On the omniscience of God
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
Lon
Well-known member
I don't even think Enyart would have said that about him. It was more, I think, that he wasn't prepared for the debate. I think Enyart and staff prep well for debates.Sometimes, I exaggerate a point. I should have just called him an idiot.
Where, btw, in this thread was that debate posted. I cannot seem to find it again
(Please and ty).Sorry I missed this. The conundrum: God is literally the source of everything so 'entering' that everything is literally entering inward, if you follow. I believe, from Colossians 1:15-20, John 15:5 and Acts 17:28 (a further sense of this in Philippians 2:13 etc.) that God is 'in all' Ephesians 4:6
I'm open to correction: panentheism is how I understand Him and conceive it means. So, for me, it means that 'time' isn't 'without' Him, but 'within' Him as is all else. It is NOT to say sin is 'in' Him thus I'm NO pantheist and qualified in panentheism as well.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Most do (I do, incidently). I'd simply say: believe what is in the Bible and be careful with what is not. There are scriptures that talk about not being able to flee from God's presence from David, Psalm 139:7-12 for example. At the very least, your conversation with Open Theists will cause you to delve into scriptures further, for what you believe, and that is always a good thing.
Lon
Well-known member
Its a good verse for thought and thanks. If I'm to change to any Open Theist position, it does have to be upon scriptural basis. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says literally 'prosopone' (face) of the Lord. It does indeed present a dilemma to omnipresence unless 1) men are annihilated in the lake of fire, such that there is literally 'no' presence for God to be, 2) that He can see them, but they not He 3) it could only mean God isn't Omniscient. If so, then along the same line that if one Omni, then all omnis logically, and you'd show the opposite, if not one, then none. If you can prove it, there would be no room for any to believe the omnis (many of us would have to be Open when/if such a thing were the only possible interpretation). -Lon
Time, like math and logic, for example, are not created entities, but rather they are aspects of reality.
Thus: Time is the endurance of reality.
Time is the dimension of change. And to add more descriptors, time is the beginningless, endless, present, continuous, invariable, irreversible future-to-past non-physical dimension of change.
Because you say so?
Lon, you're better than this. I know you are.
1) You are begging the question. "Time can only be represented by the lower two..."? Because you say so? You provide no argument as to why the first line (and if I may, I'd like to point out that the second two "lines" are not technically lines at all, but rather the second is a "ray," and the third is a "line segment," to use their proper geometric names) cannot be used.
On the contrary, I assert that ONLY the first can represent time, BECAUSE time, as the dimension of change, is beginningless, endless, present, continuous, invariable, irreversible, future-to-past non-physical dimension of change, is infinitely long, just as a line is infinitely long, extending in two opposite directions. As such, and fitting of your visual representation, the "ray" and the "line segment," which are half of a line and a fraction of a line, represent other things.
As such, the "line" best represents what time is. Or, to put it another way, God's eternal existence is best represented by a line.
The "ray" could be used, when overlaid onto the line, to represent:
A) the point at which God created the earth, and its existence since then
B) the point at which a human being comes into existence, and how the human's soul will last forever
C) the point at which Christ had two natures, and no longer just one, and how He will forever more have two natures.
And more.
The "line segment"could be used, when overlaid onto the line, to represent:
A) A human's/humanity's fleeting existence on this earth
B) The Millennial Kingdom
C) The duration of Christ's earthly ministry
And more.
2) Time, like a line, and not a ray or segment, while it cannot be measured in totality, at least not by humans, does not have "no measurement," EXCEPT in that it is not possible to measure something that is infinitely long, except to say that it is so. A "point" has "no measurement," because there is nothing to measure, but a "line" has infinite measurement. Thus, your position further falls apart.
3) A line does not fit into a point, but infinitely many points make up a line. As such, saying that God, who you claim exists in an eternal now (a "point"), sees time as if seeing a parade coming along a street, while He sits above it on top of a building, able to see the entire parade (a "line"), while humanity, the people on the street, can only see what's happening where they are, is quite backwards.
Ephesians 3:18 has literally nothing to do with this discussion.
Ephesians 3:14-19:
14 For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height— 19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
This is a poor argument, and an even shoddier defense of the Greeks.
Just because someone is right on one topic, does not guarantee that they are right on another.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Cite please, rather than just making bald assertions.
