Well I think that might be a bit strong, since that saying seems to be reserved for those who are oppressive and even violent, but I’ll agree with the opinion that it’s a viewpoint that seems quite a bit contrived.
I’ll get to the rest later. I’m busy.
T: That much is Craig’s view too. No more atemporal anything since creation.
M: I think you’ve misunderstood him.
T: I don’t think so, Mike. Not on this. He’s pretty clear on this point himself (both in his book on God and time and on his online articles).
M: That would be saying God was atemporal BEFORE creation, not that He is atemporal BEYOND creation.
T: It wouldn’t involve making the “before” mistake at all. Craig’s explicit on this point. God abandons his atemporal, sans creation mode of existence and embraces temporality. Creation involves this ‘kenosis’ of one for the other on behalf of creation. God’s sans creation mode of existence IS gone because there is no sans creation existing for God now that creation is here and experienced by God.
M: I’m sure Craig would agree that God could no more wipe out His atemporal sans-creation existence by creating a temporal universe…
T: All I can say is, read Craig. There’s no mistaking his view on this. God absolutely abandons one contingent mode of existence (atemporal) for the other (temporal). He doesn’t have ‘two’ modes of existence (both timeless and temporal). That, Craig argues, is contradictory and meaningless.
M: Science would suggest that God’s temporal past (in the time He created with space) is at least 14 billion years long.
T: Science suggests that God’s experience of the material world is at least 14 B years long. But Science can’t tell us about God’s own essential, interpersonal experience I don’t think.
M: The fact that you don’t see the logical difficulties involved in an infinite past eternity somehow leading up to the moment of creation (or that your able to shelve them so that they don’t cause a problem for you) doesn’t justify pretending that they don’t exist.
T: Oh I see them. And I only shelve them (if that’s what I’m doing) because I prefer the force of OTHER arguments over mathematical ones.
M: Any theology (be it process or open) that would require us to believe in a God who exists only in time, and already existed for an unending eternity before He decided to create anything (when the logical difficulty here has been recognized for millennia) would in effect shut the door of heaven to anyone who was able to see the difficulties.
T: That’s quite a stretch Bro. Nobody who think Gods is eternally temporal thinks one has to believe God is eternally temporal in order to experience the love and life of God. I’m not suggesting that eternal temporality be made a dogmatic belief of Orthodox Christianity that the Church insists upon. Not at all.
But I could just as easily ask whether your view shuts the door of heaven to people like me who find atemporal personal existence MORE impossible to embrace than arguments about actual infinites. Who is talking about requirements for heaven anyhow? ;o)
M: It’s like saying “forget Gallileao, you must believe a stationary earth is at the center of the universe.” That’s what you’re doing here Tom.
T: I don’t want to do that and don’t think I am doing that. All I’ve said is “I can’t adjudicate my way through to a firm conviction on the question.” That’s just being honest. I lean, or tend, to eternal temporality (for ME, not for anyone else going to heaven) so long as all I have are the present arguments I’m aware of. And I would never suggest that others who take a different view on God and time can’t enjoy a relationship with God. In the end, I don’t think all this matters that much at all. God has show us what matters—do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God.
Tom
No?
As I recall the t.v. interview, one reason Craig said that God couldn’t return to His atemporal state by annihilating creation, is that He’d still remember it.
By the same token, God couldn’t completely wipe out His sans-temporal existence, because He still remembers it–the experience is part of Him.
Could you please provide a direct quote to the effect that God wiped out His own memory, and has no existense beyond temporal time?
Whatever your intention, it seems to me that you’re presenting an infantile and out-dated notion of God as the only viable alternative (which would effectively close the door of faith to anyone who found it necessary to think more deaply about these things than you seem willing to.)
Michael,
I hope I’m not frustrating you. I don’t mean to. So let me see if I can clarify where I stand without slamming heaven’s door in anybody’s face.
Tom: God’s sans creation mode of existence IS gone because there is no sans creation existing for God now that creation is here and experienced by God.
Michael: You say…Craig…made it clear in his paper that there’s no longer “any atemporal anything”–please provide a direct quote so I know you’re not oversimplifying his position to suit your own purpose.
Tom: Ouch. Thanks for the vote of confidence.
