Is god in time?

  • Thread starter Thread starter junostarlighter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MichaelLewis: Well, in technical Thomistic language, rationality is not a property of God or angels because rationality comes from the Latin “to consider”, and God and angels don’t have to “consider” thing in order to know them. Basically, rationality is the process of abstraction, review, and conclusion, and since angels and God would not require either, as everything they know is known immediately (though angels know in time, while God knows eternally), they wouldn’t be considered “rational” in the philosophical sense. In that way, “rational” is actually a limitation on the power of the mind.

With that said, a mind is not necessarily a “thinking” thing, because that would limit the mind to only what certain humans are capable of, but rather the mind is a “knowing” thing. More importantly, the mind is an immaterial “knowing” thing, as opposed to the senses which are material “knowing” things. Thinking seems to be too tightly bound by the concept of rationality to truly apply to angels and God, not because they are “unthinking”, but more accurately because they are beyond thinking.

For example, if you were to play a chess match with an angel, even the lowest, you would invariably lose. They know everything they know immediately, without consideration, so they know all possible moves on the chess board at any given moment, and don’t require any time or focus to do so. It’s simply all there. It’s impossible for material creatures, even the fastest computer, to do that because of the limitations of requiring material consideration. Every time you made a move, the angel would instantly, and without needing to consider, make the perfect counter move.

It’s impossible for us to imagine what it would be like to “think” like an angel, but it’s not impossible for us to imagine that something COULD think like an angel. This is because all it requires is to take what we know about our minds insofar as information is contained in them, and remove the factor of having to consider data. It’s like seeing the whole reel of film laid out in front of you rather than watching it go frame-by-frame.

The reason we’re able to imagine such a mind as the angels’ is because it’s not fundamentally unlike ours, except that ours has an added filter to pass through first, namely material consideration. God’s “mind”, however, is fundamentally impossible for us to understand by our own power, because it’s not merely one grade of inhibition and perfection above ours within the same fundamental category, like the ocean to a rain drop, but rather it functions on an entirely different level.

We can apply “traits” to God by way of Divine revelation and negative consideration, but we can’t really understand what it means to have those “traits” unless God shares them with us to some degree by Grace (which is what Catholics believe occurs to all who are Graced). We know that God is eternal, for example, but what that means is that God is fundamentally outside of time, such that everything we call time is but a single “moment” to God. We can know this through philosophy, but we’ve also received it by Divine revelation through many passages of Scripture and the words of the Prophets. We can’t really comprehend such a thing with our natural powers, but we can speak of it by remotion just as I have, by saying things like “outside” and “time as a single moment”. We can speak of it, and even apply certain logical formulas to it, but it remains fundamentally beyond our grasp, just like the color of an apple to a blind person who knows its red, and that red is the same color as of fire engines and hot coals, but can’t see it.

Unless God gives us His own vision, as those in Heaven receive with the Beatific Vision, it’s impossible for us to truly understand. And even were we to receive such Vision, we would not know it precisely the way God does, because we would know it by sharing, and He knows it by His very essence.

Hope that helps a little bit!

Peace and God bless!
 
Do you really claim to understand how such words can be applied to something outside of time? What does it mean for something that doesn’t think to know something or to be rational?
Well, of course I don’t claim to fully understand the workings of God’s mind. But yes, part of what Catholics mean by humanity being created “in the image and likeness of God” is that our minds and wills are in certain respects similar to His.

Mind produces thoughts. And God also thinks. But the fact that in humans, thoughts progress in a linear fashion, seems to me to arise from our semi-material nature rather than from the nature of mind itself.

So for us, thinking takes time. For God, a wholly non-material being, it does not. For us, actually, everything takes time. For God, nothing takes time.

What does it mean for the words “know” and “rational” to be applied to something that exists outside of time? Essentially, the same thing that it means for us: to be aware of what is, to see the relations between things, to be even self-aware. Only, in God’s case, without the drawback of temporality.
 