The passage is talking about Christ's character.
It's not saying that he's a stone idol that cannot change in any way. He BECAME flesh, He GAINED a new nature, one which He never had before the incarnation.
That would be a line segment. Not a line.
See what I mean?
To use your analogy, humans are beings whose existence are best represented by rays. They have a beginning, but no end.
God is a Being Whose existence is defined by a line. It has no beginning, and no end.
Not sure what you're referring to in that verse...
You may have cited the wrong verse.
This is why it's helpful to look at the verses you're referencing, even if you don't copy/paste them into your post.
In other words, a line, continuing on to infinity in both directions...
As a line is already infinite.
Well, no, the Verse says God's UNDERSTANDING is infinite. I agree that God is infinite, but let's not say that a verse says something it doesn't say.
Everlasting God. Meaning, line, extending to infinity in both direction. Not a ray, which extends in only one direction to infinity, and has a beginning or end. Not a line segment, which has both a beginning and end.
Which is the exact opposite of the word used in Isaiah 40:28.
Say it with me, Lon. "The opposite of finite is INFINITE."
A line is infinite.
A line segment is not.
A point is not.
A ray is, but only in one direction, but as stated above, a ray cannot define God's existence, as He "always was."
Colossians 1:16 (not 15):
For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
What you are saying is not what the verse says. Don't try to change what scripture says, Lon.
It says "by Him all things were created..."
It says "all things were created through Him and for Him."
It does not say "nothing exists neither without nor outside Him." It says nothing of the sort.
Verse 17 says, "And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist."
Agreed.
Well, no. Pay closer attention, otherwise it becomes easy to beg the question of time being created:
John 1:3:
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
Did you catch it?
"...nothing was made that was made."
This verse says that [everything that was made] was [made through [Christ]].
You now and still have to show that time was [something made] and a [thing].
No Open Theist claims that God is "ruled by time."
Rather, we (or at least, I do) claim that time is an aspect of His existence. He exists and interacts within the Godhead, therefore sequence occurs.
And yet, it is not possible to not say that there was a "before" the existence of "things" if there is no time. According to the definition I use, time is the dimension of change. Change, a "before" and "after," logically require the pre-existence of time in order to occur. Thus, "before the creation of time" is logically self-refuting.
Again, God certainly doesn't change in certain ways. But He DOES change in other ways.
For example, He exists. That doesn't change. But, He changed His mind on multiple occasions in the Bible.
Not my position.
God is "supernatural," literally "outside of nature." God created nature. But cannot, logically create time, for the above stated reason.
Here's the problem with this position:
Colossians 1:16-17:
For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
The Greek word for "in" used in "and in Him all things consist" means "into," "to," "unto," and "for" as well.
The Greek word for "consist" in the same phrase means "to create, form, shape, make." It has the idea of "proprietorship of the manufacturer" (according to Strong's). In other words, the verse isn't saying that creation is "in" Him, so much as it's saying that He is the owner of creation.
God cannot be both temporal and atemporal. God does not violate the law of non-contradiction.
Agreed.
Because you say so?
Why do you assume (beg the question) that time is external to God?
Again, my position is that time is simply an aspect of God's existence. Thus it isn't outside of Him, but is a part of Him in the same way that He is loving and merciful and anything else He is.
Is it possible you don't?
Creator of everything that was made.
Things that weren't made by Him: love, mercy, justice, patience, ... , time.
Simple as that.
Because you say so? Nothing in John 1:1 indicates "timelessness," for the above stated reasons.
Come on, Lon, you as a trinitarian should know as well as anyone that this is simply a reference to Exodus where He was talking to Moses from the burning bush, and is simply Him giving His name, "I AM."
That isn't at least some sort of traverse of time from then to 'now?'The statement itself is saying that 'then' is 'my now.' Do you see that as necessarily true?
I don't, because it is not necessarily true, but is you simply reading it into the text.
Jesus is saying that He existed before Abraham, and then states His name, the same name He gave to Moses.
Did you notice that this verse is also another passage where Jesus says "I say unto you" (https://kgov.com/deity).
That entire sentence is a claim to being God.
It's saying He was God before Abraham existed, and still is God.
Jesus talking about His past and present.
Except that the verse does NOT say that.
