The First Cause

[Mars]

Or maybe God's reckoning of time isn't linear. Maybe God observes the outcome of our choices as we make them, rather than knowing beforehand what they'll be.

[Hughes]

In order for a change to occur, it has to occur within a temporal dimension, else the change cannot occur. If God makes a decision to do anything, the decision has to occur within a temporal dimension. A decision is a change. So, when God decided to create His very first creation, it had to happen within a temporal dimension, else He couldn't have made that decision because a decision is a change and the temporal dimension had to exist before He made that decision.

To insist that God can create something while existing outside of any temporal dimension is illogical. That's like saying that God can create something so big that He cannot move it or that He can create something more powerful than Himself.

And exactly what forces God to make a decision in temporal time?

[Hughes]

Well I am glad you finally read the article.

What you are now advocating is Molinism, or something close I guess, as does Craig. At least you are doing your homework.

That's a commonly held position which Mudcat has also brought up. With my view of language, I think the whole notion that somehow counterfactuals could be "true" is highly problematic. A statement that something "would" be true if xyz happened is, to me, just a fantasy put together to hold onto the tenuous argument that God's knowledge is unchanging. I prefer a deep swipe of Occam's razor and just admitting that his knowledge (forgive the dirty word) is "contingent".

Dirty words are in the mind of the beholder.

But that's fine, if you believe it- it is what it is. It is a solidly logical position with which I disagree because it is so complex. But this is a complex world.

Indeed it's infinitely so.

[mfbukowski]

And exactly what forces God to make a decision in temporal time?

You're blowing it

If he makes any decisions in time or out- he is making a change. He cannot do otherwise than what he knows he will do!

I suspected you did not understand that point.

[Mudcat]

For God to "think" something, a change has to occur and without a temporal dimension.....

I think simultaneity reconciles the issue regarding creation specifically.

If you insert the premise that God's decision to create was simultaneous with the actual act of creation, there isn't a logical dilemma.

I still owe Bukowski a reply to his last post, but I wanted to jump in on that issue.

[Hughes]

You're blowing it

If he makes any decisions in time or out- he is making a change. He cannot do otherwise than what he knows he will do!

I suspected you did not understand that point.

No. I'm asking what he believes, not making a statement about my own view. (I hope you will allow me the latitude to do that)

[Ambrose]

I appreciate your comments; I think that there is a lot of "water under the bridge" on one hand, for that part of the discussion, and also for philosophy itself since both Hume and Aristotle; I for one would be willing to go "back" there if you see relevance in their arguments for process theism, which now seems to be what we are discussing, but process theism is really my interest.

So I guess I am saying that if you think Aristotle or Aquinas would have arguments against process theism, I'm in, otherwise I'm probably not!

I don't think Aristotle ever argued against Heraclitus- but if he did, that might be interesting!

Validly true arguments for the existence of a thing will in some way reveal, via negativa, the nature of a thing. The Metaphysics and the arguments contained therein for an Unmoved Mover are one and the same the arguments for Pure Act and an argument against process theology, especially the process theology of Pre-Socratics. This is especially seen in Book X and XIII of the Metaphysics. I think that many portions of book XIII are of chief interest to this question of Divine Knowledge and exemplars (which is the view that process theology must contend against).

The same is true for St. Thomas. His arguments for the existence of God provide the premises from which we can deduce the refutation of process theologians. But I think that you will find in particular Questions iii, iv, and ix, extremely beneficial to the arguments at hand.

[urroner]

And exactly what forces God to make a decision in temporal time?

If you can make a logical argument that an action can occur that causes any type of change can be taken outside of all temporal dimensions, I'm all ears Hughes.

[mfbukowski]

Validly true arguments for the existence of a thing will in some way reveal, via negativa, the nature of a thing. The Metaphysics and the arguments contained therein for an Unmoved Mover are one and the same the arguments for Pure Act and an argument against process theology, especially the process theology of Pre-Socratics. This is especially seen in Book X and XIII of the Metaphysics. I think that many portions of book XIII are of chief interest to this question of Divine Knowledge and exemplars (which is the view that process theology must contend against).

The same is true for St. Thomas. His arguments for the existence of God provide the premises from which we can deduce the refutation of process theologians. But I think that you will find in particular Questions iii, iv, and ix, extremely beneficial to the arguments at hand.