God cannot exist in time because being in time subjects oneself to change. God is unchanging so therefore cannot exist in time. Jesus came into time (the Incarnation) and did change as any person would … he grew up, got taller etc.

I understand that God exists in what can be called the Eternal Present. All exists, for God, not as past, present or future but as now. I tried to explain this to my kids and they are fascinated and wonder how something cannot have a past or future but only now. They chew on this topic because every once in a while they bring it up so I know it is percolating in their brains.
 
God cannot exist in time because being in time subjects oneself to change. God is unchanging so therefore cannot exist in time. Jesus came into time (the Incarnation) and did change as any person would … he grew up, got taller etc.

I understand that God exists in what can be called the Eternal Present. All exists, for God, not as past, present or future but as now. I tried to explain this to my kids and they are fascinated and wonder how something cannot have a past or future but only now. They chew on this topic because every once in a while they bring it up so I know it is percolating in their brains.
This also ties in to how God’s “foreknowledge” of our choices doesn’t actually inhibit free-will in any way. God simply “knows what we did tomorrow”.

Since every free act of the will is determined once it has been put into effect, any being who is outside time “looking on” would know every free action of our wills as they are actually determined, as they would be seeing the moment (and subsequent moments) that our free act is put into effect.

As an illustration, I can choose to eat the hot dog, or choose to not eat the hot dog, but once I’ve chosen the matter is set. Indeed, the notion of the matter being set once chosen is a requirement for me to have any real will. A moment after I’ve made my choice, I know with perfect clarity exactly what choice was made, since it’s now determined, but that doesn’t change the fact that the choice was made freely.

God, experiencing all moments in time in the single Eternal Moment, simply sees both the moment before the choice, and the moment after the choice, in a single “vision”, and our will is no less free by this fact than by the fact that after we’ve decided we know absolutely what our decision is.

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty wrote:
MichaelLewis*: Well, in technical Thomistic language, rationality is not a property of God or angels because rationality comes from the Latin “to consider”, and God and angels don’t have to “consider” thing in order to know them. Basically, rationality is the process of abstraction, review, and conclusion, and since angels and God would not require either, as everything they know is known immediately (though angels know in time, while God knows eternally), they wouldn’t be considered “rational” in the philosophical sense. In that way, “rational” is actually a limitation on the power of the mind.*

With that said, a mind is not necessarily a “thinking” thing, because that would limit the mind to only what certain humans are capable of, but rather the mind is a “knowing” thing…

… They know everything they know immediately, without consideration…

It’s impossible for us to imagine what it would be like to “think” like an angel, but it’s not impossible for us to imagine that something COULD think like an angel. This is because all it requires is to take what we know about our minds insofar as information is contained in them, and remove the factor of having to consider data. It’s like seeing the whole reel of film laid out in front of you rather than watching it go frame-by-frame.
Well, I can understand what it might be like to just have true beliefs available to one on demand, but it only makes sense to call them beliefs if they are called up and thought about. Something that didn’t need to think at all may have dispositions to behave in a particular way, but they don’t seem to have beliefs. I still have to think about the film strip you describe. Though visual processing does take some time, my visual system might be said to “know” trigonometry without having to think about it; for my depth perception depends upon the principles of trigonometry. Even, say, a dog’s brain must employ the truths explained by trig in some sense, enabling them to judge distances. I wouldn’t characterize this as knowledge, of trig though, but as a behavioral disposition. It seems that the angels in question merely have a wonderful set of behavioral depositions; they don’t seem conscious at all, if I understand your description of them correctly.
The reason we’re able to imagine such a mind as the angels’ is because it’s not fundamentally unlike ours, except that ours has an added filter to pass through first, namely material consideration. God’s “mind”, however, is fundamentally impossible for us to understand by our own power, because it’s not merely one grade of inhibition and perfection above ours within the same fundamental category, like the ocean to a rain drop, but rather it functions on an entirely different level…
…We can speak of it, and even apply certain logical formulas to it, but it remains fundamentally beyond our grasp, just like the color of an apple to a blind person who knows its red, and that red is the same color as of fire engines and hot coals, but can’t see it.

