Thanks for a really interesting thread Michael.
Michael: 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.)
Tom: What’s wrong Michael? Why so upset with me? I haven’t suggested we not get into these questions or do our very best trying to answer them. Quite the opposite. I don’t see anybody else (besides Stellar) jumping in here to think through this with you (for whatever reason–I’m not judging them). But I’m here. I am into this. It does concern me. I haven’t read Helm, Craig, Padget, Polinghorne, Boyd, and others repeatedly on exactly this question because I think it’s unimportant to me.
What I have said here is that after one has done all one can to answer a question and one still cannot claim to “know” (i.e., possess justified true belief), then one will have to live with the tension of not having the certainty one would like to have. Being honest about what I can and cannot claim to know with certainty doesn’t make what I don’t know unimportant, and it shouldn’t earn me your anger. It just means my faith doesn’t require an absolutely certain answer on this in order to survive. I don’t know the answer to the question of God and time sans creation, Michael. But I know God loves me and offers himself in relationship to me.
Michael: 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.
Tom: This will be my final post. I’m obviously not being heard at all. It’s like you haven’t read anything I’ve written for four pages. I have offered real thoughts, and I haven’t said this issue doesn’t trouble or concern me. Just the opposite actually. But what not knowing the answer to “time” doesn’t do is trouble my faith and experience of God, and I’ve tried to suggest that it need to trouble or shipwreck anybody’s faith. If it was absolutely necessary to our faith that we have certain answers to the questions you’re asking about God and time, then I suppose God would have made the evidence unambiguous enough for us to find the answer with final certainty. But it doesn’t seem he’s done that, since no view on this has won the day. Heck, the professionals can’t even agree on what time is! Do we really want to say that our faith in God should require final certainty on the metaphysical question of time (and God and time)? I don’t think we should (or need to). But that doesn’t make the subject unimportant to me. We can continue to work on it for the rest of our lives. I imagine I’ll be doing just that too. But what may be more important than finding an answer to these questions, Michael, is finding out why not having final answers to them troubles us so. That’s been MY experience at least. It’s all I have.
Blessings,
Tom
I’m sorry, I thought that’s what you were doing the many times you said it wasn’t important to you.
I thanked you for your comments regarding the views offered by Zimmerman and Padget, and they seem to try to answer these questions–but it was only in that last post that you gave us any idea of what they actually say.
I worked pretty hard to get that out of you Tom.
I had re-state the problem in psychological terms to demonstrate that it wasn’t some abstract issue only of interest to mathematicians, and I had to quote Zimmerman himself to show that he was saying much more than you were.
Would you acknowledge here that he has more than his own inner uncertainty and tension to offer?
(Offering more than that is what I meant by real answers Tom.)
Unless it was in that last post (that I thanked you for) I haven’t seen any.
I’ve seen you criticize the answers offered by others (like Leftow and Craig), but I haven’t seen you offer an answer of your own (and you gave us no reason to think Zimmerman, Padget, or anyone else you knew of had any answer to offer–I had to dig into what Zimmerman was saying and show it to you.)
If you offered a multiplicity of possible answers, and suggested we hold them in tension (instead of suggesting the question was abstract and unimportant) I might have thanked you, but you didn’t even do that.
“Certain” answers?
I’ve been trying to discuss possible answers (and it might be necessary for some thinking people to have such answers and hold them in tension.)
Has it ocured to you that boasting of your own faith doesn’t really help anyone else, and that making that faith seem entirely irrational by ignoring a logical incongruity (and the solutions offered by men who have actually taken the time to think about it) could actually hurt?
That’s what I meant by “shutting the Kingdom of Heaven” to those who are more intellectually inclined than you are (or who are weaker in faith, if you prefer.)
I give Zimmerman, Craig, Leftow, and (maybe) Padget (though I haven’t actually read him) credit for getting into the question and offering answers (and we could perhaps hold all their views in tension), but in most of your posts here you’ve tried to suggest that we shelve our intellects and ignore it.