I will check them out when I get a chance- I appreciate the reply. Frankly though, I think I know how I will respond before I even read them; a Wittgensteinian responding to Aristotle is likely to see only problems in his "language games"

Perhaps an alternative discussion might result if you decide to read the article I referenced in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy under "Process Theology"

I wonder if you think the arguments made there against Thomism are valid- (of course you won't!) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/

We really are coming from different worlds and speaking different languages- but a discussion might be interesting. Or not

[Hughes]

In order for a change to occur, it has to occur within a temporal dimension, else the change cannot occur. If God makes a decision to do anything, the decision has to occur within a temporal dimension. A decision is a change. So, when God decided to create His very first creation, it had to happen within a temporal dimension, else He couldn't have made that decision because a decision is a change and the temporal dimension had to exist before He made that decision.

To insist that God can create something while existing outside of any temporal dimension is illogical. That's like saying that God can create something so big that He cannot move it or that He can create something more powerful than Himself.

If you can make a logical argument that an action can occur that causes any type of change can be taken outside of all temporal dimensions, I'm all ears Hughes.

You're not making a logical arguement. You're making a theological statement.

Notice in your previous post:

"In order for a change to occur, it has to occur within a temporal dimension, else the change cannot occur."

"If God makes a decision to do anything, the decision has to occur within a temporal dimension."

"To insist that God can create something while existing outside of any temporal dimension is illogical."

Now, notice you've called it illogical but you've not established that

A) All changes have to be made in a temporal dimension.

B) That God can't transcend the temporal and eternal dimensions as will.

It seems to me that you simply assume these to be true without any supportive argumentation or logic or scripture. I'm just curious what it is resting on.

[Mudcat]

Hey Mister Mud, good to see you here! I was hoping you'd pipe up!

You know what it's like to be worn out on a topic, I was initially hoping to dodge the thread, but the emergence of PT into this equation has piqued my interest.

We have (you and I) discussed the Didache before and the "Two Ways" and honestly, I think that attitude exemplified there kind of transcends Euthyphro's dilemma; there is a way of life and a way of death- it is not a question of being good to please God it is a question of being good to survive. Personally I find in this a strong parallel with evolution itself- which is of course, the prime "turf" of process theism. The idea of a God who changes and grows through interaction with his children precisely eliminates both "horns" of the dilemma as far as I am concerned. Virtue literally becomes its own reward, a choice in favor of life over death, making God almost irrelevant to morals.

I dunno that it transcends Euthyphro's dilemma. Given the "Two Ways" of the Didache doesn't resolve the dilemma. If we take the "Two Ways" as something that is properly basic. We are still left with the dilemma of where they come from. Do they come from God or from something else that God is adherent of?

The fact that you feel dismissive of it, because you believe God grows and changes with his children, does not eradicate it.

IMO, PT seems to indicate that there is something God is adherent of. Given LDS theology, you likely find the view attractive in that respect.

This view is also consistent with an atheistic morality, and of course is as I said, consistent with the idea that morality evolved. That may bother some, but I do not understand why it would. I am in favor for people having as many reasons to be virtuous as possible!

Bold mine. No doubt the PT doesn't lie on their taxes for the same reason the atheist doesn't. Given the consistency and the notion that God really doesn't determine what is morally good or bad. What God actually thinks about such, is irrelevant. Why does this sort of changing and evolving God judge anyone on the matter?

Incidentally, there are many Protestants who are process theists, and frankly I see this as a possible vehicle to Christian unity- the tendency toward social Trinitarianism and the notion of perichoresis is also highly compatible with process theism.

I haven't heard of the four guys listed in Wiki article, though I did note that one was a professor of theology at Yale. I was surprised to find that one of them, Baxter Kruger, the only one without Wiki citation, lives about 30 miles from me...

I will make sure to find his home address and roll and egg his yard as a counter heresy tactic, this Halloween.

Yes, yes... I know it sounds extreme Bukowski, but the law won't let me burn the heretics anymore so I have to extend my repertoire for the the times at hand.

Here he is.

However, I don't see PT as a vehicle for unity, rather as a vehicle for division. I understand that it's favorable to your particular beliefs.

But, it's just another “ism” for Christians to divide themselves into or react against.

I think the better course is to pitch all the “isms” in a barrel, put a lid on them, bury them in a hole, then drop a nuke or two on 'em.