Unless God gives us His own vision, as those in Heaven receive with the Beatific Vision, it’s impossible for us to truly understand. And even were we to receive such Vision, we would not know it precisely the way God does, because we would know it by sharing, and He knows it by His very essence.

Hope that helps a little bit!

Peace and God bless!

I take it you would say that your conception of God does indeed amount to a set of metaphors? Again, I wonder what separates the Catholic from the atheist then, aside from your beliefs about paranormal events. Is it idol worship for a Catholic to worship “God” if they imagine him having a linier progression of thoughts?

Set Catholicism aside for a moment. What does the atheist fail to believe about the origin of the universe that the theist does believe? It is a matter of catholic doctrine that one can deduce the existence of God from nature, I believe. Just what is it such a minimal theist concludes, if not that a thinking thing made the universe?

Thank you for your long and careful answer.

Michael
 
Well, of course I don’t claim to fully understand the workings of God’s mind. But yes, part of what Catholics mean by humanity being created “in the image and likeness of God” is that our minds and wills are in certain respects similar to His.

Mind produces thoughts. And God also thinks. But the fact that in humans, thoughts progress in a linear fashion, seems to me to arise from our semi-material nature rather than from the nature of mind itself.

So for us, thinking takes time. For God, a wholly non-material being, it does not. For us, actually, everything takes time. For God, nothing takes time.

What does it mean for the words “know” and “rational” to be applied to something that exists outside of time? Essentially, the same thing that it means for us: to be aware of what is, to see the relations between things, to be even self-aware. Only, in God’s case, without the drawback of temporality.
I have no conception of “awareness” or “seeing” outside of time. Do you mean “something like awareness” and “something like seeing”?
 
I have no conception of “awareness” or “seeing” outside of time. Do you mean “something like awareness” and “something like seeing”?
To a certain extent, I think you must have some kind of a conception of awareness existing outside of time.

What I mean is this: As a human being, you experience things only sequentially. Yet, you always experience them as a subject—these are things that are happening to you, thoughts that you are having.

Memory is not the same thing as presence, yet when you remember a past event, you recall it as happening to you as the subject. Even though all the molecules in your body might be different today, it is still the same you that was present in both past and present, and will still be you in the future. So this self that you experience as the subject of thoughts actions, seems somehow to exist independently of time. This is not quite the same thing as God’s experience of self, but it is a glimpse.

(As Ghosty mentioned, God, rather than viewing the movie frame by frame, sees the entire filmstrip, or the whole DVD, at a glance.)
 
Can’t help it: I just felt a metaphor coming on.

A standard TV is a perfect example of a linear and sequential device. The image is scanned one line at a time (and within the line, one pixel at a time). The screen is painted line by line, sequentially, then it starts over again at the top, again sequentially, for the next frame.

Yet in this case, even we humans do not experience it in the linear manner in which it is in fact accomplished. We see the whole frame at once, and indeed are not even aware of each individual frame, but of the flow of the action, at 24 frames per second, or whatever the rate is currently.

A metaphor of how God’s mind works with respect to time.
 
MichaelLewis: I think you may be getting too hung up on trying to imagine things that are not purely imaginable. Just as you can’t visualize the mathematical principle of “square root”, but you can work with it, you can’t truly visualize the mind working other than sequentially.

That being said, there’s as much difference between an atheist and a theist as there is between a blind person who denies that there’s an elephant because they can’t see it, and a blind person who believes in the elephant, and does their best to describe it based on their other senses.