I resent that Tom.
I would also point out that there’s no such thing as a private online discussion.
There are always others reading along, and when questions have been raised it’s probably more helpful to them to offer possible answers (no matter how many there are) than it is to focuss on any internal uncertainty or tension (or discomfort) the question causes us.
I’m glad you find it interesting.
I saw your post on a related thread, and I’ll try to reply when I can.
Hi Michael,
Well, I can’t let my former post be my final one now. 
I’m sorry this has become a high maintenance conversation, and for such avoidable reasons.
Michael: Has it ocured to you that boasting of your own faith doesn’t really help anyone else…
Tom: I haven’t “boasted” about my faith at all, Michael.
Michael: …and that making that faith seem entirely irrational by ignoring a logical incongruity (and the solutions offered by men who have actually taken the time to think about it)…
Tom: I offered (and not just in my previous post, but earlier) what I thought was a completely rational option: when faced with two contrary claims both of which appear to have their own independent evidence for being true, then you have to hold them in tension and suppose either that there are other options you can’t perceive or that one of the two options before you isn’t true. You keep claiming I haven’t suggested we hold the options in tension when that’s pretty much all I’ve been doing from the start.
And I’ve not “ignored” the logical problems of actual infinites. I’ve from the start conceded the value of the argument. But I’ve suggested other reasons for thinking atemporal personhood is JUST as problematic. Now, you can disagree with me on about atemporal personhood (and you have) but you’re incorrect to accuse me of having “ignored” the problem of actual infinites or of having offered no reasons for thinking God may not be atemporal sans creation. And I’ve pointed out to you that along with there being many great minds who have given this matter much thought and who think “atemporal sans creation” is the only valid option, there really are other respected and accomplished thinkers and persons of faith who have taken just as much time to think about this as anyone else and who yet reject divine timelessness. My having mentioned all this is in the record, Michael, so you’ll have to excuse me for not being able to take you seriously after accusing me of suggestig we turn our brains off, shelve them, and ignore intellectual questions.
Michael: …but in most of your posts here you’ve tried to suggest that we shelve our intellects and ignore it…
Tom: I’ve done no such thing.
Michael: …I resent that Tom [my suggesting that we shelve our intellects].
Tom: That’s a shame, friend, because you’ve entirely misread me, but I don’t resent you for it.
Blessings,
Tom
For what it’s worth - I am one who doesn’t believe that a past or future exists, only a perpetual now. I would like to comment more about our perception of time and even the drug story I read in one of the posts, when I have time.
And you couldn’t let us take a week’s beak either.
You’ve said more than once that you can only conceive of a personal God existing temporally, and if that implies He transversed an actual infinite (despite the logical incongruity you now say you recognize) it doesn’t disturb your faith at all.
Saying that options “A” and “B” cancel each other out, so there must be an option “C,” doesn’t constitute an option “C” (and when we let an “accomplished thinker and person of faith” do the talking, option “C” was perceivable.)
Option “C” would be a sans-creation teporality that didn’t involve transversing an actual infinite (as suggested by Zimmerman, who you still seem to think was saying the same thing you are.)
I’ll take Zimmerman as evidence of that (but I had to point out how he avoided the problem of an actual infinite, and you still do him an injustice here.)
That’s precisely what you did on this thread, time and time again (and yes, the record is here.) 
Bro, why is this so hard? Dang.
T: How did I ‘boast’ about my faith?
M: You’ve said more than once that you can only conceive of a personal God existing temporally, and if that implies He transversed an actual infinite (despite the logical incongruity you now say you recognize) it doesn’t disturb your faith at all.
T: I qualified it just tiny bit differently (that is, it included what I said about assuming there’s a resolution between contradictory options that I can’t see), but never mind that. How in the world is this “boasting”? How am I “boasting” if I say I cannot conceive of a personal God existing atemporally? I don’t get it. You can’t conceive of a God traversing an actual infinite but your faith doesn’t seem to have a problem with atemporal personhood. Should I accuse you of boasting about your faith?
