There is no problem to know a subset. The problem is current state of creation is one member creation set and this state changes with time hence the knowledge of current state of creation brings subjectivity over time which means that timeless God cannot know the current time.Why does that logically follow? Why does knowledge of a subset ‘S’ imply that one is a member of the subset ‘S’.
If its subjected to God why can’t he know it? No different than you or I being outside of time and creating a computer with a simulation life story which mimics the real one. You and I would be watching a story of what we already know happened and could watch it in real time, and without being all-together responsible for the actions of free will.this state changes with time hence the knowledge of current state of creation brings subjectivity over time which means that timeless God cannot know the current time.
You are confusing knowledge with experience.There is no problem to know a subset. The problem is current state of creation is one member creation set and this state changes with time hence the knowledge of current state of creation brings subjectivity over time which means that timeless God cannot know the current time.
Time bound and timeless are mutually exclusive.[SIGN][/SIGN]I don’t even understand (let alone accept) the claim that omnipotent God is metaphysically bound or required to be either in time or outside “time”.
Surely He can pick and choose whether and when to be immanent and in what form.
Isn’t that a fundamental aspect of biblical theism and theology? That God and His amazing Grace can be as near or as far from us (in space/time) as our reciprocal love allows?
The difference is that God is the sustainer hence plays the same role as computer does, namely simulating the creation.If its subjected to God why can’t he know it? No different than you or I being outside of time and creating a computer with a simulation life story which mimics the real one. You and I would be watching a story of what we already know happened and could watch it in real time, and without being all-together responsible for the actions of free will.
I am not.You are confusing knowledge with experience.
What I am arguing is that the knowledge of set S is not sufficient to know what current time is. You need to tag a specific state to know that that specific state represents current time. The position of tag however changes by time hence the knowledge related to it which is problematic for a timeless God.Why is it mandatory to know the state of s in subset S that the observer be bound by subset S, or even a member of subset S
The problem arises when the governor of Kansas changes which mean that this knowledge becomes subjected to time.I, for example, can have knowledge of the governors of Kansas (Subset K) , even have knowledge of the current governor of Kansas ( ‘k’) without being a governor of Kansas, or being IN Kansas or even being bound by votes held in Kansas.
I am simply arguing that the state that represents current time changes as time passes hence the knowledge of current time bring subjectivity over time.Again, this is the argument from ignorance that you have used before in other threads. Claiming a premise to be true simply on the grounds that it is the only means that you are aware of.
I am very aware of the fact that timeless God does not experience thing. I am arguing that the state that represents current time changes over time hence the knowledge related to it.Yes, humans gain knowledge through experience. But it does not follow that is necessary for a non-human being, especially one outside our temporal universe.
Which premise I should prove?You have to prove that premise first before your other premise can be accepted as a logical argument.
But God is the sustainer of life and we would be in the computer analogy. Of what can’t God do on relation to time, inside or outside of time? We are not inside the program but we could influence the program.The difference is that God is the sustainer hence plays the same role as computer does, namely simulating the creation.
Since the creator is not His creation, how does this relate to the OP?Creation is simply a set of all states. What is wrong with this?
It is God himself that has to sustain creation. In another word there is no computer at his disposal to simulate creation.But God is the sustainer of life and we would be in the computer analogy. Of what can’t God do on relation to time, inside or outside of time? We are not inside the program but we could influence the program.
God may have multiple universes he sustains just as you may have multiple computer programs on various computers. And we all are consciously connected as evident by this program you are virtually on today acting in free will.
They differ since creation is the set of all states which this is a part of God’s knowledge.Since the creator is not His creation, how does this relate to the OP?
So?They differ since creation is the set of all states which this is a part of God’s knowledge.
So the rest follows. God knows the set S but he cannot know what is the current time since this requires one thing more which is extra knowledge of the current state which God cannot since the current state is subjected to time.
You have not shown this.So the rest follows.
This is an assertion without evidence.God knows the set S but he cannot know what is the current time since this requires one thing more which is extra knowledge of the current state which God cannot since the current state is subjected to time.
Timeless mean to not bound to time to exist or to act. The creation is not apart from power of God. And wisdom of God is not unaware of power action.Knowledge of now brings subjectivity over time. Timeless God cannot be timeless and has the knowledge of now. This is the result a tension between timeless state and time-bound state that you cannot resolve it.
Not as a* creature*.
This is not an assertion but an argument hence it doesn’t need any evidence.You have not shown this.
This is an assertion without evidence.
And argument, to be valid, needs to be based on valid premises’This is not an assertion but an argument hence it doesn’t need any evidence.
Unless He Created and controls time.Timeless God knows all states of creation. Lets consider each state as “s”, which defines creation as a set, lets call it “S”, where “S” contains all states. “S” is basically God’s knowledge of creation. So far everything is nice. The knowledge of now however needs the existence one stamp on one “s” showing that that specific “s” represent now. The now however moves as time passes. This means that position of stamp is subjected to change hence timeless God cannot know the current time. We only experience very now which means God needs to sustains now differently from past and future since “S” is actual in God perspective. .
I like your example of film. That is God who is projector of this film and the current state is the frame which should be presented at now. The rate in which frames are presented is however subjected to time hence timeless God cannot sustain the creation.…Assume set S as film strip. And the now is the one of frame of that film strip. The film strip progress in order. Every s position appear in order and then get into S. But notice that non of s position get out of S in any times. Because all s positions are part of S in all conditions.
Could you please read post #26. I think I answered you there.And argument, to be valid, needs to be based on valid premises’
But you are correct, it does not need evidence, but needs logical proof if you expect a rational person to agree with your conclusion.