Discussing black holes does not require that one be fully conversant with the various features of physics: it is simply a matter regarding gravity and the space-time continuum. Let us assume that the gravitational field of a black hole severely warps space-time; imagine being at the event horizon of a black hole where space-time is warped to the point that time slows down. We know that time slowing down at the edge of a black hole is a real possibility in view of a black hole's gravitational field. Now imagine that the gravity of a black hole's edge becomes so strong that time slows down enough to actually "flow" backwards. Although time may never flow backwards in the real world (causal possibility), the reversal of time is a logical possibility considering what we currently know about the universe. This thought experiment (Gedanke) strikes at the heart of what time is and how it relates to God.
I accept a distinction between uncreated infinite time and created finite space-time. I cannot explain how uncreated time apparently works, but I do not limit uncreated time to God's individual thoughts. I would say that God probably has always experienced successive temporal states in his very being. However, I don't believe that anyone has worked out this belief in toto. Stephen T. Davis suggests that there are at least three ways to understand God's sempiternity. One way is to understand time as "an eternal aspect of God's nature rather than a reality independent of God" (Logic and the Nature of God, 23): the past, present and future would then be real to God or meaningfully applied to him. Another less likely possibility which Davis entertains is that time has always existed, yet only became measurable when God created the material universe with its sun, moon and other celestial bodies. This idea evidently occurs in John of Damascus.
In one internet article, we read:
"It has also been argued that the notion of atemporal duration, that Stump and Kretzmann hold to be required by the timeless view, is at bottom incoherent. Paul Fitzgerald (1985) has argued that for there to be duration in the life of God, it must be the case that two or more of God's thoughts, for example, will have either the same or different amounts of duration. Different thoughts in God's mind can be individuated by their respective lengths of duration or at least by their locations within the duration. Fitzgerald argues that if a timeless duration does not have these analogues with temporal or spatial duration, it is hard to think of it as a case of bona fide duration. On the other hand, if the duration in God's life has this sort of duration, it is difficult to see that it is not simply one more case of temporal duration."
Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
I'm sure you'd appreciate Ryan T. Mullins "Divine Timemaker" paper... the book will be published later this year.
ReplyDeleteThanks for letting me know: I follow Mullins on Twitter and appreciate his writings.
ReplyDeleteMullins is good on this, of late I think he's adopted Samuel Clarke's position that time is an attribute of God (as you mention Davis points out as a possibility) ... rather strange, but I really like Samuel Clarke's cosmological argument so I'd like to look at it.
ReplyDeleteJust from my own intuition, I find the idea that God has always experienced successive temporal states (even given the distinction between physical time and and a higher time) difficult, one you have these paradoxes that analytic philosophers have come up with against real infinite series (herbert's hotel, the grim reaper paradox, etc etc), I also cannot see how sequence can take place without change, and how change can take place without relations (i.e. I change in that I differ relative to something else).
But in my recent dive into the theological philosophy of Schelling (https://musingontheology.wordpress.com/2021/05/29/schellings-dynamic-god/) I found that his idea of God as having two aspects (a grounding of pure will and an intuition of directedness) does allow God to have, in a sense relations within himself (not in a trinitarian way, but simply in terms of "will" and "thought") that may allow temporal becoming outside of relations ... but I find it almost impossible to think of a way in which one can allow for deliberation within God without compromising his perfection.
What i mean by that is I think one can say God experiences creation temporally becoming, and he can experience change because creation is finite, but I find the idea that God without creation can have one thought after another strange, because wouldn't that new thought be something he hadn't considered before to add to his previous thought? And where would that new thought come from, is it a connection within himself he hadn't seen?
Point being, I need to read more on the subject :P.
