Are God's acts of will necessarily eternal?

[Whadyamean]

Time is eternal … God is timeless.
How it’s supposed to work together?

There is no component of duration in eternality.

 

[tonyrey]

This may be why a Christian Science synonym for God, “Principle,” is so useful.

“Principle” is a misleading abstraction that gives the impression that God is impersonal.

 

[Whadyamean]

“Principle” is a misleading abstraction that gives the impression that God is impersonal.

Which at the very least puts it on the same footing as the “impression” that God is personal, something that is increasingly less likely as on considers the Gospels and conducts self inquiry. The personal hypothesis found eventually to be built on sand. In other words, it is not misleading, it is simply unpalatable to one inclined to view through the lens of any faith that insists on personality as a buffer. If it has a personality, it isn’t God.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Which at the very least puts it on the same footing as the “impression” that God is personal, something that is increasingly less likely as on considers the Gospels and conducts self inquiry. The personal hypothesis found eventually to be built on sand. In other words, it is not misleading, it is simply unpalatable to one inclined to view through the lens of any faith that insists on personality as a buffer. If it has a personality, it isn’t God.

It depends on what you mean personality. You assumption is that when a theist speaks of a personal cause that they mean the exact same kind of personality as we understand it in humans. But they speak of God as having a personality only in the sense that God has self knowledge. Its an analogous inference. God is personal insofar as he isn’t impersonal; but we do not conclude that God has the same personality as we do. God evidently has a higher order of intellect than what we are accustomed to.

 

[tdgesq]

I have to agree with this. As far as physics is concerned, time as we perceive it doesn’t even exist; it is an illusion of perspective. This agrees with what mystics have said since before Jesus. And the beginning of what we see as the Universe is only what we see given our limitations of perception and consideration. is any one of us a match for God? Do we really arrogantly think that the interpretation of some dessert dwellers of 4000 years ago as to how things happened is adequate to the actuality of God? I submit that whatever we think is thoughts about God and have no areal ability to comprehend what is so far beyond the capacity of mortal mind that it is absurd for us to even be having such a discussion except as a scientific endeavor to discover how we might understand the dynamics of wherein we live.

I assume you mean the theory of special relativity. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that time doesn’t exist, although used as a measure of motion it can vary from different perspectives. Perhaps you mean that from God’s perspective, time does not begin. I think this is accurate.

It isn’t just desert dwellers who find these concepts valid. Modern day cosmologists must still deal with Big Bang and concepts of “before” the singularity. These ultimately become philosophical questions about what is logically possible and what is not. So far, I haven’t seen a philosophical argument here that would preclude a timeless and unchanging God from creating the universe.

 

[Whadyamean]

I assume you mean the theory of special relativity.

Not necessarily.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that time doesn’t exist, although used as a measure of motion it can vary from different perspectives.

Presto chango! If it is relative, there is no absolute “time” as it is a matter of relative perception or measurement.

Perhaps you mean that from God’s perspective, time does not begin. I think this is accurate.

does “IS” or “AM” have a perspective?

It isn’t just desert dwellers who find these concepts valid. Modern day cosmologists must still deal with Big Bang and concepts of “before” the singularity. These ultimately become philosophical questions about what is logically possible and what is not.

So quantum mechanics is logical in a philosophical sense?

/QUOTE] So far, I haven’t seen a philosophical argument here that would preclude a timeless and unchanging God from creating the universe.Timeless and unchanging: ALL. Infinite potential. Unmanifest. Creation: change incarnate. Or is it Being? Why not use “discover” instead of “create?”

 

[tdgesq]

Not necessarily.

Okay. Then what do you mean?

Presto chango! If it is relative, there is no absolute “time” as it is a matter of relative perception or measurement.

I’m not sure why “absolute” time or relative time would make a difference here. There certainly is motion from our perspective, even if that perspective changes with the inertial frame of reference.

does “IS” or “AM” have a perspective?

Yes. Would you disagree?

So quantum mechanics is logical in a philosophical sense?

Explanations from quantum physicists break down at the singularity. There are no more calculations to be made at an infinitely dense point. Planck time also becomes an issue. Where are we to look for answers if not from the discipline of philosophy?

Timeless and unchanging: ALL. Infinite potential. Unmanifest. Creation: change incarnate. Or is it Being? Why not use “discover” instead of “create?”

Because “discover” creates insolvable logical difficulties of an actual infinite, destroying efficient causation. Furthermore, an actual infinite is not observable by the specialized sciences. Nor is it mathematically useful except to proxy for very large quantities. If an explanation is to be had here, it will be a philosophical one.

 

[Whadyamean]

Okay. Then what do you mean?

QM will do for now.

I’m not sure why “absolute” time or relative time would make a difference here. There certainly is motion from our perspective, even if that perspective changes with the inertial frame of reference.

It just means that though time seems actual from our perspective as “experiencers,” it is not real in an absolute sense, in that all past and present exists “NOW,” a state that has no component of duration and is equatable with eternality.

Yes. Would you disagree?

