What Is Time?

[Laudate_Dominum]

There is a thread in the creepy aliens board on this but us old people shouldn't post there so I'm making a version in here.

Ok, so how would you all define time? What is it?

[ardillacid]

HA! I should be flattered.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

Thanks microsoft: :

time [tīm]
n
1. system of distinguishing events: a dimension that enables two identical events occurring at the same point in space to be distinguished, measured by the interval between the events. Symbol t
2. period with limits: a limited period during which an action, process, or condition exists or takes place
elapsed time

3. method of measuring intervals: a system for measuring intervals of time
sidereal time
Central Daylight Time

4. minute or hour: the minute or hour as indicated by a clock
What time is it?

5. time as a causative force: time conceived as a force capable of acting on people and objects
time’s ravages

6. moment something occurs: a moment or period at which something takes place
at the time of her 90th birthday

7. suitable moment: a moment or period chosen as appropriate for something to be done or to take place
The times for the games will be announced.

8. unallocated period: a period that is not allocated for a particular purpose
I had time on my hands

9. period needed: a period required, allocated, or taken to complete an activity
How much time?

10. period with a particular quality: a period, activity, or occasion that has a particular quality or characteristic (often used in the plural)
They’ve been through some rough times.
We had an interesting time there.

11. appointed moment: a designated or customary moment or period at which something is done or takes place
It’s time to get up.

12. U.K. closing time: the time at which a pub or bar is legally required to close
13. certain interval: a limited but unspecified period
We stayed for a time.

14. historical period: a period in history, often characterized by a particular event or person (often used in the plural)
in Shakespeare’s time
ancient times

15. now: the present as distinguished from the past or future (often used in the plural)
technology that is ahead of the times

16. geology geologic division: a chronological division of geologic history
17. anticipated moment: a moment in which some important event such as a birth or death is expected to happen
He knew his time had come.

18. somebody’s lifetime: a period during which somebody is alive, especially the most active or productive period in somebody’s life
She’d been a well-known athlete in her time.
We didn’t worry about such trifles in my time.

19. apprenticeship period: a period during which somebody is an apprentice
had served his time

20. prison term: a term in prison (informal)
serve time for robbery

21. military service: a term of military service
22. season: a period during which particular climatic conditions prevail
the rainy times of the year

23. instance: a separate occasion of a recurring event
I told you three times.

24. music tempo of music: the relative speed at which a musical composition is played
25. music musical beat: the number of beats per measure of a musical composition
26. period worked: the period during a day or week that somebody works
working half time

27. pay: a rate of pay
paid double time

28. sports playing period: a period of play in a game
29. sports See timeout n.1


v (past timed, past participle timed, present participle tim·ing, 3rd person present singular times)
1. vt measure how long something takes: to measure or record the duration, speed, or rate of something
2. vt schedule something: to plan the moment or occasion for something, especially in order to achieve the best result or effect
time an entrance

3. vt set the time of something: to regulate or set the time of something such as a clock or a train’s schedule
4. vi stay in rhythm: to keep time to a rhythmic or musical beat


[Old English tīma “period of time,” from a prehistoric Germanic base meaning “to extend,” which is also the ancestor of English tide]

all in good time no sooner than is appropriate
all the time continuously
at one time at a time in the past simultaneously
at the same time simultaneously nevertheless
at times sometimes
behind the times out of touch with modern fashions, methods, or attitudes
bide your time to wait patiently for the right opportunity
for the time being for a short period of time starting from now
from time to time occasionally
have no time for somebody or something to regard somebody or something with dislike or contempt
have the time of your life to have a very enjoyable experience
in good time early enough
got there in good time so we could find a parking space quickly
in (less than) no time in a very short period of time
in time early enough
We were in time for the concert. after some time has passed
He’ll understand in time that you were trying to help him. in the correct rhythm
clapping in time to the music
in your own time at a speed or pace that feels natural and comfortable
keep time to show the time accurately to do something in the correct rhythm, or in the same rhythm as somebody or something else
live on borrowed time to enjoy an unexpected extension of life
make time with somebody to pursue somebody as a sexual partner (informal)
mark time to continue marching in rhythm without moving forward to do something that makes no contribution toward achieving a goal or ambition while awaiting an opportunity to make progress
on time at the scheduled time
once upon a time used at the beginning of fairy tales and children’s stories to indicate that something happened a long time ago or in an imaginary world
on your own time not during working hours
pass the time of day (with somebody) to engage in casual conversation with somebody
play for time to delay action or a decision in the hope that conditions will be more favorable later on
take your time to take whatever time is necessary to do something unacceptably slowly
time after time or time and (time) again repeatedly
time out of mind for an extremely long time
time was there was a time in the past
Cultural Note

