Re: Time
Massie (mrlab@ix.netcom.com)
Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:30:28 -0800
dfsiemensjr@juno.com wrote:
>
>
> 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
Dave
I have no idea what this concept of "absolute" time is. In my view God
is eternal and outside of the constraints of our experiental universe
which includes boundaries of time and space. In my view, the concept of
time has not limitation the infinite God. But, we do live in time and
God has spoken to us about time so that time is a valid concept for us
and a communication from God. Therefore, God must be referring to some
kind of clock when he speaks to us about time. After all a clock is
simply a meter so in no way does this limit the power of God.
Bert M