It says "IS AS."
A simile.
It's a figure of speech, and is NOT meant to be taken as a woodenly literal description.
Again as I said in that portion of my post, it means that God is patient and longsuffering, and powerful.
It is NOT saying that God is timeless.
God cannot be patient if He is outside of time, Lon.
God cannot be longsuffering if He is outside of time, Lon.
God cannot accomplish in a day that which would take man a thousand years to complete, if God is outside of time, Lon.
Which is utterly meaningless if He is outside of time.
"Somehow" it isn't?
Because you say so? Talk about a lame defense of one's position...
The verse uses "as." By definition that makes it a simile and not a metaphor.
"with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
Simile. Simple.
I'm not saying it says "like." I'm saying it says "as."
"Like" and "as" BOTH are simile words.
Similes are figures of speech.
Because you say so?
Just read the verse, Lon!
Psalm 90:4:
For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday when it is past,
And like a watch in the night.
It's saying that a thousand years goes by like nothing, to God.
You're likely much older than I am, but even I've experienced childhood. Maybe you can remember that, when you were a child, summers between school years felt like they lasted entire lifetimes, but now, at your (and my current respective ages) they hardly last any time at all before they're gone.
HOW MUCH MORE SO FOR GOD WHO HAS EXISTED FOR ETERNITY PAST ARE A THOUSAND YEARS IN HIS SIGHT?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Continued in the next post.
It says nothing about time whatsoever.
From kgov.com/bel/20040223 (please read the entirety before commenting):
| * Who Was Melchizedek? Was he a man? Or was he God appearing to man, that is, a theophany? Pre-Incarnation divine appearances seem to be by Christophany, as both priestly and in-person revelations are the domain of God the Son. Yet Melchizedek wouldn't have been a Christophany because it is potentially catastrophic to say of Jesus that He had "no father". And Melchizedek certainly wasn't some co-eternal being other than God, as "no beginning of days" may imply to some. Was he then God the Father, the Holy Spirit, or a normal human being? The Book of Hebrews describes him as remaining "a priest continually." So that would seem to exclude him from being one of the other Persons of the Trinity, since only the Son is the priestly Mediator, and not the Father nor the Spirit. The Genesis passage provides the earliest reference to nascent Jerusalem. In that time of patriarchy/city states, the more familiar that Abraham was with the political leaders of Canaan the more likely it is that Melchizedek was a normal human being. As the King of Salem, Melchizedek was probably previously known to Abraham. After the "slaughter of the [other] kings" Abraham met first with the King of Sodom and then with the King of Salem. The fascinating Hebrews 7 passage says "so to speak" i.e., not literally, not about Melchizedek though, but about Levi. And the description of Melchizedek likewise could have been "so to speak", that is, containing symbolic language, which of course is so very common especially in the eastern/Hebrew/biblical use of metaphors and analogies. The brevity of the account, leaving out his earthly heritage, made Melchizedek an even better fit as a spiritual type. (The "king of Sodom" too had no genealogy reported in the text, but obviously that doesn't mean that he was yet another eternal being.) God, of course, had the authority to establish a human priesthood, as He did through Aaron. And likewise, He had the authority to establish a human priesthood, if He wanted to, through this guy Melchizedek, whose mantle Christ then inherited, not unlike Him inheriting David's throne. |
In other words, this was about just another normal human being whom God decided to use to establish the priesthood of Levi.
As a "NOT 'without succession or sequence.'"
Not as part of the verse, nor as what was being said by the verse. See above.
Clearly?
A line is "without beginning or end."
You're attempting to say that a point is a line. It's not.
Supra.
It means without a beginning. It means "always existed."
A line. Not non-existence of what it's being drawn on.
You're the one who said it, perhaps using my post in which I cited from https://kgov.com/time, but you didn't edit it.
In other words, the half of a line that extends to the past, infinitely.
It's not difficult unless you reject the actual meaning of the words.
"Without beginning" simply means no beginning.
It does not mean "atemporal."
"Outside of time" is illogical for the above stated reasons.