T: I offered (and not just in my previous post, but earlier) what I thought was a completely rational option: when faced with two contrary claims both of which appear to have their own independent evidence for being true, then you have to hold them in tension and suppose EITHER that there are other options you can’t perceive OR that one of the two options before you isn’t true…
M: Saying that options “A” and “B” cancel each other out, so there must be an option “C” doesn’t constitute an option “C”…
T: You’re quite right. But if you’d look at what I actually said you’ll see that I didn’t say A and B cancel each other out and there must be a C. Once more…
Let’s say we have independent support for thinking that both A and B are true. Fine.
Let’s then say we have good reasons to suppose that A and B can’t BOTH be true. They’re either contradictory or contrary propositions, but we don’t know which. If they’re truly contradictory, then by definition (I know you like logic!), and given bivalence, one is true and the other is false. If they’re contrary propositions, then by definition they may both be false but may not both be true.
My point, Michael, is that if A and B can’t both be true but we have independent reasons for thinking they’re both true, THEN either a) we’re mistaken in thinking they can’t both be true (and they both are). This isn’t likely to be the case with temporal vs atemporal existence, or b) both are false (because they’re contrary and not contradictory propositions) and some other option we haven’t even considered yet might be what’s in fact true, or c) they’re contradictory props, in which one of A or B is false and one is true but we can’t yet adjudicate which is which.
I never said A and B cancel each other out and that there MUST be a C. There might not be a C. A might be true and God is atemporal sans creation. Or B might be true and God is necessarily temporal (in which case we’ll find out more about math and infinites that we can’t presently perceive). I’m not claiming what the truth in fact is, Michael. Please hear me. I’m just saying that until God pulls back the curtain and gives me more light, I’m inclined to favor the argument for God’s necessarily temporal existence based on my intuitions and experience about loving personal relations. I know this means ASSUMING there is more about actual infinites we don’t know that will surprise us. But I’m slightl encouraged in this by the fact that there are some very great minds who after much thought were not persuaded by the argument re: the impossibility of acutal infinites (although I confess to not being able to follow the math that I’ve seen in some aritlces that argue this back and forth). But anyhow, I can more easily favor my intuitions re: personal reations and love than incline to the math and ASSUME that there is more about loving experience and relations that we don’t know.
I COULD BE WRONG. Somebody might write a book that solves it all. But right now, given the light I’ve got, I’m holding to the truth B over A, but both in tension—i.e., I hold to them lightly. I’m prepared to be proven wrong.
However, in the meantime, none of this undermines the love of God demonstrated for me on the cross. So I can still be a happy and fulfilled person without having to figure out time. If that’s boasting, Bro, then let’s all boast! I’m happier than I can say to tell the world that we can experience God’s love in Christ without having all the answers. I think that’s good news, not bad news.
M: I’ll take Zimmerman as evidence of that (but I had to point out how he avoided the problem of an actual infinite, and you still do him an injustice here.)
T: I did Dean an injustice? Dude, I can’t even nail his view down. I said it seems to me like he’s arguing the same thing I know Padget argues—i.e., an amorphous (i.e., non-metrical) time. Conscious experience ‘flows’ and there’s a before and an after, but there is no measurement taken of it or even an awareness of it.But that much does him no injustice.
T: You’ll have to excuse me for not being able to take you seriously after accusing me of suggesting we turn our brains off, shelve them, and ignore intellectual questions.
M: That’s precisely what you did on this thread, time and time again (and yes, the record is here.)
T: Wow. Then we’ve got no basis to continue. No hard feelings, Michael.
Blessings and peace.
Tom
You mean in the last post, right?
Yes you did make that qualification there (and I thank you for that Tom.)
Actually, I did have a problem with atemporal personhood, which is why the title of this topic heading is “What are the Essential Qualities of Personhood.”
If we say they’re “feeling,” “knowing”, and “willing,” then I would say (since these don’t necessarily involve sequential thought processes) that there is no problem (but I think you disagreed with that in your first post here–saying that you couldn’t conceive of personal atemporality, that you saw no problem with temporality, and not much more.)