Once Upon a Time in the West, a western (1968) directed by Sergio Leone. Henry Fonda stars as a vicious gunman out to kill a feisty landowner, played by Claudia Cardinale, who is hoping to cash in on the Western expansion of the railroad. Charles Bronson, in the role of a mysterious character known as “Harmonica,” is meanwhile hunting down Henry Fonda. Ennio Morricone, who wrote the music for many such movies, composed the atmospheric score.
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='PadrePioOfPietrelcino' post='1064054' date='Sep 16 2006, 04:06 AM']
Thanks microsoft: :
time [tīm]
n
1. system of distinguishing events: a dimension that enables two identical events occurring at the same point in space to be distinguished, measured by the interval between the events. Symbol t
[/quote]
definetly the best

[Laudate_Dominum]

how bout some philosophical descriptions of time. Is time an actual metaphysical reality or is it perhaps merely a mental phenomena that we impose upon reality? Is time a substantial reality? Is time an accident? If time truly exists, has it always existed? Does time have any kind of existence outside the realm of change? What is change? What is a dimension? Is it possible to go backward in time? Why do we perceive time as having a kind of forward momentum and why don't we experience it in the reverse?
How do we explain perceptions of time passing more slowly or even time standing still? Could there be a continuum with multiple dimensions of time? What would it be like to experience time in three, four or five dimensions?

Let's talk about stuff like that.

I realize these sorts of questions often overlap with theology, physics and even psychology and other sciences, but philosophy is cool in that it can rightly utilize the ideas and data of all other fields.

[DAF]

THE QUOTE THINGY IS BEING WEIRD, SORRY IF IT LOOKS HARD TO READ

Time is the measure of change according to Augustine (maybe Aquinas, I confuse the two too much). God is not in time, ergo, God does not change.

[quote]Is time an actual metaphysical reality or is it perhaps merely a mental phenomena that we impose upon reality?[/quote]
It's an actual metaphysical reality, but I think there is a mental element there too, but just to the point of "we have to know it."

[quote]Is time a substantial reality?[/quote]
Depends on your definition of "substantial reality." I would say not because, as Aquinas or Augustine said, time is just the measurement of change. There's not much to say beyond that I don't think.

[quote]Is time an accident?[/quote]
Probably debatable too, but some theologians view it as a result of the Fall, because again, with the Fall, things changed-radically. :

[quote]If time truly exists, has it always existed?[/quote]
If not interpreting the Creation story literalistically, then yes, it's always existed. (probably, again all of these are topic for debate)

[quote]Does time have any kind of existence outside the realm of change?[/quote]
In the word it has existance always. If you mean "outside the realm of change" as "out of this lif" sort of thing, then I would say negative.

[quote]What is a dimension?[/quote]


[quote]What is change?[/quote]
The absence of consistent order (in the sense of "the way things were supposed/created to be"). This is a possible proof for the existance of God.

[quote]Is it possible to go backward in time?[/quote]
No.

[quote]Why do we perceive time as having a kind of forward momentum and why don't we experience it in the reverse?[/quote]
Because things are always changing to be different. If they changed to go back to the way things were (read 'time moving backwards or going back in time"), that couldn't necessarily be defined as "change" (again, in our use of the term).

Plus, it's not reasonable or logical for time to "move backwards." What does that mean anyway? I mean really.

[quote]How do we explain perceptions of time passing more slowly or even time standing still?[/quote]
Brain activity. When the brain is more active its not aware of the passing of "the measure of time" (read: "a clock") "Time flies when you're having fun." sort of thing.

Time wouldn't stand still because it's the measure of change. Time standing still would fundamentally lack change, and would therefore cease to be time. It would be something else (perhaps eternity?)

[quote]Could there be a continuum with multiple dimensions of time? What would it be like to experience time in three, four or five dimensions?[/quote]


Again, all of these are debatable.

Edited September 16, 2006 by DAF

[Justified Saint]

I guess M. Heidegger gives the best philosophical and phenomenological description of time (actually temporality) in [i]Being and Time[/i]. I wish I could remember what he said :

I even wrote a paper on it, what little good that did me.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Does anybody really care, L_D?












Any Chicago fans out there?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1064043' date='Sep 16 2006, 03:52 AM']
There is a thread in the creepy aliens board on this but us old people shouldn't post there so I'm making a version in here.

