Not Prince Hamlet

This came from another thread in R&R, but I thought it merited a new topic.

You see, when trying to worm their way out of the free-will/omniscience paradox, theists will often squirm by saying a Blind Assertion ("God is X, Y, and Z because I say so") that God exists outside of time, and is not bound by time.

But, then, take the above quote. Consider what it means when God says He remembers something.

First, if the Bible is divinely inspired, this statement is the absolute truth, that is, this is what God had (hath?) said.

Second, for God to remember something means that God has a past, that is, He now recalls something that involved Him before. In other words, God Himself is admitting that he is bound by time, to at least some degree.

Therefore, the concept of past and present do apply when talking about God's omniscience, and therefore can not be used as a sleazy loophole out of the free-will/omniscience paradox.

Your thoughts?

Jeff

Jayhawker Soule

As does the future. My favorite 'free will' conundrum is the set-up asserted in Exodus 4:21

GunnerJ

Oh, but this is symbolic/poetic/metaphorical/Buddist-koan content in the Bible and can't be taken literally.

Not Prince Hamlet

... except when taking it literally says what they're trying to say!

RJS

God was with us in OUR past, and can communicate to us utilizing our concept of time. The simple point is that we cannot envision an existence without time - no matter how hard we try.

Jayhawker Soule

The simple point is, your God is an admixture of myth and placebo effect (presuming, of course, that you have no new evidence suggesting otherwise).

Not Prince Hamlet

Yes, but it's not us remembering God, it's God remembering something else. To remember implies a past.

If everything were laid out before me like a tapesty, I wouldn't remember something, I'd see it.

Jeff

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: Not Prince Hamlet ]</p>

Theli

Excacly, if god really was timeless then he would simply "know", not "remember".
The "timeless attribute" of god is simply a way for him to escape the sharp edge of logic.
Reffering to god as an abstract concept in the believer's mind

I'm sure you have heard people on this board claim that god's fourdimensional aswell, not having a clue about what 4D really means.
And that information had supposedly been acquired by people (who thought the earth was flat) in form of metaphors, wich the modern christians then interpret as quantum physics.

Is it a wonder we don't believe?

E_muse

I'm not sure that it is simply a blind assertion in the absolute sense although many Christians may make claims like this without actually knowing why simply because they have heard others use it and it sounds good!

However, many people will say that they believe in the theory of evolution without actually knowing why.

I will tell you what I think. Please feel free to critique it as you wish. The concept of timelessness relates to the first cause arguement that is being discussed elsewhere, so it may be helpful to look at some of the other debates taking place.

The beginning of the arguement is a metaphysical one and makes the statement that, 'anything that begins to exist must have a cause' or 'out of nothing, nothing comes'.

To cut a very long story short, it is not ridiculous to think that the universe (matter, space, time and energy) may have begun to exist at some point in the past prior to the big bang. We are then left with the question, was the universe caused?

If we consider the positive response to this, we must then consider what attributes this cause should have.

Firstly, it exists outside of this universe and is not linked to it in any material sense. Stephen Hawking has written much about the early universe. He writes:

Emphasis mine.

This would suggest that IF the universe began to exist AND we accept the dictum that from nothing, nothing comes, science cannot say anything about what may have caused the universe, but neither can it rule it out.

There are some implications of this (these all rest upon explorations of what we could conclude IF the universe was caused - obviously this whole assertion can be brought into question):

Firstly, the cause of the universe would not be joined to the universe in any physical sense and would be seperate from it in every sense of material essence. In other words, the cause of the universe would share no material essence with the universe it had caused.

Secondly, the universe would not be an inevitable outcome of what had caused it. The presence of the universe is a completely unpredictable state.

Thirdly, as time began at the big bang, the cause would have to exist outside of time as we know it. It would not be bounded by universal time.

Lastly, the cause would be invisible to us.

This is even before we get to a Bible or any arguement in favour of God. It is simply that, if God exists, as the claimed causal agent, he would have to possess all of the above attributes. It would certainly have nothing to do with worming out of the free-will/omniscience paradox.

This aspect of your arguement I find particularly interesting as the original Hebrew word which is translated remember seems to have little to do with the notion of calling back to mind.

The word is paqad and is translated:

It carries with it the sense of visiting someone with the view to either do them good or harm them - perhaps in response to something they have done. It carries a meaning that conveys the very opposite of overlooking something.

I really don't understand why the term 'remember' has been used here (further study required) at the moment. Translations such as the NIV don't use the term 'remember' and use punish instead - which seems more accurate.

Is it? I don't find myself having to conclude this.

It is true that in 2 Timothy 3:16 Paul says that all scripture is God breathed but I think his words should be held in tension with what he writes in 1 Corinthians 13 where he states that we know in part and prophecy in part and that we see in a glass darkly.

This last statement is interesting coming from someone who possessed and was very familiar with our Old Testament and whose writings represent a significant chunk of the New Testament.

Paul seems to suggest that although we receive divine inspiration, our knowledge is still partial - even fragmented and we only have a dim image. We don't know it all.

This seems to predict that even inspired writing will be a mixture of insightful brilliance and human ignorance - including the Bible.

Well, as I've suggested above, I'm not sure whether the term 'remember' is a good one.

Are there other places in the Bible which suggest that God has a memory? Any suggestions?

The term above applies to God visiting someone in response to an action - from our perspective in time.

However, I think another point needs consideration.

Even if we entertain the notion that we can be divinely inspired, we only have our own language with which to convey certain ideas. Our use of language is limited by our understanding and experience.

Of course this fact could be used as evidence that obviously a timeless God has therefore never really entered our experience. However, it must be borne in mind that we could only ever experience a God 'in time' which would then govern our understanding of him and how we convey that it language.

Your thoughts?

Automaton

A timeless God can't change, nor do anything. QED.

Strange how the only valid theological position on God and time turns out to be one of the strongest arguments for practical atheism.