William Lane Craig Temporal God

  • Thread starter Thread starter JJO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aquinas11 said:
define “point”
Click to expand...
In geometry a point is an irreducible entity. In our discussion is a state of affair, like eternal state. An eternal state is not divisible. Temporal state, however, is divisible.
 
whatistrue said:
I assert that your premise is faulty. You are couching it in terms that don’t apply. Just as you are still misusing “uncaused cause” after being corrected on it numerous times.
Click to expand...
Which premise? You point to conclusion rather than premise. I am arguing that the act of creation is temporal. Do you have any problem with that? There are two states of affair one following another. What is the problem?
 
STT said:
What is the problem?
Click to expand...
The problem is that you are speaking of “following” under conditions where there is no time, so creation cannot be temporal. And were you using more than one premise as part of your mistaken conclusion that creation was temporal? How about you clarify your premise for me to make sure we are talking about the same thing?
 
STT said:
time itself is an element of creation
Click to expand...
right which is why your below contention is false that “time” extends before creation
STT said:
these points are: 1) Only God exists and 2) God and the universe exist
Click to expand...
STT said:
The act of creation also requires that (2) comes after (1)
Click to expand...
STT said:
This is by definition is a temporal situation which makes God subject to time
Click to expand...
it can’t be a temporal situation since you already conceded time was itself created during the act of creation

your post is completely self contradictory
 
Wesrock said:
Who spoke of prophecy?
Click to expand...
Any free agent can ask God what s/he is going to do when s/he meets God in Heaven/Hell? Isn’t that impossible?
Wesrock said:
The agent is caused by God but is not directed like a puppet.
Click to expand...
You need to prove that this is not the case.
Wesrock said:
The agent is caused to be according to its nature, which in the case of humans includes the capacity to voluntarily choose between two choices. It is voluntary because the reasons the agent chooses one instead of another are intrinsic to the agent, even if the reason the agent exists according to its nature is extrinsically created.
Click to expand...
Isn’t this nature caused by God?
Wesrock said:
I would reject your notion of libertarian free agency as absurd as the things you’re calling free agents are composed and change, and such attributes mean they must have causes.
Click to expand...
Composed? Which part of you decide? How many parts your soul has? Changing? Do you as a person really change or it is your perspective, behavior, etc. which are subject of change?
 
Aquinas11 said:
No because time was created in (2) along with the Universe, thus time didn’t precede (2).
Click to expand...
This is a problem that I call the dilemma of beginning of time. The process of nothing to something where something contains time is temporal. This means that you need time for creation of time which is contrary.
 
Aquinas11 said:
Thus it can’t be an eternal state, that excludes actual world.

You need to refine your definition.
Click to expand...
Eternal state is an actual state. It is only different from the states of affair that we experience right now, our world.
 
STT said:
This means that you need time for creation of time which is contrary.
Click to expand...
Again, self-contradictory. If you need time for creation of time, you must have already created time prior to the creation of time

You also mischaracterized (1) as “Only God exists” since you’re now saying time existed in (1) too, thus your (1) is “God and time exists”

In which case your points actually are:
(0) Only God exists
(1) God and time exist
(2) Goa and time and universe exist

So all you’re arguing is that God created time (in 1) before he created the Universe (in 2)
 
Last edited:
whatistrue said:
The problem is that you are speaking of “following” under conditions where there is no time, so creation cannot be temporal. And were you using more than one premise as part of your mistaken conclusion that creation was temporal? How about you clarify your premise for me to make sure we are talking about the same thing?
Click to expand...
No. I first argue that the act of creation is temporal. I then bring the attention of the reader that the creation contains time. I then bring the attention of the reader to the fact that this leads to a contradiction since time is needed for creation of time.
 
STT said:
Introducing (1) does not resolve the problem since you need time to go from (0) to (1). It leads to an infinite regress
Click to expand...
No because again you’ve already refuted that argument by saying “Only God exists”, you didn’t say “God and time exists” which you’re now asserting. You’ve contradicted yourself.
 
Last edited:
No, you continue to produce gratuitous assertions and call them arguments. You assert that “the act of creation is temporal”. You have not laid a foundation as to what you mean by “act of creation” or why it is temporal. Start there.
 
Aquinas11 said:
Again, self-contradictory. If you need time for creation of time, you must have already created time prior to the creation of time

You also mischaracterized (1) as “ Only God exists” since you’re now saying time existed in (1) too, thus your (1) is “God and time exists”

In which case your points actually are:
(0) Only God exists
(1) God and time exist
(2) Goa and time and universe exist

So all you’re arguing is that God created time (in 1) before he created the Universe (in 2)
Click to expand...
Introducing (1) does not resolve the problem since you need time to go from (0) to (1). It leads to a regress.
 
Only to our human logic, which Gd created in a temporal universe, but by which Gd Himself is not bound.
 
whatistrue said:
No, you continue to produce gratuitous assertions and call them arguments. You assert that “the act of creation is temporal”. You have not laid a foundation as to what you mean by “act of creation” or why it is temporal. Start there.
Click to expand...
I already argue this in post #30: I am arguing that there must be two states of affair/points to make the act of creation meaningful, these points are: 1) Only God exists and 2) God and the universe exist. If you exclude (1) then God and the universe exist that means that the universe is eternal as well so there cannot be an act of creation. If you exclude (2) then it means that only God exists so there is no universe so there is no act of creation yet. The universe exist so we cannot exclude (2) if we believe in God. (1) cannot be excluded too therefore we have two points. The act of creation also requires that (2) comes after (1) (the other combination is the act of annihilation). So we are dealing with an act consist of two points one comes after another one. This is by definition is a temporal act.
 
You continue to speak of things that are outside of our universe as if they were inside. You are using the wrong frame of reference and have been so advised more than once.
 
STT said:
Introducing (1) does not resolve the problem since you need time to go from (0) to (1). It leads to a regress.
Click to expand...
No because again you’ve already refuted that argument by saying “ Only God exists”, you didn’t say “God and time exists” which you’re now asserting. You’ve contradicted yourself. Now you’re saying “only” doesn’t mean “only”.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
The act of creation also requires that (2) comes after (1) (the other combination is the act of annihilation). So we are dealing with an act consist of two points one comes after another one. This is by definition is a temporal act.
Click to expand...
No because again this is refuted by your own assertion that in (1) “Only God exists” , not “God and time exists”, thus (1) to (2) cannot be in time, per your own assertion
 
Last edited:
whatistrue said:
You continue to speak of things that are outside of our universe as if they were inside. You are using the wrong frame of reference and have been so advised more than once.
Click to expand...
No. I am talking about an act. Any act deals with two states of affair one comes after.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top