Mind Exercise

[Upgrade25]

Theists: An atheist walks up to you and says, “A deity could not have created the world and much less be active in it, because each of those is an action, which is a change from having not performed the action.”

Disclaimer I don’t really struggle with my faith, I’m just interested in the responses I get so I can get a better grasp on eternality. Feel free to quote Summa, other traditional theological or philosophical works in your answer.

 

[Bradski]

It sounded like the beginning of a joke (a theist, an agnostic and an atheist walk into a bar…).

In answer to your question, I think that the theist would say that God exists outside of time, so there was no temporal beginning. Good luck getting your head around that…

 

[Upgrade25]

It sounded like the beginning of a joke (a theist, an agnostic and an atheist walk into a bar…).

In answer to your question, I think that the theist would say that God exists outside of time, so there was no temporal beginning. Good luck getting your head around that…

It does sound like one of those

To answer the second part, this is why I need to stop playing mind games with theology. How do you win vs. yourself?

 

[friardchips]

Theists deep down love definite articles.

There are already loads of threads on this topic.

 

[seagal]

It sounded like the beginning of a joke (a theist, an agnostic and an atheist walk into a bar…).

In answer to your question, I think that the theist would say that God exists outside of time, so there was no temporal beginning. Good luck getting your head around that…

Time is also a creation so God is not part of it, except in the way that he is part of all creation.

 

[STT]

Theists: An atheist walks up to you and says, “A deity could not have created the world and much less be active in it, because each of those is an action, which is a change from having not performed the action.”

Disclaimer I don’t really struggle with my faith, I’m just interested in the responses I get so I can get a better grasp on eternality. Feel free to quote Summa, other traditional theological or philosophical works in your answer.

That is a good question when you consider the fact that God needs to decide which cannot.

 

[friardchips]

That is a good question when you consider the fact that God needs to decide which cannot.

ALL exists in the Will of God.

:takeoff:

 

[STT]

ALL exists in the Will of God.

:takeoff:

He is pure actual therefore He cannot decide.

 

[friardchips]

He is pure actual therefore He cannot decide.

He ‘Willed’, is different understanding to, He ‘decided’.

And therefore, His Will contains everything that exists within Him (though He is immeasurably more than the sum of Creation). His Will IS.

In terms of the Holy Trinity, the Second Person incarnating into humanity, did not affect the Divinity of God. Because God’s Will was still outside of time. Or more clearly understood: time was still in Him…

Within time, one could say God ‘moved’. But then, if all of time is in God’s Will anyway, and more specifically, all of Creation is in and through the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, who IS God’s Will, then temporal life is left as nothing more than a thin veil, and the Second Person ‘moving’ within time - that in actual fact came into existence within Him, in the Beginning - means that we are approaching the theistic argument the wrong way around (which is the way we would expect!). The Kingdom is found IN Him. He lived as the SOURCE of Creation within and in perfect unity to God’s “Pure Actual” Will. One could say that He was and is the realisation of the Will of the Father (Wisdom - The Word - Spoken).

 

[STT]

He ‘Willed’, is different understanding to, He ‘decided’.

What do you mean with Will?

And therefore, His Will contains everything that exists within Him (though He is immeasurably more than the sum of Creation). His Will IS.

You can assume so.

In terms of the Holy Trinity, the Second Person incarnating into humanity, did not affect the Divinity of God. Because God’s Will was still outside of time. Or more clearly understood: time was still in Him…

Ok.

Within time, one could say God ‘moved’. But then, if all of time is in God’s Will anyway, and more specifically, all of Creation is in and through the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, who IS God’s Will, then temporal life is left as nothing more than a thin veil, and the Second Person ‘moving’ within time - that in actual fact came into existence within Him, in the Beginning - means that we are approaching the theistic argument the wrong way around (which is the way we would expect!). The Kingdom is found IN Him. He lived as the SOURCE of Creation within and in perfect unity to God’s “Pure Actual” Will. One could say that He was and is the realisation of the Will of the Father (Wisdom - The Word - Spoken).

Ok.

 

[setarcos]

It sounded like the beginning of a joke (a theist, an agnostic and an atheist walk into a bar…).

In answer to your question, I think that the theist would say that God exists outside of time, so there was no temporal beginning. Good luck getting your head around that…

If there is no time is God still outside of it?

 

[setarcos]

Time is also a creation so God is not part of it, except in the way that he is part of all creation.

What boundaries does time have after its creation? Is there a boundary where one can say here time rules, there, time is not to be found, only God. Doesn’t God have to encompass time since no where is God not to be found? If time must have its existence within God how is it that something within Gods eternal uniformity doesn’t exist and then does? Oh yes, and how do we not think about a chair after being asked not to think about a chair?

 

[STT]

Time is also a creation so God is not part of it, except in the way that he is part of all creation.

Any physical theory needs time in order to show that the theory is successful in predicting future. We then deduce that the theory is correct. Therefore a physical theory which claims time as a emergent entity does not exist. Therefore time is elementary and cannot be created.

 

[Upgrade25]

What boundaries does time have after its creation? Is there a boundary where one can say here time rules, there, time is not to be found, only God. Doesn’t God have to encompass time since no where is God not to be found? If time must have its existence within God how is it that something within Gods eternal uniformity doesn’t exist and then does? Oh yes, and how do we not think about a chair after being asked not to think about a chair?