Ok, so how would you all define time? What is it?
[/quote]


Creepy. I just had to answer this question in my Japanese Religions class. Differentiating between the Western view of time and the Buddhist and Shinto views of time...

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1064913' date='Sep 17 2006, 02:24 AM']
Creepy. I just had to answer this question in my Japanese Religions class. Differentiating between the Western view of time and the Buddhist and Shinto views of time...
[/quote]
let's hear it.

[OLAM Dad]

God lives outside of time because He doesn't ever change. Therefore, I would suggest that time is the measurement of change.

[Era Might]

Makes sense I guess. And you can truly say that there has never been a time the created world didn't exist, because time began with the created world.

*Ponders the meaning of life*

Edited September 17, 2006 by Era Might

[N/A Gone]

oh honey(L_D)...why didnt you tell me you got me a gift...in all these warm and fuzzies I must remember some quotes from our first date




[quote]Remmeber, we are not arguing God as much as arguing what time is. and that is based on a former view of platonic time, where as now we have a better understanding that time is man-made and doesnt really exist as a dimension. So there is no past, there is no future there is only now and how things continue.Im not arguing that God doesnt know us. Just that the future doesnt exist yet in a determined factor. It is like saying God cant see the monkey on my lap. We are not arguing about what God can and cannot do, we are arguing over the monkey. So, i dont get ur problem[/quote]

[quote]A major premise, of u read my post is that the platonic system of time is not accurate, yet this is what most theology uses. Using a biblical relational view of God, as well as an understanding of modern cosmology shows that time isnt really a thing, but rather a way for us to measure change that finte objects undergo. But it isnt a dimension. In this thinking we must remember that Platonic thought said that a creature in perfection cant change or have different stimulus, because he couldnt maintain perfection and would either improve or decline. So this whole concept of "out of time" came out. But this is unbiblical and unlogical.

so basically open theism takes this one step farther. In that the future has not happened yet. And we are finite creatures we can not determine our destinys for we do not know all the different factors. But God knows all the factors so he knows all the possibilities, yet because we have free will the future is still known to God in possibilities. Perfect knowledge of those possibilites, but still not determined unless God wants to step in an settle something.[/quote]


[quote] believe that sound philosophical arguments support the open view in which God doesn’t foreknow the future free decisions of humans. My main reasons for holding this view are biblical and theological, but since truth is one we should expect that the truths of Scripture and the truths of reason will arrive at the same conclusion—if we interpret Scripture accurately and reason correctly.

I shall offer several arguments that it is logically impossible to affirm that God possesses exhaustively definite foreknowledge (EDF) while also affirming that humans or angels are free in the sense that they can determine what they are going to do within parameters.

(This is called “libertarian” or “self-determining” freedom. Some argue that creatures are free if they are simply able to choose what they want, though God determines their wants. But this much would be true if we were hypnotized to want something and were simply not prevented from choosing it. We are only free in a significant sense—in the “libertarian” or “self-determining” sense—to the extent that we determine our being, our desires, and our choices.)
The impossibility of changing the past


I believe the impossibility of changing the past is one of the strongest philosophical arguments showing the incompatibility of libertarian free will and EDF. Let three things be granted:
a) the past by logical necessity cannot be changed;

b) we are not free in relation to what we cannot change; and

c) we cannot change God’s knowledge (which, by definition, is perfectly accurate).
According to the classical view, from these three premises it follows that humans can be no more free regarding any future event (including their own chosen actions) than they are regarding any past event. For, if God possesses EDF, among the totality of things at any given moment in the past which we cannot change are the facts of all our future actions.

So, for example, I obviously can’t alter the fact that (say) a young Jewish girl named Zosia was tortured by Nazi soldiers on August 15, 1943, and hence I am not free to save her from this tragedy. Equally obvious is the fact that all determinate facts that constitute reality on August 15, 1943, are beyond the scope of my freedom. Since the past can no longer be other than it is, I am not free to alter it and thus cannot be held responsible to alter it.

But, assuming God possesses EDF, among all the unalterable determinate facts that comprised reality on August 15, 1943 is the determinate fact that (say) I shall marry my wife on August 18, 1979. The unimprovable definiteness of this truth was “there”—in God’s ever-contemporary EDF—among all the other determinate facts that constituted reality on August 15, 1943. In other words, if God were to catalog the contents of his omniscient mind in a volume entitled All the Unalterable Facts Known by the Omniscient Mind on August 15, 1943, my marriage on August 18, 1979 would be among them.