Right, got it.
You still objected to the every atemporal view of God offered, without offering an anternative (and if you understood the alternative offered by Zimmerman or Padjet, you made no attempt to enlighten us.)
That amounts to “suggesting we turn our brains off, shelve them, and ignore intellectual questions.”
And please show us where you contributed to this discussion by sharing Padjet’s view.
Anywhere on this thread (except for that one post I thanked you for on page four.)
I just finished taking care of my Father-in-law for a year and a half, after caring for both he and my mother-in-law during the two years preceding that. I’m guessing I may possibly be able to relate to some of the challenges you’re facing. The seeming randomness and apparent purposelessness of events can lead one to a belief in an impersonal God - at least it did for me to some extent.
Yet, it remains my conviction that God’s personality is manifest through humans, hence the whole “waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God” concept. I am not at all saying that God doesn’t exist outside of space/time but I am saying that His existence within space/time is manifest through us.
If I didn’t believe in a personal God who has a purpose for all this (and that “all live unto Him”), I believe I’d end my life right now.
Copy that. I never thought I would experience the level of doubt I have experienced because of the fact that my rebirth was so real and profound/supernatural. Plus the many many confirmations in corporate worship etc.
I’ve seriously wondered sometimes if my subconscious imagination just made the whole thing up but yet - there’s no way I imagined a complete transformation from the inside out, confirmed and witnessed by everyone I knew.
Lifting you up my brother…
M: You still objected to the every atemporal view of God offered, without offering an alternative…
T: My alternative to ‘a’-temporal being is its contradictory: temporal being. There is no third alternative between contradictories. A or ~A. One of them has to be true and one false. That goes without saying—unless somebody wants to argue that ‘atemporal’ and ‘temporal’ are contrary and not contradictory modes of being. I don’t know anyone who tries to make that claim, not even Zimmerman or Padget, who basically argue a form of temporal being (with no ‘counting’).
M: …(and if you understood the alternative offered by Zimmerman or Padjet, you made no attempt to enlighten us.) That amounts to “suggesting we turn our brains off, shelve them, and ignore intellectual questions.”
T: It doesn’t amount to that actually. You chose to understand me that way, but my not saying more, or as much as you wished, might be explained in other ways. For example, it might be that I simply assumed you understood that if ‘atemporal’ and ‘temporal’ are contradictories and I was rejecting one (atemporality), then my alternative was to hold that God is temporal. If you offer me A or ~A and I reject ~A, then by definition I’ve affirmed A. I didn’t know I ‘had’ to spell it out. But nevrtheless, that may be poor communicating on my part. But it doesn’t amount to suggesting that we turn our brains off, shelve them, and ignore intellectual questions.
Just wanted to clear that up.
As I understand Zimmerman and Padget (Padget’s easier to understand than Zimmerman), they’re basically offering a qualified version of temporal being, not a THIRD option in addition to ‘temporal’ and ‘atemporal’ modes of being. And their qualification is that sans creation God is psychologically unaware of the passage or flow of conscious experience. There are no clocks or any discrete ‘moments’ of experience that could serve as ‘countable’. So the actual infinite is avoided and God still gets enough flow to his experience. I might be understanding them wrongly, Bro.
But let me ask you about these, Michael, ‘cause I wann understand. You said two things that are confusing me:
“Actually, I did have a problem with atemporal personhood, which is why the title of this topic heading is ‘What are the Essential Qualities of Personhood’.”
and
“If we say [those essential qualities of personhood are] ‘feeling’, ‘knowing’, and ‘willing’, then I would say (since these don’t necessarily involve sequential thought processes) that there is no problem.”
So first, let me ask: Do you take temporal and atemporal to be contradictory or contrary modes of being?
