Monday, March 05, 2018

I am the Zapata of temporal theory



Image result for zapata




Remember this image, a giant room with nothing in it save for a man holding a beach ball. The room is the void beyond time, man is God, and the beach ball is space-time.

I claim no expertise in the area of temporal theory. I have studied temporal theory, When I first went into doctoral work everyone in the program was talking about a book called Time's Arrow[1], and it;s implications for theory of Time.In a class we discussed time and red Frazier's Time the familiar Stranger [2] that further gave me some grounding in temporal theory, in light of big bang, quantum physicists and so on, But two books does not an expert make I don't claim to be one.But  in an  attempt to be clear I will try and say something coherent about the lattes stage in my attempt to come  to grips with it. People seem to choose the temporal theories that would spell to the kind of world they want to live in, It has been suggested that art and social science  barrow from physical sciences for their major metaphors but I am not so sure it doesn't go the other way around.

The major division in modern temporal theory has come to be known as A theory and B theory of time. Many think it is a division between Newton and Einstein.[3] In  that dichotomy the conventional concept or time based appearances: past, present, and future. Bit there's another way of looking at it, more relative and more localized. In that view time is exoticism all at once, divisions of time are illuisary and relative, This is called the B theory; the notion of two types of temporal theory, A, and B, actually goes back to a philosopher named JME McTarrart.
McTaggart begins his argument by distinguishing two ways in which positions in time can be ordered. First, he says, positions in time can be ordered according to their possession of properties like being two days futurebeing one day futurebeing presentbeing one day past, etc. (These properties are often referred to now as “A properties.”) McTaggart calls the series of times ordered by these properties “the A series.” But he says that positions in time can also be ordered by two-place relations like two days earlier thanone day earlier thansimultaneous with, etc. (These relations are now often called “B relations.”) McTaggart calls the series of times ordered by these relations “the B series.”[4]
Despite the B approach being more concerned with relative aspects it still produces a naturalism that reduces to  deterministic preconceived condition separate from mind and transcendent of our understanding. All relative aspects of time are illusory:

According to B-theorists, B-relations (‘earlier than’ and ‘later than’, see, e.g. Oaklander 2004: 24–25) constitute the reality of time. The B-relations are what distinguish our world from a timeless one. Yet our only awareness of the reality of time comes via our phenomenology of temporal passage. Why is this noteworthy? Our temporal phenomenology is mind-dependent and reflects no feature of reality. Epistemic access to the reality of time is, in fact, simply epistemic access to our own inner phenomenology. It doesn’t reflect the way reality is. Hence, we have no understanding of what ‘B-time’ is.[5]
Tallant names three aspects of mid dependent becoming that relativize time: the sensation that each each moment is now, the passage of each moment into the next the next, and  the inability to perceive past and future.[6] Contemporary do considered these ideas sacrosanct, there's a new revolution underway, The Zapata of temporal theory these days is physicist Lee Smolin. He proposes adoption of a new paradigm that embraces the reactivity of B theory but without eschewing mind-dependent aspects. The new paradigm would regard everything beyond the illusion a black box we don;t talk about it, We assume the flow of time is real. As opposed to B theory as it is that sees flow as illusion.[7] 

Thinkers on the video supporting Smolin are talking as through economists and philosophers and other liberal arts and social sciences thinkers are borrowing from science,.But Smolin's  new paradigm  seems based upon a scientific  realism that assumes the flow of as real because it is perceived as such. This kind of realism, that seems to be the new trend in temporal theory.[8] They are basing this idea not upon some amazing data that physicists have discovered through new technology but based upon philosophical considerations of the insufficiency of the previous paradigm,

I said all that to say this:It's obvious to me that no one really knows how it is. My views are not in line with any of the conventional, they are old fashioned but they have an update but it's in light of the realization that no one knows. I really don't care, the one thing that comes through in all of this is the realization that it's all up for grabs. Smolin is actually trying to just overturn the paradigm on time in order to be more friendly to social concerns and ideology, They are blatantly seeking ideological accommodation and willing to have a revolution in temporal theory to pull it off. No one knows the truth, Temporal theory is not holy it's not sacrosanct. It does not have to be limited to A or B.

