How does an eternal act turn into temporal acts?

[Lucretius]

My understanding is through negation and analogy. I have no idea what it actually means to be present in and completely unified throughout all moments of time, yet with the past still completely fixed, and the future contingent. My best images fluctuate between overseeing a filmstrip, being a unmoving rock immersed in a flowing creek, and the “time” it takes for premises to reach a conclusion.

And that description above may not even be eternity, but however Angels relate to time.

 

[John_Martin]

Our LORD, ‘I AM’, works all in all. However, everything he knows is always as he knows it - out of nothing it is.
One way around that, and we know he “found a way around it”, since there are indeed temporal actualities that come and are gone.
Our LORD only knows himself eternally known and eternally being.
For all “other” being, such as ourselves, our LORD knows (and therefore) operates in a “co-operational” way with contingent beings. While He is the Final and Principle Cause, he always knows his work, his creatures, in union with the causal intent of some contingent proximate causal agent, such as we can be.

Thus, for example, if our God were the single cause of something like our delivery from Pharaoh in Egypt, we would eternally be trekking across the dry Red Sea; however, an Angel of our LORD came to call Moses; He told Moses for the LORD, “I have seen the affliction my people suffering, and heard their cries. Go, Moses, and tell Pharaoh to Let my People Go.”
What is now present is a contingent person named Moses, knowing in unison with the LORD, whose name is ‘I AM’, that when he goes 10 times to Pharaoh to demand release, then the people will be released.
In God’s eternal, timeless, knowing he knows this: “I know my child Jacob coming out of Egypt by my causation in union with my Servant Moses knowing himself speaking my command to Pharaoh.”

Well, Moses only knew this after the burning bush incident. And the Angel who told Moses only knew to tell him on the day Moses contingently would pass by to be in sight of the bush, etc.

By CO-OPERATION in the Grace of God, which we Catholics are well versed in, we can participate in the timeless work of God being effected in time without loss of our LORD’s eternal nature nor loss of our free will wherein we delight to work with him moment by moment temporally yet forever.
Anyway, re-look at our Scriptures and take note that all of “God’s temporal works” come to pass in union with the knowing of some temporal creature, even a donkey belonging to Balaam. And His will was done temporally in this way of joint knowing of the creature knowing a place of knowing in the mind of God.

John Martin

 

[STT]

Certainly. On one hand, we’re dealing with your problems accepting the analogy of the table which – as a single sub-stratum – supports multiple actions. I’ve proposed that the universe itself acts in this way.

The universe is the things on the table. How could you move things on a table with one act which has no location and without moving table?

On the other hand, you’re claiming that there needs to be some sort of entity that allows for the ‘conversion’ of God’s eternal act into temporal reality. (On philosophical bases, I would reject your argument that there’s an external ‘converter’ that is necessary, for a few reasons. Nevertheless, we can still discuss the problems with your assertion…)

Ok, let’s discuss that later.

But, the ‘paradox’ here is that you’re asking for a ‘converter’ (from eternal to temporal) for the act of ‘sustaining’ the universe.

Yes, you got me. There is however no paradox here. The universe might not need a sustainer.

However, this presumes that the universe exists.

Yes. We experience the universe therefore it exist. There is no need to presume this though.

If the universe exists, then it itself would require the same ‘converter’. So, assuming the universe exists and then positing a problem which would be intractable in the universe, would create an issue which would require us to reject that the universe exists. However, the universe does exist. Therefore… paradox . And, therefore, we must reject your argument.

The universe might need not a sustainer. So there is no problem. You however cannot resolve the paradox this way. You need a model in which there is no paradox within. By the way how do you know that converter does not exist?

I would assert that your issue is the lack of recognition that we’re really just dealing with a ‘frame of reference’ distinction. (For example, when we deal with general relativity and velocities near the speed of light, we don’t need external conversions – we merely recognize that we’re dealing with two distinct frames of reference, and each of these frames of reference perceive reality differently.) In this case, you’re looking at God’s perception, and our perception, and attempting to posit that there needs to be a ‘converter’ to get from one frame of reference to another. That’s simply ludicrous. Instead, we would simply assert that God acts singly – in other words, eternally – and we perceive the effects of His act temporally – in other words, as if there were discrete actions.

Oh yeah, that is not ludicrous.

I’ve identified a number of issues, but only fully addressed the particular question you’ve asked here. Hope this helps.

It did help but it didn’t resolve the problem.

 

[STT]

“Timeless” is understood as a lack of any of the imperfections of temporal existence. It doesn’t mean lacking the perfections of temporal existence, such as existing within a particular moment.

By timeless we mean that everything happen at eternal now. One point.