More to point, it’s Craig’s view that God is not now timeless. When he says “God is atemporal sans/without creation and temporal since creation” he means that God is no longer atemporal since creation. Craig’s careful and knows the meaning of words. He takes “temporal” and “atemporal” as jointly exclusive of the possible modes of being. There is no third option, for ‘temporal’ and ‘atemporal’ are contradictory modes of being. One cannot be BOTH atemporal and temporal. This is his whole point is arguing that both modes are ‘contingent’ ways of existing. God can give the former (sans creation) up for the latter (relating to creation).
Pick up a copy of his Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time (Crossway: 2001) and check it out. Great book. After arguing for God’s being temporal on the basis of his knowing tensed facts and sustaining real relations to a temporal world, he writes:
*“Thus we can formulate the following argument for divine temporality:
Again, this argument does not prove that God is essentially temporal, but if successful, it does show that if a temporal world exists, then God is not timeless.”* (p. 99-100).
His website if full of articles as well. There is no “sans creation timeless God” IF there is a creation. Creation spells the end of God’s existence sans creation.
I can understand a request for a reference, Mike. But I sensed a bit of suspicious condescension in “so that I know you’re not oversimplifying to suit your own purpose.” If I’m misreading you, sorry. If you suspect I’m rigging my representation of Craig selectively so that I can get him to say what I want, then let me politely suggest that you don’t know me well enough in the first place to suspect me of such a thing.
Michael: As to my Galileao analogy: Whatever your intention, it seems to me that you’re presenting an infintile and out-dated notion of God as the only viable alternative (which would effectively close the door of faith to anyone who found it necessary to think more deaply about the issues we’ve been dicussing here than you seem willing to.)
Tom: If I may:
To suggest my view is out-dated says more about your ignorance of the subject than it does about my view. Process theism is anything but out-dated. And besides process folk, there are plenty of other well-respected Christian theologians and philosophers who believe God is temporally eternal (the infantile Wolterstorff at Yale argues this very view, and other infinite minds). I could name others, but to what avail?
I do not believe my view is the only viable alternative. Of course there are other viable alternatives, divine timelessness (ala Leftow, or Aquinas), amorphorous time sans creation (ala Padget), and divine temporal eternity (Wolterstorff, Whitehead, Hartshorne, Boyd, and others). Take your pick. For the record, ALL of these (and any other alternative you want to name) are in my view viable. I would never question the salvation of a person based on their philosophy of time. My goodness no.
I don’t think God gives a rip in the end about our getting this particular question right—if indeed we presently know enough or ever will know enough to close ALL the loops and answer all the questions definitively. It’s ridiculous to suggest that I’m presenting my view “as the only viable alternative” when I’ve expressly affirmed otherwise. For the record, Mike, you can believe whatever you want to believe about God and time and I’ll not question your status as a heaven-bound brother in Christ. Want to think more deeply on it? Go for it. So do I! I think constantly about it. I go over the arguments again and again. I just haven’t heard anything new that brings closure for me on any particular position. I tend to temporal eternity because that makes more sense of all the evidence (though it is not trouble-free; no view is). If you think this infantile of me, that’s cool with me. I don’t really care. You do you. I’ll do me. What else can we do? I’ve got plenty of good company where I am so I don’t mind if you’re not sitting with me on this side of the issue or think my view infantile or fundamentalist.
Tom
I did not question your status as a heaven bound brother in Christ, I questioned your charity toward those with inquiring minds that are unable to shelve an obvious logical incongruity as easlly as you do.
If you were to successfully convince them that the God of the Bible is necessarily temporal, mightn’t they be unable to believe in Him (and wouldn’t that close the door of faith to them)?
As to process theology being up to date, aren’t most process theologians anti-supernaturalists with a social agenda?
Is it possible they’ve overlooked some things because the existence of God is a side issue to them?
If so they could be very well educated and popular with the inteligensia, and still be totally out of date and infantile in their stated views on the topic under discussion here.
(And didn’t you yourself say that they tended to be non-trinitarian and anti-supernaturalist in another post?)
BTW: I corrected my typo before you posted this Tom–it’s “infantile,” not “infintile” (and that’s still my opinion.)
P.S. Wasn’t process theology popular in the Anglican Communion when “The Posiden Adventure” was written?
I remember the character played by Gene Hackman giving a sermon on doing for youself, and the older priest (who stayed with the sick and dying when the ship capsised) telling him that he “spoke only for the strong.”
While leading the strong to the stern of the ship, the Hackman character spoke of survival of the fitist being “God’s Law”–and though he sacrificed himself for the group at the end, it wasn’t without first cursing God for working against them (and for demanding a blood sacrifice.)
