Re: God the interactor (was God the tinkerer)

From: Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat Sep 03 2005 - 07:35:17 EDT

--- "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:

> Bill,
> Your sequence is empirically meaningless as it stands. It is empty. It
> could apply to time, or space, or numerical sequence, essentially to
> anything that has dimension or something analogous to dimension.

Fair enough. I was merely trying to point out that sequence can exist without
specific reference to time. And if we can conceive of a sequence, then God must
have given us that ability, which means that he understands sequence. But I
admit it's a bit of a tenuous example.

>If
> eternity is without dimension or parts, trying to apply your sequence to
> it is impossible.
Is eternity without dimension or parts?

>You insist on making God in the image of man.

No. Quite the opposite, as you say below:
>But human
> beings were created in the image of God. And Jesus of Nazareth is God's
> image in human flesh so that we may know the Father.
> Dave
>
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 19:37:31 -0700 (PDT) Bill Hamilton
> <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Note that the sequence s(k) = f(s(k-1)) doesn't imply anything about
> > time. It
> > simply says "compute s(k) from s(k-1)". Now perhaps God can see the
> > results of
> > calculating all the s(k) simultaneously. However, he can still write
> >
> > s(k)=f(s(k-1)). If he couldn't, we couldn't either.
> >
> > Dave wrote
> >
> >
> > > The last snt that I recognize is the glorification of the elect. I
> > haven't
> > > observed this, yet Romans 8 says it has already happened. So it
> > both is
> > > already and isn't yet.
> >
> > Well, theologians do use the term "now _and_ not yet" :-).
> >
> > --- "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Let's see if I understand you guys. If you're right, then there
> > was a
> > > something-not-time (snt) before God planned the universe, then a
> > snt
> > > after the original and before the execution when he planned it,
> > then a
> > > later snt when he produced the universe, followed by many other
> > snts. The
> > > last snt that I recognize is the glorification of the elect. I
> > haven't
> > > observed this, yet Romans 8 says it has already happened. So it
> > both is
> > > already and isn't yet. God, being omnipotent, makes it be and not
> > be in
> > > some snt.
> > >
> > > However, I still need clarification. How are snts related to time
> > in our
> > > universe/experience? Are snts just an aspect of time? How many
> > snts
> > > occurred during the first period mentioned above? What could have
> > gone on
> > > during these precursor snts?
> > >
> > > Why do I get the strong impression that it is not just YECs that
> > talk
> > > nonsense on the claimed basis of scripture?
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 07:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Bill Hamilton
> > > <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > I agree with George. Dave can perhaps be satisfied that in the
> > world of
> > > logic he is correct. But logic that ignores the constraints
> > imposed by
> > > knowledge available to us (Scripture) is sterile.
> > > Furthermore, Dave's insistence that God cannot engage in a sequence
> > of
> > > actions limits God. None of us can fully appreciate omnipotence,
> > but I
> > > would want to be very careful about statements to the effect that
> > "God
> > > cannot do X".
> > >
> > > George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr."
> > > To:
> > > Cc: ;
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 12:13 AM
> > > Subject: Re: God the interactor (was God the tinkerer)
> > > ......................
> > >
> > > > Now, if you can come up
> > > > with a consistent description of a being both outside of time as
> > > Creator
> > > > and within time as reactor, apart from the incarnation, I'll
> > > acknowledge
> > > > a mutable deity.
> > > ......................
> > >
> > > If the qualification "apart from the incarnation" is to be made a
> > > condition
> > > for the discussion then I have nothing further to say about the
> > matter.
> > > The
> > > Incarnation is the essential reason for talking about God's
> > involvement
> > > with
> > > the time of the world.
> > >
> > > Shalom
> > > George
> > > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > 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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Sat Sep 3 07:37:55 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Sep 03 2005 - 07:37:56 EDT