My view is along the ones of C.S. Lewis's view but I've realized something about his view that changes the whole conception. Lewis seems to resort to  the timelessness of God's existence to explain answered prayer, So God has time to consider each request because he's doing so from beyond time, That implies a huge contradiction not only because it'[s beyond time there could be no change but also because God would view events in time as physical objects and  he would have to change them, There's no logic or fact to prove the impossibility of this view so if God can keep straight the possible worlds from the actual,  there's nothing to stop it,My only concern is that God is real and what that implies, not how to go around God's reality, as i think Smolin and other;s seek to do.

Lewis uses a analogy of a novelist moving from the time frame of his novel to real world, I had seen this as contradiction until I relied it's a metaphor,I think all that Lewis says about God and time is metaphor.

The way in which my illustration breaks down is this. In it the author gets out of one Time-series (that of the novel) only by going into another Time-series (the real one). But God, I believe, does not live in a Time-series at all. His life is not dribbled out moment by moment like ours: with Him it is, so to speak, still 1920 and already 1960. For His life is Himself. If you picture Time as a straight line along which we have to travel, then you must picture God as the whole page on which the line is drawn. We come to the parts of the line one by one: we have to leave A behind before we get to B, and cannot reach C until we leave B behind. God, from above or outside or all round, contains the whole line, and sees it all.[9] 
For Lewis this does not limit God to being impersonal. The standard conceptualization of A or B might so limit God but believers are into transcending limits. I did not make this up Neither did Lewis, it goes all the way back to St. Augustine. The thing is I don't like using the term "personal" because that has connotations that would not pertain to God  as a personality (personalities have hangups--God cannot have hangups). God is possessed of a level of consciousness such that "he" transcends anything we can imagine.

That's the thing with all of these ideas, They all have to be understood eventually as metaphors. This leads to the last great concept I will part with, I discuss this in the final chapter of the Trace of God. It is not literal nature of an utterance  that enables meaning but metaphor. The play and the "wiggle room" are what allow for meaning,the ability to extrapolate give the proper bit of play and flexibility needed to shift meanings and move from one concept to another. Lewis uses the image of the line on the page,our lives are the line and God is the page. Remember the guy with the beach ball? This is at the top of this post, That is the conventional view of God and time, This is my view, no man  the room is God, The room itself is God, the beach ball is space/time, but the room is God, That means God is not limited to temporal access. Yet this analogy is limited too because a room is impersonal and I think God has will, volition, and knows my name. I'll take up this paradox on Wednesday.





Sources

[1] Michael C. Mackey, Time's Arrow: The Origimn of Thermodynamic Behavior. New York: 
Springer-Verlag New York, 1992, no page indicated.

[2] J.T. Fraser, Time The Familiar Stranger. Cambrodge, Mass.:University of Massachusetts Press; First edition (November 12, 1987)

[3]Brian Greene on The B-Theory of Time,Zehadi Alam
Published on May 3, 2014 film on you tube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1WfFkp4puw&t=675s
(accessed 3/2/18)

[4]  Ned Markosian,  "Time", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/time/>.

see also internet cyclopedia of philosophy
https://www.iep.utm.edu/time/#H7

[5]Jonathan Tallant, "What is 'B Time,'?"Analysis, Volume 67, Issue 2, 1 April 2007, Pages 147–156,https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/67.2.147
(3/3/18)

Jstor
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25597792?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[6] Ibid

[7] "A New Theory of Time - Lee Smolin," Video, You Tube, The RSA (Published on Jul 24, 2013)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hi4VbERDyI
(accessed 3/3/18)

[8]Shawn Radcliff, "The Flow of Time in a Timeless Universe. Latest Dialogues, stationary webwite, no dateidicated
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/the-flow-of-time-in-a-timeless-universe/
(accessed 3/3/18)

Here I must enter the caveat that they are using quantum theory and I'm not sure if that means it's B theory or a new third thing. I don't really care.