I believe the views of his caracter were based on some of the views expressed by process theologians, weren’t they?
And I guess he was entittled to tell God off, and God may have learned something from him if He was listening (is that right?)
Michael: I did not question your status as a heaven bound brother in Christ…
Tom: I didn’t think you did. It sounded like you thought I was limiting heaven to those who took my view on God and time.
Michael: …I questioned your charity toward those with inquiring minds that are unable to shelve an obvious logical incongruity as easily as you do.
Tom: I have nothing but charity for anybody who takes these issues seriously. I would never, for example, say that ANY one of the views on the table was infantile. Hell, man, I have nothing but charity for those who DON’T take this seriously. It’s all charity Bro.
I don’t shelve anything ‘easily’. Though I express where I am quickly because of time and space constraints here, I really do struggle over the options. And I haven’t shown any disrespect or impatience or unkindness toward you or Stellar for taking a view different from my own. How have I been “uncharitable” Michael?
Michael: If you were to successfully convince them that the God of the Bible is necessarily temporal, mightn’t they be unable to believe in Him (and wouldn’t that close the door of faith to them)?
Tom: You’re kidding right? What if you successfully convince me that math makes it certain for God to be timeless sans creation? Mightn’t I be unable to believe in God? Come on!
You really want me to stop promoting MY view on God’s relation to time because it might make belief in God impossible for those who think the view of God I’m promoting is impossible? I’m nothing if not tentative in my affirmations about this stuff and honest with those I talk to about there being other options.
Michael: As to process theology being up to date, aren’t most process theologians anti-supernaturalists with a social agenda?
Tom: As for the social agenda, yes. So what? Is establishing a theology of caring for the earth, or the poor, or conservation, or promoting international peace out-dated? Many of them deny miracles, yes. But many of them affirm what you and I would CALL miraculous, they just don’t categorize it as “super” nature. Their view is that when God heals, or does anything else, it’s quite natural, i.e., there’s nothing unnatural about God acting in and through the material world. They just feel that the term “supernatural” artificially divides something (God and the world) that shouldn’t be divided.
Michael: Is it possible they’ve overlooked some things because the existence of God is a side issue to them?
Tom: The process friends I know are quite passionate about God. I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Of course there are some who take a process view who aren’t passionate about God’s existence or purposes for the world, but I haven’t met any of them. The energy it takes to wrap one’s head around process metaphysics to begin with would, I should think, scare off those who are less than passionate about God.
I’m not sure what the point of this is.
Michael: If so they could be very well educated and popular with the inteligensia, and still be totally out of date and infantile in their stated views on the topic under discussion here.
Tom: Perhaps you could provide an example of a process doctrine regarding God and time that you think is infantile because nothing comes to mind. Maybe you could take an example from Whitehead, Cobb or Hartshorne.
Michael: And didn’t you yourself say that they tended to be non-trinitarian and anti-supernaturalist in another post?
Tom: Yes, but what in the world is infantile or out-dated about either of those positions?
Michael: BTW: I corrected my typo before you posted this Tom–it’s “infantile,” not “infintile” (and that’s still my opinion.)
Tom: I wrote my response up with your post offline and then noticed after I posted it that you had changed your own post. Wasn’t paying attention. But I don’t mind at all that you think the belief that God is ‘temporally everlasting’ is an infantile position. I just wanted to note for the record that I don’t think YOUR view (or any of the alternative views) is infantile, nor do I think any particular view on this subject ought to be marginalized because promoting it might make belief in that view of God impossible for somebody. I’m supposed to worry that if I convince a mathematician that God is temporally eternal he’ll abandon belief in God? Perhaps others should worry that if they convince a psychologist or artist or counsellor that God is atemporal they’ll abandon belief in God because they only God THEY can imagine is a personal, loving, experiencing God. I mean, where’s it stop?
Tom
My feild of study was Behavioral Science, not Mathematics.
That doesn’t prevent me from seeing the difficulty here.
And your not being a mathematician is no excuse for your minimizing it.
Michael: And your not being a mathematician is no excuse for your minimizing it.
Tom: I’m not minimizing it Bro. Really. Unless you think the only way to avoid minimizing it is just to adopt an atemporal view of God sans creation. But I don’t think I have to bend that far to avoid minimizing it. I really do appreciate the force of the argument. I can’t really conjur up an analogy from experience of an infinite series that’s traversed. But I have an equally difficult time finding meaning in an experience of maximal loving relations that are timeless, and there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell I’m walking away from God’s necessary maximally personal/loving trintarian relations, but that’s what atemporal existence would require me to do. Would you like me to become an atheist? I could suggest that this is what you’re asking me to do.