The difference is that God is real, and not merely a metaphor for certain hazy concepts. Our mind can’t grasp Divinity without Grace, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there, nor does it mean that we can’t relate things that we can understand within our limited mode of operation. The atheist denies a fact of reality, denies THE Fact of reality, the theist believes and tries to understand this most mysterious fact. That’s a huge, huge difference.

As for what a “minimal theist” can determine from nature, Aristotle is a classic example of the likely limits of purely human exploration, without Grace.

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty Wrote:

MichaelLewis: I think you may be getting too hung up on trying to imagine things that are not purely imaginable. Just as you can’t visualize the mathematical principle of “square root”, but you can work with it, you can’t truly visualize the mind working other than sequentially.

*The notion of a square root means nothing more to me than the procedure that is used to derive one and the sets of numerals, such that one is the square root of the other. There is nothing more to visualize.
*
That being said, there’s as much difference between an atheist and a theist as there is between a blind person who denies that there’s an elephant because they can’t see it, and a blind person who believes in the elephant, and does their best to describe it based on their other senses.

*Wouldn’t red be a better analogy? The blind person can form a concept of an elephant, if not as rich a one as a sighted person. With respect to red, a blind person can make sense of that in terms of a theory that hooks up with those aspects of the world that he does directly experience. That is, he has physics and his observations that sighted organisms can get along in the world in different ways than he can. Their can be nothing more to his concept of red than that. *

The difference is that God is real, and not merely a metaphor for certain hazy concepts. Our mind can’t grasp Divinity without Grace, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there, nor does it mean that we can’t relate things that we can understand within our limited mode of operation. The atheist denies a fact of reality, denies THE Fact of reality, the theist believes and tries to understand this most mysterious fact. That’s a huge, huge difference.

“God” may refer, and it may refer to something that is not a metaphor, but it seems that theists can only refer to whatever God is in terms of events he is supposed to have caused and with metaphor. An atheist might conceivably grant that the events occur and that they have some one cause, but if the words you use to ascribe personal attributes to that cause are mere metaphors, and the atheist simply rejects the metaphors than it isn’t clear that you have a real disagreement about what exists.

As for what a “minimal theist” can determine from nature, Aristotle is a classic example of the likely limits of purely human exploration, without Grace.

Aristotle seems to have spoken vaguely about his unmoved mover as well. If he did attribute a mind to God and maintain that God existed within time, I have no complaint. If he thought God could be timeless and have a mind, I would raise the same objection with him.

Michael
 
Ghosty wrote:

MichaelLewis: I think you may be getting too hung up on trying to imagine things that are not purely imaginable. Just as you can’t visualize the mathematical principle of “square root”, but you can work with it, you can’t truly visualize the mind working other than sequentially.

*The notion of a square root means nothing more to me than the procedure that is used to derive one and the sets of numerals, such that one is the square root of the other. There is nothing more to visualize.
*
That being said, there’s as much difference between an atheist and a theist as there is between a blind person who denies that there’s an elephant because they can’t see it, and a blind person who believes in the elephant, and does their best to describe it based on their other senses.

*Wouldn’t red be a better analogy? The blind person can form a concept of an elephant, if not as rich a one as a sighted person. With respect to red, a blind person can make sense of that in terms of a theory that hooks up with those aspects of the world that he does directly experience. That is, he has physics and his observations that sighted organisms can get along in the world in different ways than he can. Their can be nothing more to his concept of red than that. *

The difference is that God is real, and not merely a metaphor for certain hazy concepts. Our mind can’t grasp Divinity without Grace, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there, nor does it mean that we can’t relate things that we can understand within our limited mode of operation. The atheist denies a fact of reality, denies THE Fact of reality, the theist believes and tries to understand this most mysterious fact. That’s a huge, huge difference.

“God” may refer, and it may refer to something that is not a metaphor, but it seems that theists can only refer to whatever God is in terms of events he is supposed to have caused and with metaphor. An atheist might conceivably grant that the events occur and that they have some one cause, but if the words you use to ascribe personal attributes to that cause are mere metaphors, and the atheist simply rejects the metaphors than it isn’t clear that you have a real disagreement about what exists.