Secondly, if being a person requires feeling, knowing, and willing, and these can constitute the fullness of personal existence while being absolutely unchanging in every respect, then what ARE your problems with atemporal personhood? You say first here that you did (or do?) have a problem with atemporal personhood. Just what problems do you have with it? In other words, if unchanging feeling, knowing, and willing are not problematic qualities, what qualities constitute the objectionable sort of atemporal experience that you do have problems with? Hope my question here is clear.
Thanks!
Tom
I don’t know about Padget, but Zimmerman seems to be saying more.
He doesn’t just say “what if there were no clocks ticking,” he says “what if there were no clocks, and couldn’t even be any clocks, because there were no laws of nature”–no laws of physics, and no time to be measured (other than whatever experiential, phenomenal, psychological “time” God does consciously remember.)
Zimmerman ackowledgs that “time was, in a sense, created.”
The only alternatives I was considering were temporal (in the sense of time as we know it) and atemporal, and for you to assume that I (or anyone else reading along) would understand you as offering a qulified temporal alternative (without bothering to explain it) was offering no alternative at all.
I said “did” Tom.
I started this topic heading when I came across the suggestion that feeling, knowing, and willing are the essential qualities of personhood, and before that I “did” have a problem with atemporality–you’re the one who said you still had a problem with it (without offering an alternative.)
No more so than conscious and unconscious.
Do you take them to be “contradictory or contrary modes of being?”
Michael: He doesn’t just say “what if there were no clocks ticking,” he says “what if there were no clocks, and couldn’t even be any clocks, because there were no laws of nature”–no laws of physics, and no time to be measured (other than whatever experiential, phenomenal, psychological “time” God does consciously remember.) Zimmerman ackowledgs that “time was, in a sense, created.”
Tom: I wonder why only “in a sense” if ‘atemporal’ and ‘temporal’ are contradictory. Just thinking out loud. I mean, metric time (the measuremnt of time by means of physical laws) only comes into being with the coming into being of matter). I have no objection to this. But it doesn’t follow that apart from a physical creation there can be no ‘succession’ or flow of time in any sense. It’s at least traditionally believed that angels as immaterial beings were created prior to the pysical world. It’s conceivable at least. But this would mean a genuine temporal before and after prior to there being ANY physical laws. So “temporal passage” doesn’t by definition require a physical world at all (if angels are immaterial spirits and precede the creation of matter).
Machael: The only alternatives I was considering were temporal (in the sense of time as we know it) and atemporal, and for you to assume that I (or anyone else reading along) would understand you as offering a qulified temporal alternative (without bothering to explain it) was offering no alternative at all.
Tom: It’s like our conversing is fated by the gods to frustration and doom. Gosh I wish it weren’t so. Mike, if you read what I said again, you’ll see that I wasn’t offering a third alternative to ‘atemporal’ and ‘temporal’ modes of being. Those are the only two alternatives as far as I can see. God is one OR the other. Given THAT, what I assumed you (or anybody reading) would understand is that if I rejected ‘atemporal’ being in God’s case I’d necessarily be settling for ‘temporal’. That goes without saying. And my posts from the earliest pages of this thread made that clear—I think God is essentially temporal. But you chide me for rejecting ‘atemporal’ witout offering an alternative. But Mike, there is no alternative to ‘atemporal’ BUT ‘temporal’. Maybe you were chidding me for not offering an argument that defeats the argument from actual infinites. But I’ve made it clear also from the beginning that I have no knock down argument that silences that argumnt. I only have contradictory intuitions that entail (in my view) the essentially temporal nature of personal being. You don’t buy this entailment I realize. You think it makes me look irrational and silly. That’s OK with me. But it doesn’t mean my alternaive to atemporal existence hasn’t been on the table.
Michael: I said “did” Tom.
Tom: Yes, I know. But “did” doesn’t require that that what ‘was’ no longer ‘is’. I “did” have a problem with Calvinism last year. I still do. I did love my wife yesterday. I still do. But anyhow, I’m just trying to understand where you are, that’s all. We seem to be cursed with having to misunderstand each other, so I’m just trying to be careful. Please don’t be short-tempered with me Bro.
