Why God Is Not In Time

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

I’ll just post this here too:

@Dale

@Benjamin87

I’m not going to argue about time in relation to God.

That’s wise of you. You might however marvel and worship about God’s sovereignty over it by contemplating his works of providence. There is quite a bit posted about it. One place is here, another here (an especially fun example in my life) …and both above that post and below it as well.

[Benjamin87 (B)]

@Dale

I’ll just post this here too:

@Dale

@Benjamin87

I’m not going to argue about time in relation to God.

That’s wise of you. You might however marvel and worship about God’s sovereignty over it by contemplating his works of providence. There is quite a bit posted about it. One place is here, another here (an especially fun example in my life) …and both above that post and below it as well.

I’m sorry. But I cannot indulge personal testimony of God acting in people’s lives. I’ve seen too many horrors that a little providence could have easily thwarted.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Benjamin87

But I cannot indulge personal testimony of God acting in people’s lives.

That’s pretty funny, considering all of the personal testimony indulged in in the Bible, and in particular the NT.

@Benjamin87

I’ve seen too many horrors that a little providence could have easily thwarted.

That’s the typical atheist’s excuse for not believing in God. Theodicy is a whole 'nuther discussion.

[Benjamin87 (B)]

@Dale

That’s pretty funny, considering all of the personal testimony indulged in in the Bible, and in particular the NT.

I know. I just don’t think God is here right now. Not like He used to be. The Nobleman has gone away to a far off land to become king. And His servants are left to their own devices. The Parable of the Ten Minas is my view on Christ’s ascension and eventual return. I believe we’re on our own, the Comforter has been sent, yes, but not to perform miracles or save us from traffic collisions. No, the Comforter keeps our hopes in Christ’s promises strong.

I see it all the time. Cancer patients have some of the strongest faith in Christ’s promise… They still die from the disease. But they’re more hopeful than you or I at our best, somehow. I don’t understand it.

I imagine you will vehemently oppose this view though But I cannot be swayed otherwise.

[Benjamin87 (B)]

I’m not ready to rejoice just yet. Christ has not returned.

I used to go to Church with my wife, she’d still have me go but I cannot endorse the place. Anyway, they were singing, terribly as is often the case, a song. The lyrics consisted of “oh, death, where is your sting?” And the over all message they were giving off was that death no longer bothered them, it had no sting anymore. It was based on 1 Corinthians 15:55.

However, a Month later the lead Pastor’s dad died and they held a large, mournful dedication to the man. The Pastor was deeply saddened and affected by his Dad’s death, as is the norm. I thought then how quickly they had jumped the gun. Where is death’s sting, sir? Well, is it not in your heart right now?

They got carried away and started celebrating too early.

The point is, the world is still a terrible, wicked place. And death lurks around every corner. I cannot support the idea of modern miracles when things like Children’s Hospitals exist. One day, I believe they will no longer be necessary. But until then, no, I will not rejoice. The struggle is too real to me. For every happy, singing face I see in a church building, I see more tears and suffering outside. Funnily enough, isn’t it those in the building that should be out there with them? Yet they’re not… They’re happy in their little bubble of bliss. I find them to be… Not my cup of tea.

I will grant that my stubborness and opposition to following the current has been a boon for my faith. I rarely fall into falseness. I am rarely fooled by deceitful hearts. And I quest and question for the truth. I’ve found if you open your heart too much, you’ll let anything in.

I’d rather be true to who I am before God. Than to fake it till I make it just to please Him. Would He even want to have a relationship with a person like that?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Sure, but I can suspect you grieve the Holy Spirit, maybe by not doing all you ought or could (not that I do)?

ETA:

@Benjamin87

I’d rather be true to who I am before God.

Maybe by paying more attention to who he is and what he has done, and less to yourself? And appreciating what he has done in others’ lives too? Maggie’s is a good example!

[Benjamin87 (B)]

@Dale

Sure, but I can suspect you grieve the Holy Spirit, maybe by not doing all you ought or could (not that I do)?

If I thought it would make a real difference, I’d burn myself out to do it.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

My ETA posted after I saw your last. Paying attention to Magge’s factual account should be refreshing to a Christian.

[Benjamin87 (B)]

I came to faith, not through emotion, but intellectual pursuit. There was no religious influence in my conversion from agnostic to theist. I studied enough arguments to believe. I found some truth in many denominations, but ultimately threw them all out. I’ve not had any emotional experience lead me anywhere but trouble. I suspect that is where you and I differ.

I am not interested in appeals to emotion. The stories of those who found God when they were at rock bottom. Good for them. I hope it is true and not them reading into life what they want to see.

There was a story I heard, about a guy who got really drunk at a party. In the morning he was supposed to travel home with some friends in the back of their car. But he was too hung over to get up and go that early, telling them he’ll find another way home later.

The car he was supposed to be in got rear-ended by a truck. He would have died.

Was it God? Or was it beer that saved his life?

[Benjamin87 (B)]

What was God doing 400 Trillion years ago?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Dale

It has to do with trust…

For some, it is baby steps, at first. For others, it can happen all at once. Some resist but finally accept, and many reject and refuse out of hand. It is definitely personal and experiential (Spurgeon would say ‘experimental’, in 19th century English ) and there can be counterfeit experiences (as well as counterfeit witnesses), and it is not all just intellectual. I, for example, could not tell you date, hour and minute when I became a Christian. There are probably some Christians who would doubt that I even was a Christian and find my faith suspect, since there was no conscious ‘decision’ on my part that I can point to. There can be false ‘decisions’ [merely emotional ones which you are wise to be wary of, and also to be wary of are those made from peer or cultural pressure, perhaps unconsciously, because “it’s what you do”], as well.

