luvluv

I'm about 50 pages into it and I would like for you guys to read it, frankly, because I need somebody to explain the rough parts to me.

In the book Craig searches for a coherent interpretation of divine eternality. Is it an infinite duration (temporal) or is it timelessness (atemporal)?

Right now I'm in a fascinating portion in which Craig explains that Newtonian time and space are not absolute relative to nothing, but that Newton conceived of absolute time and absolute space as contingent on the divine attributes of eternality and omnipresence. Thus absolute time and space are concomittant attendants (if you will) to the existence of God: there is absolute time and space not because they can exist in the absence of anything else, but because of God's existence. He is eternal, therefore there is absolute, infinite time, and he is omnipresent, therefore there is absolute, infinite space. I really never fully grasped just how central Newton's theology was to different aspects of his theories.

Also, Craig goes on to try to defend Newton's version of space and time AGAINST special relativity!!! He said that the two don't contradict each other in terms of there notion of PHYSICAL time, that is the time we can VERIFY, but this does not invalidate Newton's notion that there is an absolute time and space that we CANNOT verify. He says that the reductionist notion of time as PURELY and ESSENTIALLY relational emerges from a verificationist epistemology.

That's where I stopped reading and decided to ask you guys to give it a whirl.

At any rate, I hope I have attracted your attention. I am settling in to what is shaping up to be a fascinating read. I hope some of you will jump in too, assuming you haven't already read it.

Here's a link to the book over at Amazon:

Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time

<edited to add II link to URL>

Philosoft

Okay, I'm almost done with Pillars of the Earth, then I'll knock out Harry Potter, then I'll pick up Craig's book. Give me, oh, say, a month?

eh

Yes, I have seen Craig try to support the notion of presentism, claiming it is even compatible with relativity. Then again, Craig would also feel no shame in debating quantum cosmology with an expert in the field.

Demosthenes

eh?

the premises of special relativity is based on the notion of a non-absolute time and space. How can Craig reconcilate the apparent paradoxes of special relativity if he's claiming that absolute time and space exist but we just can't verufy them.

If we can't verify them then why keep them, we might as well as toss them out the picture because we aren't seeing any experimental effects of absolute quantities in special relativity.

Time for Craig to answer the clue phone because it's ringing and nobody else's picking it up.


P.S

Pillars of the Earth what an excellent book! I rescued it from the trash years years ago when my dad was cleaning out his bed drawer. Loved it ever since, in fact I'm starting to have a craving to read it again.

Wyrdsmyth

Thanks for the book recommendation. I will check it out.

Philosophers have been arguing over those two conceptions of (divine) time for thousands of years.

Absolute time is always implied anytime someone asks "What was before the Big Bang?" or "What was there before God created the universe?"

I'll be interested to read Craig's defense of Newtonian time against Special Relativity. To be honest, I'd much prefer Newton's view to be the correct one, since I've never been able to get my mind clear on Special Relativity or Quantum Physics. Newton seems so much more intuitively true to me. But I realize that what I prefer and what my intuitions are do not necessarily have any connection to what reality is. I just wonder if Dr. Craig does.

luvluv

Demosthenes:

Actually, Craig presents several pieces of scientific data in support of absolute time against relative time.

I do not understand these passages, which is why I am trying to get people who might be able to to read the book. But he does provide a few positive reasons for absolute time.

I just bought a scanner, so maybe I will try to email the relevant pages to Infidels or something and you guys can take a look at it.

It really had my head swimming.

eh:

What do you mean by presentism? The tenseless conception of time? Or that God's "specious present" is infinite in length, such that while He himself is temporal, His "specious present" encompasses all times. (Whereas our specious present, because of the physical limitations of our brains and nervous systems, are only milliseconds at a time).

If you mean by presentism either of the above ideas I think you've got Craig wrong, because he shoots down both of these ideas pretty early in the book.

And what is the Pillars of the Earth?

eh

I think the concept is about the belief that only the present exists. That is, the past and future don't share the same ontological status as the present, namely because they don't exist. It seems you would need to take on an absolute view of time to make this work. This is contrast to the idea that the past present and future all have equal existence.

There was a recent thread about that here recently. While I'm not sure why Craig would spend so much time arguing for such an outdated position, I have a hunch. The notion of a 4D existence leaves his beloved first cause argument in the toilet.

luvluv

eh:

This isn't Craig's view as outlined in the book. That sounds more like the open theism view.

I think the point Craig is eventually going for (I'm only about 70-ish pages in, the book is about 260) is that neither temporality or atemporality are NECESSARY qualities of God, but contingent ones. Thus, God was atemporal before creation (before relational time existed) and temporal thereafter. But he is essentially neither. This is just a guess, though, but I think that's where he's going.

At any rate, there is nothing in the books so far along the lines of presentim as you present it.

Bill Snedden

A very nice piece of historical fiction by Ken Follett: Pillars of the Earth

Regards,

Bill Snedden

eh

This what I had in mind: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000525/

Anything like that in the book?