Michael: I started this topic heading when I came across the suggestion that feeling, knowing, and willing are the essential qualities of personhood, and before that I “did” have a problem with atemporality–you’re the one who said you still had a problem with it (without offering an alternative).
Tom: My alternative to atemporal personhood is the only alternative I know of in the case of contradictory modes of being—temporal personhood. I’ve said that from the start.
Tom: Do you take temporal and atemporal to be contradictory or contrary modes of being?
Michael: No more so than conscious and unconscious. Do you take them to be “contradictory or contrary modes of being?”
Tom: Contradictory (as does Zimmerman I believe). A thing that exists, exists EITHER temporally or atemporally. These two are the jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive options. There is no third option which is neither ‘atemporal’ nor ‘temporal’ OR some mixture of the two—not if they’re ‘contradictory’ states. THAT is why I’m confused at your chiding me for having rejected one (atemporal) without offering an alternative. The alternative to rejecting a position is—by definition—to affirm its contradictory. If we both agree that X is either y or ~y, and I say X is not ~y, then do I REALLY need to say X is y?
I’m sorry if this was all so confusing, Michael. It wasn’t intentional. Even less was it a veiled attempt to suggest that we turn our brains off and ignore intellectual questions.
If I may, can I ask another question?
Given the fact that you agree that ‘atemporal’ and ‘temporal’ are contradictory [and so by definition incompatible] modes of being (and if I remember correctly from a small group discussion of this where Zimmerman was present, he agrees that these are contradictory and incompatible states), and given your understanding of Zimmerman’s psychological time (etc.)—would you say Zimmerman is promoting the view that God is ‘atemporal’ or ‘temporal’? In other words, this ‘psychological’ or ‘amorphous’ time that Zimmerman (and I think Padget) promotes—is it in your opinion essentially ‘temporal’ or ‘atemporal’ existence?
Thanks again,
Tom
I do not accept the proposition that temporal and atemporal are any more mutually exclussive modes of being than is being one and being three (or conscious and unconscious.)
I would say that any non-metric “quasi-time,” having no objective length but what God consciously experienced (and not necessarily infinite) is so different from what we normally mean by temporal time, that some qualification is in order (and Zimmerman seemed to think so too, otherwise he wouldn’t have found it necessary to explain himself more fully than you did.)
I know of no reason to believe angelic being were created before time, space, energy, and matter (though I think it’s quite possible that they were created before the stars, planets, and galaxies.)
Michael: I do not accept the proposition that temporal and atemporal are any more mutually exclussive modes of being than is being one and being three (or conscious and unconscious).
Tom: That helps, Michael. Thank you. This is a point on which we’ll differ, and on which (my guess is) you’ll differ from Zimmerman, for he surely believes that temporal and a-temporal are mutually exclusive states. This was Craig’s point too.
I should think that your issues are pretty much solved then. If you don’t think ‘temporal’ and ‘atemporal’ are mutually incompatible states, then you’re free to say God is both, even fully both. Go for it. When you need God to be timeless, just say he’s timeless. When you need him to be temporal, just say he’s temporal. If they’re compatible states, and all the brass out there think so, then I don’t see why any of this remains such a thorny issue. I mean, if one can do that, then I can’t think of why one would need to find any kind of middle ground at all, viz., something like psychological or amorpous time. It seems to me that Dean and others seek to qualify temporal existence in the terms they do because they want the benifits of temporal existence without affirming an obvious actual infinite. But if they thought both atemporality and temporality were compossible states, then they would just affirm both without qualifying either and be done with it.
As for the Trinity, Orthodoxy does not claim (as I’m sure you know) that God is one in the sense that he’s three and three in the sense that he’s one. In other words, there’s never any sense in which what’s affirmed is denied and what’s denied is affirmed. So no obvious contradiction is generated by claiming that God is three hypostates and one essence/nature. One can try to affirm that God is in one sense timeless/atemporal while also being in another sense temporal, but a) that’s just to admit their mutual incompatibility it seems to me, and b) I’m happy to say that I’m not the only one who thinks the marriage of both in one undivided being is a meaningless supposition.