[9] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, PDF version, no page indicated, section "book IV part 3." from new material in the revised edition by HarperCollins "Beyond Personality" 1980, original copyright 1952.Lewis pic ltd.
https://www.dacc.edu/assets/pdfs/PCM/merechristianitylewis.pdf
(accessed 3/5/18)






47 comments:

JBsptfn said...

Quote"For Lewis this does not limit God to being impersonal. The standard conceptualization of A or B might so limit God but believers are into transcending limits. I did not make this up Neither did Lewis, it goes all the way back to St. Augustine. The thing is I don't like using the term "personal" because that has connotations that would not pertain to God as a personality (personalities have hangups--God cannot have hangups). God is possessed of a level of consciousness such that "he" transcends anything we can imagine."Quote

Exactly, especially the part about the term "personal". Good job, Joe.

Joe Hinman said...

thanks JB good to see you again.

7th Stooge said...

There's a lot here to talk about. I think that for us humans, things like consciousness, emotion, personality, volition, decision and acting are all essentially bound up with the A Series of time. Also I'd say that human free will and free action, if there are such things, are also dependent upon an A understanding of time. As you say, God is probably beyond our ability to conceptualize, so maybe God can be conscious, personal, etc without participating in the A series. The thing is that the A series has to be "real" for us, at least phenomenologically, in the same way that consciousness must be real for us phenomenologically. And for God to truly understand what it's like to be us, he would have to experience time in the way we do. Not to say that God is limited to this experience, but it seems that to really "feel along" with us, there'd have to be an aspect of God's experience in which the moment "now" has real ontoligical purchase and that the future is truly "open" ontologically. To extend lewis's metaphor, a novelist must be able to at least imaginatively "participate" in the world of her characters, including their temporal world, a sense in which "now" is real and the future is undecided.

I tend to favor a di- or multi-polar idea of god, that God has a temporal aspect or pole and a non-temporal aspect. The temporal aspect is where consciousness, personality, emotion, etc reside in God while the non-temporal is more like a timeless Platonic realm of the Forms. Of course you can come back and say that God is beyond our udnerstanding, but in that case, all bets are off and three's no point in trying to make as much sense of God as we possibly can. If the "mystery card" is taken too far, then what's the point of theology of philosophy of God at all?

Mike Gerow said...

If not, you can only talk about where human ideas and practices around God "point to" (a la Tillich in some ways).

Joe Hinman said...

I get confused, some people talk about A as impersonal,timeless, beyond everything just mathematical. some talk like that's the B after take out the phenomenological which is also B, recognizes the illusory nature of all that is not mathematical.

Joe Hinman said...

I tend to favor a di- or multi-polar idea of god, that God has a temporal aspect or pole and a non-temporal aspect. The temporal aspect is where consciousness, personality, emotion, etc reside in God while the non-temporal is more like a timeless Platonic realm of the Forms. Of course you can come back and say that God is beyond our udnerstanding, but in that case, all bets are off and three's no point in trying to make as much sense of God as we possibly can. If the "mystery card" is taken too far, then what's the point of theology of philosophy of God at all?

process theology,I can;t tell you iit;s Whithead or Hartshorne or both.

im-skeptical said...

I get confused, some people talk about A as impersonal,timeless, beyond everything just mathematical. some talk like that's the B after take out the phenomenological which is also B, recognizes the illusory nature of all that is not mathematical.

- It helps if you start by understanding what they mean by personal and impersonal. A personal God is one who thinks and acts. An impersonal God is one who is completely static and unchanging, which implies that he does not think and does not take any action. If you read Aquinas on the topic of God's mind, you will see that in the Thomistic view, God does not think (in any manner that humans could relate to) or move (take action). God is completely unchanged and unmoved by any process or action. That is very different from the more commonly held view of theists like Craig, who say that God thinks and acts - in other words, the mind God is personal.