When I was a child, I freely accepted the testimony that that Japan existed. I was given it from trusted sources – my parents, teachers, pictures, books, maps and globes. I was a ‘believer’ in the existence of Japan, or maybe more accurately a ‘believist’, a ‘Japanist’, making a somewhat esoteric and technical distinction. Now that I have been there and have seen it firsthand, I am not going to deny its existence, and I am a ‘believer’ – a ‘Japaner’.

A believer, then, is someone who has had something irrefutable happen in their life experience and which they will never deny as being legitimate evidence. That evidence can be as personal and intimate as a recognition of a change in heart – a change in their heart’s desires and a willingness to trust and to be obedient, but it can also include empirical events that can be documented. Either can certainly be denied as being evidence by others, as flat earthers deny any and all evidence that the earth is spherical, but denial does not constitute proof of the contrary fact. There are many who count themselves as believers, or say that they used to be believers and have ‘deconverted’, when in fact they are now or used to be merely ‘believists’.

ETA: A believist can acknowledge Christian doctrines as true or admirable and affirm them, but what matters is the heart and the heart’s desires, not the intellect alone.

[Kendel]

• Assume legitimate Christian faith on the part of other people, unless they identify otherwise. The purpose of discussions here is not to judge the legitimacy or efficacy of anyone’s faith or lack of faith.
  (See: FAQ - The BioLogos Forum)

[Terry_Sampson]

• Time in physics is operationally defined as “what a clock reads”.[6][13][14]
• The universe is filled with “clocks”, literally and metaphorically. In fact, the universe is a clock. Ergo, anyone who thinks “God is not in Time” appears to believe that God is not “in” the universe, or may be manifesting schizophasia, or both.
• The fact that there are so many clocks, literally and metaphorically, in the universe, and the fact that physics denies Absolute Time appears to be the reason that there is no “Absolute Now” in the universe, which may go a long way toward explaining why the universe is “Godless”.
• P.S.
  • Neo-Lorentzian Relativity and the Beginning of the Universe, Daniel Linford (September 20, 2021). Abstract:
    • Many physicists have thought that absolute time became otiose with the introduction of Special Relativity. William Lane Craig disagrees. Craig argues that although relativity is empirically adequate within a domain of application, relativity is literally false and should be supplanted by a Neo-Lorentzian alternative that allows for absolute time. Meanwhile, Craig and co-author James Sinclair have argued that physical cosmology supports the conclusion that physical reality began to exist at a finite time in the past. However, on their view, the beginning of physical reality requires the objective passage of absolute time, so that the beginning of physical reality stands or falls with Craig’s Neo-Lorentzian metaphysics. Here, I raise doubts about whether, given Craig’s NeoLorentzian metaphysics, physical cosmology could adequately support a beginning of physical reality within the finite past. Craig and Sinclair’s conception of the beginning of the universe requires a past boundary to the universe. A past boundary to the universe cannot be directly observed and so must be inferred from the
      observed matter-energy distribution in conjunction with auxilary hypotheses drawn from a substantive physical theory. Craig’s brand of Neo-lorentzianism has not been sufficiently well specified so as to infer either that there is a past boundary or that the boundary is located in the finite past. Consequently, Neo Lorentzianism implicitly introduces a form of skepticism that removes the ability that we might have otherwise had to infer a beginning of the universe. Furthermore, in analyzing traditional big bang models, I develop criteria that Neo-Lorentzians should deploy in thinking about the direction and duration of time in cosmological models generally. For my last task, I apply the same criteria to bounce cosmologies and show that Craig and Sinclair have been wrong to interpret bounce cosmologies as including a beginning of physical reality.
    • Forthcoming in the European Journal for Philosophy of Science.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Edited. We need to examine ourselves and

@Kendel

judge the legitimacy or efficacy of [our own] faith or lack of faith.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Regardless, God is still not constrained by time.

@Dale

A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
Psalm 90:4

And

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
2 Peter 3:8

[Kendel]

Dale, these judgements are not for you to be handing down:

@Dale

Yes, pretty much. You did not get that idea from the Bible nor from the Holy Spirit, and it is not a faithful one. Your mere intuition is leading you astray again.

@Dale

Another reason to feel sorry for you – the Bible speaks about stubbornness often enough, and you apparently ignore that as well. Your life is poorer because of it.

@Dale

2

(It seems your eyes are fixed earthward and you are paying attention to the wrong things – what we pay attention to is a continuous moral choice that we make.)

@Dale

Sure, but I can suspect you grieve the Holy Spirit, maybe by not doing all you ought or could (not that I do)?

@Dale

Maybe by paying more attention to who he is and what he has done, and less to yourself?

@Dale

Paying attention to Magge’s factual account should be refreshing to a Christian.

@Dale

ETA: A believist can acknowledge Christian doctrines as true or admirable and affirm them, but what matters is the heart and the heart’s desires, not the intellect alone.

@Dale

Edited. We need to examine ourselves and

@Kendel

judge the legitimacy or efficacy of [our own] faith or lack of faith.

Go and do likewise, Dale.
The rest of us are doing our own work of self-examination in whatever way the Lord leads us. YMMV.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Dale

A believist can acknowledge Christian doctrines as true or admirable and affirm them, but what matters is the heart and the heart’s desires, not the intellect alone.

You have an issue with that and don’t think it’s true?

[Benjamin87 (B)]

@Dale

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Objection! Relevance.