Actus Purus and Time/Free Will

[Dimmesdale]

I’m wondering if I understand this correctly. God is classically said to be Actus Purus, which means he has no “unactualized potential.”

Actus purus - Wikipedia

“God is changeless because change means passage from potency to act.”

So for us there is change because we are in time. I have to go from boyhood to puberty then adulthood, etc. But for God whatever is to be “actualized”, such as some aspect of his will, is already so, since he is “outside” of time. It is instantaneous.

I have two questions. First, in what sense can time be said to real if for God “now” (our now) is already over? It seems to me that if God is changeless, and his will is already actualized, what meaning is there in saying “now” is but not “tomorrow” yet. The reverse seems to be the case. Now is already over and was so eternally. Does God go back in time to “sustain” this moment?

I guess time could still have reality. Actually I do believe it does. But for God, well since he’s Actus Purus, He is still far-removed from now. So how can “now” really be “now” if God isn’t a time-traveller? A part of me wonders if God isn’t a time-traveller, since he is far removed from us by, well, eternity. Hope this makes sense. If not, well, I tried.

Moving on, my next question is that of free will. Can God, being Actus Purus, have libertarian free will? It does not seem possible because, a decision involves moving from potentiality to actuality. A decision seems to necessitate time. Because, a libertarian decision was once indeterminate. If a decision existed from all eternity, then it couldn’t have been “decided upon.” It would have been fixed from all time. So how could it be a libertarian free will decision? I’m not saying God had to change his mind. But he would have had to make up his mind. Or else there doesn’t seem to be much sense in ascribing to him libertarian free will.

And if we are supposedly made in the image of God, and he doesn’t have libertarian free will, then it seems to naturally follow as a corollary that we, at best, have only compatibilist or no free will.

Thanks & look forward to responses.

 

[Dovekin]

Imagine God playing a piano. A thumb plays C, the middle finger E, and then the pinky G. Music has a time component. God could also play all three notes together as a chord. Same notes, no time elapsed so it is completely different experience. God hears all the notes together at once, but it is music to him, somehow simulating time though there is no change.

We can imagine God like that, performing all the notes in succession but hearing them together. God can hear the music, but not like we do, he hears all at once. The activity of God is playing all the music all at once; but we experience it as the fulfillment of potential through time.

God is one pure act, which we see as happening through time but God sees in the single moment of eternity.

 

[Dimmesdale]

Imagine God playing a piano. A thumb plays C, the middle finger E, and then the pinky G. Music has a time component. God could also play all three notes together as a chord. Same notes, no time elapsed so it is completely different experience. God hears all the notes together at once, but it is music to him, somehow simulating time though there is no change.

We can imagine God like that, performing all the notes in succession but hearing them together. God can hear the music, but not like we do, he hears all at once. The activity of God is playing all the music all at once; but we experience it as the fulfillment of potential through time.

God is one pure act, which we see as happening through time but God sees in the single moment of eternity.

You seem to equate “succession” (as in, logical succession) with time itself. This isn’t the same thing to my mind. Why is the thin present of our “now” eternally in the past while God is eternally in the future? And both being equally real?

You still have to address the rather contradictory situation of there being at least two different “nows” - our now and God’s eternal now which again, is infinitely removed from our own.

This seems schizophrenic and requires, to my mind, an explanation. IF there are multiple nows that are equally real then, that seems to commit you to an “eternalist” theory of time. And that to me seems not only counterintuitive (Socrates is still living in the past, and it’s already 2049, etc), but destroys libertarian free will.

 

[Christbearer98]

Not too sure about the first question, but the libertarian stance on free-will is not the classical stance which coincides with the Actus Purus theory. Classically, knowing the good is automatically to will it. So it’s not like we have will which just chooses based on nothing, we always choose what we understand to be best. God does the same, He wills according to His knowledge of goodness (aka knowledge of Himself), and acts thus. He thus is as free as you and me. But this doesn’t entail He had to create the universe as it is, because there are infinitely many ways God could express His goodness.

 

[Dovekin]

You still have to address the rather contradictory situation of there being at least two different “nows” - our now and God’s eternal now which again, is infinitely removed from our own.

