God's Beginningless Past

[Logikos]

Agreed. And, that time is a part of the material creation, from which God remains outside. He is not subject to His own created laws of physics. God is no more bound by time than He is by gravity.

Much love!

Saying it doesn't make it so!

 

[marks]

Saying it doesn't make it so!

I agree! What you say, what I say, we certainly need to keep perspective.

I seems evident to me that the Creator is neither part of, nor subject to His creation. Would that seem reasonable to you?

Much love!

 

[Logikos]

Putrid that you would use this as a reply. It speaks volumes.

Much love!

It's the truth. You can have any doctrine you want, no matter how "putrid" if you are legitimately allowed to read your doctrine into the text, which is precisely what Cassandra was doing. I, of course, am not suggesting that she would support David Koresh but what I am saying is that she is reading from his playbook and that her misuse of the scripture is wrong for precisely the reason that someone can take that exact same tack and use it for whatever wild-eyed crazy nonsensical doctrine that they want to push.

 

[Logikos]

I agree! What you say, what I say, we certainly need to keep perspective.

The difference is that I don't show up here offering my naked personal opinions and presenting them as facts as though my word is all anyone needs in order to accept it as gospel fact. I make arguments and am practically BEGGING people to make rebuttal arguments!

I seems evident to me that the Creator is neither part of, nor subject to His creation. Would that seem reasonable to you?

Of course He isn't! Time, however, is not a created thing. It isn't a "thing" at all, in the ontological sense of that word. It is an idea. It exists only as a concept. It's a convention of language used to convey information related to the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. So long as events occur and there is a thinking mind that can discuss them in terms of their occurrence relative to other events then time "exists" because that's all time is!

Further, the idea that God exists outside of time is a self-contradictory proposition because the concept of existence implies duration, and duration is what time is. Thus, by definition, a timeless existence would be a duration-less existence, which is the equivalent of non-existence. It is a clear contradiction and is therefore false, by definition.

 

[marks]

It's the truth.

From my viewpoint it's a "guilty by association" smear. I can just as easily give my opinion that you are misusing Scripture, and then compare you to some vile historical figure who misused Scripture. And then where are we?

Why is it that you don't just correct the misuse without the ad hominem? Do you know what I'm saying?

Much love!

 

[Logikos]

From my viewpoint it's a "guilty by association" smear.

I do not care about "your viewpoint" and if the association is valid, which it was, so is the guilt.

I can just as easily give my opinion that you are misusing Scripture, and then compare you to some vile historical figure who misused Scripture.

I invite you to try to make that argument!

And then where are we?

We are in an actual debate where two intelligent people use their minds to substantively defend their beliefs in an intellectually honest way.

Why is it that you don't just correct the misuse without the ad hominem? Do you know what I'm saying?

It wasn't an ad hominem! Reading doctrine into the text of scripture might could be gotten away with on some matters but it is wrong on many levels. It is, at bottom, a dishonest way of using God's word that has very serious ramifications. David Koresh's cult is only one of hundreds of excellent examples. Indeed, there isn't a "Christian" cult that has ever existed or that could exist without the use of eisegetical hermaneutics. Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses, Sun Myung Moon, Jim Jones, etc, etc, etc. Every single one of them base(d) their doctrine on just the exact same sort of eisegetical proof-texting that I've seen more than one person on this website perform!

 

[Ziggy]

You ever notice the sign of infinity is a closed circuit? There is no beginning and no end, it just is infinate in motion.
The snake on the other hand has a head and a tail. It is not infinate but has a beginning and an ending.

Just thinking..
Hugs

 

[marks]

Of course He isn't! Time, however, is not a created thing. It isn't a "thing" at all, in the ontological sense of that word. It is an idea. It exists only as a concept. It's a convention of language used to convey information related to the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. So long as events occur and there is a thinking mind that can discuss them in terms of their occurrence relative to other events then time "exists" because that's all time is!

Again, I agree, time is not a "thing" in its right, like you say, ontologically. I disagree that it's an idea or concept alone, or that it's a language convention. It's a property of our creation. It is this creation that advances in a series of moments though a succession of events, that is, moves forward in time.