Thus it follows that I could be no more free to determine who I’d marry or when I’d marry her, than I was to determine the fate of Zosia. Both were part of the totality of reality of August 15, 1943, a reality I had nothing to do with even though it seemed like I did in 1979. Indeed, since I can change nothing about the past, and the book of All the Unalterable Facts Known by the Omniscient Mind is in the unalterable past, and on the EDF view this book contains the my entire future, it seems that I can be no more free with regard to any of my future than I am with regard to anything in the past because if EDF is true then my whole future is actually in the past!

Conversely, if assume that I do self-determine aspects of my future, it follows that what I shall end up doing could not be contained in God’s hypothetical book of unalterable facts in 1943. If I genuinely self-determined who I married and when I married her, then it could not have been a determinate fact 36 years before I chose it (and 14 years before I was even born) that I would marry my wife August 18, 1979.

In other words, for my future to be free it must partly consist of a genuine “possibly this or possibly that,” rather than exhaustively consisting of “certainly this and certainly not that.” I am only genuinely free to do x or y if it genuinely lies within my power to do x or y. But if God possesses EDF, then the entire history of the world—past, present, and future—is cataloged as “certainly this and certainly not that” in God’s omniscient mind. And in this case it cannot lie within my power to do other than God’s book said I would do before I was born. Hence, it seems that if God possess EDF, I cannot be genuinely free.
The meaning of self-determination
P1) Self-determination means that the self determines its actions, or it has no clear meaning. Regarding any genuinely free act, in other words, by definition the free agent ultimately determined that an action within the category of possibilities (“possibly this or possibly that”) would become something within the category of actualities (“certainly this and certainly not that.”)

P2) Retroactive causality does not occur.

P3) Hence, the determinateness given to an action by a self-determining agent cannot precede that agent’s self-determination (let alone eternally precede it!).
Conclusion: The determinateness of the acts which an agent self-determines cannot exist before the agent gives these acts determinateness. Hence the determinateness of such acts are not there to be known by God or anyone else as anything other than possibilities prior to the agent’s act of self-determination (let alone an eternity prior!).

Comment: Unless premise 2 is rejected and retroactive causation is granted—something few western philosophers have historically been willing to grant—then this conclusion is unavoidable. Either the determinateness of my actions comes from me, in which case I am self-determining, or it does not, in which case I am not self-determining. This much is tautology. If the determinateness eternally precedes me, it does not come from me. If, in other words, a given action of mine was in the category of determinate things (“certainly this and certainly not that”) an eternity prior to my making it so, then I did not make it so. For I am not an eternity old. Yet on the view that God possesses EDF, all future actions are eternally within this category. Hence no created being can be the originator of the determinateness of their actions—viz. no created being is self-determining. Conversely, if we grant that created beings are in fact self-determining, then God cannot possess EDF.
The distinction between possibility and actuality
P1) The fundamental distinction between possibility and actuality is that of indefiniteness and definiteness.

P2) Self-determination is the power to change possibility into actuality, thus indefiniteness into definiteness.

P3) If EDF is the case, then every event is definite before it occurs.

P4) There is no indefiniteness to the future.
Conclusion: The self has no power to change possibilities into actuality, indefiniteness into definiteness. That is, the self has no self-determination.

Comment: If the distinction between actuality and possibility is not that of definiteness and indefiniteness, then what is it? And if self-determination is not the ability to render possibilities actual, then what is it? If both P1 and P2 are granted, however, the possibility of affirming that the content of God’s foreknowledge is exhaustively definite while affirming self-determination is undermined. Unless the future is to some degree ontologically (not just epistemologically) open (viz. partly constituted by indefinite possibilities) then agents can’t turn possibilities into actualities and thus posess self-determination. Despite protests to the contrary, I do not see that classical-philosophical theism allows for real possibilities.
EDF and actual occurrences
P1) If God possesses EDF, the definiteness of all events eternally precedes their actual occurrence.

P2) Actuality is distinct from possibility in that actuality is characterized by definiteness, while possibility is characterized by indefiniteness.

P3) Thus, all events are actual before they are actual.
Conclusion: It is absurd to say that an event is actual before it is actual, thus (reductio ad absurdem) God does not possess EDF.

Comment: This argument raises the question, What does the actual occurrence of x add to God’s foreknowledge of x so as to distinguish the actual occurrence of x from the mere foreknowledge of x? If God’s experience of the actual occurrence adds anything to God’s foreknowledge, then God’s foreknowledge cannot be exhaustively definite. God learned what it was to experience x even if we concede that prior to this God had perfect propositional knowledge about x. If God’s experience of the actual occurrence of x adds nothing to God’s knowledge, however, then it becomes utterly impossible to render intelligible the distinction between a thing’s actual “occurrence” and its being “merely” foreknown.