This is the issue I was addressing. Our now is not the discrete momentary presence but a musical expanse embracing the past and anticipating the future. At the same time it is the now of God who actively engages all this as a single moment. It is not schizophrenic, except to the extent our minds may be shattered by trying to encompass God’s mind. It is musical, to us who experience it successively and to God who lives it instantly.

There are many ways to describe this. On a piano, a chord is notes played simultaneously, on a guitar it is notes played so quickly together they sound simultaneous. And if they are played more slowly, in a sequence of moments, the notes take on another character altogether. God lives all music at once, Beethoven’s 9th at the same time as Eleanor Rigby and every other composition, chords simultaneously with individual notes.

It is not a perfect analogy, but I think it might address some of your issues. Maybe not?

And yes, I do equate succession with time, as each moment follows another, replacing it with a new moment and itself replaced by another. How would you describe time?

 

[Anrakyr]

I have two questions . First, in what sense can time be said to real if for God “now” (our now) is already over? It seems to me that if God is changeless, and his will is already actualized, what meaning is there in saying “now” is but not “tomorrow” yet . The reverse seems to be the case. Now is already over and was so eternally. Does God go back in time to “sustain” this moment?

Lucy: “When is soon Aslan?”
Aslan: “I call all times soon.”

 

[Dimmesdale]

This is the issue I was addressing. Our now is not the discrete momentary presence but a musical expanse embracing the past and anticipating the future. At the same time it is the now of God who actively engages all this as a single moment. It is not schizophrenic, except to the extent our minds may be shattered by trying to encompass God’s mind. It is musical, to us who experience it successively and to God who lives it instantly.

I don’t see how some moments are not discrete. Today is April 17th. That is a discrete fact. Of course, it is a “bundle” of moments as it were, but the same principle applies to hours, minutes, and so on. At the most fundamental level, it seems natural to assume there is “a” or “the moment.” It seems that time as we know it has this sort of point in between past and future that is alive. And it is alive in relation to our time, not God’s time, it seems to me.

That there is a certain “expanse” as you say seems to muddle the issue. Yes, our “moment” may be integrated within a “larger moment”, but they are still separate and not to be conflated. You don’t say that the tail of a snake is identical with the whole snake. Why should the larger moment have within it a smaller aspect of itself eternally in the past? Why should our moment be lagging infinitely behind? Take the analogy of a train. The front part of the train gets to the station in an hour, say. It has completed its journey in a very short time relative to the rest of its parts. The other compartments need to cover the distance. But what if the train is infinite? The totality of the compartments could never cover any distance. It may as well be that they are frozen in place relative to the end-state. Our moment cannot catch up to the reality of the Supreme Moment. So where is the idea of unity then? How can this be one unified expanse?

Perhaps you can say that God holds all these moments simultaneously in His Mind’s Eye, which is infinite. So, perhaps we have an aerial view of the train, seeing it non-linearly. But still how could we see it in its entirety from any distance? And why is there still our point of now at one end, near the “beginning”, tied down to an “a-temporal” “start” - while the all-encompassing Reality is the Whole? Simply because God decreed it so? Time travel is necessary, I think.

Maybe it would make more sense if time never had a beginning or end, that it is cyclical. That way neither we nor God are tied-down to an “absolute beginning.” That instead we have a perfectly non-linear, infinite sphere, with God seeing everything from the center.

On time: I see it as an implacable force, more than a mere logical sequence. A digital disk contains information, but it requires an added medium, the disk-player, to manifest itself in a real way. A sequence is only data. We may cobble together information in our minds, but that’s not the same thing as what time does, in my view.

 

[Anrakyr]

Perhaps you can say that God holds all these moments simultaneously in His Mind’s Eye, which is infinite. So, perhaps we have an aerial view of the train, seeing it non-linearly. But still how could we see it in its entirety from any distance? And why is there still our point of now at one end, near the “beginning”, tied down to an “a-temporal” “start” - while the all-encompassing Reality is the Whole? Simply because God decreed it so?

You don’t need to time travel when you exist outside of the confines of time.

You simply are.

 

[Dimmesdale]

You don’t need to time travel when you exist outside of the confines of time.

You simply are.