Eternity may be likened to existing in all moments of time, while remaining completely unified, and without need to obtain anything through time, since it is already possessed.

Yes, linked. The question is how the things are linked.

What reason must there be a “medium” between eternity and temporality?

Because something which has no location and live in eternal now cannot cause things in different location and different time.

 

[STT]

Why?

Because I cannot believe in magic. Why? Because there is a reason why things are this way rather than other way and when this is true then it means that there is a function which relates things together. In another hand there could not be an emergence.

God has every location in spacetime.

That is an assertion. I am wondering that how such a thing is possible from something which has no location in spacetime.

 

[Dovekin]

How could you move things on a table with one act which has no location and without moving table?

Wait! I know this one!

Pull the tablecloth out very quickly.

Dovekin:

God has every location in spacetime.

It is also a belief. It is sometimes a fact. God’s omnipresence is so basic, that it is generally assumed in any discussion of God. Why do you question it?

I would go as far as saying that your question here arises only because you reject omnipresence. “Such a thing” is only possible for ‘something’ which has every location in spacetime.

God can also be said to have no location in spacetime, but that is usually a statement the God is immaterial and spacetime is material. It is not usually taken as a negation of omnipresence, as you seem to understand it.

 

[STT]

Wait! I know this one!

Pull the tablecloth out very quickly.

The question how you could move things that supposedly are on the table move without table?

It is also a belief. It is sometimes a fact. God’s omnipresence is so basic, that it is generally assumed in any discussion of God. Why do you question it?

I would go as far as saying that your question here arises only because you reject omnipresence. “Such a thing” is only possible for ‘something’ which has every location in spacetime.

God can also be said to have no location in spacetime, but that is usually a statement the God is immaterial and spacetime is material. It is not usually taken as a negation of omnipresence, as you seem to understand it.

Yes. The problem is that something which has no location cannot be present everywhere. The other problem which is even more severe to accept is that how our souls which has no location can affect related unique body!

 

[Gorgias]

The universe is the things on the table. How could you move things on a table with one act which has no location and without moving table?

Gorgias:

No. The universe is the table. There are also things on the table. God moves the table and the things through one act. If you look at the universe alone, or the individual things alone, then it would appear to you that there are distinct movements (and, you might compound the error by presuming that this means that there are multiple causes of these movements). However, you would be mistaken. That’s the whole point of this example: a single act with multiple effects can cause one to make bad presumptions about the ‘number’ of the act.

There is however no paradox here. The universe might not need a sustainer.

Your argument proceeded from the assumption that there was a sustainer. If you later conclude “maybe no sustainer”, then the argument fails. It’s just that simple.

Yes. We experience the universe therefore it exist. There is no need to presume this though.

It’s not a ‘presumption’ so much as a statement of fact.

By the way how do you know that converter does not exist?

I’m not the one making the assertion that a ‘converter’ exists. If you want to make the claim – and therefore, want us to accept that claim – you need to demonstrate that the claim holds up to scrutiny. If you’re unable to do that (and so far, you haven’t done so), then we’re under no obligation to even admit that it’s a possibility.

Oh yeah, that is not ludicrous.

You’re gonna hafta do better than that. I just demonstrated that your example deals in multiple frames of reference. This implies that there are distinct perceptions of a single reality. No ‘converter’ is needed to be a cause of actions which are merely perceived differently. Look to Einstein’s description of general relativity, especially in examples in which we have multiple observers and objects in motion at velocities near the speed of light. There is no external ‘converter’ necessary in these examples. Nor is there the need to posit a converter in your example, here.

 

[STT]

No. The universe is the table. There are also things on the table. God moves the table and the things through one act. If you look at the universe alone, or the individual things alone, then it would appear to you that there are distinct movements (and, you might compound the error by presuming that this means that there are multiple causes of these movements). However, you would be mistaken. That’s the whole point of this example: a single act with multiple effects can cause one to make bad presumptions about the ‘number’ of the act.

You are adding the converter/table into universe!

our argument proceeded from the assumption that there was a sustainer. If you later conclude “maybe no sustainer”, then the argument fails. It’s just that simple.

I am just mentioning the alternative worth thinking.

I’m not the one making the assertion that a ‘converter’ exists. If you want to make the claim – and therefore, want us to accept that claim – you need to demonstrate that the claim holds up to scrutiny. If you’re unable to do that (and so far, you haven’t done so), then we’re under no obligation to even admit that it’s a possibility.

I am the one asking the question. I don’t know what is the truth. You are the one who believe that your system of thought is correct therefore you owe me an explanation.

 

[Gorgias]

You are adding the converter/table into universe!

