tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post4596746029692781514..comments2024-03-21T03:04:18.673-04:00Comments on Unapologetica: A tentative philosophy of timeRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-6610144385726070112015-10-31T19:42:22.110-04:002015-10-31T19:42:22.110-04:00Regarding "eternal earth" - now I view t...Regarding "eternal earth" - now I view this as pagan and leading to nature-worship, so I no longer believe in it. I still hold to the view that God created the world through His literal spoken word. Also I'm open to God having actual emotions according to the literal word (Gen 6:6), because the reasons against this are not convincing to me anymore.<br /><br />I like discussing this stuff with you, Ryan. I believe G.H. Clark was on the right path.<br /><br />Happy Reformation Day!Maxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13363145901392951723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-17533781283831203232015-09-28T21:25:51.844-04:002015-09-28T21:25:51.844-04:00"So then there is a final defeat after which ..."So then there is a final defeat after which no repetition of historical events occurs?"<br /><br />For individuals, yes.<br /><br />"Are there contradictions in Scripture?"<br /><br />Sorry for going off the time topic: Scripture which has its origin of God, obviously cannot contradict, but I don't know that all 27 NT books are part of Holy Scripture, because I see contradictions. The Canon must be self-authenticating, but the New Testament fails the consistency test in some things. If you want to press the point, it's better to discuss by email: bukluvr1051@hotmail.com<br /><br />In short, my current view is that the letters of the apostle Paul (I believe some that bear his name are not really his and contradict the real Paul) contain the keys to understanding the Old Testament. I am quite influenced by F. C. Baur at this time, who held that only Galatians, 1 and 2 Cor., and Romans are Paul's writings; and even then, we cannot rule out interpolations into the texts and stuff like that. The NT writings can be critically examined just like any body of literature.Maxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13363145901392951723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-61234457074079464722015-09-27T13:14:02.687-04:002015-09-27T13:14:02.687-04:00So then there is a final defeat after which no rep...So then there is a final defeat after which no repetition of historical events occurs?<br /><br />Are there contradictions in Scripture?Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-3431829089946565222015-09-26T20:16:10.383-04:002015-09-26T20:16:10.383-04:00Within individuals, there is a final defeat of sin...Within individuals, there is a final defeat of sin at death when they become total spirits, but this is not true of collective humanity all at once, of course. In theology as I understand it now, God has no enemies.<br /><br />I will say this, though: It seems like every Christian denomination that exists today twists language to explain contradictions, which is quite dishonest of them. I prefer to take the texts at face value, based on the intended meaning. If you read an NT book, and say to yourself, "that phrase or verse can't possibly mean such and such, because of something else in another book," you will create more confusion for yourself in the long run if you interpret like that. I believe in divine revelation (Scripturalism) and the tool of logic, but as you can see, not settled on the issue of Canon.Maxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13363145901392951723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-83641952476704080682015-09-26T11:06:21.883-04:002015-09-26T11:06:21.883-04:00There's no finality. No defeat of sin and God&...There's no finality. No defeat of sin and God's enemies, for instance. No final judgment. Contrast that to passages in the gospel I think you would accept as canonical. It's the concept that's important, not a particular expression.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-58033126085128108692015-09-26T07:48:28.170-04:002015-09-26T07:48:28.170-04:00By the word "end" do you mean purpose or...By the word "end" do you mean purpose or goal? The only passage in the Bible where I found an expression like this is 1 Peter 4:7, and he said it was "at hand." And he could not have meant "purpose" there, judging by context.Maxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13363145901392951723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-65364796190219372192015-09-25T11:31:00.146-04:002015-09-25T11:31:00.146-04:00Obviously that interpretation doesn't work wit...Obviously that interpretation doesn't work within Christianity, as in that case there could be no end to all things. <br /><br />That verse might actually make for a good argument with respect to the B-series of time: all temporal events are equally real, no time in particular is privileged (e.g. an "objective" present), and they all correspond to an eternal decree (and hence eternal truths) which cannot be changed.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-58468682453846825852015-09-24T19:35:33.993-04:002015-09-24T19:35:33.993-04:00My answer is kind of trite, but:
"That which...My answer is kind of trite, but:<br /><br />"That which has been is now; and whatever things are appointed to be have already been; and God will seek out (to cause) that which is past." (Ecclesiastes 3:15)<br /><br />I'm sorta rethinking the whole question of the canon, like which books are inspired and which not, but the above quotation makes sense - we got to this present moment because it has already happened in the past. History keeps repeating, in some way or other. I haven't really wrapped my head around it, though. But I don't see a contradiction.Maxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13363145901392951723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-1833184777586666272015-09-24T11:19:18.986-04:002015-09-24T11:19:18.986-04:00The infinite regress of prior present moments rela...The infinite regress of prior present moments relative to our alleged present discussion which would seemingly rule it out. If the past (moments which were the present) extends infinitely backwards, how did we even get to this present moment?Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-68960056772181610762015-09-23T19:19:40.563-04:002015-09-23T19:19:40.563-04:00Which infinite regress are you referring to?