In other words, if experience is the highest form of knowledge (and it most certainly is), then an exhaustively definite knowledge of x entails an unsurpassably perfect experience of x. Hence too, an exhaustively definite foreknowledge of x must entail an unsurpassably definite experience of x an eternity before x occurs.

To salvage EDF, then, we must either grant retroactive causation or grant divine timelessness. Whether these concepts are either philosophically or biblically defensible is questionable.
The cause of eternal definiteness
P1) Nothing contingent is uncaused.

P2) The definiteness of the actual world is contingent.

P3) The definiteness of the world is caused (from P1).

P4) If God possesses EDF, the world was perfectly definite (in God’s mind) an eternity before the world existed.

P5) The world can’t be the cause of its own definiteness, for it did not exist from eternity.

P6) God must be the sole cause for the world’s definiteness, or the world is not contingent.
Conclusion: I cannot be the cause of the definiteness of my own actions: I cannot be self-determining.

Comment: Two consistent views regarding the future and EDF are the Calvinist view of absolute predestination, and Spinoza’s view of a wholly necessary world. The future is eternally definite either because an eternal being willed it from eternity to be what it is, or because it is logically impossible, and thus eternally impossible, for it to be other than it is.

As theological determinists argue, the classical Arminian view, which affirms EDF while also affirming self-determination, is inconsistent. As Luther argued, “If God foreknows things, that thing necessarily happens. That is to say, there is no such things as free choice” (Bondage of the Will). Conversely, if one grants free choice, one must deny EDF.

The logic here is straightforward. On one hand, free agents determine their own actions. On the other hand, the definiteness of their actions is held to be eternal (in God’s EDF) though the free agent is not eternal. But how can a temporal cause produce an eternal effect?

Aquinas (following Aristotle) was more consistent in arguing that what is eternal cannot be contingent, for what is eternal could not have been other than it is. Hence Aquinas construes God as being the eternal cause of the temporal contingent world (though both he and Aristotle were less than consistent in working out the omni-deterministic implications of this view). It seems, then, that the cause of the eternal definiteness of God’s EDF regarding the totality of contingent world history cannot be the temporal, contingent world history itself.

One could perhaps argue that there is no cause to the eternally definite content of God’s foreknowledge. The knowledge is “just there” as an attribute of God’s omniscient nature. It’s not clear how this view improves matters, however.

If world history is exhaustively definite from all eternity, why is supposedly contingent reality eternally this way as opposed to eternally that way? The Calvinist view in which God is the explanation undermines creaturely self-determination, as Arminians argue. The Arminian view in which the future world itself is the explanation assumes either retroactive causation or divine timelessness, and both of these assumtions are highly problematic. But concluding that there is no cause doesn’t salvage the intelligibility of the position.

For one thing, postulating an uncaused fact denies the principle of sufficient reason. For another, construing the definiteness of my future as eternally uncaused is no more compatible with me possessing self-determining freedom than is construing it as eternally God caused. The problem with compatiblist freedom is the supposition that the future is definite before I make it so: how it became definite is in this respect inconsequential.

Thus, I argue that there is no way to render intelligible the EDF view that every aspect of my life is definite prior to my choosing it so, though I am free and morally responsible for the way I choose my life. Consequently, if one wishes to affirm libertarian freedom, they must deny that God possesses EDF in order to be logically consistent.[/quote]

[quote][color="#3366FF"]QUOTE
I categorically oppose Open Theism. Man's knowledge of time as a measure of movement between a and b is apprehended by memory and foresight. God however is timeless and exists in a never passing instant, the whole span of History is known to Him in that instant.[/color]

*** I know why Plato held this. But why would someone who believes in the bible?


QUOTE
[color="#3333FF"]God does not view time as we do, God has no time to view, He does not anticipate He knows. [/color]


*** Well then.


[color="#3366FF"]QUOTE
The future for God is not undecided and cannot be undecided.[/color]


***"cannot be"??? really?/ What if God WANTED to create a world where everything fact wasn't eternally decided. Is he saying he COULDN'T? Poor God could not experience a new thing if he wanted to!