As for what a “minimal theist” can determine from nature, Aristotle is a classic example of the likely limits of purely human exploration, without Grace.

Aristotle seems to have spoken vaguely about his unmoved mover as well. If he did attribute a mind to God and maintain that God existed within time, I have no complaint. If he thought God could be timeless and have a mind, I would raise the same objection with him.

Michael
 
Can’t help it: I just felt a metaphor coming on.

A standard TV is a perfect example of a linear and sequential device. The image is scanned one line at a time (and within the line, one pixel at a time). The screen is painted line by line, sequentially, then it starts over again at the top, again sequentially, for the next frame.

Yet in this case, even we humans do not experience it in the linear manner in which it is in fact accomplished. We see the whole frame at once, and indeed are not even aware of each individual frame, but of the flow of the action, at 24 frames per second, or whatever the rate is currently.

A metaphor of how God’s mind works with respect to time.
But while we can take in many things at once, we still think about them over time. I am not objecting that God’s mental capasity couldn’t be greater than our own, just that to have personal attributes, one must be conscious, being conscious is something one does over time, and so one must exist in time have personal attributes.

Michael
 
If the professor in question is a soft determinist or compatibilist, he believes that moral responsibility and determinism are compatible, but even if he were a hard determinist, he could consistently affirm that negative and positive sanctions do influence behavior and that we are better off holding people responsible so long as the consequences of doing so are good.

Those who think that libertarian-style free will is more attractive and/or plausible than compatibilist-style free will ought to ask themselves exactly what the difference between a free action and a random event is. I’ve never seen a coherent, non-question begging distinction between the two.
i’m not ready to make a defense of libretarian free will, but i can sure tell you soft determinism and compatibilism is false. if everything is determined, how can i be morally responsible for my actions? soft determinists are by far intellectual minor leaguers! consider the following:

S=proposition about the total state of the world at some moment in the distant past (before there were any human beings)
L=conjunction of all the laws of nature
T=true proposition
NEC=logical necessity
Np=p and no human being, or group of human beings, is even partly responsible for the fact that p

assumptions:
(A) NEC. p => Np

(B) Np
N (p => q)
Nq

(C) (S & L) => T] = [S => (L => T)]

Proof:
(P1) NEC. (S & L) => T] —>REASON: This is a consequence of the notion of determinism.
(C1) NEC. [S => (L => T)] —>(P1)]
(C2) N [S => (L => T)] —>(C1), (A)]
(P2) NS —>REAS: It is intuitively obvious that no human being is responsible for anything that occurred before any human beings had ever been.
(C3) N (L => T) —>(B), (C2), (P2)]
(P3) NL —>REAS: It is intuitively obvious that no one is morally responsible for the laws of nature.
(C4) NT —>(B), (C3), (P3)]

According to this argument, it sinks compatibilism. I, including pretty much all of the philosophical community, find this argument to be valid and sound. Determinism is incompatible with moral responsibility. Soft determinism isn’t even an option. You therefore have to either take either libretarian free will or hard determinism. I don’t need to even consider soft determinism because if determinism is true, it most certainly can not be compatible with moral responsibility.
 