I believe God exists in a realm outside of time. But some things have still elapsed for Him, no? Otherwise, everything is still happening. Socrates is still drinking his poison and Jesus is still being crucified on the Cross. For God this world is already over, so there has to be some mechanism for sustaining our present. If you just say it is a part of his “larger present”, that it’s a unified symphony… that doesn’t make sense to me. That isn’t really a moment, it’s an expanse of time… A moment is momentary, and that is so even for God it seems. Unless time is one big moment. Then why don’t we experience all of time instantaneously then? Why should we be tied down to a “beginning?”

 

[Dimmesdale]

Not too sure about the first question, but the libertarian stance on free-will is not the classical stance which coincides with the Actus Purus theory. Classically, knowing the good is automatically to will it. So it’s not like we have will which just chooses based on nothing, we always choose what we understand to be best. God does the same, He wills according to His knowledge of goodness (aka knowledge of Himself), and acts thus. He thus is as free as you and me. But this doesn’t entail He had to create the universe as it is, because there are infinitely many ways God could express His goodness.

Can you clarify what you are saying? I don’t think I understand.

Libertarian free will entails that you could have done otherwise than how you did. Compatibilist free will entails that you could not have done otherwise than how you did. If God is changeless, and all his decrees are also changeless, existing from all eternity… well, I don’t see how they could have been different. Hence, God doesn’t have libertarian free will it seems…

 

[Gorgias]

First, in what sense can time be said to real if for God “now” (our now) is already over?

To say that it’s “over” presumes a passage of time. There’s no temporality in God. Therefore, the question is poorly formed, and admits of no logical answer.

Can God, being Actus Purus, have libertarian free will?

I would answer that ‘liberatarian free will’ is posited as a (possible, albeit disputed) characteristic within the physical universe. God is not constrained within the physical universe, and therefore, it does not apply to Him.

Moreover, God does not have attributes (since, after all, that would make Him ‘composite’). However, we could say “God acts freely.”

And if we are supposedly made in the image of God, and he doesn’t have libertarian free will, then it seems to naturally follow as a corollary that we, at best, have only compatibilist or no free will.

It’s always interesting to arguments that assert “God has X, and we are made in the imago Dei, and therefore, we must have X, too!!!”

No, that’s not the case. That’s not what the imago Dei means. Aquinas would argue that humans aren’t identical to God, but are an (imperfect) image of God.

 

[Dimmesdale]

To say that it’s “over” presumes a passage of time. There’s no temporality in God. Therefore, the question is poorly formed, and admits of no logical answer.

But it is over in reality. I’m not saying God isn’t above time. I’m talking about reality over and above God. Namely, what is the case. And as far as I see, God’s now reduces our now to nothing. So there did exist a passage of time that’s now over. I’m not injecting temporality into God. God is above time. But his being above time has bearing on reality; namely, the status of our reality!

 

[Gorgias]

as far as I see, God’s now reduces our now to nothing.

“God’s now” is an analogy. It isn’t a real time; it expresses for us the notion of a “present experience.” Eternity is one big “present experience” for God, and that’s something that’s convenient to express as an “eternal now”. It doesn’t mean it’s a literal “moment in time”, though.

Moreover, then, it doesn’t mean that His ‘now’ trumps our now as “reality”.

 

[Dimmesdale]

“God’s now” is an analogy. It isn’t a real time; it expresses for us the notion of a “present experience.” Eternity is one big “present experience” for God, and that’s something that’s convenient to express as an “eternal now ”. It doesn’t mean it’s a literal “moment in time”, though.

I agree that God’s now can’t be “known” via our own mode of existence - I do believe it is a transcendent realm that our thinking cannot even touch except for a handful of spare logical conclusions. How can you say it is “big” and somehow encompasses “time?” It seems to me you are the one trying to shoehorn all possible moments into a single fabric that is “God’s now”, something which I think can’t be done.

Again, is Socrates still drinking poison, is Jesus still enduring the pain of crucifixion? Will they do so eternally in some sense? I don’t think so, but that’s my perspective.

Moreover, then, it doesn’t mean that His ‘now’ trumps our now as “reality”.

I don’t see how it doesn’t. Without the mechanism of time travel.

But, alas, perhaps it isn’t possible to communicate what I am trying to express. I simply, amicably, disagree.

 

[Gorgias]

How can you say it is “big” and somehow encompasses “time?”

I think we’re working from different conceptions. I’m not talking about a “place” of some sort – a kind of “Christian Valhalla” that is the ‘place’ in which God makes his ‘home’. I’m just talking about God’s reality, which encompasses all of the physical universe. Remember: omniscient and omnipresent. Not “big”, as if He’s physical.