(btw...Which infinite regress are you referring to?<br /><br />(btw, I still believe in Necessitarianism)Maxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13363145901392951723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-29645611646054042952015-09-20T20:40:10.993-04:002015-09-20T20:40:10.993-04:00Well, from that quote, it appears he would have ha...Well, from that quote, it appears he would have had to hold an A-series view. But I see no reason to think that time must have been uncreated; indeed, this appears false if necessitarianism is false (as I think). I also don't see how an infinite regress is handled.<br /><br />"...it is the most absurd of all ideas to fancy that there ever was a time when the world did not exist..."<br /><br />True but irrelevant. The existence of the world or time are mutually implicatory, but that doesn't mean either must exist at all.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-31834475815755095642015-09-17T22:56:04.658-04:002015-09-17T22:56:04.658-04:00McTaggart: "But this explanation involves a v...McTaggart: "But this explanation involves a vicious circle. For it assumes the existence of time in order to account for the way in which moments are past, present and future. Time then must be pre-supposed to account for the A series. But we have already seen that the A series has to be assumed in order to account for time. Accordingly the A series has to be pre-supposed in order to account for the A series. And this is clearly a vicious circle."<br /><br />I think Philo's view supports the A-series: What do you think:<br /><br />"However, time also affords a very great argument in favour of the eternity of the world, for if time is uncreated, then it follows of necessity that the world also must be uncreated. Why so? Because, as the great Plato says, it is days, and nights, and months, and the periods of years which have shown time, and it is surely impossible that time can exist without the motion of the sun, and the rotary progress of the whole heaven. So that it has been defined very felicitously by those who are in the habit of giving definitions of things, that time is the interval of the motion of the world, and since this is a sound definition, then the world must be co-eval with time and also the cause of its existence. And it is the most absurd of all ideas to fancy that there ever was a time when the world did not exist, for its nature is without any beginning and without any end, since these very expressions, "there was," "when," "formerly," all indicate time."Maxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13363145901392951723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-12174618240595371912015-09-17T00:02:03.141-04:002015-09-17T00:02:03.141-04:00I believe I wrote that before changing my views on...I believe I wrote that before changing my views on Clark's theory of personhood.<br /><br />I haven't. Look up my post on McTaggart's paradox, however, I don't find the A-theory coherent. God could still be temporal on the B-series as the first cause/beginning of the temporal sequence, though.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-63211183162850311332015-09-16T19:11:25.732-04:002015-09-16T19:11:25.732-04:00"If God's knowledge changes, God changes...."If God's knowledge changes, God changes."<br /><br />Why do you think this is so?<br /><br />"Whereas God was never born, so there could have been no beginning if He is essentially temporal, in which case there is an infinite past."<br /><br />I am currently leaning towards the A-theory and I'm open to the idea of an infinite past and no beginning of time. Have you read Philo (Judaeus)'s commentaries / interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2?Maxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13363145901392951723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-15849480054866184112013-08-19T21:53:13.157-04:002013-08-19T21:53:13.157-04:00"My understanding is, that timelessness would..."My understanding is, that timelessness would mean no movement whatsoever. I cannot conceive of God as existing in a frozen state."<br /><br />I don't think timeless immutability implies immobility. That's certainly not what Helm argues, anyway.<br /><br />"Anyway, if not temporal, what is atemporality? Explain what timelessness would be?"<br /><br />Clark says timelessness is equivalent to no succession in thought. But I haven't made up my mind either way on this subject, and it's been some time since I've read relevant literature on it.<br /><br />"I was merely demonstrating an actual infinite reality where regression at our birth did not actually take place (by postponement of going back a notch)."<br /><br />How is that an actual infinite? There is no continual regress from where we are now to when we were born; it stops at the point at which we were born. Whereas God was never born, so there could have been no beginning if He is essentially temporal, in which case there is an infinite past.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-27226340750842008822013-08-19T16:51:16.064-04:002013-08-19T16:51:16.064-04:00Ryan, I'll respond to each of your replies on...Ryan, I'll respond to each of your replies one after another.<br /><br />You said: "For example, why think 'there was always movement of thought with God'? That seems to beg the very question at hand."<br /><br />My understanding is, that timelessness would mean no movement whatsoever. I cannot conceive of God as existing in a frozen state. <br /><br />You said: "Also, 'time' can originate with God without its being the case God becomes temporal, just as space can originate with God without its being the case God becomes spatial. So that argument doesn't work either."<br /><br />I really didn't present it as an argument, but as a possible consideration of how time could be a reflection of the time element He possess . I know that the way you might have taken it (based on a poor way of presenting it I suppose) is a fallacy in argumentation. Anyway, if not temporal, what is atemporality? Explain what timelessness would be? <br /><br />You said: "Finally, I'm also not sure what 'the infinite non-existence of ourselves before we were born' or 'the infinite division of things God has created' refers to."