RE: God and Time

Sometime ago I indicated that the best way to somewhat comprehend how
God views His creation is the way we do in relativity theory when we
draw a Minkowski 4-dimensional spacetime diagram. The worldlines
indicate viewing whole histories of entities at an instant. God is not
temporal but He is outside our spacetime.

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 1:02 PM
To: randyisaac@adelphia.net
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: God and Time

Craig is generally a good philosopher, but this is bunk. It assumes that
the Infinite, viewing creation from outside, is restricted to the view
of finite creatures viewing it from inside. He doesn't realize that this
is creating God in the image of man. The omission of a physical image
doesn't do away with idolatry.

Dave

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:36:19 -0500 "Randy Isaac"
<randyisaac@adelphia.net> writes:

        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 13:33:08 2006