At the very least, we could all drop the language of... I love God and I love you, but I don't love your-ism.

Instead we could simply say. I love God and I love you.

If unity is to be found here, it is in love above anything else.

I am out of time for the night and will have to leave it here for the moment.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[cdowis]

A) All changes have to be made in a temporal dimension.

Change== Change requires a before and an after.

Creation requires before and after. And that is why time cannot be created. Without time, creation and change are impossible.

Perhaps you can be clever enough to refute the obvious.

[mfbukowski]

You're not making a logical arguement. You're making a theological statement.

Notice in your previous post:

"In order for a change to occur, it has to occur within a temporal dimension, else the change cannot occur."

"If God makes a decision to do anything, the decision has to occur within a temporal dimension."

"To insist that God can create something while existing outside of any temporal dimension is illogical."

Now, notice you've called it illogical but you've not established that

A) All changes have to be made in a temporal dimension.

B) That God can't transcend the temporal and eternal dimensions as will.

It seems to me that you simply assume these to be true without any supportive argumentation or logic or scripture. I'm just curious what it is resting on.

Oh come on! Figure it out! Connect the dots! "Change" starts at "state 1" and then, temporally, becomes "State 2". First it is state 1, then state 2.

In time. No time, no change.

Perfectly self-evident. You tell me how you can get from 1 to 2 non-temporally!

[Hughes]

Change== Change requires a before and an after.

Creation requires before and after. And that is why time cannot be created. Without time, creation and change are impossible.

Perhaps you can be clever enough to refute the obvious.

God created time. "In the Beginning God..."

As an absolute, Time doesn't exist. It's always a term used as a comparative reference to something else. There is no absolute Time for anything. Which is why, saying "this happened before that" doesn't have to indicate time or temporal dimension, but order. It can of course indicate time, as in the cases we use it normally, but it's not necessary, especially when referring to God.

Oh come on! Figure it out! Connect the dots! "Change" starts at "state 1" and then, temporally, becomes "State 2". First it is state 1, then state 2.

In time. No time, no change.

Perfectly self-evident. You tell me how you can get from 1 to 2 non-temporally!

Temporary indicates finite. God has not beginning and no end, he is not finite but, Eternal. Therefore he's not temporary, nor subject to temporal dimensions. But, can transcend them. "Before Abraham was, I am."

[urroner]

God created time. "In the Beginning God..."

As an absolute, Time doesn't exist. It's always a term used as a comparative reference to something else. There is no absolute Time for anything. Which is why, saying "this happened before that" doesn't have to indicate time or temporal dimension, but order. It can of course indicate time, as in the cases we use it normally, but it's not necessary, especially when referring to God.

Temporary indicates finite. God has not beginning and no end, he is not finite but, Eternal. Therefore he's not temporary, nor subject to temporal dimensions. But, can transcend them. "Before Abraham was, I am."

Hughes, what was it you told me earlier in this thread and it wasn't that long ago? You said:

You're not making a logical arguement. You're making a theological statement.

Your logic depends totally upon your belief that God existed before everything else and you use Genesis 1 as evidence of the truthfulness of your belief, but Genesis 1 does no such thing.

Genesis 1 is not about the creation of everything, rather it's about the BEGINNING of the ancient Hebrew account of how the world was formed. I hate to break this news to you, but the Bible is not a science book.

From what I understand, there are two different creation stories in Genesis, Gen 1:1-2:3 and Gen 2:4-3:24.

The first creation account was from a priestly source and talks about Elohim. The second account is from a Yawhist (sp) source and talks about Yahweh. Both accounts are thought to have been written down in the mid 6th century BC.

Hughes, like was said earlier, for a change to happen, there has to be a "before" and an "after" and neither of these can exist outside of a temporal dimension. If you can demonstrate that they can, than please let me know how it's possible.

In order for God to make a decision, there has to be a "before the decision era" and an "after the decision era." With this logic, and please show me logically where I am wrong if you think I am, for God to decide to make the "first" temporal dimension, He would have to decide to do so, thus He would have to exist within an already existing temporal dimension before any existed. That makes no logical sense. Hence, logic dictates that this temporal dimension was not created, but has always existed with God.

[cdowis]

God created time. "In the Beginning God..."

Is this a serious argument?

As an absolute, Time doesn't exist.

Another profound statement. Time does not exist == how very clever.

