Dilemma of time bound and timeless

[Bahman]

1. God is in state of timeless
2. This means he has only one eternal act
3. This means that creation is actual
4. This means that past, now and future should be actual
5. We however only experience now
6. This means that only now is actual
7. (4) and (6) contradict each other hence a the act creation is mutually separate from act existence
8. To resolve the conflict one has to assume that there exist a boundary which is neither timeless nor time bound
9. This boundary cannot ontologically exist
10. Hence (1) is wrong

 

[Linusthe2nd]

1. God is in state of timeless
2. This means he has only one eternal act
3. This means that creation is actual
4. This means that past, now and future should be actual
5. We however only experience now
6. This means that only now is actual
7. (4) and (6) contradict each other hence a the act creation is mutually separate from act existence
8. To resolve the conflict one has to assume that there exist a boundary which is neither timeless nor time bound
9. This boundary cannot ontologically exist
10. Hence (1) is wrong

’ 4 ’ is true only for God because his act is eternal, now. ‘6 ’ is only true for God. So ’ 4 ’ and ’ 6 ’ are not contradictory for God. Creation and being created are totally separate in the mode of their existence. ’ 9 ’ is false, There is nothing that is both timeless and time bound. ’ 9 ’ is true. ’ 1’ is correct.

We experience God’s eternal act as it unfolds in our time bound actuality.

And we experience time bound actions as each moment passes. Each moment is a " now " for us, But for us, all of history does not exist in one moment, one " now. "

Linus2nd.

 

[Bahman]

’ 4 ’ is true only for God because his act is eternal, now. ‘6 ’ is only true for God. So ’ 4 ’ and ’ 6 ’ are not contradictory for God. Creation and being created are totally separate in the mode of their existence. ’ 9 ’ is false, There is nothing that is both timeless and time bound. ’ 9 ’ is true. ’ 1’ is correct.

We experience God’s eternal act as it unfolds in our time bound actuality.

And we experience time bound actions as each moment passes. Each moment is a " now " for us, But for us, all of history does not exist in one moment, one " now. "

Linus2nd.

Who take care of this change (bold part)?

 

[seagal]

1. God is in state of timeless
2. This means he has only one eternal act
3. This means that creation is actual
4. This means that past, now and future should be actual
5. We however only experience now
6. This means that only now is actual
7. (4) and (6) contradict each other hence a the act creation is mutually separate from act existence
8. To resolve the conflict one has to assume that there exist a boundary which is neither timeless nor time bound
9. This boundary cannot ontologically exist
10. Hence (1) is wrong

In #4, the past and present are actual, but not the future since we are not there. God knows what we will do in the future (in some fashion that philosophers and theologians haven’t agreed on) But we haven’t actually done it. At least this is the way my poor brain understands it.

#9, there is indeed some kind of boundary or distinction between the time state and timeless state. You seem to think of this boundary as some kind of physical thing like a wall between the two states but that’s not necessary. I tried to explain this on another thread of yours. It’s similar to the distinction between me and the air that surrounds me. There is a definite point at which I end and the air begins. There is no point that is **both **me and the air, or **neither **me nor the air.

 

[Bahman]

In #4, the past and present are actual, but not the future since we are not there. God knows what we will do in the future (in some fashion that philosophers and theologians haven’t agreed on) But we haven’t actually done it.

Lets assume that. Do you see past as actual being like now or just have a memory of it?

At least this is the way my poor brain understands it.

Never say that. Everything is matter of practicing. I did practice philosophy in last two years very hard and that is why I am good at it.

#9, there is indeed some kind of boundary or distinction between the time state and timeless state. You seem to think of this boundary as some kind of physical thing like a wall between the two states but that’s not necessary. I tried to explain this on another thread of yours. It’s similar to the distinction between me and the air that surrounds me. There is a definite point at which I end and the air begins. There is no point that is **both **me and the air, or **neither **me nor the air.

Boundary is something which is neither and has ability to resolve the conflict. Something which makes a smooth transition from one state to another state.

 

[seagal]

Lets assume that. Do you see past as actual being like now or just have a memory of it?

I see time as linear. What happened in the past is past and gone, so I agree with your statement #6. Time is after all only our way of keeping track of change.

Boundary is something which is neither and has ability to resolve the conflict. Something which makes a smooth transition from one state to another state.

That’s one way of looking at it, but not the only way. I’ve already explained my view – not a smooth transition but a clear demarcation.

 

[Bahman]

I see time as linear. What happened in the past is past and gone, so I agree with your statement #6. Time is after all only our way of keeping track of change.

Good.

That’s one way of looking at it, but not the only way. I’ve already explained my view – not a smooth transition but a clear demarcation.

That is good as far God does not intervene in creation.Two mutually exclusive thing cannot interact with each other unless there is something between which resolve the problem.

