RE: God and Time

It is an invalid syllogism, in probably many different ways. I'm not a
great logician, but there seem to be several holes. I wish to focus on just
one.
 
#5 if God knows tensed (past, present, future) facts, then he must be
temporal. This is does not follow from the foregoing statements. God could
be aware of our dimension of time, without being constrained by it in the
temporal realm. Just stating God exists and knows about our world, doesn't
mean anything because what God *is* hasn't been defined. One, he could be a
purely *spiritual* being, as in much popular religious sentiment, knowing
about our world but being entirely separate from it (i.e. not temporal).
 
Two, he could be multidimensional, in which he surrounds and envelops our
four dimensions of space and time. Would this qualify as being "temporal",
and would it have any bearing on the logic of the syllogism or the science
it tries to prove? I heard years ago a simple analogy that our time, from
beginning of creation to end, is like a line with a beginning and ending
point; and God is like a circle which surrounds the line. He can see any
point in the *past* or the *future* or any time in between, because he is
outside the constraints of our time. He encompasses all our possible
history or future, plus a lot more that is outside our linear time
dimension.
 
This is perhaps an extension of the classic book Flatland, where the sphere
enters the world of the two-dimensional shapes. The sphere can see all of
Flatland from above, and comprehend it better than its residents can
comprehend their own environment (they see each other as lines and cannot
see inside each other, but the sphere can see from above their plane that
they have area). The sphere can enter and exit Flatland mysteriously
because it is outside the dimensions of it. In the same way, God could
enter time and perceive it all without being a part of it.
 
 
Jon Tandy
 <http://www.arcom.com/>

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Randy Isaac
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 7:36 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: God and Time

A few months ago there was a round of discussion on this list about God and
time. Last night, a few ASA'ers (Jack Haas, Ian Hutchinson, and I) had the
privilege of joining about 40 people at the MIT Faculty Club to hear William
Lane Craig speak on this topic. I'll quote directly the handout that he
provided, which was the essence of his talk, and then I'll share several
aspects from the discussion afterwards.
 
God and Time
William Lane Craig
Basic premises:
 
1) God exists
2) An A-Theory of time is correct. (A-Series means time is tensed, that is,
there is a past, a present, and a future. B-Series means time is tenseless,
just a relative earlier than/later than)
3) If an A-Theory of time is correct, there are tensed facts and temporal
becoming.
4) If God exists and there are tensed facts and temporal becoming, then God
knows tensed facts and is the cause of things' coming to be. (i.e. he
sustains them in being)
5) If God knows tensed facts and is the cause of things' coming to be, then
God is temporal.
6) There are tensed facts and temporal becoming. (from premises 2 and 3)
7) God exists and there are tensed facts and temporal becoming. (from 1 and
6)
8) God knows tensed facts and is the cause of things' coming to be. (from 4
and 7)
9) God is temporal. (from 5 and 8)
10) If God is temporal, then a privileged reference frame exists.
11) If a privileged reference frame exists, then a Neo-Lorentzian Theory of
Relativity is corret.
12) A privileged reference frame exists. (from 9 and 10)
13) A Neo-Lorentzian Theory of Relativity is correct. (from 11 and 12)
 
 
In the ensuing discussion the following points were raised.
 
Craig feels this is an instance of where theology can help distinguish among
competing scientific theories. The Neo-Lorentzian, Einsteinian, and
Minkowski formulations of the theory of relativity are mathematically
equivalent but differ in their metaphysical interpretation. Einstein's view
is that there is no absolute or privileged frame of reference while the
Neo-Lorentzian says there is. On one hand, if these formulations are indeed
empirically equivalent, then theology only reads on the metaphysical
interpretation and does not, in fact, affect the scientific, observable
theory. On the other, the cosmic background radiation measurements over the
last few years indicate that there is indeed an absolute frame of reference
for this universe. Craig feels that this absolute frame can be identified
with the privileged reference frame he talks about. This means we may now
have empirical evidence to distinguish among the theories of relativity and
the results are consistent with Craig's philosophical conclusion starting
from the premise that God exists and an A-Theory of time.
 
The notion of God being temporal (which will indubitably fire up Dave
Siemens!) caused a lot of discussion. Craig feels that any other position
ends up with God holding logically contradictory concepts. For example, if
for God all time is present and there are no tensed facts, then there can be
no sequence of events in this universe. (not sure I said that right or
understood it correctly) Someone then asked, if God is temporal and time is
part of creation, what was God's nature before creation? Craig responded
that he thought God was timeless, and not temporal, prior to creation and
that he made himself temporal as part of the act of creation. (have to
think about that a while!) He said it was analogous to the incarnation
where God became part of the spatial dimension whereas at the moment of
creation, God somehow made himself temporal but not spatially localized.
 
After the discussion, I heard some attendees worry that Craig's view would
put us on the slippery slope to process theology. I can see why they might
worry but it doesn't seem to me as if that is a necessary consequence.
Others worried about the role of free will in the premise of God being "the
cause of things' coming to be" but I don't see that Craig's view puts any
new twist or any particular concern on that well-worn issue.
 
I did get a copy of Craig's 2001 book, "God, Time, and Eternity" where he
discusses all this in detail and deals with all the proposed arguments
against it, but it's not a book for quick reading! Was it reviewed in our
journal? I couldn't find a review but I only did a cursory search.
 
I found his ideas very stimulating and thought-provoking but I'll have to
read a lot more and think about it before buying it wholeheartedly.
Thoughts?
 
Randy
Received on Fri Mar 31 11:38:03 2006