panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Not trying to stifle the discussion, but much of this rationale seems like it could easily lead to Open Theism.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am surprised no one raised Possible World Semantics. That could solve one area of it.
Jacob, can you elaborate a little about what you had in mind with modal logic?
Not too much, because I am weak in modal logic. But I remember reading something from Kelly James Clark's Return to Reason, a few essays by Bill Craig, and a chapter in William Rowe's Philosophy of Religion. I will see if I can find them later.
However, here is what I was thinking: If I can exist on certain worlds, and these worlds do exist (don't ask how), then I would ask "Do they exist simultaneously?" If so, then my question is moot. If not, then the question of God and time might be related.
Not trying to stifle the discussion, but much of this rationale seems like it could easily lead to Open Theism.
Oddly enough Kreeft has a very interesting Chapter in his book Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven. The chapter is Chapter Ten: Is there Time in Heaven? Chapter 11 is entitled: What is Eternity?
There are some interesting portions:
The image of eternity as a point does, however, contain an essential truth: that eternity is not spread out like time. It is simultaneously present all at once, not piece by piece in passing. The answer to the question "What time is it in eternity?" is: Now. Thus Boethius' classic definition of eternity is "the simultaneous possession of all perfection in a single present"...One of the reasons we need eternity is so that our lives can finally have that wholeness, that oneness, that all-together-ness.
But we need no dimensional analogy, for we can be literal about dimensions: if there are three dimensions of space and time is the forth dimension, then eternity is the fifth dimension. Eternity includes time as time includes space. He then goes on to say that, unfortunately, it is a bit more complicated that that. Eternity is the sixth dimension, kairos-time the fith, and eternity the sixth. Thus there are three temporal dimensions, just as there are three spatial dimensions. Chronos is the first temporal dimension, like a line; kairos is the second, like a surface; and eternity is the third, like a solid: the concrete reality of which the others are only abstract aspects.
We need an image that will combine the truth symbolized by the point ( viz., that in eternity all time is present at once, rather than dispersed into past and future) with the truth symbolozed by the solid body ( viz., that time is only the abstract boundary of a fully eternity).
A medieval image for God was "a spiritual sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere". The universe images God in these two ways: its center is also everywhere, because there is no absolute center in relative space; and its circumference is nowhere because its boundaries ( finitude ) are everywhere in it, not outside it.
Anyhow, he deals a lot with Kairos and Chronos, but much of what he says seems speculative on the one hand but comes off as sounding sensible on the other. There are "some" scripture references here and there, but I think there is a lot philosophical reaching going on. I know this doesn't deal directly with your questionm but thought it might interest you.
I had Kreeft in mind but I didn't want to invoke him because people would get mad at me for quoting a Catholic.
I don't know if God can go back in time... but I sure wish I could!
am *I* saved in all possible *real* worlds sufficently similar to ours?
linkFor many open theists, the “future” is not a present reality — it does not exist — and God knows reality as it is
Oddly enough Kreeft has a very interesting Chapter in his book Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven. The chapter is Chapter Ten: Is there Time in Heaven? Chapter 11 is entitled: What is Eternity?
There are some interesting portions:
The image of eternity as a point does, however, contain an essential truth: that eternity is not spread out like time. It is simultaneously present all at once, not piece by piece in passing. The answer to the question "What time is it in eternity?" is: Now. Thus Boethius' classic definition of eternity is "the simultaneous possession of all perfection in a single present"...One of the reasons we need eternity is so that our lives can finally have that wholeness, that oneness, that all-together-ness.
But we need no dimensional analogy, for we can be literal about dimensions: if there are three dimensions of space and time is the forth dimension, then eternity is the fifth dimension. Eternity includes time as time includes space. He then goes on to say that, unfortunately, it is a bit more complicated that that. Eternity is the sixth dimension, kairos-time the fith, and eternity the sixth. Thus there are three temporal dimensions, just as there are three spatial dimensions. Chronos is the first temporal dimension, like a line; kairos is the second, like a surface; and eternity is the third, like a solid: the concrete reality of which the others are only abstract aspects.