The notion of a square root means nothing more to me than the procedure that is used to derive one and the sets of numerals, such that one is the square root of the other. There is nothing more to visualize.
The point is that it’s strictly not visualizable, as it doesn’t fall under the sense of sight. God is like that, except that He doesn’t fall strictly under any natural power. The best we can do through natural powers is remotely describe certain aspects of God by analogy, but we never actually describe God himself.
*Wouldn’t red be a better analogy? The blind person can form a concept of an elephant, if not as rich a one as a sighted person. With respect to red, a blind person can make sense of that in terms of a theory that hooks up with those aspects of the world that he does directly experience. That is, he has physics and his observations that sighted organisms can get along in the world in different ways than he can. Their can be nothing more to his concept of red than that. *
You could use color, but I used a physical thing to reinforce that God is a fact that is discernable even if He’s not comprehensible. Red is indiscernable to a blind person, even in its proper effects, since the sight of the color is the proper effect of red. God’s proper effects, such as creation, are discernable even if He Himself is not, and therefore we’re not quite like a blind person in regards to colors with relation to God. We’re more like a blind person in regards of the sun.
“God” may refer, and it may refer to something that is not a metaphor, but it seems that theists can only refer to whatever God is in terms of events he is supposed to have caused and with metaphor. An atheist might conceivably grant that the events occur and that they have some one cause, but if the words you use to ascribe personal attributes to that cause are mere metaphors, and the atheist simply rejects the metaphors than it isn’t clear that you have a real disagreement about what exists.
Just because something is spoken of in metaphor doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. If I were trying to explain a rhinocerous to someone who’d never seen any animals but birds, I’d have to metaphorically use other things in their environment. Perhaps I would describe it as standing like a table, with four legs, and with a dagger made of bone on its otherwise fleshy nose, and its skin the color of concrete, and the texture of soft tree bark. All of those are metaphors, but they’re metaphors of a really existing thing; I’m merely approximating the reality through things that are comprehendable to the listener.

A non-believer may say that I’m not describing anything because I’m simply putting together seperate realities and calling it a single thing, but they’d be wrong. There really is a rhinocerous, and I’m describing it as best I can.
Aristotle seems to have spoken vaguely about his unmoved mover as well. If he did attribute a mind to God and maintain that God existed within time, I have no complaint. If he thought God could be timeless and have a mind, I would raise the same objection with him.
That’s because you’re using an unnecessarily limited definition of mind. You’re saying that unless something has a conciousness in the manner that we do, it can’t have a mind; that because we come to conciousness gradually, that that’s the only way to have conciousness. The fact is that conciousness, or knowing, does not describe a process, but a fact. A process is attached to the fact in us by virtue of our nature, but there is nothing about knowing that demands process per se, just like we can get the number 10 by adding 5 and 5, but it is not necessary to add 5 and 5 to get 10. We could just as easily write the number 10 by itself, or subtract 40 from 50; likewise, one could just as easily receive or possess knowledge without going through a discursive process of reasoning, or reasoning in a totally different manner.

Peace and God bless!
 
But while we can take in many things at once, we still think about them over time. I am not objecting that God’s mental capasity couldn’t be greater than our own, just that to have personal attributes, one must be conscious, being conscious is something one does over time, and so one must exist in time have personal attributes.

Michael
Well, I guess we will have to just disagree over this point. I don’t see extension in time as necessary either for personhood or consciousness, or thought.

But since time is a measure of change, I do see it as a limitation. So by my definition, God could not be God if he existed in time. A changing god is no god at all. (Likewise a god who has parts can come apart, and is no god at all. Time and space are the medium in which material beings extend their parts–something which is not necessary for God.)
 
i’m not ready to make a defense of libretarian free will, but i can sure tell you soft determinism and compatibilism is false. if everything is determined, how can i be morally responsible for my actions? soft determinists are by far intellectual minor leaguers! consider the following:

S=proposition about the total state of the world at some moment in the distant past (before there were any human beings)
L=conjunction of all the laws of nature
T=true proposition
NEC=logical necessity
Np=p and no human being, or group of human beings, is even partly responsible for the fact that p

assumptions:
(A) NEC. p => Np

(B) Np
N (p => q)
Nq

(C) (S & L) => T] = [S => (L => T)]