Time can be somewhat circumvented by going at the speed of light(a theory, but I believe in evolution too), and also is not eternal, seeing as time cannot account for why something would emerge out of infinity in time, which had to have a beginning(time isn’t intelligent).

 

[Upgrade25]

Any physical theory needs time in order to show that the theory is successful in predicting future. We then deduce that the theory is correct. Therefore a physical theory which claims time as a emergent entity does not exist. Therefore time is elementary and cannot be created.

God created the rules, or at least the conditions in which they came about, why not time?

 

[Upgrade25]

In terms of the Holy Trinity, the Second Person incarnating into humanity, did not affect the Divinity of God. Because God’s Will was still outside of time. Or more clearly understood: time was still in Him…

If He incarnated into humanity, isn’t that a change from not being incarnated into humanity?

 

[STT]

God created the rules, or at least the conditions in which they came about, why not time?

Rules cannot be created. They are simply concepts which can be comprehended by intellectual beings. Theories exist a priorie (you need intellectual being in order imagine them). Time in another hand is back bone, the fundamental variable for any theory, of every theory and therefore it cannot be emergent. Knowledge is structured in term of theories and knowledge is needed for act of creation. But the theory in which time is an emergent thing does not exist therefore time cannot be created.

 

[setarcos]

He ‘Willed’, is different understanding to, He ‘decided’.

You’ll have to explain further the difference in definitional understanding between the two concepts.
Is it not that what God wills comes to pass as a decision God has brought into existence? Can God decide a thing but will that it not happen? Can God actually “decide” anything that hasn’t been willed?

And therefore, His Will contains everything that exists within Him (though He is immeasurably more than the sum of Creation). His Will IS.

Can anything not be within God? If a thing not existing is brought into existence can it be said to not have been within God at some point?

In terms of the Holy Trinity, the Second Person incarnating into humanity, did not affect the Divinity of God. Because God’s Will was still outside of time. Or more clearly understood: time was still in Him…

The problem as I see it here is that the incarnation took place within time. Since in incarnating within time the Son part of the Godhead took on the nature of man at a specific time in a specific place but retained the nature of God thus making the Divine nature of the Son subject to temporal existence. If we define Jesus as a single person having two natures then what was Jesus before he became fully man? Whatever he was we cannot equate what Jesus is after the incarnation with what he was before the incarnation since the incarnation took place within time after times creation. This would change the eternal nature of the Godhead since it is said Jesus is equal with the trinity yet the divine Son within the trinity hasn’t had the nature of a man eternally within itself. As soon as you separate the two natures within Jesus you destroy his personhood .

Within time, one could say God ‘moved’. But then, if all of time is in God’s Will anyway, and more specifically, all of Creation is in and through the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, who IS God’s Will, then temporal life is left as nothing more than a thin veil, and the Second Person ‘moving’ within time - that in actual fact came into existence within Him, in the Beginning - means that we are approaching the theistic argument the wrong way around (which is the way we would expect!). The Kingdom is found IN Him. He lived as the SOURCE of Creation within and in perfect unity to God’s “Pure Actual” Will. One could say that He was and is the realisation of the Will of the Father (Wisdom - The Word - Spoken).

The problem is, with the second person of the Godhead we’ve added a second nature that has a temporal existence. The nature of a being defines the personhood of that being does it not? There weren’t two persons in one body with two different natures. There was one person in the form of Jesus with two natures. As soon as you remove one nature from the single personhood you destroy the coherent unity of that personhood and define a different person, either that of a man or that of God. The second person in the Godhead in becoming fully man, unifying two natures in one person, has redefined that personhood contingent upon corporal existence. What was not before now is. Can God be both, eternally uniform and unchanging AND contingent upon temporal existence? The temporal life the second person of the Godhead took on would not be like a useful tool one might perform a task with and then put back on the shelf when done. Becoming fully man and taking on the nature of man would have affected the uniform personhood of the second person of the Godhead. Remember we do not have two persons with two natures in one physical body, we do not have two persons with one nature in one physical body, we have one person defined by two natures in one physical body. If each nature did not affect the one person in some manner we would merely have one person with one uniquely mixed nature of divinity and humanity. This last has not been declared in error by the Church which still leaves an open ended question of the relationship between time, Jesus, and the second person of the Godhead.
This is merely a progression of thinking and not meant to be definitive conclusions.

 

[setarcos]

Time can be somewhat circumvented by going at the speed of light(a theory, but I believe in evolution too), and also is not eternal, seeing as time cannot account for why something would emerge out of infinity in time, which had to have a beginning(time isn’t intelligent).

You miss understand relativity theory. Time is not circumvented. At the speed of light, for bodies with mass, singularities appear. Time stops and mass becomes infinite. Time is always a factor in the equations though. I’m not sure what your saying in the second part of your post. One doesn’t have to look to an infinity of time to formulate a question of emergence from non-existence to existence. One could just as well as how is such a thing possible given a finite amount of time. Evolution isn’t intelligent either, by standard definitions anyway, but evolution may be said to have brought about emergent qualities in a seemingly intelligent way as if the process itself were intelligent.

 

[setarcos]

If He incarnated into humanity, isn’t that a change from not being incarnated into humanity?

This is a simple, coherent, and understandable question. All the things we can only hope for in a question. Unfortunately the answer you’ll get will probably be complex, hard to follow, and use vague and esoteric terminology to explain a process that is incomprehensible and impossible to refute or verify.
God bless us all anyway