What does that have to do with time? If there is no movement, there is no time. If there is movement, there must be time. So the impersonal god exists without time, and the personal god exists in time. This is not a matter of opinion. It is simply logic. But note that the time we are referring to here is God's time - not our own time. The two don't have to be the same.

With regard to time in the physical universe, the A theory says that only the present exists. The past has passed out of existence, and the future has not yet come to exist. This is what Craig believes. The B theory says that everything exists at once. The present is just one place in the continuum. This is consistent with the idea that everything can be seen at once. God may have the ability to see it all, even if we don't. This is the idea that you have expressed in the past.

But that is independent of God's own time. The reality of the physical universe might be A-theory or B-theory, or something else. Regardless of that, God could still be personal or impersonal, because he is outside the physical universe, and whatever time he may experience is not (or doesn't have to be) the same as the time we experience. We already know from relativity that the experience of time is relative to the observer. (And that's why Craig is wrong.)

Which version of God you subscribe to is a matter of opinion. However if you say that you believe some element of both, you are not coherent. You can't logically have it both ways.

Joe Hinman said...

did you happen to notice the thins I quoted, have you even heard of McTaggarat? He saying about God in his definition of A and B.read the stuff I quoted about A and B.? None of them said anything about God is impersonal. none of them even talked about God at all,

"It helps if you start by understanding what they mean by personal and impersonal. A personal God is one who thinks and acts."

you really think I've going to put up with you condescending bull shit? I said I'm confused about lack of a standard definition of A and B, Dumbass, ut helps if yo understand how real thinkers thinkers define A and B.

Joe Hinman said...

An impersonal God is one who is completely static and unchanging, which implies that he does not think and does not take any action. If you read Aquinas on the topic of God's mind, you will see that in the Thomistic view, God does not think (in any manner that humans could relate to) or move (take action). God is completely unchanged and unmoved by any process or action. That is very different from the more commonly held view of theists like Craig, who say that God thinks and acts - in other words, the mind God is personal.

Mystical theologians and writers and those who are aware of that tradition of that tradition know that Aquinas' view is actual more dynamic than modern thinkers understand. Underhill talked about that saying people think it's static but it's not.

Process theology views God as impersonal but they try to get away from static concepts of God. They have an impersonal but dynamic view of God.

the traditional view understands
god has having will and volition but the more advanced version one might understand that God doesn't think per se like we do. that pertains to Aquinas,

Joe Hinman said...

What does that have to do with time? If there is no movement, there is no time. If there is movement, there must be time. So the impersonal god exists without time, and the personal god exists in time. This is not a matter of opinion. It is simply logic. But note that the time we are referring to here is God's time - not our own time. The two don't have to be the same.

It's true that a lot of people see it that way but not necessarily. The video I linked to where Lee Smolin talks about his idea of time he says B view also leads to an reduces to timelessness and impersonal mathematics as the only true ultimate reality,

God has a lot more opportunities for motion than just ratiocinating about things,

im-skeptical said...

A fundamental aspect of Thomism is that God is unmoved and unchanging. That does NOT mean dynamic.

im-skeptical said...

It's true that a lot of people see it that way but not necessarily.
- In my world, logic holds. If you believe bot A and not-A, then you are incoherent.

Joe Hinman said...

go read Evelyn Underhill,you are just looking at the surface.She just might some stuff you don't know.
I've talking about Go as personal or impersonal since 1979 don't every try to lecture me o basic ideas like that.

im-skeptical said...

Calm down, Joe. I'm talking about the way most theists see it. Aquinas agrees. Craig agrees (not on which one applies, but that one of these views applies). This is fairly standard stuff, and I have done my share of reading about it, too. You can point to some alternative theory if you want, but you can't deny basic logic.

Joe Hinman said...

ok Skep, we need to give each other a break. I have got to stop seeing red flags,

im-skeptical said...

I think that Evelyn Underhill speaks about the perceived human experience of God has different aspects - partially personal and partially impersonal. That's fine. But if you think that the objective reality apart from our own experience is that God is both unchanging and dynamic, that doesn't make logical sense. Do you get what I'm saying?

7th Stooge said...