Atemporal personhood just doesn’t mean anything to me. The two words simply can’t conjointly describe a single entity. If it does to you, I’m glad. But I haven’t heard anyting here (or in any of the books I read) that really makes the notion of atemporal personhood meaningful in terms I can grasp, and Craig pulls out all the stops in his writing to show that it IS a meaningful notion. I just don’t see it.
Now, I could accuse you of minimizing personhood or love or experience or consciousness from MY point of view, but I don’t think that would be charitable.
Tom
A infinite temporal past has no meaning to me, and it’s psychologically imposible for a personal being to have had such a past
How would He remember it?
All at once?
No, that would be atemporal.
That’s what you’ve been arguing against here.
So does He remember everything He thought in that infinite past in a sequential, temporal order?
Can He recall where the moment of creation ocured in a linear sequence of past thoughts (events, or mental states) that had no beginning?
Can He recall “Yes, I created the world three hundred and forty four billion moments after my first thought”?
No, because there was no first thought.
Think about a sequence of memories without a beginning, and you’ll see (without using any math) that it’s impossible.
The idea that we’ve been debating some abstract mathematical point here seems almost delusional to me.
And the problem is not that God had no beginning.
Only effects have to have causes, and a non-contingent being needs no cause (that’s a given.)
The problem is in conceiving in a personal God who has an infinite linear past, a wholly temporal consciousness, and a wholly temporal memory.
It’s that you’re saying that a wholly temporal being consciously lived through an infinite past (without beginning, and therefore without end) and somehow then (after infinity) arived at the moment of creation.
That is what you’re saying, isn’t it Tom?
This position can’t even be expressed without a contradiction in terms–an infinity of time, and then creation.
Do you think you have to be a mathematician to see the contradiction in terms here?
There could be no infinity of time, followed by "and then."
How could anyone who accepts such an obvious logical incongruity find any value in Tom Talbot’t’s argument that there’s a logical incongruity in a rational being making a free-will choice of eternal conscious torment for himself?
There is simply no way to defend your position without throwing logic out altogether, and in that case there is no logical argument for UR, a loving personal God, a non-contingent being, the Trinity, or anything else.
M: A infinite temporal past has no meaning to me, and it’s psychologically imposible for a personal being to have had such a past.
T: Then believe that God is atemporal sans creation.
M: That’s what you’ve been arguing against here.
T: I have two things that don’t mean anything to me. One is traversing an infinite series of moments. The second is an atemporal conscious experience of loving personal existence that is unsurpassably aesthetically satisfying. But one of those (temporal eternity or atemporal personhood) IS possible even if I can’t adjudicate my way to a resolution that satisfies you (or even myself fully and finally), so I choose to believe that which is true and that which is false based on which truth explains the most given my experience of God and the world. Either way I have to live for the moment with the folly of shelving the other.
You just prefer mathematical categories over FELT existential ones (as far as I can see) I guess. You don’t have the problems I do imagining an atemporal experience of loving relations.
M: So does He remember everything He thought in that infinite past in a sequential, temporal order?
Can He recall where the moment of creation ocured in a linear sequence of past thoughts (events, or mental states) that had no beginning? Can He recall “Yes, I created the world three hundred and forty four billion moments after my first thought”? No, because there was no first thought. Think about a sequence of memories without a beginning, and you’ll see (without using any math) that it’s impossible.
T: You keep trying to convince me that traversing an infinite series is inconceivably bad math. Mike, you don’t have to argue this any more. I SEE IT. I have seen it for a long time. But I also see the impossibility (from MY point of view) of God’s being atemporal sans creation (as the math would require us to believe) and yet also LOVE—i.e., loving personal existence that is the full enjoyment of the beauty of personal address and response.
M: The idea that we’ve been debating some abstract mathematical point here seems almost delusional to me.
T: I find the supposition of atemporal personal/loving experience almost delusional as well. So I have to chose between two nearly delusional options which from my perspective are contradictor states of affairs—atemporal existence (on the one hand) and that existence being loving personhood.
M: The problem is in conceiving in a personal God who has an infinite linear past, a wholly temporal consciousness, and a wholly temporal memory.