QUOTE
[color="#3366FF"]The only way molinism would work would be if God were not timeless because then His knowledge would dependent on a time that has not yet occured.[/color]


*** Not sure what this has to do with open theism, but its a non-interesting assertion. Tell it to William Lane Craig, the main defender of Molinism today -- and a staunch temporal theist.


QUOTE
[color="#3366FF"]Before He created me He knew the final destination of my soul[/color]


*** Assertions repeating assertions. Is there an argument anywhere in here?


QUOTE
[color="#3366FF"]I dont know it because I am spacio-temporal being who must experience memory and foresight but God knew exactly what I would choose before I chose it because of His vantage point. God doesn't force me to choose anything but He does know what I will choose before I do so. He cannot not know because He is timeless.[/color]


*** Which is why he speaks of the future in terms of "ifs" and "mights" and "perhaps" in Scripture all the time?


QUOTE
[color="#3366FF"]Does this make my life determined? No it doesn't. Can I do anything other than what God knows I will do. No I cannot. But the key thing is that God doesn't force me to do those things. He knows what I will do because He is timeless and being timeless He cannot fail to know anything. [/color]


Of course, noone is saying God can fail to know anything. We're saying God IS ABLE to create a world where outcomes are POSSIBLE -- maybe this way, maybe that way. Your friend denies God's omnipotence because he says God CANNOT create a possibility if his life depended on it. Poor God.


[color="#3333FF"]QUOTE
Yet He knows what I will choose because I am the one doing the choosing. In His never passing instant He has knowledge of all my choices because the whole of time appears before His eyes like a big tapestry of which He is equally able to apprehend all parts at once--bad analogy. God knows it because I choose it, I dont choose it because God makes me choose it. Its because a timeless being has a fundamentally different knowledge of things than a being in time. God does not have foreknowledge because God does not have time. He sees all and knows all because He is timeless. He knows exactly how my life will turn out but only because He sees all of time in His instant and thus sees all the choices contained therein at once. [/color]


*** These are DECREES from an omniscient person who apparently needs no argumentation. There's no any argument here, either from scripture or philosophy.

Seems to me the God of the Bible is not frozen in eternal facts. Doesn't he talk about remembering and anticiapting the future alot? (hint: HE DOES) About regretting how decisions he's made turn out (e.g. Gen.6:6; I Sam. 15:12), about changing his mind after he's declared his intention to do something (Jere. 18:1-10), about the future being "if" and "maybe" and "perhaps" (e.g. Ex. 3:18-4:9; Ezek. 12:2-3; Ex. 13:17). Maybe the biblical authors should read Augustine and Boethius and Aquinas and other theologians in good standing.


QUOTE
[color="#3333FF"]To me thats not determinsm. It would only be determined if God was forcing me to choose what I choose and He doesnt. He knows what I will choose, He cannot fail to know because He has no time, but He doesnt will me to choose, for example, sin. Even though God knows my whole life it doesnt compromise my freedom of choice because my perception of time is completely contrasting to God's. God knows things because I choose them and being in a never passing instant He cannot help but see those choices. He doesnt choose my life for me [/color]


So you must have eternally chosen the facts of you life -- since the facts are eternal?

btw, i doubt Augustine would have sided theologically with this time model. But, it was more that all philosophy and science at that time held onto a plato model. Where as science now shows different. See, this isnt a theological issue, rather an issue over the nature of time. [/quote]

and the first love letter...

[quote]As a protestant I was considered an expert in the field of trinitarian warfare theodicy (*also called neo-mohlinism, or Open Theism) this is a common issue of debate within the evangelical community. As a catholic(long story) I have spent much time and energy debating this view as a valid expression of theodicy within doctrine. The problem is that I have only been able to find intellectuals with a thomist background and they historically don't like mohlism.

The dependence on platonic time is a hinderence here. I wish someone would decree that there are other ways to see this argument. Molinism, and neo molinism both consider God's middle knowledge, and accept that God knows all the possible outcomes perfectly, but there is an uncertainty at what we actually choose. God is always prepared, but the decision we make is not declared, so I am not saying God doesn't know, just that it isn't there to be known. I have check with priests, theologians and a bishop and the view of open theism acceptable within the church is mixed with them.

Augustine never thought of time in the sense that Thomas did, that is the hinderence in this argument. Also, you cant say it is free will, but that the will is known in choice, or determined, for that is not a free will, rather it is an inclined will. We must hold free will "as the second best give only to salvation" that God gives us. It is possible to reconcile this with predestination and other doctrines.

open theism is not a threat towards immutability.

a platonic influence that smokes late patristic thought. In Plato's system change, or the exposure to something changing has to cause either a better or a worse in the character BUT, Plato only thought that for creations that were incomplete. His concept of a complete creation would not be changed by exposure to things changing. So, even Plato would disagree here.

platonic time is that the concept that time is an experience that demands all function to be changed. Modern cosmology is debated on whether time is a function of science, or just a man made measure. For us, as temporal in the flesh we can record how we are changed, but it isn't a dimension that allows movement.