I get confused, some people talk about A as impersonal,timeless, beyond everything just mathematical. some talk like that's the B after take out the phenomenological which is also B, recognizes the illusory nature of all that is not mathematical.

I get them mixed up too. According to the sources you quoted in your post, the A series is the one we experience, where "now" seems real and the future and past are not as real, at least not in the same way. the B series is the one where every segment of time is equally real. It's the conception of time according to physics. It's a spatialized idea of time.

7th Stooge said...

I think the idea of God as participating in the A series is the only one that can make sense out of a God who's personal, conscious, etc. Not that the A series be all there is to God.

Mike Gerow said...

But then, Stooge, according to QM, the universe is nonlocal, ie "space" isn't real either....

7th Stooge said...

- In my world, logic holds. If you believe bot A and not-A, then you are incoherent.

But you have to understand the frame of reference before you can say that A and not-A are incoherent. You should allow for the possibility, especially when talking about God, for a larger frame that resolves apparent contradictions.

What about the particle/wave duality, or locality/non-locality? Some physicists accept these contradictions as epistemic end points, but I imagine that most think that there are physical truths (maybe beyond human ability to cpmprehend) in which these contradictions will resolve.

7th Stooge said...

But then, Stooge, according to QM, the universe is nonlocal, ie "space" isn't real either....

Sure, there's the possibility that time, from the pov of physics, isn't real. Or at least the A series isn't real. But if it isn't, then we are not real either, since our subjective lives are essentially tied to the A series, imo. In that case, we can't say or know anything. Everything we know would be wrong.

im-skeptical said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said...

But you have to understand the frame of reference before you can say that A and not-A are incoherent. You should allow for the possibility, especially when talking about God, for a larger frame that resolves apparent contradictions.
- I agree. It due to our own frame of reference that there might appear to be a contradiction. That's what I was saying about Evelyn Underhill. She is speaking about the way humans see God, not about some objective reality.


What about the particle/wave duality, or locality/non-locality? Some physicists accept these contradictions as epistemic end points, but I imagine that most think that there are physical truths (maybe beyond human ability to cpmprehend) in which these contradictions will resolve.
- Absolutely. Once again, the contradiction is merely in our own perception. A particle is neither a wave nor a little rock. But those are ways we perceive it. It's not necessarily beyond our comprehension, but our ability to perceive reality is limited. Still, we can infer that the reality is not exactly what we perceive.

Joe Hinman said...

But you have to understand the frame of reference before you can say that A and not-A are incoherent. You should allow for the possibility, especially when talking about God, for a larger frame that resolves apparent contradictions.
- I agree. It due to our own frame of reference that there might appear to be a contradiction. That's what I was saying about Evelyn Underhill. She is speaking about the way humans see God, not about some objective reality.


not with reference to her statement about God is not static, there she was talking about objective reality.

Joe Hinman said...

But those are ways we perceive it. It's not necessarily beyond our comprehension, but our ability to perceive reality is limited. Still, we can infer that the reality is not exactly what we perceive.

by the same token understanding all aspect doesn't we can understand the whole

Joe Hinman said...

Sure, there's the possibility that time, from the pov of physics, isn't real. Or at least the A series isn't real. But if it isn't, then we are not real either, since our subjective lives are essentially tied to the A series, imo. In that case, we can't say or know anything. Everything we know would be wrong.

It is so amazing to me how those guys can praise science as true objective truth the only source of knowledge then turn around say it's all crap ,it;s all meaningless, we don't know shit,

im-skeptical said...

not with reference to her statement about God is not static, there she was talking about objective reality.
- I haven't read too much of Evelyn Underhill. But in what I DID read, she was talking about the mystical experience. It is the perception of God, which seems to be sometimes an unchanging power, and sometimes a personal contact. That's what SHE said.


It is so amazing to me how those guys can praise science as true objective truth the only source of knowledge then turn around say it's all crap ,it;s all meaningless, we don't know shit
- True, we don't know the real nature our world. And anyone who claims to is lying. But that doesn't mean the search for truth is meaningless. What we DO know is that many of the things we always believed before are bullshit. And how do we know this? Science. Me may not have absolute truth in our grasp, but we definitely do understand things a whole lot better because of science.