We need an image that will combine the truth symbolized by the point ( viz., that in eternity all time is present at once, rather than dispersed into past and future) with the truth symbolozed by the solid body ( viz., that time is only the abstract boundary of a fully eternity).
A medieval image for God was "a spiritual sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere". The universe images God in these two ways: its center is also everywhere, because there is no absolute center in relative space; and its circumference is nowhere because its boundaries ( finitude ) are everywhere in it, not outside it.
Anyhow, he deals a lot with Kairos and Chronos, but much of what he says seems speculative on the one hand but comes off as sounding sensible on the other. There are "some" scripture references here and there, but I think there is a lot philosophical reaching going on. I know this doesn't deal directly with your questionm but thought it might interest you.
I had Kreeft in mind but I didn't want to invoke him because people would get mad at me for quoting a Catholic.
LOL
I can take the heat. I like Kreeft. He has some good things to say, but it's fairly easy to discern when he's doing philosophy and not theology. So much of your question, and the things that surrround it, is speculative. On the one hand we have j.Budziszewski telling us things "We Can't Not Know" ( Great book by the way ), on the other we have Kreeft, telling us things "We Can't Know" but Like to think we Do!
am *I* saved in all possible *real* worlds sufficently similar to ours?
This seems like a similar track, in essence, to:
linkFor many open theists, the “future” is not a present reality — it does not exist — and God knows reality as it is
Why even open the door for multiple worlds or a "fuzzy futures"? It seems like dangerous and unproductive speculation.
For what purpsoe wold He need to go back in time...to correct a mistake?
That was my initial thought as well. I fail to see a reason why He'd need to go back. But, that still doesn't answer the question of the OP
I had Kreeft in mind but I didn't want to invoke him because people would get mad at me for quoting a Catholic.
LOL
I can take the heat. I like Kreeft. He has some good things to say, but it's fairly easy to discern when he's doing philosophy and not theology. So much of your question, and the things that surrround it, is speculative. On the one hand we have j.Budziszewski telling us things "We Can't Not Know" ( Great book by the way ), on the other we have Kreeft, telling us things "We Can't Know" but Like to think we Do!
I love Kreeft. I have listened to all of his lectures and read much of his works. The Official Peter Kreeft Site
For what purpsoe wold He need to go back in time...to correct a mistake?
That was my initial thought as well. I fail to see a reason why He'd need to go back. But, that still doesn't answer the question of the OP
Well, perhaps we could make something out of this yet!
Let's see....
Now, depending on how "can" is being used in the OP, the only (or one of the) way to argue for the negative is to come up with some sort of logical contradiction.
But, we could at least offer some reasons which suggest strong(er) prima facie reasons against the OP (and, depending on how we work with the below, perhaps contradicts could be manufactured; but it's notoriously hard to show a genuine contradiction in topics like these).
Okay, let's apply a (seemingly) uncontroversial proposition: for any event contingent fact F, there is a reason for F. Call this the principle of sufficient reason PSR. Let's also stipulate a (seemingly) uncontroverisal premise for an evangelical Christian - God never does something for no reason. God does everything for a reason. Call this GR.
So, since it doesn't seem *necessary* that God would have to go back in time, it would be a contingent event.
What reasons would there be for going back in time? it would seem like all we could think of wouldn't serve for a reason for God. To "fix" something that went wrong? Not on our view. To "see" some historical person? No, he would've already. To "change" some state of affairs? Why change his plan? So, there seems like there would be no reason for God to go back in time.
This would lead us to this:
If God went back in time, it would be for no reason. Thus it seems like the assumption that God would go back in time violates PSR and GR.
But God is everlastingly "in" the past, present, and future. He cannot go there any more than he can "go" to Cleveland. He's already there.