T: I appreciate the problem of imagining this. But there’s also the problem of conceiving of an atermpoal God who is the fullness of loving existence.
M: It’s that you’re saying that a wholly temporal being consciously lived through an infinite past (without beginning, and therefore without end) and somehow then (after infinity) arived at the moment of creation. That is what you’re saying, isn’t it Tom?
T: That would be ENTAILED in my affirmation about God as love, yes. But I’m not making mathematically claims per se. I’m just stating about God what I cannot abandon belief in without embracing atheism—and that is that God is love. Now, I let the mathematically chips fall where they may. I realize this is an affront to math. But the alternative to me is WORSE than bad math. I wish you would try to get on the inside of the views you argue against.
M: This position can’t even be expressed without a contradiction in terms–an infinity of time, and then creation.
T: But M, what you seem reluctant to even countenance is how impossible it is to express the view that God is atemporal AND the fullness of love without (in MY view) a contradiction in terms—an atemporal consciousness, a loving relation that is not a felt experience of satisfaction?
M: There is simply no way to defend your position without throwing logic out altogether, and in that case there is no logical argument for UR, a loving personal God, a non-contingent being, the Trinity, or anything else.
T: Mike, when faced with two claims each of which seems true (‘atemporal existence’ and ‘fullness of loving existence’) given the evidence but which are also contradictory states of affairs, it’s quite respectable to suppose that you don’t have all the evidence, that one of them is actually not the impossibility you suppose. I admit that either “atemporal personal loving existence” IS possible (as you suppose under the weight of your math) OR “personal loving existence is necessarily an ‘experience of aesthetic satisfaction’ in temporal terms.” With what poor light I have to view things, I’m SUPPOSING that when we see things clearly it will be the math that we had not fully comprehended and not the nature of loving relations.
If that much is delusional and infantile of me, then you’ll want to write me off I guess.
Tom
Why would an unchanging feeling of satisfaction be temporal?
They say that electronically stimulating a certain part of the brain will allow a human being to experience a transentental, atemporal feeling of loving satisfaction.
I knew a young man who claimed to have experienced it through drugs, and some of us have experienced it in dreams.
It is not inconceivable, and doesn’t involve the contradiction you insist.
In contrast, your position involves a contradiction to anyone who tries to think it out (and that’s not something I suggest under the weight of math–I’m not a mathematician, and probably couldn’t demonstrate it algebraicly if I tried.)
Why do you do this?
Is it because process theory requires an anthropomorphic God who doesn’t know what you’re going to do in advance, can learn from you, and can be pulled down to your level?
You mean do I want to “shut the door of faith” to you, and lock you out of the Kingdom of Heaven?
No Tom (I wouldn’t even want to do that to those dreaded matematicians), but I do think your argument could do that to a great many thoughful souls.
I don’t like interrupting a good conversation going between two members; but I’m thinking of suggesting a week’s break on this particular thread, to let things simmer down a bit. 
(Besides, I’ve been wanting to comment here, too, for a while, but I’m going to need time to catch up. 
And I’m not at all sure when I’ll have the time and energy to do that yet! 
)
Jump in anytime Jason. I don’t know that I have anything more to add.
Michael, I appreciate the so-called evidence from drug-induced visions, but those are anything but “atemporal” states. They are entirely temporal. They began in time, endured for a time, and then ended at a later time. If the subject lost a “sense” of time, that does not constitute a short spell of timeless existence.
Anyhow, like I said, I can’t wrap my head around atemporal personal and loving experience/existence. If you find somebody whose faith is teetering because of my view, send him to me and I’ll assure him that there are other alternatives he can embrace that’ll keep his faith afloat!
The so-called Process interest in making God too much like created beings in order to secure their belief in an open future isn’t anywhere within a hundred miles of my thinking on this issue.
Hugs and kisses all!
Tom
So much for our break.
Speaking from what point of view Tom?
Mathematics, physics, or psychology?
Psychologically speaking, if the subject had no sense of the passage of time, it was an entirely atemporal, timeless experience.
(And if I understand Zimmerman correctly, what he’s saying is that psychological time is the only time that exited prior to the laws of physics.)
BTW: I spoke of the stimulation of the right temporal lobe, a drug induced experience shared by a young man I met at a Church convention back in 1980 something, and the atemporal sense of love and wellbeing sometimes experienced in dreams.
I in no way advocated the recreational use of drugs, and the young man I was thinking of died of a drug overdose (when he relapsed a year or two after the conversation we had.)