Blessings,
Tom
I believe Zimmerman (at one point in the interview) said that they “would certainly seem to be mutually exclussive.”
I don’t think he’d hold to their mutually exclussivity as tenaciously as you do Tom.
Why do you do this?
You say that you’re not trying to promote your view as the only view, but you’ll argue to the death that there’s no way God could be both temporal and atemporal.
Why?
There are plenty of Unitarians (some of them here on this board) who would say that supposing God to be three persons in one essense is just as much of a “meaningless supposition” (though I think their agument is as faulty as yours.)
A human being is both conscious and unconscious.
The conscious mind is aware of the passage of time, but…
witness-pioneer.org/vil/Book … h7-pre.htm
And why would you be happy about that?
Michael: You say that you’re not trying to promote your view as the only view, but you’ll argue to the death that there’s no way God could be both temporal and atemporal. Why?
Tom: I’ve repeated several times, often enough for all to notice, that “I could be wrong” about my view. I can’t say it any plainer than I have, Michael. If you don’t want to believe me, that’s your choice. I promote it because it makes best sense to me at the present. I have never claimed any kind of finality to my belief that God is temporal (and not BOTH atemporal and temporal). I’ve repeatedly admitted not only that I could be wrong, but that I hold to my view lightly—tentatively—and am prepared and willing to be convinced otherwise when the argument comes along. So long as I admit that I can be wrong, I’m admitting that you could be right. I just can’t say with any kind of finality which is which, but I do “tend” to my view. But that’s not claiming that my view is the ONLY view. I’ve never suggested that I couldn’t be wrong.
So, for the record: All views on the temporal status of God that are different than my own are rational and possibly true views. Any one of them could be the truth and I could be the farthest from the truth.
Tom: I’m happy to say that I’m not the only one who thinks the marriage of both in one undivided being is a meaningless supposition.
Michael: And why would you be happy about that?
Tom: I’m happy about it because I, like others, am encouraged to know that I’m not the only one who believes what I believe about a controversial issue. Nobody WANTS to be the only person who believes what he believes. I’m not a professional philosopher or mathematician, so I am not dogmatic about my view. But when some of the brass (as it were) promote the same view, I’m encouraged to think not that I’m right, but just that I’m not an anti-intellectual irrational nutcase.
Tom
I don’t believe I ever called you an “anti-intellectual, irrational nutcase,” but it should be recognized that non of “the brass” (and certainly not Zimmerman) has argued for the transversing of an actual infinite that would be involved in the unqualified temporality you seemed to be arguing for (up until page four of this thread.)
If it was never your intention to argue for such a logical incongruity (and you simply assumed that I would know what you were saying), I apologize for misunderstanding you.
"
Michael: …none of “the brass” (and certainly not Zimmerman) has argued for the transversing of an actual infinite that would be involved in the unqualified temporality you seemed to be arguing for… If it was never your intention to argue for such a logical incongruity (and you simply assumed that I would know what you were saying), I apologize for misunderstanding you.
Tom: I’ve tried not to argue FOR traversing an actual infinite per se (as if I need that to be the case) as much as I have argued FOR the essentially loving and interpersonal nature of divine being. I’d love to find a way to affirm the mutual given-and-take of personal being and the movement of experience which I think it entails while avoiding the whole actual infinite thing. That would be ideal.But if I can’t get there, then I’ll prefer the former over the latter and let the chips fall where they may as far as the traversal of time is concerned. I do admit that this involves me in a particular contradiction. But it’s a less egregious contradiction in my view than giving up the movement of loving relations seems necessary to the sort of personal being I think God is. So I’m kinda stuck between having to live in the tension of ostensibly affirming what is incongruous.
If Zimmerman really fixes things, then that’s the ticket. I wrote him an email yesterday and asked him to clarify. Let’s see what he says!
Tom