 

[seagal]

That is good as far God does not intervene in creation.Two mutually exclusive thing cannot interact with each other unless there is something between which resolve the problem.

Two distinct things can interact with each other. I can interact with the air by moving my arms and creating a breeze, or breathing it into my lungs and processing the oxygen and nitrogen in it with my body. Similarly, God can intervene with creation.

 

[Bahman]

Two distinct things can interact with each other. I can interact with the air by moving my arms and creating a breeze, or breathing it into my lungs and processing the oxygen and nitrogen in it with my body. Similarly, God can intervene with creation.

You cannot do it directly. There exist a set of particles which in charge of manifesting forces, like photons which manifest itself as electromagnetic force, etc.

 

[seagal]

You cannot do it directly. There exist a set of particles which in charge of manifesting forces, like photons which manifest itself as electromagnetic force, etc.

Whatever it is that breaks down the molecular structure of air, the process or the elements required, it’s me, my body, not something that is somehow part of me but not part of me.

 

[Bahman]

Whatever it is that breaks down the molecular structure of air, the process or the elements required, it’s me, my body, not something that is somehow part of me but not part of me.

That is how it is: you move your hand and change the state of balance (when you are on rest), hence air particles experience changes through the change in amount of force mediated by exchange of particles (boundary), hence the balance is disturbed, hence they move.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Am I the only one who is tired of these discussions about non existent dilemmas?

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Am I the only one who is tired of these discussions about non existent dilemmas?

Linus2nd

Hold on, I have many others dilemmas in my disposal. It is hard to convince you and you don’t add much most of time. So why you even bother?

 

[seagal]

That is how it is: you move your hand and change the state of balance (when you are on rest), hence air particles experience changes through the change in amount of force mediated by exchange of particles (boundary), hence the balance is disturbed, hence they move.

I have no argument with that. I disagree with you about the nature of the boundary, specifically your statement “…one has to assume that there exist a boundary which is neither timeless nor time bound”. I contend that one thing stops and another thing begins, and that the end of each thing is, for lack of a better term, the “boundary”. There is no other separate entity that is the boundary. Neither is there a gradation where one thing gradually end and another thing gradually begins.

 

[Bahman]

I have no argument with that. I disagree with you about the nature of the boundary, specifically your statement “…one has to assume that there exist a boundary which is neither timeless nor time bound”. I contend that one thing stops and another thing begins, and that the end of each thing is, for lack of a better term, the “boundary”. There is no other separate entity that is the boundary. Neither is there a gradation where one thing gradually end and another thing gradually begins.

I agree with what you said. The problem is that imperfection and perfection are mutually exclusive and timeless and time bound, etc. There is no way that can interact inclusively.

 

[seagal]

I agree with what you said. The problem is that imperfection and perfection are mutually exclusive and timeless and time bound, etc. There is no way that can interact inclusively.

You and I are mutually exclusive yet we can interact, in lots of different ways. God, who is timeless, entered into time when the second person became incarnate as Jesus. He took on human nature in order to interact with us more directly. Even before that, though, God interacted with many people, as is recorded in the Old Testament.

Let’s fast track this argument a little. You could say that it is impossible for God to do interact with creation. I would then say God is omnipotent and everything is possible for him. You would then have to prove to me there is no God. The round about way you’ve been going about it isn’t working. Try another tack.

 

[Bahman]

You and I are mutually exclusive yet we can interact, in lots of different ways.

That is correct, but there exist a boundary (computer for example) between us which allows us to interact with each other.

Let’s fast track this argument a little. You could say that it is impossible for God to do interact with creation. I would then say God is omnipotent and everything is possible for him. You would then have to prove to me there is no God. The round about way you’ve been going about it isn’t working. Try another tack.

I would say that God cannot do something which is logically impossible. I am arguing about a logically impossible act.

 

[lmelahn]

1. God is in state of timeless
2. This means he has only one eternal act
3. This means that creation is actual

Note that creation is also partly potential, because otherwise it would be unlimited (i.e., infinite) and indistinguishable from God. (Limit and multiplicity are only possible when there is a potential principle.)

1. This means that past, now and future should be actual
2. We however only experience now
3. This means that only now is actual
4. (4) and (6) contradict each other hence a the act creation is mutually separate from act existence
5. To resolve the conflict one has to assume that there exist a boundary which is neither timeless nor time bound
6. This boundary cannot ontologically exist
7. Hence (1) is wrong

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Who take care of this change (bold part)?

We are God’s eternal act of creation, so we experience it in the time bound universe he created.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hold on, I have many others dilemmas in my disposal. It is hard to convince you and you don’t add much most of time. So why you even bother?

You haven’t had any so far, all you have is a wild imagination.

Linus2nd