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
not with reference to her statement about God is not static, there she was talking about objective reality.
- I haven't read too much of Evelyn Underhill. But in what I DID read, she was talking about the mystical experience. It is the perception of God, which seems to be sometimes an unchanging power, and sometimes a personal contact. That's what SHE said.

true but is a noetic aspect to the experience. weather one chooses to accept noetic aspects ad relativity merely illusory is another matter.I do't see how an empiricist could do otherwise


It is so amazing to me how those guys can praise science as true objective truth the only source of knowledge then turn around say it's all crap ,it;s all meaningless, we don't know shit
- True, we don't know the real nature our world. And anyone who claims to is lying.

I agree but after tat it's a choice as to what we regarde as truth,

But that doesn't mean the search for truth is meaningless. What we DO know is that many of the things we always believed before are bullshit. And how do we know this? Science. Me may not have absolute truth in our grasp, but we definitely do understand things a whole lot better because of science.

science only tells us about things with in that range of empirical data. you are choosing to regrade the results of a methodology and I know has some application to the way you want to see the world,

empiricism is just faith and ideology

im-skeptical said...

true but is a noetic aspect to the experience. weather one chooses to accept noetic aspects ad relativity merely illusory is another matter.I do't see how an empiricist could do otherwise
- I'll see your 'noetic' and raise you a 'numinous'. Who cares? These are just words you use to make a subjective feeling sound as is it has objective existence. It's nothing more than chemicals and electrical signals rattling around in your brain.


empiricism is just faith and ideology
- Empiricism is a well-founded and long-standong epistemological position that our senses tell us something about the real world. And as epistemological positions go, there's nothing that works better. You can call it ideology if you want to make it seem as unjustified as religion is, but that's pretty childish.

7th Stooge said...

- I agree. It due to our own frame of reference that there might appear to be a contradiction. That's what I was saying about Evelyn Underhill. She is speaking about the way humans see God, not about some objective reality.

But the 'objective reality' is what we're trying to determine. We don;t know for sure what the objective reality is, especially pertaining to metaphysics and theology. Anything we understand has to be processed and filtered through our own subjective mental apparatus. My point was that God might very well have contradictory properties but that even if this is so, it doesn't mean that God in his substance, his essence, is contradictory. Understanding these contradictory properties depends heavily on the context, which I believe will never be fully understood by any finite mind.

7th Stooge said...

Joe, Why do you say that process thought understands God as being impersonal or non-personal? Whitehead in Process and Reality talks about God's loving tenderness towards the world and his suffering with the our suffering. I thought the whole point of process thought was to counter the monarchic, static conception of God detached from and disinterested in the world.

im-skeptical said...

7th Stooge,

I agree that God, in his essence, should not be contradictory. I think we're saying the same thing. We may have perceptions that seem contradictory. These are what you are calling contradictory properties, right? But the objective reality beneath it can't be contradictory. Regardless of what we think, the underlying reality can't be both moving and unmoved at the same time. That's not logical.

Mike Gerow said...

Unless "movement" in all the ways we know it doesn't actually exhaust the possibities of the way things might change, which would seem to be the case once you've granted for the sake of the argument the possibility of a disembodied consciousness like "God" in the first place.

How can ANY disembodied thing at all ever "move"?

In situations where no matter exists, what is "movement"?

im-skeptical said...

How can ANY disembodied thing at all ever "move"?

In situations where no matter exists, what is "movement"?


- I mean movement in the Aristotelian sense. In other words, any kind of change. And it doesn't have to be physical (after all, we are talking about God). What I'm saying is in agreement with Thomistic philosophy. They say that God is impersonal and unmoving. God doesn't have any process of thinking, which imply movement (or a changing state of affairs).