It's always a term used as a comparative reference to something else. There is no absolute Time for anything. Which is why, saying "this happened before that" doesn't have to indicate time or temporal dimension, but order. It can of course indicate time, as in the cases we use it normally, but it's not necessary, especially when referring to God.

I guess this makes sense for someone who thinks that time does not exist. Very profound, indeed.

Temporary indicates finite. God has not beginning and no end, he is not finite but, Eternal. Therefore he's not temporary, nor subject to temporal dimensions. But, can transcend them. "Before Abraham was, I am."

Your logic is.... interesting, to say the least. I don't suppose you noticed the flaw in that argument.

May I suggest you give it some thought.

[Hughes]

Hughes, what was it you told me earlier in this thread and it wasn't that long ago? You said:

Your logic depends totally upon your belief that God existed before everything else and you use Genesis 1 as evidence of the truthfulness of your belief, but Genesis 1 does no such thing.

Genesis 1 is not about the creation of everything, rather it's about the BEGINNING of the ancient Hebrew account of how the world was formed. I hate to break this news to you, but the Bible is not a science book.

From what I understand, there are two different creation stories in Genesis, Gen 1:1-2:3 and Gen 2:4-3:24.

The first creation account was from a priestly source and talks about Elohim. The second account is from a Yawhist (sp) source and talks about Yahweh. Both accounts are thought to have been written down in the mid 6th century BC.

Hughes, like was said earlier, for a change to happen, there has to be a "before" and an "after" and neither of these can exist outside of a temporal dimension. If you can demonstrate that they can, than please let me know how it's possible.

In order for God to make a decision, there has to be a "before the decision era" and an "after the decision era." With this logic, and please show me logically where I am wrong if you think I am, for God to decide to make the "first" temporal dimension, He would have to decide to do so, thus He would have to exist within an already existing temporal dimension before any existed. That makes no logical sense. Hence, logic dictates that this temporal dimension was not created, but has always existed with God.

Ignoring the differences in our opinion about Genesis 1. Yes we are both making theological statements.

As to your idea that a temporal dimension is necessary for God to have order in his decisions. First, what is a temporal dimension? What is Time?

You see, what we experience is a finite existence. We didn't exist, then we were born, and now we exist, and then we will die (I'm referring to our earthly existence). So, our frame of reference is based on our existence. Temporal. For us things break down and move toward disorder (Entropy). This isn't he case for God. He's not subject to temporal problems, or Entropy such as we are. So, it's my view, that God also isn't subject to the restriction of time as we understand it and experience it.

The best I could explain it would be dreams. When we dream, time seems to be irrelevant. Days, weeks, years can pass while we sleep. Or just seconds. Why is that? Why is it that perception plays such a large part in our understanding of Time?

You see, I agree with you that there was a "before" God decided and "after" God decided, etc. However, I don't think it's related to Time or temporal dimensions. Because, how would time be calibrated in a dimension where nothing decayed, and there's no entropy? Rather, I think it's more a long the line of "ordering" such as ordering our thoughts, one occurs before another, but it doesn't indicate time, but organization.

For us, "taking all the time we want" has meaning because time is precious and valuable, we have a limited amount of it. But, for God there is no time reference, as if he had to hurry because there was little time left.

[Questing Beast]

...

In order for God to make a decision, there has to be a "before the decision era" and an "after the decision era." With this logic, and please show me logically where I am wrong if you think I am, for God to decide to make the "first" temporal dimension, He would have to decide to do so, thus He would have to exist within an already existing temporal dimension before any existed. That makes no logical sense. Hence, logic dictates that this temporal dimension was not created, but has always existed with God.

There is no "first" anything outside of space-time. The whole infinity of expanding Existence is "present", or NOW. I can only say that the concept exists in my mind, but I can't readily apply words to it. I doubt that empirical mathematics can even "go there" at all; nor even make a start.

There is this "alternate" concept of Void, where infinity is defined as utter emptiness. BOTH exist; both are present or NOW. So too is every possible permutation of every existing state of every particle and cosmic entity. It all Exists without any before or after and utterly without number. Infinity cannot be numbered or given a definable quantity from a space-time perspective.

Also, when we say "God thinks and acts", that does not signify an idea followed by an acting out of the idea. The idea and the act are the same thing. ALL ideas (or possible permutations) and acts (or realities) are the stuff of space-time. For a thing to Exist it must be given space-time definition. And none of the possible realities are mutually exclusive; ALL of them Exist, each within "a" space-time.