Don’t know precisely what you mean by “encompassing time” here, either. He knows the entirety of the universe He created. (The temporal dimension is part of that universe.)

Again, is Socrates still drinking poison, is Jesus still enduring the pain of crucifixion? Will they do so eternally in some sense?

The problem here is that you’re trying to extrapolate the dimension of time – which exists inside the universe – and make it work outside of the universe. That’s why it feels weird to you. It should – it’s misapplied logic!

But, alas, perhaps it isn’t possible to communicate what I am trying to express.

Perhaps. But, when you claim that our reality isn’t ‘real’, because God’s reality overweighs it… that seems like a pretty easy claim to communicate. (And, IMHO, to deny.)

 

[Wesrock]

All of time is present to God at once in his eternity. He’s not removed from it. It’s all present to him as he is present to all things. Not because time doesn’t pass but because God doesn’t pass. God in his divinity does not exist sequentially as we do, but he is certainly knowing of how all things are and could be temporarily related within creation.

God’s will is free but he’s not a temporal agent as we are. His will is at minimum free insofar as he, and no external determinant, is the cause of what he wills, even when his will is eternal. His act flows entirely from his knowledge, which is his essence. In fact he is his knowledge and his will (or it may be easier to say that what we think of as knowledge and will in us bear resemblance in their own conditioned ways to what God is).

 

[Dimmesdale]

I think we’re working from different conceptions. I’m not talking about a “place” of some sort – a kind of “Christian Valhalla” that is the ‘place’ in which God makes his ‘home’. I’m just talking about God’s reality, which encompasses all of the physical universe. Remember: omniscient and omnipresent. Not “big”, as if He’s physical.

Don’t know precisely what you mean by “encompassing time” here, either. He knows the entirety of the universe He created. (The temporal dimension is part of that universe.)

I don’t think that God’s realm is a “physical place” like Earth. I think it is a transcendent realm. It is, in my mind, very, very far removed from the material world. Infinitely removed. But God relates to this world through his power, and sustains this present moment. But God is uncontaminated by his work. And his timeless realm is, unlike ours, truly timeless; inconceivable.

Yes, God is omnipresent and omniscient, but I think that he transcends this universe nonetheless. He “knows” everything not by being everywhere fully present but by virtue of either his intuitive knowledge (knowing what will “happen” through immediate first principles), or by sensing every detail of the universe through some other mechanism. Kind of like the brain receives (name removed by moderator)ut from nerves scattered throughout the body.

So, God doesn’t “encompass time” as though he’s jelly smeared over a piece of bread. He is far removed.

The problem here is that you’re trying to extrapolate the dimension of time – which exists inside the universe – and make it work outside of the universe. That’s why it feels weird to you. It should – it’s misapplied logic!

You lost me here, but, I digress. I think I have said enough.

Perhaps. But, when you claim that our reality isn’t ‘real’, because God’s reality overweighs it… that seems like a pretty easy claim to communicate. (And, IMHO, to deny.)

I do believe our reality has the status of being truly real (though some Eastern mystics would dispute even that). I think God sustains this present time by an act of his power; a form of time travel.

 

[Gorgias]

He “knows” everything not by being everywhere fully present but by virtue of either his intuitive knowledge (knowing what will “happen” through immediate first principles), or by sensing every detail of the universe through some other mechanism.

The Church teaches the former – God knows. Everything. He does not “gain knowledge” through sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Dimmesdale]

The Church teaches the former – God knows . Everything . He does not “gain knowledge” through sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

My view is that since God is, as I’ve pointed out, situated in absolute, timeless transcendence, he does know all: past, present and future (and has known it, always)… But it’s also tricky because given free will and time, there is still (name removed by moderator)ut of a sort (IMO)… I don’t see anyway around this. If this was simply Spinoza’s God, with Reality being a wind-up doll, then I’d go for the former view alone.

 

[Gorgias]

But it’s also tricky because given free will and time, there is still (name removed by moderator)ut of a sort (IMO)… I don’t see anyway around this.

What’s the need for ‘(name removed by moderator)ut’? Doesn’t He already know? And if He already knows, why does he need (name removed by moderator)ut ?