No, I don’t think I am. There is no ‘conversion’ that occurs. When you move the table, the table doesn’t ‘convert’ your single act into individual acts. When God acts, the universe does not perform any action to ‘convert’ His eternal act into distinct temporal acts. In both cases, there is no ‘conversion’ of the action. Instead, all you have is two distinct frames of reference, and there is no action which is a ‘conversion’ between the two.

(Now, you might talk about you – as the observer – ‘converting’ your perspective from a global frame of reference to a local frame of reference. However, this is not an act that is part of either system. Rather, it is simply your change of perspective, which is outside the systems and not part of the action in itself.)

I am just mentioning the alternative worth thinking.

Fine. If you want to abandon your previous argument in favor of the notion that there is no sustaining action, I’m willing to accept that you’ve recanted your assertion. Do you want to replace it with the notion that “no sustaining action is necessary”?

I am the one asking the question. I don’t know what is the truth. You are the one who believe that your system of thought is correct therefore you owe me an explanation.

I’ve given you that explanation.

p.s., please look back at your original post. It’s not posited as a question, but rather, as an assertion.

 

[STT]

No, I don’t think I am. There is no ‘conversion’ that occurs. When you move the table, the table doesn’t ‘convert’ your single act into individual acts. When God acts, the universe does not perform any action to ‘convert’ His eternal act into distinct temporal acts. In both cases, there is no ‘conversion’ of the action. Instead, all you have is two distinct frames of reference, and there is no action which is a ‘conversion’ between the two.

(Now, you might talk about you – as the observer – ‘converting’ your perspective from a global frame of reference to a local frame of reference. However, this is not an act that is part of either system. Rather, it is simply your change of perspective, which is outside the systems and not part of the action in itself.)

Ok, let me try again. Think of a situation that there are few objects on the ground. Could you move them all with one finger?

I’ve given you that explanation.

You fail.

 

[Gorgias]

Ok, let me try again. Think of a situation that there are few objects on the ground. Could you move them all with one finger?

Sure. I could use my finger to pull the pin on a grenade, and set the grenade next to the objects.

You fail.

Says you.

 

[Lucretius]

Eternity is not a special kind of moment among moments. It isn’t a moment, but it still has the perfections of a moment, such as having a present in a moment, or really in every moment.

Similarly, omnipresence isn’t being in a special location among other locations. It isn’t being in a location at all, but being omnipresence still has the perfections of having spacial existence, such as having a presence in a location, or really in every location.

To ask how the same, actualized thing in “the eternal moment” acts in other moments misunderstands what eternity isn’t.

 

[STT]

Eternity is not a special kind of moment among moments. It isn’t a moment, but it still has the perfections of a moment, such as having a present in a moment, or really in every moment.

What do you mean with perfection of a moment? A moment is just a moment. What you said seems contrary to me.

Similarly, omnipresence isn’t being in a special location among other locations. It isn’t being in a location at all, but being omnipresence still has the perfections of having spacial existence, such as having a presence in a location, or really in every location.

You need to show that omnipresence is possible.

To ask how the same, actualized thing in “the eternal moment” acts in other moments misunderstands what eternity isn’t.

You need to show that omnipresence in time is possible. We cannot even push several objects at the same time with one finger.

 

[Dovekin]

To elaborate, eternal act, how God sustains the creation, is timeless and is performed at eternal now whereas temporal acts, how the creation is sustained, are temporal and are performed at a specific time.

This is the original post.

You would contend that when you said “God” you did not mean an omnipresent being? We have to prove being omnipresent is possible?

There are a couple of other misunderstandings here. Actions only happen now. We can remember that now, and designate it in relation to other moments. But the action only happened at the only real moment, which is now. Past and future are mental constructs, only the present is real.

 

[STT]

You would contend that when you said “God” you did not mean an omnipresent being? We have to prove being omnipresent is possible?

Yes, the question is about omnipresent. And yes you need to prove being omnipresent is possible given the OP. Please consider title.

 

[Dovekin]

Yes, the question is about omnipresent. And yes you need to prove being omnipresent is possible given the OP. Please consider title.

Can we rephrase it as “how does an eternal act, not located anywhere, turn into temporal acts that happen in specific places?”

The classic answer is that it does not. Why is that not adequate?

 

[o_mlly]

From the perspective of a being in eternity, the past, like the future, is present to its mind. Therefore, the only verb tense proper to that being is the present participle.

 

[STT]

Can we rephrase it as “how does an eternal act, not located anywhere, turn into temporal acts that happen in specific places?”

Yes.

The classic answer is that it does not.

It has to.

Why is that not adequate?

Could you move a few objects on the ground with one finger? One act which is located in place of your finger cannot move several objects on the ground.

 

[Dovekin]

One act which is located in place of your finger cannot move several objects on the ground.

It cannot be done.

What is wrong with that answer.