I do not believe omniscience is even redefined at all, i think it is the same, the essence of time is the only difference factor.

Immutability is seen within that time change or view. I still don't feel it is changed much. I am truthful in this.

I have an undergrad at a protestant school(double major pastoral leadership and bib/Theo studies and a minor in general studies patristic philosophy) but my masters program is catholic. I am not done with it yet, but I have formal catholic training in dogmatics as well as philosophy. I don't often argue with philosophy because my protestant roots run deep and it isn't common there. But I do have formal knowledge and concepts in philosophy. Trinitarian Warfare theodicy(the formal term for open theism) was my field as a protestant, so I have spent years on these subjects and as I became to catholicism this was the first issue I put through a fiddler. I am a catholic by faith, but my world view is open theism. My lens is open theism. I hope I have made sense.

I believe God knows everything, the argument is not that God doesn't know for that is heresy. Rather that the future is not a dimension that is determined. Time is simply a way of recording change in finite beings. That being said i affirm that God knows every possible action and influence perfectly, but for an action to be certain would to mean that we are determined,as a finite being we cant determine something in the future. So does that mean God does it for us? or that our actions are not determined? For a free will is influenced, but not controlled by outside factors. hope that helps for God, or anyone to "know" for certain what your choice will be means it is determined(or settled) which you can not freely settle at this moment, so that means you are there no freely choosing and the influences decide for you, or that God decides for you. This is where Calvinism gets much of its headwind from. the free will is the will the freely chooses, and to freely choose is to decide yourself, thus it is not set until the moment you decide. God knows all the possible choices and prepares for them perfectly, but not the actual choice you will make Ironically my work in the patristic proof for openness was something that brought me back to the church. Dr. Greg Boyd whom I personally mentored under is one of the better known evangelical apologetic theologians. He was one of the first theologians(catholic or protestant) to directly provide an official attack against the Jesus Seminar. He has written many books on these issues.

I don't feel the church has missed this. My understanding of official church doctrine is that predestination and free will both exist and there is nothing official forcing one view or the other. Also, from my talks with priests, catholic theologians and a bishop open theism works within catholicism. Many can argue that the works around Molinism, as well as Augustine in De lib arb(before retractions) point to a view as this. A clear exegesis of JOB points to an openness as well. The problem is as a thomist this view is hard to work along with the pseudo Calvin theory of time. IF the time theory is correct than I am in the wrong. But understand this debate is not about God, but rather the essence of what time is.

Also, as JPII wrote, the RC church has brought in gifts from the protestant churches. The RC church is complete in what we need for salvation, but to claim the theology and understanding is better than anything the protestants or Greek Orthodox do is prideful and ignorant. I G.O. have far better pneumatology, the evangelicals have a better understanding of personal intimacy, and who is going to knock what CS lewis has done for the church? What about eccesiology? even Avery Dullies will quote Dr. Braaten as an authority. Realize that the church has separations and those who call on God contribute to our understanding of Him. Remember as painful as the reformation was, it did trigger the counter reformation. The church does need to come to a more clear understanding of issues from time to time. Vat 2 proves that. and as I have said, this issue is more about time and stepping away from a platonic view of perfection

btw..Open theism is not processed theology

Weird, in any other arena this does not come up, but when I speak to educated catholics the default is to compare the two. Thats not bad, just interesting. This summer when I spent much time in dialogue with my priest and bishop about T.W.T.(the proper term, trinitarian warfare theodicy, or better yet neo-molinism) we first sorted this out. The short answer is that there are many parallel ideas between process and open theism (primarily the relation of time to creation; i.e. pansequentialism), but the sources of authority are completely different. Open theism arises out of biblical convictions and process is a philosophical metaphysic based on insights of Whitehead and Hartshorne. Open theists are usually Evangelical, process theists are not. Most of the controversy around open theism occurs within
evangelicalism where the concern is that it is a slippery slope infiltration from liberal theology.
Bottom line: Openness doesn't deny God's "self sufficient aseity" whereas Process theism does. The difference is the Trinity. Openness affirms that God is eternally "self-sufficient" in his internal
rationality whereas Process thought thinks the necessary rationality is between God AND THE WORLD.


