is an attribute of God.
Even in terms of physics "knowing the future" is not inconceivable, special relativity demostrates that hypothetically if a person could travel at the speed of life they could observe the lives of people not travelling at the speed of life flash by and know there "future" acts.
JoyfulRook
New member
A few years ago when I was recording a bible series with Bob, he'd have to drive quite a bit to pick up my friend and I. So in the car once a week we'd have the most interesting conversations, and my favorite by far was our ongoing conversation about time.
We came to the conclusion that it exists only an abstract concept.
wwww: too much philosophy and speculation; not enough simplicity and Scripture.
http://revivaltheology.gharvest.com/9_openness/eternity.html
This resonates more with me than physics...
http://revivaltheology.gharvest.com/9_openness/eternity.html
This resonates more with me than physics...
err, WHAT?
I can assure you that MrsDelmar is much younger and better looking than I am!
I read this link up to "examination of Scripture text" and I'll read on. I'll address now problems I see already.
In the second paragraph it mentions the argument I presented about "if anything does now exist, then something must be self-existent." I agree wholeheartedly. This is the potentiality/actuality principle. This comes directly fron Aristotle and Greek philosophy.
The New Testament was written in the Greek, Paul was from Tarsus which was all influenced by Greek philosophy along with Judea in Jesus time.
There is no escaping the infuence of Greek philosophy on the New Testament and its writers. So this argument that Augustine or Aquinas or Luther were influenced by Greek philosophy somehow discredits them is ludicrous.
The Old Testament writers (At least the books contained in Protestant Old Testament) were written by the ancient Hebrews who never separated the concept of time from an event as this writeup basically says. Their time is all qualitative and linked with an event.
Its only the Greeks who started looking at the concept of time as this whole article does.
The first paragraph says we can still come to an incomplete understand through reasoning which is what we do with philosophy.
So let's see if the reasoning fits into God being in time.
In the next post..
Scripture gives some parameters for this time/eternity discussion, but there are also logical and philosophical issues not fully resolved in Scripture.
The Holy Spirit reveals truth. Greek philosophy may complement or contradict it, usually the latter. John infused new meaning into 'logos' concept, for e.g. Paul opposed Greek philosophy when it was contrary to truth. He alluded to it as a starting point at times (Unknown God; Greek poets...in him we move and have our being, etc.).
Revelation > reason.
The Holy Spirit reveals truth. Greek philosophy may complement or contradict it, usually the latter. John infused new meaning into 'logos' concept, for e.g. Paul opposed Greek philosophy when it was contrary to truth. He alluded to it as a starting point at times (Unknown God; Greek poets...in him we move and have our being, etc.).
Revelation > reason.
If you were to click on the arrow next to my screen name in the quote in Delmar's post you will be directed to my post, and will see the quotes from Knight under his wife's screen name, and his own.
And?
Do you think He cannot create us to experience as He does?
Oddly enough I came to this same conclusion as a settled theist. I even wrote a lyric about it.A few years ago when I was recording a bible series with Bob, he'd have to drive quite a bit to pick up my friend and I. So in the car once a week we'd have the most interesting conversations, and my favorite by far was our ongoing conversation about time.
We came to the conclusion that it exists only an abstract concept.
We have to read revelation in light of reason and we can only go so far with supernatural revelation.
You are making a point though that Christ was a stumbling block for the Jews and foolishness for the Greeks because the Greeks could not understand a God who would allow himself to be crucfied.
What I've already said here covers the objection in the article that an eternal God could not create something in sequence.
The idea that creation means change is incorrect. That is change in previously existing material.
A first cause in order to be a first cause must be the complete cause of something and an active agent of change cannot be the complete cause. This is something the article misses completely. Hawking argues that there may not have been an initial change in the universe.
Ex creatio does not post temporal. The dependency is metaphysical based on a line of sufficient reasoning. There may not have been a starting point of time as Hawking suggests, but since the universe is potentially changing all the time it still depends on a wholly actual first cause.
This is a serious flaw in the endless time argument. From waht we know of the big bang, time could very well have a beginning.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:idunno: with a wristwatch?
The Graphite
New member
Actually, I've heard Bob opposes wristwatches, since homos love to flop their wrists around as they do.
Being a staunch advocate of a strong, central government, Bob favors a strong central timepiece in the form of a big, sturdy grandfather clock.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Are pocket watches ok?
The Graphite
New member
I dunno.... Still sounds pretty perverted to me... :mmph:
Mr. 5020
New member
:chuckle: Yup...
Creation is a change from nothing to something. Matter is not eternal.
Hawking has changed his own views significantly over time. He rejects revelation and is speculative at best.
Many creation scientists do not accept a secular understanding of 'big bang' (www.icr.org).
William Lane Craig suggests that God is timeless in eternity and temporal after creation. I resonate with Wolterstorff's divine temporality view.
The issues are not simplistic, but I think you are buying into a speculative philosophy that is not defensible in the end.
Rev. 1:4 tensed expresions are used about the eternal God.
Ps. 90:2 Before earthly time, God was existing in an endless duration of time (from everlasting to everlasting, not timeless, a philosophical concept only).
http://www.amazon.com/God-Time-Gregory-E-Ganssle/dp/0830815511 (search inside for contents)
- Status