Joe Hinman said...

th Stooge said...
Joe, Why do you say that process thought understands God as being impersonal or non-personal? Whitehead in Process and Reality talks about God's loving tenderness towards the world and his suffering with the our suffering. I thought the whole point of process thought was to counter the monarchic, static conception of God detached from and disinterested in the world.

Whitehead was one of the greats of 20th entry thought, He invented process theology but he was not the only one to develop it. Hartshorne brought in Unitarian ideas and a guy named Pittinger popularized it for Christianity,the n Schubert Ogden,my old professor did his thing. So in the developmental process (get it?) it got translated into impersonal view of God; I also wonder if Whithead really meant that in the conventional sense?

I agree that God, in his essence, should not be contradictory. I think we're saying the same thing. We may have perceptions that seem contradictory. These are what you are calling contradictory properties, right? But the objective reality beneath it can't be contradictory. Regardless of what we think, the underlying reality can't be both moving and unmoved at the same time. That's not logical.

I agree but the problem is so many terms that seem absolute to us are really retaliative, So "moving" is absolute if you live on earth but not if you live in space.

Joe Hinman said...

Mike Gerow said...
Unless "movement" in all the ways we know it doesn't actually exhaust the possibities of the way things might change, which would seem to be the case once you've granted for the sake of the argument the possibility of a disembodied consciousness like "God" in the first place.

How can ANY disembodied thing at all ever "move"?

sure,I am not moving now relative to other people in this building, I am moving at some speed relative to the Moon, I am moving at near light speed relative to guys in another galaxy,

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
How can ANY disembodied thing at all ever "move"?

In situations where no matter exists, what is "movement"?

yes that's my point. God looks "static" in that sense but to be aware of God relative to time is active thing,

- I mean movement in the Aristotelian sense. In other words, any kind of change. And it doesn't have to be physical (after all, we are talking about God). What I'm saying is in agreement with Thomistic philosophy. They say that God is impersonal and unmoving. God doesn't have any process of thinking, which imply movement (or a changing state of affairs).

7 refers to a distinction between God's essence and what he';s doing or appears to us he is doing. That distinction is carried further by the Orthodox church in the dichotomy of God's energies. In essence God is not changing but in terms of God;s relationship to time and things in time he appears to be changing,

7th Stooge said...

Whitehead was one of the greats of 20th entry thought, He invented process theology but he was not the only one to develop it. Hartshorne brought in Unitarian ideas and a guy named Pittinger popularized it for Christianity,the n Schubert Ogden,my old professor did his thing. So in the developmental process (get it?) it got translated into impersonal view of God; I also wonder if Whithead really meant that in the conventional sense?

How does that make sense though? I'm not familiar with Ogden's or Pittinger's ideas, but if God is becoming along with the world and that world includes personal beings like us, how could God be devoid of that quality he is in process of becoming alongside of?

Joe Hinman said...

Process theology is super complex too complex for me to go into now. I ear good sounding statements about process God is suffering with the world and stuff, But when you come to what they think God is and reality is it doesn't really allow for a personal God I'm not so sure it allow personal humans.Here are some quotes:

"In their view the deity or "god' is seen less as an entity than as a process. The reality of the deity has not been fixed and the being is still developing. The deity and its creations have a bipolar nature. All existent entities have a mental pole or nature and a physical pole or nature as well.

For these philosophers traditional theism does not work, particularly when considering the discoveries of modern physics, so they conclude that a new concept of God, is needed along with the view of the world we experience"

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_6_PROBLEM_of_EVIL/Process_Theology.htm

Joe Hinman said...

Link

this is the link fro URL above,ore quotes

Process philosophy and Open Theism--From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Process theology is a school of thought influenced by the metaphysical process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947).
Open theism, a theological movement that began in the 1990s, is similar, but not identical, to Process theology.
In both views, God is not omnipotent in the classical sense of a coercive being. Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature. The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God and creatures co-create. God cannot force anything to happen, but rather only influence the exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities. See the entries on Process theology, Panentheism, and Open theism.

Process theology--From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Process theology (also known as Neoclassical theology) is a school of thought influenced by the metaphysical process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead (1861 - 1947).