As a part of this creation, we are subject to this property, and have to wait for each coming moment to see what it will bring. What is the next event. God is not so bound, not being a part of His own creation. Therefore God can foretell through His prophets what we have to wait centuries to see.

We have a consciousness that has never known anything other than our state of linear advancement through the moments in our life. Even thinking of attempting to speak of God's consciousness gives me great pause. I don't imagine He is like me in this way.

Further, the idea that God exists outside of time is a self-contradictory proposition because the concept of existence implies duration, and duration is what time is. Thus, by definition, a timeless existence would be a duration-less existence, which is the equivalent of non-existence. It is a clear contradiction and is therefore false, by definition.

Again, I consider time to be a property of this creation. I would say that "our" concept of existence implies duration. It's the passage of time that prevents us from knowing all things that may be knowable, because we have not had time to learn everything. How can we say God is omniscient if He is likewise existing in a linear moving timeframe? We mark time by change. God declares He does not change.

Much love!

 

[marks]

David Koresh's cult is only one of hundreds of excellent examples.

Why would you need any example except that you wish to make that association? Hitler quoted Scripture, is he next for your "example"?

Isn't it better on all counts to simply give the correct information if someone has misunderstood or misused a text in any way? I'd say, yes.

Much love!

 

[Ziggy]

I keep hearing the Preacher..
A time for this and a time for that.
And there is no new thing under the sun.

And the process of time is throughout the bible.
In the process of time...
And an appointed time...

God has his own calendar whether the world goes by it or not.

Does anybody really know what time it is?

Hugs

 

[Logikos]

Again, I agree, time is not a "thing" in its right, like you say, ontologically. I disagree that it's an idea or concept alone, or that it's a language convention. It's a property of our creation. It is this creation that advances in a series of moments though a succession of events, that is, moves forward in time.

The claim that it is more than a concept and that it is a property of our creation is unsubstantiated.

As a part of this creation, we are subject to this property, and have to wait for each coming moment to see what it will bring. What is the next event. God is not so bound, not being a part of His own creation. Therefore God can foretell through His prophets what we have to wait centuries to see.

This is your doctrine but it not what the bible teaches nor is it logically tenable as my previous post argued.

We have a consciousness that has never known anything other than our state of linear advancement through the moments in our life. Even thinking of attempting to speak of God's consciousness gives me great pause. I don't imagine He is like me in this way.

What should give you pause is the fact that you cannot speak of God's timeless existence without contradicting yourself. You literally cannot do it. It is a self-contradictory concept and it is therefore false - by definition. (i.e. The definition of the word "false").

Again, I consider time to be a property of this creation.

You consider falsely.

I would say that "our" concept of existence implies duration.

Then propose an alternative that is rationally consistent! If you think you can! (You can't! It's been tried! You're welcome to try but you will fail.)

It's the passage of time that prevents us from knowing all things that may be knowable,

No it isn't.

because we have not had time to learn everything.

You couldn't know the future even if you had perfect knowledge of the present. THAT actually is a property of the created order!

How can we say God is omniscient if He is likewise existing in a linear moving timeframe?

He isn't! Not in the way most people think, anyway. Biblically, God knows everything that is knowable - that He wants to know!
Any teaching beyond that cannot be supported biblically (or rationally).

We mark time by change. God declares He does not change.

Except that He does change, right?!

God's character doesn't change. The sort of being God is does not change. He is living, personal, relational, loving, righteous and just and immutably so! But, that doesn't mean that He doesn't change His mind, change His plans, change His tactics, etc. Nor does it mean that God cannot learn, create a new song, write a new book or become a man and die and then rise from the dead! Changes that God has endured are precisely what the whole Christian faith is based on!

Further, speaking of change, in the New Heaven, after this current creation has been done away with and we have entered into our eternal existence in the immediate presence of God, there will be this amazing tree that we can all eat from. It is THE TREE!; the Tree of Life! This astonishing tree bears twelve fruits, but not all at once! Each of the twelve fruits, the bible records, comes ripe one at a time each month. We will literally count off the months and years by which fruit comes ripe on the Tree of Life! Please explain to me how that isn't change? How is that not time?