From https://kgov.com/time:
| In the section heading just above, the word Greek does not refer, as many would assume, to the text of the New Testament that was originally written in Greek. Rather, it was used to refer to pagan Greek philosophy, which insisted that God exists outside of time. In contrast, the Hebrew and Greek terms in the Bible about God and time are TOTALLY different and refer not to timelessness but to unending duration. The phrases in the Scriptures all speak of God existing through unending time and an everlasting duration. The above timelessness terms are foreign to the reader of God's Word, whereas the Bible's many terms, as listed below, are all so very familiar from our reading of Scripture. |
No, it's not, Lon.
No, it does not, Lon.
"No beginning" means, at the very least, the half of a line extending infinitely into the past.
"No end" means, at the very least, the other half of that same line extending infinitely into the future.
It doesn't mean that there is no line.
No, Lon, it's not.
No, Lon, they're not.
This is called eisegesis, Lon.
Reading meaning into the text where it doesn't exist to begin with is why you're wrong on this entire issue.
Here's what it says, again:
Hebrews 7:3:
without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.
Go read, again, what I quoted at the beginning of this post RE Melchizedek.
Yes, that's what I quoted.
He cannot be both atemporal AND temporal, Lon.
That violates the LAW of non-contradiction.
God is not contradictory.
He is either in time, or outside of it completely. There is no both-and, here, but only either-or.
And the last several posts I've made have gone to extensive lengths to show that He CANNOT be outside of time in any way.
So thank you for conceding the discussion.
I'm going to ask that you watch this debate between Will Duffy and Jeremy Howard, on this exact topic. Watch it all the way through, and don't comment until you're done.
Didn't we just discuss them 'from' the Bible?
No.
You may want to read what I said again.
It matters a great deal when you allow pagan philosophy to color your view of God.
Pagan lenses, off, Lon. Now.
No one is saying Bob (or any Open Theist, for that matter) has everything right.
The problem is that YOU have been shown that pagan philosophy has influenced the way most people view God today, and we Open Theists are simply pointing that out, and asking believers to consider what that means for their theology and their view of God.
The point is that would should consider what scripture says WITHOUT allowing what the Greeks thought about scripture, BEFORE we consider what it says in light of their philosophy.
I have yet to see you cite such scholars, at least in this discussion on this topic.
I'm saying it now.
Not in this discussion, you haven't.
Nope. I never received a "classical" education.
How about instead of asking your opponent to do extra work, you do the work yourself and include it in your posts.
Good.
Sure Augustine influenced Catholics, but if Hebrews did as well (and they did) then whatever they agreed upon is of importance. Where they didn't? We need to pay attention to that as well OR, like YOU said, ignore them, but that isn't what "Open Theism" is doing in conversation, is it???
I'm certainly not.
Once again, that's not what the verse says.
Debatable.
Because you say so?
Because you say so?
Because you say so?
And you have yet to do so.
Eternity means "unending time," Lon. It doesn't mean "no time."
Are you now claiming a "higher knowledge" than that of most people"?
Supra, RE "in" and "consists".
Of course He is, but that doesn't by necessity require "apart from time." You still have yet to establish that bit.
What IS Plato is:
| - is timeless - in an eternal now - without sequence or succession - without moment or duration - atemporal and outside of time - not was, nor will be, but only is - has no past - has no future. |
Openness Theology - Does God Know Your Entire Future? - Battle Royale X
Battle Royale X: Openness Theology, Enyart's Post 5B Battle Royale X: Openness Theology, Enyart's Post 5B In this post, the unmovable stone wall (of the Settled View) meets the unstoppable force (of Relationship). One of the forces that threatens both the doctrine of Simple Foreknowledge and...
theologyonline.com
This unemployed guy believes, like you, that most Christians are influence 'incorrectly' by Greeks.
Down the list, a Jew corrects him. He is wrong that God isn't apart from His creation and wrong in his apparent lack of knowledge that it wasn't a 'Greek' but a Jew, both in thread and Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible
That's nice.
It doesn't.
From nowhere. Ex nihilo. Out of nothing.
Creation didn't exist prior to God creating it, and you cannot come up with a way of saying that if God did not exist in time.
You don't seem to recognize that if Creation existed, in some way, shape, or form, "as a part of God," then since God has always existed, and since God (at least according to you) does not change, therefore creation ALSO has always existed, which is contrary to what scripture says.
It also makes God's existence dependent on His creation, which is heresy.