The concepts of process theology include:

God is not omnipotent in the sense of being coercive. The divine has a power of persuasion rather than force. Process theologians have often seen the classical doctrine of omnipotence as involving coercion (arguably mistakenly), and themselves claim something more restricted than the classical doctrine.
Reality is not made up of material substances that endure through time, but serially-ordered events, which are experiential in nature.
The universe is characterized by process and change carried out by the agents of free will. Self-determination characterizes everything in the universe, not just human beings. God cannot force anything to happen, but rather only influence the exercise of this universal free will by offering possibilities.
God contains the universe but is not identical with it (panentheism)
Because God contains a changing universe, God is changeable (that is to say, God is affected by the actions that take place in the universe) over the course of time. However, the abstract elements of God (goodness, wisdom, etc.) remain eternally solid.
People do not experience a subjective (or personal) immortality, but they do have an objective immortality in that their experiences live on forever in God, who contains all that was.
Dipolar theism, or the idea that our idea of a perfect God cannot be limited to a particular set of characteristics, because perfection can be embodied in opposite characteristics; For instance, for God to be perfect, he cannot have absolute control over all beings, because then he would not be as good as a being who moved by persuasion, rather than brute force. Thus, for God to be perfect, he must be both powerful and leave other beings some power to resist his persuasion.
The original ideas of process theology were developed by Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000), and were later expounded upon by John B. Cobb and David Ray Griffin.

Process theology soon influenced a number of Jewish theologians including British philosopher Samuel Alexander (1859-1938), and Rabbis Max Kaddushin, Milton Steinberg and Levi A. Olan, Harry Slominsky and to a lesser degree, Abraham Joshua Heschel. Today some rabbis who advocate some form of process theology include Donald B. Rossoff, William E. Kaufman, Harold Kushner, Anton Laytner, Gilbert S. Rosenthal, Lawrence Troster and Nahum Ward.

Alan Anderson and Deb Whitehouse have attempted to integrate process theology with the New Thought variant of Christianity.

Thomas Jay Oord integrates process theology with evangelical, openness, and Wesleyan theologies.

im-skeptical said...

7 refers to a distinction between God's essence and what he';s doing or appears to us he is doing.
- Do you know anything about Aristotle's and Aquinas' philosophy? Do you know what they mean by 'movement'? I suggest you brush up on your philosophy.

In essence God is not changing but in terms of God;s relationship to time and things in time he appears to be changing
- Oh, really. So you observe that God appears to be changing? In what sense?

Joe Hinman said...

here is a google search i did on process theology and impersonal God. I did this a long time ago its posted on this blog,

here

Joe Hinman said...

the frist commemto thatpost is a shit hole name Goliath who hated Goso deeply je psemdall his time trying to proveI laid everythingisaid,he he tries imly thatimadeup venusulcerisease.,it he;s stupid to reaioze oiprolbkly spellediotwromg,

anonymous said...
"On a completely unrelated note, why is it that a google search for "venus ulcer disease" only turns up your webpages? And why doesn't WebMD.com have an entry for this alleged disease?"

It should be "venous" so anxious to prove a Christian is lying it just didn't occur to him after all I lied abouit dyslexia i really spell fine,I'm just to lay to bother spelling well most of the time.

O but i am so wrong to say an eightieths hates God that makes me like a fundamentalist like I think I can read his mind

7th Stooge said...

Whitehead; "God is the fellow sufferer who understands." I don't know enough about the field of process thought to say, but maybe we can agree that there's a diversity (range) of opinions?

im-skeptical said...

Links are mostly unreachable. However from what I can find on my own, Whitehead's process theism holds that God changes, but there are some properties or aspects of him that don't change. OK. That's compatible with a personal God.

Joe Hinman said...

yes he has di polar thing. But the unchanging pole id only potential.

7th Stooge said...

That's not the way I understand it, tho I'm far from an expert. The unchanging aspect contains abstract (potential) objects, but that pole itself is not potential. It is necessary. It necessarily and eternally is.