 

[Logikos]

Why would you need any example except that you wish to make that association? Hitler quoted Scripture, is he next for your "example"?

He'd be an excellent example! Do you wish to use scripture the same way Hitler did? I don't! If someone detected that you were doing so, wouldn't you want to know about it? I would!

Isn't it better on all counts to simply give the correct information if someone has misunderstood or misused a text in any way? I'd say, yes.

No, it isn't better. It may even be worse, depending on the context.
I'm here to defend what I believe against all comers. If someone makes an argument against what I believe then I am going to use the most effective means by which to refute that argument. You don't have to like it! Your approval is neither requested nor required.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Agreed. And, that time is a part of the material creation, from which God remains outside. He is not subject to His own created laws of physics. God is no more bound by time than He is by gravity.

Much love!

Right, the exact point I tried to make (without offending the original post).

 

[marks]

He'd be an excellent example!

Nevermind.

Much love!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Okay, so you've made this claim now twice. Guess what - saying it doesn't make it so.

If it happens to be the case then it would indeed falsify the argument, right? So do make the argument then! You showing up to proclaim something to be invalid doesn't do anyone any good. Make the argument!


How are they groundless? Make the argument!

I'm not saying *your argument* is groundless!!!!!!!!!
I'm saying those who argue this way against an Infinite Being are using a faulty argument. In effect I think I'm agreeing with you.

My aggression was directed not at you for counter-arguing against those who think this way. You are just feeling me vent against those who regularly makes these kinds of arguments (not *your arguments!).

I've actually done quite a lot of study in this area over the years and I can tell you that it very simply is not predicated on the premise you are claiming. It's not as if philosophical discussions about there being an uncaused cause is something new. It's one of the oldest topics in all of philosophy.

That's where I was coming from--exactly where you're coming from. I'm addressing those who complain about an "uncaused cause," about the supposedly "absurd" notion of an infinite regression of causes. It is argued (not your argument) that we can't even speak of an infinite Being, since we're not infinite ourselves.

Obviously, there is a rational argument against the supposed limitations of talking about a transcendent Deity. I reject all arguments against God based on the limitations of human reason. Though we think in finite terms, there is an intersection between the infinite and the finite. An eternal line contains line segments--they are compatible realities.

Some say finite Creation is a form of symbolism depicting the infinite Creator. They believe human reason, when combined with Divine light, becomes revelation of God's Word. I would agree. We don't have to *be God* to *see God!*

We just have to be *touched by God.* We cannot reach up and touch God unless He 1st touches us. Our reason falls short of seeing God if He does not dwell in our reason.

I believe God naturally dwells in human reason. He has made us to be able to see Him. But we can also choose to reason independent of Him, to choose the knowledge of evil, so to speak. In that case, He does not dwell in our reason, giving us over to lies and to deception. That kind of revelation will never see God.

A major point of which isn't merely to have an interesting discussion about God and His relation to time but, more fundamentally, to say that Christianity is the only rationally consistent worldview that exists.

As I said, I like philosophical arguments for or against God. It's just that this argument against God on the basis of His transcendence is itself unreasonable, as I'm hoping you were saying? Their arguments, as such, are irrelevant and dated--not yours.

 

[Ziggy]

The following is an excerpt from an article entitled, "Is God Outside of Time? Not according to the Bible." by Bob Enyart, at the end of which he lists several misconceptions about time and answers them in his typically brilliant fashion. I invite you to read the entire article at the provided link.

The thing is with man's limited knowledge of what we can know outside of time and space is inferior to God's unlimited knowledge.

Man can't know what he doesn't know.
Or man can't know what he hasn't been given to know.

So we can sit here all day discussing what man knows according to what knowledge has been supplied in this physical existance.
But unless one is given the knowledge, man has no ability to attain it.
Not in this structure we reside in.

