Starkja@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 12/16/1999 12:26:26 AM, you wrote:
> Bert wrote:
> <<
> In the first place this is not about the Dieties motion. It is about
which
> clock one uses for counting time. It is about gravity (General
Relativity)
> not motion (Special Revativity) and it have nothing to do with the
clock of a
> diety. God is NOT confined by time as we know it. But, if HE talks
about
> time, what clock is he using is the question.
> >>
> Is the statement 'God is NOT confined by time as we know it.' dependent
on
> your concept of God? Are you implying that God is all knowing with no
> limitations because of the freedom God gave us?
>
> Bert goes on to say:
> >> one requirement of this view: God must be totally within the
space-time
> >> universe.
>
> >No. God is not within SPACETIME. Quite th contrary, it is proposed
that he
> >spoke into existence the SPACETIME of Physics. But, the issue is if
he spoke
> >of time (a human and universe thing) then what clock is he using?>
>
> I would think that God uses absolute time, while we are all limited to
using
> relative time. What would be the scaling for that absolute time? Why
should
> it have a zero point on that time scale? I believe that we are free to
> choose the scale that will best fit our personal world view.
> Jim
It strikes me that there is the injection of the human situation into the
discussion of the deity. What is "absolute time"? Is it not a nonsense
notion? Does it not require a _before_ with God? I contend that all such
locutions reflect the limitations of our language, which spring from out
totally time-bound nature. How else does one understand "In the beginning
_was_ the Word, and the Word _was_ with God, aht the Word _was_ God. The
same _was_ in the beginning with God." (John 1:1f)? The repeated _was_ is
imperfect, what Dana and antey (pp 187f) call the "imperfect of duration"
or "simultaneous imperfect." It's the best we can do to communicate the
eternal identity of the Father and Son. Elsewhere we find that the
Creator emptied himself and entered his world in the incarnation. In this
we encounter the great mystery, how the Infinite became finite while
remaining God.
Did this change God? From our time-bound view, it did. There is a before
and after the life, crucifixion and resurrection. But the eternal, i.e.
non-temporal, Creator's view is unchanging. He is the I AM. This requires
that there be no "clock" to his being and understanding. This also
renders the question of God's foreknowledge if he has given us freedom
nonsensical. "Foreknowledge" is our version of his eternal understanding.
What we see as temporal interruptions of causal sequences are only what
was "always" there, God's timeless purpose in the creation.
The best analogy to this that I think of comes from Abbott's _Flatland_.
The whole of Flatland was open to the spacelander, though the
flatlanders' outlooks were limited by their positions within Flatland.
Similarly, the whole temporal dimension is open to the Creator, who is
qua Creator not within time of any sort. By extension, this applies to
the 4 or 11 or whatever dimensions of the universe. The analogy breaks
down because the spacelander could not focus on everything at the same
moment, a restriction that cannot apply to the Eternal.
Another analogy springs from the difference between finite and
transfinite numbers. mxn, with n not equal to 1, cannot equal m. But
aleph null times any n equals aleph null. Anyone who tries to apply our
everyday notions of mathematical functions to transfinite numbers (or
modular numbers) will get it as wrong as those who try to apply our
natural notions to the Infiite.
In response to another suggestion, I have read Schroeder and am
underwhelmed by his philosophical naivete and tunnel vision.
Dave