I don't have that problem, because I don't believe that God co-existed with creation prior to Him creating it.
That's the problem that someone who believes God is outside of time has.
Supra. Already addressed.
Because you say so?
God is not forced to be in the same room as "omnipresent" would indicate, during such a scenario.
One is either in or out of time. Not both.
Law of non-contradiction, remember?
"Not the same" doesn't even come close to equating to or even implying "outside of time."
Even we experience time differently as we age.
Which is just another way of saying "in time."
Thanks for conceding the point.
You're conflating the measurement of time (the rotation of the earth) with time again.
Time kept flowing, Lon. Only the rotational position of the earth changed.
But He didn't "author time," or at the very least, you have yet to establish that.
Yes, time MEASUREMENT, but not TIME ITSELF.
No, Lon, it does not.
It simply affects the progression of the clock that MEASURES time.
The measurement of time IS NOT TIME.
Saying it doesn't make it so, Lon. Supra.
You missed it.
I said, "It does not mean "having all power." That is the definition of "omnipotent" that I provided.
God DOES NOT HAVE all power.
He has delegated some of power to some of His creation.
Or, perhaps a better way to put it is: Some of God's creation has power that isn't in God's possession.
We Christians have been predestinated by God to be adopted into Christ to receive the inheritance promised to the children of God.
Ephesians 1:5
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
OZOS
Well-known member
No kidding, and here once again, you look like an idiot, talking about things that have nothing to do with anything I was talking about. Are you drunk, by chance?
OZOS
Well-known member
First time I've ever heard anyone use that example, besides me. I even searched the internet, after it came to me, to see if anyone else saw it that way. Very cool!
Don't be so hard on strangers or you might be mistaken for a hard-hearted barbarian.
OZOS
Well-known member
The barbarian is the one who blurts out comments without understanding what's going on. Try reading what is said, and why. And here is a free tip, it also works when reading the Bible.
Job 12:4
I am as one mocked of his neighbour, who calleth upon God, and he answereth him: the just upright man is laughed to scorn.
Lon
Well-known member
Define 'reality.' It is a necessity that 'math' is created because it only deals with physical properties and 'created' numerals. If by 'reality' you mean 'the physical universe' then great. If you mean aspects of God Himself, you'd have to show that.
Again, if by 'reality' you mean the physical universe, yes, it part of His created 'reality.'
I know of no definition of time that says 'non-physical.' Einstein showed time is a physical property.
No, because literally nobody but Open Theists, think otherwise. Honestly? The burden of proof is on you guys as the usurpers.
Appreciate that, but let's go back over what "I" believe "is" better: Time only measures what is measurable. The line represents no point A nor B. You must have at least a break, somewhere, to even suggest time. By it, we somewhat grasp an eternal nonbeginning of God but ONLY as we understand a starting point somewhere. Time is nothing but a constructed mathematical concept AND we 'conceive' it by observation of our physical universe. Time, tape measures, temperature, etc. etc. is all mathematics applied to observation for meaning.
First, yes! I'm not terrible at mathematics and very good at logic. Next? "Yes" because I say so because I can show it. Read further, that the only way to even know 'when' time starts is only by physical indicators. Time is inextricably connected to our physical universe and the theory of time is called a 'block universe.' It means, all that is contained 'in' the universe moves, but the universe itself, does not, therefore time ONLY applies to whatever moves 'within' and is a illusion. It is, physics states, an illusion, because the only movement is a sense of looking from 'one space within the block to another.' It means that an appeal to 'Greek' influence of an immovable mover, is actually a long held observation of physicists. I'm not a physicist but I'm versed well enough to be able to discuss these in laymen terms and explain why they must be so.
Yes, the other two represent 'parts' of a line, or a line that has been segmented. The reason it cannot apply to the line is it has no place at all (like the block universe) to apply time. Time MUST be conceived by a starting point. God has none. The idea that God only moves 'forward' in sequential increments, is a construct of only man's ability to grasp Him. Time is part and parcel of a physical construct, as is Mathematics. Mathematics are not an absolute, they are the properties of a physical universe. Insisting God is somehow locked into only His universe make Him the product 'of' the physical (His creation).
As I linked above, you are describing something bigger than time if it is beginningless.