We understand birth/beginning and death/ending.
We are told about something that is outside our physical knowledge like being born again, or everlasting life.
This idea has to be concieved by what is known from another perspective that is not limited to carnal knowledge.

How can we know what we haven't experienced?
Doesn't make it true or false, it simply makes it unknowable.. for now.

But then there is this thing called faith, which in itself is outside the boundaries of what we can feel or touch.
How do we know faith exists?
Because time reveals it.

The unseeable vs that which is manifested.

Time that exists in the world is a manifestation of that which is timeless in the spiritual domain.

It is only a shadow for the "time" being.

Time has a beginning and an ending which was created for the physical world we live in.
But timelessness is not confined within these walls.
And how do we know this?
It takes faith..
LOL

Circular... everything is circular.

Hugs

 

[Logikos]

I'm not saying *your argument* is groundless!!!!!!!!!
I'm saying those who argue this way against an Infinite Being are using a faulty argument. In effect I think I'm agreeing with you. My aggression was directed not at you for counter-arguing against those who think this way. You are just feeling me vent against those who regularly makes these kinds of arguments (not *your arguments!).

I see.

That's where I was coming from--exactly where you're coming from. I'm addressing those who complain about an "uncaused cause," about the supposedly "absurd" notion of an infinite regression of causes. It is argued (not your argument) that we can't even speak of an infinite Being, since we're not infinite ourselves.

Terrific! I just have one question for you then...

Why avoid discussing it?

I mean, I get it that you aren't likely to convince them but they aren't the primary target, right? There are lots of people who might be impacted by your arguments that aren't directly involved in the discussion and while I happen to think that they're worth the effort, the fact is that not even they are the primary reason to engage such debates. You are the primary reason why you should engage in such debates. You are the one who benefits the most by honing the skills required to face down the absurdities that are presented by those who base their own piety upon their willingness to believe in the irrational.

Obviously, there is a rational argument against the supposed limitations of talking about a transcendent Deity. I reject all arguments against God based on the limitations of human reason. Though we think in finite terms, there is an intersection between the infinite and the finite. An eternal line contains line segments--they are compatible realities.

Some say finite Creation is a form of symbolism depicting the infinite Creator. They believe human reason, when combined with Divine light, becomes revelation of God's Word. I would agree. We don't have to *be God* to *see God!*

Relating to God is the purpose for which we were created. If God is so transcendent that we cannot begin to grasp anything meaningful about God then He failed in His attempt to create us in His image. God Himself said, "Come, let us reason together." and the majority of Christians don't believe that it is even possible for us to do so and that to try is to degrade God in some heinous manner.

We just have to be *touched by God.* We cannot reach up and touch God unless He 1st touches us. Our reason falls short of seeing God if He does not dwell in our reason.

I'd not take that sentiment too far. Romans 1 tells us clearly that God's attributes are made obvious by His creation to the point that people are without excuse for rejecting Him. The invisible God isn't so well hidden that those who seek Him cannot find Him. He's hidden but in plain sight.

I believe God naturally dwells in human reason. He has made us to be able to see Him. But we can also choose to reason independent of Him, to choose the knowledge of evil, so to speak. In that case, He does not dwell in our reason, giving us over to lies and to deception. That kind of revelation will never see God.

Well, yes except that true reason cannot lead to falsehood and God Himself is the very personification of Reason and Jesus being the very incarnation of Reason (John 1). Thus, to "reason independent of Him" is to not really reason at all, or at least not rightly. The existence of logic apart from God is self-contradictory and will lead to error, by definition. Error which God will let those who hate Him destroy themselves with if they so choose to do so.

As I said, I like philosophical arguments for or against God. It's just that this argument against God on the basis of His transcendence is itself unreasonable, as I'm hoping you were saying? Their arguments, as such, are irrelevant and dated--not yours.

I guess what I'm hoping to convince you of is that websites like this exist precisely for the purpose of making the arguments. Regardless of how cogent we feel like someone's argument is or isn't, the idea behind being on such a website, at least as far as I'm concerned, it so that we have a forum by which we can articulate just why it is we feel that way. And the exercise is worth the effort, if even for our own sake! If you think it's a waste of time to make the argument against these folks, imagine how big a waste of time it is to merely tell them how you feel about their doctrine.