Proof:
(P1) NEC. (S & L) => T] —>REASON: This is a consequence of the notion of determinism.
(C1) NEC. [S => (L => T)] —>(P1)]
(C2) N [S => (L => T)] —>(C1), (A)]
(P2) NS —>REAS: It is intuitively obvious that no human being is responsible for anything that occurred before any human beings had ever been.
(C3) N (L => T) —>(B), (C2), (P2)]
(P3) NL —>REAS: It is intuitively obvious that no one is morally responsible for the laws of nature.
(C4) NT —>(B), (C3), (P3)]

According to this argument, it sinks compatibilism. I, including pretty much all of the philosophical community, find this argument to be valid and sound. Determinism is incompatible with moral responsibility. Soft determinism isn’t even an option. You therefore have to either take either libretarian free will or hard determinism. I don’t need to even consider soft determinism because if determinism is true, it most certainly can not be compatible with moral responsibility.
In my experience, most philosophers are compatibilists. I’ve heard at least one philosopher affirm that sociological hypotheses (who was not a compatibilist). Very few philosophers are libertarians. We compatibilists reject the soundness of van Inwagen’s “consequence argument”, which you seem to be trying to reconstruct, generally by rejecting his “beta”: (Np & N(pàq))àNq Where Np means “it is not up to us that p”. I hold that if you control your behavior, you are responsible for it (it was in fact “up to you”), even if you were determined to be who you are, and so determined to control it as you did. In the end, this is a normative position, and I can only argue against those who completely reject free will (hard determinists and other “hard incompatibilists” who do not necessarily accept determinism, but reject libertarianism) by trying to pump their intuitions. But libertarians who don’t hold that random choices are free choices, on the other hand, don’t even seem to have an articulated position.

Michael
 
Well, I guess we will have to just disagree over this point. I don’t see extension in time as necessary either for personhood or consciousness, or thought.

But since time is a measure of change, I do see it as a limitation. So by my definition, God could not be God if he existed in time. A changing god is no god at all. (Likewise a god who has parts can come apart, and is no god at all. Time and space are the medium in which material beings extend their parts–something which is not necessary for God.)
JimG and Gosty:
I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. I see a set of inconsistent attributes, because according to my conception of being ‘personal’, if something is personal it acts, and if it acts it is in time. You seem to have some other conception of ‘personal’ that I can’t comprehend.

Thanks,
Michael
 
I hold that if you control your behavior, you are responsible for it (it was in fact “up to you”), even if you were determined to be who you are, and so determined to control it as you did.
what does “control” mean here? how can one be said to control something that was determined to happen? what is the difference between my arm stabbing someone as a result of biochemical/neurophysical covering laws, and an apple falling from a tree as a result of gravitational laws? if i control the former, can it not be said equally as legitimately that i control the latter?
40.png
MichaelLewis:
But libertarians who don’t hold that random choices are free choices, on the other hand, don’t even seem to have an articulated position.
we’ve gone a few rounds on this point in the past, and it’s not that we don’t have an articulated position, it’s that you don’t agree with it.
 
JimG and Gosty:
I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. I see a set of inconsistent attributes, because according to my conception of being ‘personal’, if something is personal it acts, and if it acts it is in time. You seem to have some other conception of ‘personal’ that I can’t comprehend.

Thanks,
Michael
The person was Jesus Christ. The Incarnation was exactly what you describe here. God come down from heaven and stepped into time as a person, fully human yet retaining his full divinity. How much more personal can you get?
 
JimG and Gosty:
I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. I see a set of inconsistent attributes, because according to my conception of being ‘personal’, if something is personal it acts, and if it acts it is in time. You seem to have some other conception of ‘personal’ that I can’t comprehend.

Thanks,
Michael
I don’t see why an act would have to be in time. As JimG points out, time is a limitation, a privation, not a positive attribute. It limits the ability to act, rather than enables it, because it forces action in a single moment among many, rather than in all moments.

I don’t understand how action requires time, but if you can’t see it in any other way then I suppose there is no sense in speaking further on the matter.

Peace and God bless!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top