Don't like ads? PRO users don't see any ads ;-)
Public Pastes
Guest

Untitled

By: a guest on Jun 17th, 2012  |  syntax: None  |  size: 6.87 KB  |  hits: 28  |  expires: Never
download  |  raw  |  embed  |  report abuse  |  print
Text below is selected. Please press Ctrl+C to copy to your clipboard. (⌘+C on Mac)
  1. burybrutal 10:54 am
  2.     Hey bro!
  3.  
  4.  Alfredo Watkins 10:55 am
  5.     sup??
  6.  
  7.  burybrutal 10:55 am
  8.     You're up early :O
  9.  
  10.  Alfredo Watkins 10:55 am
  11.     haha yeah kinda XD
  12.  
  13.  burybrutal 10:55 am
  14.     What are your views on time? A-theory, B-theory? And what about God? How does He relate to it? I'd assume you'd reject WLC's version?
  15.     Also wanted to thank you again for praying for Isaac!
  16.  
  17.  Alfredo Watkins 10:56 am
  18.     Yeah definitely
  19.  
  20.  Alfredo Watkins 10:59 am
  21.     So I would definitely disagree with WLC. I think God is timeless, and this follows from both his simplicity and his changelessness as well as the fact that he is the creator of time. As for A-Theory and B-Theory I'm not fully decided between the two, though I incline toward A-Theory. I think that God relates to time not as an entity interacting inside of it, but rather as providently willing from all eternity all temporal events.
  22.  
  23.  burybrutal 11:03 am
  24.     I am still kind of puzzled though, because at the moment of creation, something would have needed to change such that at M1 God had not created the universe but at T1 He did... Of course, time did not exist until "creation" began but I don't know, I want to figure that out more. Oh okay, so you think it's possible that the B-Theory is true? That all things have already been actualized, just at different moments?
  25.  
  26.  Alfredo Watkins 11:05 am
  27.     B?y M1 do you mean "moment 1"? Because in that case it would just be the same as T1. I don't think anything changed; it's not as if there was some time where there was no universe and then later was the universe. Rather, all of time began at the first moment when God created the universe.
  28.  
  29.  Alfredo Watkins 11:06 am
  30.     With regard to B-theory I think it's epistemically possible that it is trure, though I'm not convinced it's absolutely, or metaphysically, possible. That is, for all I know it could be true; but maybe somewhere there is a contradiction in the idea so that it couldn't actually be true.
  31.  
  32. burybrutal is available 11:07 am
  33.  burybrutal 11:08 am
  34.     I think of time in terms of "change" and since change only began at creation, I think that is indeed correct. However, by moment I just mean a state of being that had no relation to other existing things. Though, I suppose relational should only be understand as a cambridge property but still, it seems to me that God acted when there was a point where He did not act.
  35.  
  36.  burybrutal 11:09 am
  37.     B-Theory just seems obviously false to me, in my opinion. It goes against common sense and does seem to be metaphysically impossible. Didn't Aquinas hold to an A-Theory? It seems if we held to the B-theory, all the things about "change" go out the window since every single thing is already actualized, we are simply trasnvering through moemtns
  38.  
  39.  Alfredo Watkins 11:12 am
  40.     Maybe we should talk about a-theory/b-theory later XD But alright, I'm not sure I understand. I don't think God acted at any time, so there wasn't a point where he did not act and then later did act. That would imply change in God which is inconsistent with his pure actuality and simplicity. Though I do think his effects are brought out in time.
  41.  
  42.  burybrutal 11:14 am
  43.     So God never acted at all?
  44.  
  45.  Alfredo Watkins 11:16 am
  46.     Not *at any time*, no, since I think God is timeless. God wills his effects timelessly though.
  47.  
  48.  burybrutal 11:16 am
  49.     So the universe would always exist and never have a beginning?
  50.  
  51.  Alfredo Watkins 11:16 am
  52.     No, I don't see how that would follow
  53.     It's not saying God wills his effects at each time
  54.  
  55.  burybrutal 11:17 am
  56.     However, you have to say that God always wills His effects... and so He must have always willed the universe.
  57.     Timelessly implies lack of change, so He cannot change His will on that matter. It has to always be the same.
  58.  
  59.  Alfredo Watkins 11:17 am
  60.     No, since "always" is equivalent to "at each time", but I don't believe God wills his effects *at any time* like I said; he wills them timelessly, which is not the same as always.
  61.     it's a subtle distinction :-P
  62.     but it is very important because otherwise it would follow that the universe has no beginning
  63.  
  64.  burybrutal 11:19 am
  65.     Hmm. Okay, so he timelessly willed the universe into existence?
  66.  
  67.  Alfredo Watkins 11:19 am
  68.     yeah
  69.  
  70.  burybrutal 11:20 am
  71.     Then how did the universe come to be, rather than to simply eternally be?
  72.  
  73.  burybrutal 11:21 am
  74.     Bah, let me put this another way. If God timelessly willed the universe, did He necessarily do so or did He freely do so?
  75.  
  76.  Alfredo Watkins 11:22 am
  77.     freely of course! :-P
  78.  
  79.  burybrutal 11:26 am
  80.     This is a bit perplexing, hmm. To think a timeless being freely and timelessly brought into being something that "began" to exist.... goes against how I normally think of things.
  81.     I don't know if it is even coherent XD
  82.  
  83.  Alfredo Watkins 11:26 am
  84.     It is definitely not easy! But of course, God is not easy and we shouldn't expect him to be. Nevertheless I don't see any reason to doubt it's coherence.
  85.     I mean I don't see why being temporal is a necessary condition of an action's being free
  86.  
  87.  Alfredo Watkins 11:28 am
  88.     God could have just as well timelessly chosen to actualize another world
  89.  
  90.  burybrutal 11:28 am
  91.     But, free will requires that one either could do otherwise. Except if God willed this timelessly, He could not do otherwise.at any time since there is no time. I don't know, not sure how to explain my problem with it
  92.  
  93.  Alfredo Watkins 11:29 am
  94.     yeah I would concede it means God couldn't do otherwise at any time, but I don't see why the "at any time" part is essential to it being free...what really matters it seems to me is the ability to do otherwise part
  95.     and on the other hand, against the opposing view, it's difficult to see how it could be reconciled with God's immutability and simplicity
  96.     if God does not will at T1 the existence of the universe, then at T2 does, then God changes
  97.  
  98.  burybrutal 11:33 am
  99.     Right, I can understand that problem too. I think I'm at some sort of dilemma here XD However, I don't know, it just seems to me that God's decision to create a universe does not change His essence.
  100.  
  101.  Alfredo Watkins 11:37 am
  102.     We must remember that all non-relational features are identical to God according to divine simplicity. To put it another way, all God's intrinsic features are identical to him. For God is pure actuality; if there were some feature of him which he could have contingently then he would have the potentiality to have it. Your view would imply that God has the unactualized potential to create and then he actualizes this potential; hence he undergoes change, and hence is not pure actuality (contra divine simplicity).
  103.  
  104.  burybrutal 11:38 am
  105.     That's true, I was just thinking about that. Though immutability in itself would not be the problem but divine simplicity. I'll have to think about this more bro, I'll be going to a party
create a new version of this paste RAW Paste Data