<br /><br />I was merely demonstrating an actual infinite reality where regression at our birth did not actually take place (by postponement of going back a notch). Of course the reality of such non existence would lye in the eternal mind of the Creator. The infinite existence of temporal becoming in God (of course a different level of temporality) would not cause a regression at created time taking place. <br /><br />You said: "I also don't think whether our universe is finite or infinite is very relevant to presuppositional apologetics, though I guess it could depend on what you mean by those concepts."<br /><br />The regression argument with respects to infinity usually is used by evidentialists to establish a finite universe, presuppositionalism usually makes no case for it.<br />Jerry DeHavenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03158320898622879369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-36088153096433785102013-08-19T05:23:10.645-04:002013-08-19T05:23:10.645-04:00I also don't think whether our universe is fin...I also don't think whether our universe is finite or infinite is very relevant to presuppositional apologetics, though I guess it could depend on what you mean by those concepts.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-1281878104820982562013-08-19T03:18:28.277-04:002013-08-19T03:18:28.277-04:00Sorry, I don't find that reply particularly co...Sorry, I don't find that reply particularly convincing :) <br /><br />For example, why think "there was always movement of thought with God"? That seems to beg the very question at hand. <br /><br />Also, "time" can originate with God without its being the case God becomes temporal, just as space can originate with God without its being the case God becomes spatial. So that argument doesn't work either.<br /><br />Finally, I'm also not sure what "the infinite non-existence of ourselves before we were born" or "the infinite division of things God has created" refers to. The latter could be a sort of Zeno's paradox, but Planck units could be a possible refutation of that.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-72873277794853449692013-08-18T22:59:53.407-04:002013-08-18T22:59:53.407-04:00The regress argument is a good one to show a finit...The regress argument is a good one to show a finite universe, because if it infinite, we wouldn't have today; but presuppositional arguments are still much better, as you know. Jerry DeHavenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03158320898622879369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-41755375300234617472013-08-18T22:16:53.340-04:002013-08-18T22:16:53.340-04:00I'm sorry Ryan, a blunder on my part, for I sh...I'm sorry Ryan, a blunder on my part, for I shouldn't have said: "not sequential movement like ours;" for this would not be consistent with my argument. Of course He is a sequence of movement, for all sequences of movement find its origin in Him - and our time exists because of the father of time. If logic has its origin in Him, and morality; why wouldn't "time" also find its origin in Him? Jerry DeHavenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03158320898622879369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-19072963793677552022013-08-18T21:22:29.823-04:002013-08-18T21:22:29.823-04:00I'm an ardent A theorist myself; because time ...I'm an ardent A theorist myself; because time is not an entity in itself, but a concept. And so long as there is movement (and there was always movement of thought with God, and His mind to measure that movement (yet not sequential movement like ours), then there was time. This is why I consider God's existence as being in time unending (eternal time), not our time, but His. I can't go with timelessness because of how I understand time, for time is the measurement of movement.Jerry DeHavenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03158320898622879369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-14837510528919743292013-08-18T20:14:22.511-04:002013-08-18T20:14:22.511-04:00I have thought about that. I believe the concept o...I have thought about that. I believe the concept of infinity can only work with God. This is so, because then there would be that reality of existence which would wrap around Him (figuratively speaking of course). I don't understand it, but there are examples of it within God's logic - such as the infinite non-existence of ourselves before we were born - or the infinite division of things God has created - attesting to His infinite nature in creation.Jerry DeHavenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03158320898622879369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-50293903964509018632013-08-18T15:50:52.729-04:002013-08-18T15:50:52.729-04:00How do you address the infinite regress argument, ...How do you address the infinite regress argument, that there have been infinitely many previous A-times and thus no means by which there could be a present? It's like knowledge; if we didn't [implicitly] begin somewhere, we could never have gotten to where we are.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-87128890607579765652013-08-18T14:14:52.599-04:002013-08-18T14:14:52.599-04:00Ryan, I agreed with Craig's view of how God in...Ryan, I agreed with Craig's view of how God interacts with His creation in accordance to our time (thus operating with us in time as well as His time), but disagreed with him on timeless existence before creation. Such timeless existence would necessitate immobility. God's knowledge is always moving, not onto new knowledge, but over the eternal knowledge He has - thus, eternal time (His time), not timeless existence. So I reject Helm's view, although I like his determinism; but partially except Craig's view, although I hate his Molinism.Jerry DeHavenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03158320898622879369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-20862336965803962572012-08-07T18:27:36.445-04:002012-08-07T18:27:36.445-04:00Either you're trolling or just an idiot.Either you're trolling or just an idiot.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.com