Yet see what you did to conceive this? You made, invariably, a random access point to even start the idea of time. It is invariably true, you will always have to use an artificial construct (like zero degrees) to apply any concept.
Not to the first, yes to the second. Simply: You cannot have 'time' which is not but a mathematical concept, without a made-construct. It is true of all applied math. There has to be a construct of a starting point, to measure 'one foot' and a 24 hour day. God did create the measurements, 'the first day' and the shores etc.
Agree
First of all, let's take the metaphor of the line. There is no such thing as 'the length of a line.' There is no mathematical formula that can be written. Two observations then: 1) without measure and 2) only constructs give any kind of 'length' meaning (constructs either by God or man).
And all constructs imposed upon the line to make a meaning. As such they are 'made.'
A couple of considerations:
1) Like your analogy, we are a construct (created beings). Whatever applies to us may not apply to God and often, we misapprehend God when we can only think in physical/confined terms. It makes some sense, as I've said, because genuinely, some people simply cannot think metaphysically in a formal operational stage. It means, quite literally, that they cannot think 'outside' of the physical universe. It means their conceptions of God are very much contained in His interactions with the physical universe alone. They literally have no tools for grasping God outside of physical concepts (reality) outside of what they can sense with 5 senses. 4th dimension? You cannot explain this to them EXCEPT by 3 dimensional concepts.
while a 'cube connected to a cube' can help one grasp, the idea of something else besides the physical is given in scripture, that God created all so, necessarily is apart from all. Colossians 1:15 John 1:3. If God were to live only 'in' a universe, He couldn't be the 'god' of it "without Him, Nothing was made that was made."
You should have asked instead of declared. You are starting to posture at this point. It isn't a good place to be when we are only interested in what is true. If either your or my position can be shown wrong, it simply means we adjust or leave an idea behind. Ephesians gives 1) measure then 2) says that the object to measure cannot be measured. The concepts of a 'measureless' God are important and 'time' is a 'measurement.' The scripture in question says at least in dimensions, God's attribute is 'beyond' measure. The purpose of including it, then, was to show, beyond doubt, that God AT LEAST in some of His aspects is absolutely beyond measure. Scripture isn't giving a platitude of meaninglessness. If It says He is beyond measure, then that is an absolute. Time is a measurement virtually the same as 'length.'
You guys are really stuck on the Greeks. I'd suggest they have ruined YOUR thinking because Open Theists seem to know only Greeks while clueless as to "Physics" for interest. A good class on physics would be good for any Open Theist interested and apt for such a class. Imho? "Greeks" is a scapegoat with only perhaps a few exceptions. Open Theists talk about Greeks. I haven't read even Augustine, who I like, for a very long time.
No, but onus is upon one calling them on the carpet.
It can, if they have the authority and other does not. At least it can go unchallenged without the necessary information to challenge it.
For something YOU can easily look up???
Maimonides argued long ago, against Greek influence but rather argued that Hebrews hold to physics and metaphysics as 'good thinking' rather than infected thinking from Greeks or anyone else. Jews do discuss Aristotle in any sense that they have been found in agreement (not derivative). In short, there is no traction whatsoever (not an iota) outside of Open circles, in even mentioning a Greek or Aristotle. Most Christians in fact, have little idea what you'd mean.
This is one of those points where one either is able to think fourth dimensionally, or is not. God is the source of all things, literally, which means His own incarnation. You are pitting God against the physical world and physical concepts with these two sentences. He is not a slave the physical universe. He is the creator of it.
It is an aspect 'of' the line. It is part of the Open misconception: Open Theism insists a segment, not a line. You yourself say its a 'law of noncontradiction.' It is confusing yourself regarding a line and a segment. Do you not realize that a segment IS part of the line? Do you then insist that the superimposed segments are the sum of the line? Isn't it rather you that isn't grasping that God is both 'part' of a segment AND outside according to correct mathematics and definition?
You did a good long work here, JR. I'm going to also take these in parts, I think four responses. In Him -Lon
Answer: ∞ years
Time:
<---------------------------|--------------------------------------|----------------------------->
past___<(∞ years)>___creation___<(about 7000 years)>___present___<(∞ years)>___future
Looks like time as humans understand it cannot adequately explain eternity as God sees it.
"∞ years" isn't adequate?
OZOS
Well-known member
How long has God been active?