This is more of a rejection of the Greek idea of actuality being the perfection of potentiality, which is heavily drawn on in the church. But I have a few problems with this.

* this is Plato, not the bible. In the Bible God interacts with us and
reacts to us, showing that God is in sequence with us.
* The center of our faith and the definitive revelation of God is Jesus
Christ. Taking our greatest clue for what God is like from the person of
Jesus Christ, how on earth would anyone come to the conclusion that God
is non-sequential. In Christ, the Word "was made" flesh." What does
this mean if it doesn't mean a) the was a "before" the Word was made
flesh and b) an "after" the Word was made flesh.
* what is imperfect about experiencing sequence? Plato thought a being
can only change for the better or for the worse, hence a perfect being
can't change at all, in any respect, and thus can't have a 'change in
time." But its bad reasoning. A perfect being can change not to
become better or worse, but just because ITS PERFECT TO CHANGE -- say,
in response to changing circumstances.
* God certainly doesn't measure time as we do -- for time is nothing
other than the measurement of change. But this is not to say God is not
IN SEQUENCE with us.
* the idea that all events in history are simultaneous from God's
perspectiveperspecdtive creates many problems. E.g. how can God eternally
experience a world that didn't timelessly exist? How are we free if
there never was a "before" to our free decisions? How can God BECOME
incarnate if he's eternally been incarnate? How does God respond to
anything if there's no before and after with him? Etc...
* Holding God timeless views reality doesn't give God any advantage
providentially. He's just eternally condemned to viewing how bad it all
turned out. The only God who can make a difference in how things turn
out is one who can ALTER a future that might otherwise have been.
* Quantum Theory, Neuroscience, Chaos Theory, Complexity Theory and
non-equilibrium thermodynamics are all moving in the direction of
affirming that sequence is REAL. TIME is becoming an necessary aspect of
their equations.
The core idea to me is that existence is fundamentally sequential. Even the expansion and collapse of the Universe points to this. Every thing that exists experiences befores, durings, and afters. How that is measured is what we call "time". But that sequence occurs is the basic idea. Even for God, as God is relational within the Trinity. Otherwise, God would not be an active, dynamic, Creator God, but simply a divine first idea that somehow actualized existence without actually doing anything. Every
verb in our language presupposes sequence. the non-sequential God is the ultimate God. So God in himself is non-sequential. If the reply is that God's sequential experience is just as fundamental as his non-sequential nature, then the statement "God is both sequential and non-sequential" constitutes a contradiction -- God is "A" and "not A". What does "sequential" mean if its not the denial of
"non-sequential" and vice versa.

All of this assumes that "perfect knowledge of reality" is equivalent to "knowledge of what shall be" which assumes that reality is exhaustively settled from all eternity, otherwise God couldn't know it as such. Why assume this? Might it be that possibilities are REAL? And if possibilities are real, an omniscient God would know it as such? Why assume reality is eternally and exhaustively settled?

Its an odd view that comes from Plato, not the Bible.
open theism says some things are settled, but most are open. It doesn't limit God. even the things that are open the perfectly understands as possibilities. Also, Christ, as the creeds say, has always been. And the role of Mary, as one of the possibilities, was always known. I'm not arguing that God doesn't know the future. I just say he knows it as possibilities, not as absolutes.

yes, I affirm God knows everything that will and can happen. But he knows them as possibilities based on all possible outcomes available, and in this perfect middle knowledge(the term molinists use) God still knows absolutely all that will be. He can be prepared and work with anything because of this perfect knowledge. Yet, it is still open to the choices of our free will. There are times in the scripture, old test mostly where God asks a question or tests someone. We believe God knows all the possible outcomes perfectly, but which one is chosen is Dependant on our free will.

I'm sorry for the sheer length of this, but I wanted to put the concept, as well as the popular catholic objections on the table. Thank you for any time you put into this. Btw. I know “ott” determines Open theism to be a heresy, but in its understanding of open theism I believe it was influenced by anti-open theists(*like using jack chick as a source of whats wrong with Marian devotion) [/quote]

ahh la moure...

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1064922' date='Sep 17 2006, 03:42 AM']
let's hear it.
[/quote]
Oh it really wasn't anything philosophical or deep... . We just talked about how time in Western Culture is of a linear nature, and how in Shinto circles it's circular (time repeats itself), and in Buddhist it's like all over the place, back forward up down like a spiderweb if one were to draw it. I didn't understand really the Buddhist concept at all.