Re: tinkering God

From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Date: Wed Aug 24 2005 - 17:00:07 EDT

Water remains H20 whether it is water vapor or ice. Vapor and ice are
two different manifestations of the same substance, separated (usually)
by two state changes. Same stuff, different expression. Why cannot this
be an analogy for the God state, in the one case expressed in temporal
form, in another exempt? JimA

D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:

> Bill,
> Perhaps you will explain to me how, unabsolutely, anything can be both
> temporal and atemporal at the same time. The logical principle I
> appealed to, labeled amazing by the logicians in the Middle Ages who
> became fully aware of it, provides that every consequence whatsoever
> follows validly from a contradiction. That is why the use of a
> contradiction in a reductio ad absurdum argument must be carefully
> restricted within the argument.
> Dave
>
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 05:51:37 -0700 (PDT) Bill Hamilton
> <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com <mailto:williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>>
> writes:
>
> Dave
> Perhaps you are attaching absolutism to my statements. God is
> atemporal, but as the creator of time, it would seem that he can
> choose on occasion to become involved with it. There' difference
> between knowing what beach sand feels like between your toes and
> actually experiencing it. So I would quibble at your second
> statement below. Finally, maybe I'm dense but I fail to see how
> your remaining statements follow.
>
> "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Bill,
> I fear you are ignoring /consequentia mirabilis/ which, for
> example, accepting your statements, provides validly:
> God is atemporal.
> God is temporal.
> Therefore, Bill Hamilton is god.
> Therefore, Bill Hamilton is the devil.
> Therefore, Burgy is prouder than Satan.
> Therefore, any other nonsense you care to add.
>
> As for me, I'll stand by logical consistency.
> Dave
>
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Bill Hamilton
> <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com
> <mailto:williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>> writes:
>
>
>
> Dave wrote: "
> If I understand your claim, God isn't smart enough to
> anticipate the
> total consequences, so has to try new things out. Are you
> joining the
> contemporary groups who deny omniscience to the deity?"
>
> Bill:
>
> That's not what I'm arguing at all. God is omniscient, so
> of course he can anticipate the consequences of any action
> he takes. What I'm arguing is that he may interact with
> nature because he _chooses_ to. I have a Panasonic bread
> maker at home. It makes great bread, but on occasion I
> decide that just because I want to feel the dough under my
> hands, I'm going to make a loaf of bread the old-fashioned
> way. I don't have to make it myself to see what happens --
> I _know_ what's going to happen (if I follow the recipe).
> I just _like_ carrying out the process myself. In any
> case I think I have the record on my side: God has entered
> time many times, as with Abraham, Jacob, and of course the
> incarnation and Christ's life.
>
> To say that he can't be temporal (as well as outside of
> time) limits him.
>
>
>
> Bill Hamilton
> William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> 586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
> "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
> around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Bill Hamilton
> William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> 586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
> "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=34442/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
>
>
Received on Wed Aug 24 17:00:25 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 24 2005 - 17:00:25 EDT