Garrett DeWeese likewise locates time in God and he gives a sustained argument for God's temporality. His work used to be dirt cheap, but last time I checked on the price, the book had greatly increased in price. But it's one of my favorite books concerning God and time; so is Stephen T. Davis', Logic and the Nature of God. You also have William L. Craig three-volume set on the issue and Richard Swinburne's The Coherence of Theism. On the other side, there's Paul Helm, Brian Leftow and Aquinas, Augustine, Feser etc. I used to spend a lot of time reading about the subject and once thought that it could be resolved through scripture and reason. Ha! I've been disabused of that belief, but I still tend to think God is temporal. Nicholas Wolterstorff has some arguments that seem convincing too: he argues that God is temporal. So does Brian Hebblethwaite.
ReplyDeleteI like your point about Schelling; we can't solve all of the problems with any view, but one colleague and professor of mine used to say that the view with the least antinomies wins (i.e., with the least apparent contradictions). Does change have to be relational? Stephen T. Davis has a helpful analysis of change in Logic and the Nature of God. I tend to agree with him, but it's good to read these things for yourself.
We know that the Bible depicts God as deliberating, remembering, reflecting, and "feeling regret." Wolterstorff argues that if we interpret all of those expressions as metaphors, figures of speech or accommodations to human thought, then a wide gulf opens between the biblical God and the God of philosophy, which was also Pascal's concern. Well, he flatly said (I believe) that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not the God of the philosophers. See Jaroslav Pelikan's first volume of The Christian Tradition. He demonstrates that the pre-Nicenes struggled with similar questions as they tried to work out a suitable teaching regarding God's emotions.
I can't answer all the potential objections that might be raised to the idea of a God, who thinks discursively sans creation, but I don't know if Fitzgerald's reasoning can be refuted either when it comes to the duration of God. I also throw this idea out there as an illustration. What about Aristotle's deity, which is apparently nous thinking nous. What if God did something similar prior to creation? Why couldn't an infinite mind be something like nous contemplating nous?
I hammered this out rather quickly. Hope it makes sense :)
Roman, as a reminder, also see this list: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2020/09/god-and-time-books-suggested-readings.html
ReplyDeleteThanks brother, it makes sense, right now I'm reading heavenly realms and earthly realities in late antique religions by Ra'anan S. Boustan and Annette Yoshiko Reed (recommended, so far it seems very well researched and the essays cover a lot of ground). But next up I'll get one of the books you've recommended :) (probably Steven Davis).
ReplyDeleteI've read a good deal of Swineburne, Leftow, Craig, and Feser, although mostly articles (I've read books by Craig, Swineburne and Feser, but not specifically on God and time).
As for your question "Why couldn't an infinite mind be somethign like nous contemplating nous?" I don't have an answer to that, and I feel it would be foolish of me to try :P; perhaps after doing more reading (you're suggestions are more than enough to keep me busy :)).
Thanks for the recommendation above: I will look that one up now. Davis' work is older, and he covers a number of different areas, but he has one chapter about God and time in his book. Craig wrote a trilogy wherein he analyzed tensed time, tenseless time and then he discussed God and time. I always liked his approach of trying to clarify one facet of the issue before moving to the other one.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I've learned about books: one can never keep up with them all. Someone said that years ago :-)
Have fun reading and take care, brother.
As an aside, I once put forth the suggestion that Aristotle possibly got his idea from Anaxagoras or was potentially influenced by earlier conceptions of nous. I was an undergrad at the time and my professor liked the suggestion: wished I would have pursued it, but I might still have that paper somewhere in my office. I've thought about revisiting the argument and lit on the subject.
Interesting suggestion, I'd love to see that worked out :).
ReplyDeleteAbout the book I'm reading "heavenly realms and earthly realities" having read further through, some essays are hit some are misses :) (at least for my taste, some of them are just long micro-exegeses, or arguments about structure, which isn't my cup of tea).
ReplyDeleteLuke Timothy Johnson's "Among the Gentiles" (which I'm reading on the logos program) is so better for what I was looking for :).
Always good to read at least the first 2/3ds before you start making recommendations :P.
I got the heavenly realms book: I'm also lukewarm about structure. I've read books about the structure of Hebrews and Revelation. It's okay to an extent, but I also have other interests.
ReplyDeleteThanks for letting me know about Johnson's book. It's in my files, but I haven't read it yet.