 

[Logikos]

The thing is with man's limited knowledge of what we can know outside of time and space is inferior to God's unlimited knowledge.

Positing the notion of existence outside of time is what demonstrate inferior reasoning. God's ways are HIGHER than our ways, not lower! Suggesting that God's existence is irrational doesn't exalt Him, it lowers Him. It places Him on the same level as Superman or Santa Claus.

Man can't know what he doesn't know.
Or man can't know what he hasn't been given to know.

No one is suggesting otherwise!

We can know a great many things! One of the most important of which is the fact that reality actually does exist and that it does not contradict itself. We KNOW that the truth is not contradictory and that therefore contradictions do not exist and that if we find a contradiction it doesn't mean that our mind's are broken but that one (or more) of our premises are false.

If this were not the case, there would be no way of knowing anything at all. We couldn't even know whether we were detecting reality or that we were even real, much less God.

So we can sit here all day discussing what man knows according to what knowledge has been supplied in this physical existance.
But unless one is given the knowledge, man has no ability to attain it.
Not in this structure we reside in.

How do you know this?

(That question is rhetorical! Do you see the point?)

We understand birth/beginning and death/ending.
We are told about something that is outside our physical knowledge like being born again, or everlasting life.
This idea has to be concieved by what is known from another perspective that is not limited to carnal knowledge.

That's what the bible is for, right?

There are two main sources of knowledge, there is general revelation and divine revelation. The former is natural law, it is what we can learn from God's creation, both about that creation and its Creator. The later being scripture, a.k.a. the bible. Both of which are understood by a process of reason. You can neither observe nature nor read the bible without employing your mind through a process of rational thought.

How can we know what we haven't experienced?
Doesn't make it true or false, it simply makes it unknowable.. for now.

Experiential knowledge is not the only kind of knowledge that exists. I have no experience with murder, in that I've never murdered anyone and yet I know what murder is. The same is true of God, on that particular point, by the way. And while God's existence clearly transcends our own, that does not mean that we cannot understand anything of substantive importance about His existence. At the very least we can say what is NOT true of His existence including anything that would be self-contradictory.

But then there is this thing called faith, which in itself is outside the boundaries of what we can feel or touch.

But not beyond the grasp of our minds! God is invisible, we cannot physically see or feel Him but what we can see is the evidence of His existence. Faith is one's willingness to allow that evidence to persuade your mind that He in whom your hope rests is substantive and real.

How do we know faith exists?
Because time reveals it.

That is a tautology. Reveals it how? By exposing evidence that we both detect and understand with our mind!

The unseeable vs that which is manifested.

Romans 1:19 ....what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

Time that exists in the world is a manifestation of that which is timeless in the spiritual domain.

How do you know this?

It is only a shadow for the "time" being.

How do you know this?

Time has a beginning and an ending which was created for the physical world we live in.

How do you know this?

But timelessness is not confined within these walls.
And how do we know this?
It takes faith..
LOL

It takes stupidity or insanity or both!

Sorry, but that's the truth of it.

It literally takes the turning off of one's mind and if that's what faith is then anything goes! You have no means to falsify ANY wild-eyed doctrine that any lunatic shows up to teach you.

Circular... everything is circular.

Hugs

I appreciate the humor but you really should not blow off circular reasoning this easily! It is not pointing you to the truth but to an error! The truth is not irrational, Ziggy, and if you find yourself trapped into circular reasoning by your own doctrine, then that counts as this gigantic red flag that is being waved in your face by your own arguments!

 

[Ziggy]

Frankly I find this discussion unprofitable at this time.
Thank you for the discussion nevertheless.
Have a good day.
hugs

 

[Logikos]

Frankly I find this discussion unprofitable at this time.
Thank you for the discussion nevertheless.
Have a good day.
hugs

I'll count it as seeds sown. (John 4:37)