I think Michael and I are stuck in a timeless debate! Ha.
Sorry about mis-stating the place of drugs…and about your friend.
Peace,
Tom
Thank you Tom.
Now I’d like to ask you (and anyone who watches the interview) to pay close attention to what Zimmerman suggests is “the best way for anyone who thinks that God is in time, and that creation had a beginning, to think about time before creation.”
He talkes about our diferent perceptions of time, and says that if there were no clocks, “and couldn’t even be any clocks. because thee were no laws of nature” (i.e. no laws of physics) “maybe long and short don’t apply.”
What he’s saying is that psycholoigical time (which we humans can experience as atemporal when our right temporal lobes are stimulated, we’re under the influence of certain drugs, or we’re in a dream state) is the only time that existed before the laws of physics.
The only time that existed was time as God experienced it in His mind.
Zimmerman says it may have had length, but it had “no particular length” (and I would say that it may have had no length at all.)
What he’s not saying is that there’s an infinite length of linear time prior to creation, and he’s not saying that because he knows that it would be an assault on human reason (something you haven’t at all shyed away from doing here Tom.)
We’ve been discussing a legitimate question–and of the three men who offer answers (Leftow, Craig, and Zimmerman), I actually think Zimmerman offers the best answer (but in fairness to him, you should recognize that he’s not saying the same thing you’ve been saying here.)
I’m still gonna get back to earlier comments.
I liked that interview. I think that Zimmerman is smarter than Craig. He seems to avoid inconsistencies and be able to come up with solutions for them (it also seemed like he was thinking out part of his rationale in the moment, which I admire).
Anyway, I’ll admit that it makes more sense for there to have been some kind of sense of time (psychological at least) before the moment of creation. Like he says, God would be outside of the entire “hull” of space-time. I like the notion of him surrounding it and not just above it all.
This reminds me of something C.S. Lewis wrote about God’s timelessness, though (and being able to see all times at once). He said it was like writing a book. He could put the pen down at any time and come back whenever he liked without having to sacrifice lost time in the story. He could just come back to the same exact moment of time that he left.
A metaphor that would be even more accessible to people these days is that of being able to pause, rewind or fast-forward a movie. God can do that with time. He can take AS MUCH TIME AS NEEDED on each and every one of us… so, He may operate in time, but in His own, all the while in control of our own time.
Not that a perfect God would need to, but it’s a nice thought at least.
Zimmerman’s position is basically the same as Alan Padget (Luther Sem, St. Paul). Both argue NOT for atemporal divine existence sans creation (Alan for some of the same reasons I oppose atemporal existence) but for what Alan terms “amorphous time” or metaphysical time. When they unpack it, it’s basically what Dean describes–divine psychological time that is not absolute timelessness but an unmeasued flow of consciousness. There’s no “sense” of time because one is so caught up in the “moment.” And if there is no “metric” or measurement, ther are no “discrete” moments. Nothing to count, so to speak. So no actual infinite is generated by saying God is temporal in this sense. It’s qualified temporality to be sure, not qualified timelessness. It’s timeless in the sense that no measurement of time is taken or perceived (by God). But it’s temporal in the sense that there is conscious self-awareness and the perception/experience of personal loving being.
I suppose one could add that in this case the CONTENT of God’s self-perception (the only perception or experience there would be) is unchanging. There’s a past, present and future to it but no measurement of it. The content of the present is identicle to that of the past (and to what the future shall be), and because the content is unchanging, and that content is all there is to speak of, there is no change, though–technicaly speaking–there is the unchanging flow of conscious experience.
If Dean or Padget or somebody can really make this work, all the better. But it’s been out there for some time. Padget has written quite a bit about it, and Craig treats it pretty thoroughly. I’m not sure it works, but to be honest, Michael, a lot of it is VERY speculative philosohpically and appeals to intricate and difficult theories of time that are beyond me. I’m not that smart when it comes to this stuff! But I’m happy there are a multiplicity of views out there on this stuff to show that theism doesn’t require any particular positoin on it.
Peace,
Tom
There wouldn’t be much value to that multiplicity of views out there if we didn’t actually get into them (and saying the questions asked aren’t important to you isn’t doesn’t really offering a view.)
I think it might, and I thank you for this post.
(When someone is searching for the answer to a troubling question, it’s always helpful to offer real thoughts instead of just saying that it doesn’t trouble you.)