Yes, as those apply to the Absolute

Explanations from quantum physicists break down at the singularity. There are no more calculations to be made at an infinitely dense point. Planck time also becomes an issue. Where are we to look for answers if not from the discipline of philosophy?

Good idea. Which philosophy would you suggest? My first recommendation would be The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object

Because “discover” creates insolvable logical difficulties of an actual infinite, destroying efficient causation. Furthermore, an actual infinite is not observable by the specialized sciences. Nor is it mathematically useful except to proxy for very large quantities. If an explanation is to be had here, it will be a philosophical one.

Again, I agree about the philosophical answer as a pointer to a transition in understanding. And any infinitude of any sort would appear as a blank to mortal mind anyway. But why in heaven’s name do you believe that there must be "efficient causation.? What if IS just IS?

 

[tdgesq]

QM will do for now.

Well, if your position is that QM proves that time is illusory then you will need to support that allegation. Not all quantum physicists subscribe to your theory of time, and for good reason. If time is an illusion then motion is an illusion, change is an illusion, and causation is an illusion. However, investigation into quantum phenomena presupposes motion, change and causation. Those experiments that appear to yield results that conflict with these presuppositions (action at a distance, EPR paradox, virtual particles) are not well understood. We can’t see quantum particles, we can only observe their effects and then attempt to explain them in formally mathematical ways. And all of those observations are conducted through the lens of time.

It just means that though time seems actual from our perspective as “experiencers,” it is not real in an absolute sense, in that all past and present exists “NOW,” a state that has no component of duration and is equatable with eternality.

That is one theory. It is certainly contrary to our experience. If all events exist eternally it is difficult to explain why human beings only experience themselves presently. Your theory would require that all moments of human life exist now, even though we can only remember our past experiences and only contemplate our future experiences. It would basically make all empirical observation an illusion, even those of our own existence.

Again, I agree about the philosophical answer as a pointer to a transition in understanding. And any infinitude of any sort would appear as a blank to mortal mind anyway. But why in heaven’s name do you believe that there must be "efficient causation.? What if IS just IS?

Because if there isn’t causation then science is dead. The primary goal of the specialized sciences is to explain causes and their effects, which, by the way, they do repeatedly and with great accuracy, including in the area of QM. It is only when one takes the most speculative and least understood observations of quantum physics (usually described mathematically), and then imposes them as ontological truth, that one can blithely maintain there is no motion, no change, no efficient cause . . . .

Your position is far more radical than the typical B theory of time I’ve seen. Are you alive eternally or are you dead eternally? It appears under your theory that the laws of logic may be an illusion as well.

 

[Whadyamean]

Well, if your position is that QM proves that time is illusory then you will need to support that allegation. Not all quantum physicists subscribe to your theory of time, and for good reason. If time is an illusion then motion is an illusion, change is an illusion, and causation is an illusion. However, investigation into quantum phenomena presupposes motion, change and causation. Those experiments that appear to yield results that conflict with these presuppositions (action at a distance, EPR paradox, virtual particles) are not well understood. We can’t see quantum particles, we can only observe their effects and then attempt to explain them in formally mathematical ways. And all of those observations are conducted through the lens of time.

Yes, that is correct. Illusions chasing illusions, or “flatland.” That doesn’t mean that experience isn’t actual. It only means that the ordinary assumptions about it have not yet been breached but by a few.

That is one theory. It is certainly contrary to our experience. If all events exist eternally it is difficult to explain why human beings only experience themselves presently. Your theory would require that all moments of human life exist now, even though we can only remember our past experiences and only contemplate our future experiences. It would basically make all empirical observation an illusion, even those of our own existence.

It is a pointer not to a theory, but something rather more radical. The illusion, while consistent, is still an illusion in the same way that a movie is an illusion supported by means of paying attention to a movie on a screen. The screen is real. The movie is made of frames speeding by and they draw you into the story. Try to leave in the middle of a movie you are enthralled with!

Because if there isn’t causation then science is dead. The primary goal of the specialized sciences is to explain causes and their effects, which, by the way, they do repeatedly and with great accuracy,

Yep.

including in the area of QM. It is only when one takes the most speculative and least understood observations of quantum physics (usually described mathematically), and then imposes them as ontological truth, that one can blithely maintain there is no motion, no change, no efficient cause . . . .

Your “understanding” of “illusion” is WAY too limited. I do not mean that you are hallucinating. Well, sort of, but not in reality. And why do you insist on causation? It is because you have been taken in by both the language you speak and the experience you have which you explain as “serial.” Hmmm… Phlogiston comes to mind.

Your position is far more radical than the typical B theory of time I’ve seen. Are you alive eternally or are you dead eternally?

What Life IS never came to die, and never died to live again.

It appears under your theory that the laws of logic may be an illusion as well.

No, but which level of logic are you speaking of? one? Two? Three or more valued? That works of course at its own level I’m not a nihilist by any means. But yes, my “theory” as you call it (I guess that will have to do; these words can after all only point) is absolutely radical. Jesus seems to have liked it. I do too.