This is very challenging to try and explain; especially when the mere concept of it all is so incomplete in my mind to begin with. As I write this kind of explanation, again and again, the concepts change slightly each time; even the explanations are individual; no two are exactly alike. I could go on doing this forever, I believe, and never finish with a complete explanation of what "God" is and does....

[mfbukowski]

As an absolute, Time doesn't exist. It's always a term used as a comparative reference to something else. There is no absolute Time for anything. Which is why, saying "this happened before that" doesn't have to indicate time or temporal dimension, but order.

"This happened before that" doesn't indicate TIME?

Order?

Order in what?

TIME!

It's official.

I give up.

[Hughes]

cdowis, you wrote:

Is this a serious argument?

As an absolute, Time doesn't exist.

Another profound statement. Time does not exist == how very clever.

It's always a term used as a comparative reference to something else. There is no absolute Time for anything. Which is why, saying "this happened before that" doesn't have to indicate time or temporal dimension, but order. It can of course indicate time, as in the cases we use it normally, but it's not necessary, especially when referring to God.

I guess this makes sense for someone who thinks that time does not exist. Very profound, indeed.

Temporary indicates finite. God has not beginning and no end, he is not finite but, Eternal. Therefore he's not temporary, nor subject to temporal dimensions. But, can transcend them. "Before Abraham was, I am."

Your logic is.... interesting, to say the least. I don't suppose you noticed the flaw in that argument.

May I suggest you give it some thought.

I have given it thought thanks. Any thoughts you have?

For example. Answer me this. What is Time?

IF you are comparing two atomic clocks and one is faster than another because of being on a space ship (aka Einstein's example) what exactly are you measuring? Are you sure you're measuring time? Or something that effects the passage of "existence" through space. If you're measuring movement of atoms to measure time, how do you know that you're actually measuring Time?

"This happened before that" doesn't indicate TIME?

Order?

Order in what?

TIME!

It's official.

I give up.

Time has no reference point if you're an eternally existing being. So, the usage of "before.." and then, "after..." mean before or after in the sense of, "it didn't happen after, then before..." It references each other for mere organizational purposes, not a reference to time, since the amount of time is irrelevant when the supply isn't limited.

[Vance]

"This happened before that" doesn't indicate TIME?

Order?

Order in what?

TIME!

It's official.

I give up.

NOW you know why I have him on ignore.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

"This happened before that" doesn't indicate TIME?

Order?

Order in what?

TIME!

It's official.

I give up.

Ha. Lesson learned?

[mfbukowski]

Ha. Lesson learned?

I hope so!

How many times will we continue to respond?

[ELF1024]

Time is the only thing that keeps everything from happening at once.

[urroner]

Time is the only thing that keeps everything from happening at once.

Well, according to Hughes, everything happened all at the same time. Maybe Hughes doesn't realize that time is a dimension. In our universe, it's one of the four dimensions that we are capable of realizing. Height, width, breadth, and time. Maybe he doesn't realize that there are probably many universes out there, some with more dimensions, some with fewer dimensions, some with the same number of dimensions, but in all of these universes, there is at least one temporal dimension. It doesn't matter if time is going faster, slower, or even in reverse, there can be no change in a universe if there is no temporal dimension.

He also might not be aware of this, but in our universe, there are laws of physics that characterize our universe. In another universe, with three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension, the law of physics are probably different and in a universe of more dimensions, the laws would be completely different in such a way that we couldn't even begin to comprehend it, but, even in these universes, a temporal dimension is required for change to happen.

The Bible read "And God said, Let there be light." Okay, God took an action and this requires a temporal dimension. God made a decision to create something and for that decision to be made, it had to be made within a temporal dimension. An action, a thought, and even putting things in order require a temporal dimension before they can happen.

I have no idea what Hughes means when he says "...long the line of "ordering" such as ordering our thoughts, one occurs before another, but it doesn't indicate time, but organization." I still insist that "ordering our thoughts" is an action and requires to occur within the boundaries of a temporal dimension.

And it doesn't matter if God doesn't care about time since He's got forever to do something, forever also demands a temporal dimension. It also doesn't matter if there is no decay, death, or anything unpleasant, a temporal dimension is still required.