God, Time, and Creation | Dr. William Lane Craig & Dr. Ryan Mullins
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июл 2024
- What is time? Is God temporal? Is God timeless sans creation? I'm joined by Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Ryan Mullins to discuss these questions and more.
Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): / majestyofreason
If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...
OUTLINE
0:00 Intro
0:55 Relational vs substantival theories
9:50 Why relational?
18:50 Why substantival?
27:30 Divine timelessness vs temporality
31:20 Creation ex nihilo
40:05 Timeless sans creation?
LINKS
(1) Dr. Craig's website: www.reasonablefaith.org/
(2) Dr. Mullins' website: www.rtmullins.com/
(3) My Kalam playlist: • Kalam Cosmological Arg...
(4) My classical theism playlist: • Classical Theism
(5) Dr. Mullins chats with Dr. Rogers bout divine timelessness: • Classical Theism and D...
(6) My Springer book: (a) www.amazon.com/Existential-In... (b) link.springer.com/book/10.100...
THE USUAL...
Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uN...
Join the Discord and chat all things philosophy! dsc.gg/majestyofreason
My website: josephschmid.com
My PhilPeople profile: philpeople.org/profiles/josep...
R. T. Mullins is my favorite reminder that I won't necessarily look old and rusted by the time I get my PhD, dude looks like he has just finished community college and not an entire doctorate process. Mullins, you're a gift to philosophy and you managed to change my mind on the neoclassical theist debate against classical theists 🙏
Specially Feser 😒
@@logans.butler285 you are an embarrassment and you need to stop being judgemental about people's looks
Mullins got crushed and exposed by Craig. Craig took it easy
@@logans.butler285I think feser and Mullins had a little Twitter war 😂
@@polycarp777 Aye, Edward Feser is the Kingpin of philosophy, but Joe Schmid and R. T. Mullins are the Spider-Man and Daredevil who will stop him one day 😼😈
Thank you for having Dr. Craig and Dr. Mullins taking about this topic.
Hate it that Craig can only spare 60 minutes to these RUclips discussions. That's about just 20% the length of a regular majesty of reason video.
I know. Bill and I had so much more we could discuss, but we all had time constraints that day. Hopefully we can do more discussions in the future.
Hey Ryan what would be your understanding on how we measure Time here on earth, is the modern day clock based off of the speed of light (the Sun)?
The Sun is clearly created and I believe it's location is Heaven where the Triune living God would be located as well, that's why I believe Time would still exist without the Sun to measure.
@@TheReluctantTheologian It seems Bill kinda came around to your view, but didnt want to admit it!
Thank you so much for arranging this, Joe. I have been hoping these two would interact on these topics for years now. This was a dream come true.
So excited! Great guest and a great host
Love your exploratory type debates!!!
It's Billy the kid, Joe Schmoe, and My Chemical Romance Ryan! Lol, excited to watch.
Thank you, Joe, for hosting this. This is a big topic and I learnt a lot.
Excellent video! Thank you for making and sharing this!
Great video!! I always love hearing your specific thoughts on a topic, Joe, but you do great in a moderator role as well! Loved the discussion
I'd love to see a discussion between Joe and Bill Craig on the Kalaam (first and/or second stage).
Great conversation! Not a lot of schoolers like Dr. Craig who can give such great insight into the topic of time. I do also appreciate Dr. Mullins and his perspective on time as well.
This is a great set up! Looking forward to the discussion
Does God see you dead buried dust or after the resurrection talkingvto resurrected people for an eternity?Does he see Jesus talking to people?If the future exists God either decreed the sufferingvor can't do anything about it
Already looking forward to part two! (Whenever that may be.)
Really fun discussion! Very unique position from Mullins. Coming from someone who doesn't know much philosophy of time this was very helpful intro that divided the conceptual and theoretical space without an overuse of jargon.
Have you read "The End of the Timeless God"? That book was the best introduction I've read so far on philosophy of time ("God of the Possible" by Gregory A. Boyd is also extremely useful but I haven't finished it yet)
@@logans.butler285 Thank you, I'll add it to the list!
Two amazing minds interacting on one of the deepest and most abstract topics - AMAZING video. Thank you :-)
Great discussion! I have enjoyed a lot listening both points of view. Personally, I disagree with both, but really was an interesting and productive conversation. Thank you Joe!
WOAH! I’m excited for this one. Let me brew a coffee first.
Nice video I wanted to see Mullins and Craig debate these issues
I really like ontology and metaphysics. Great topic. Please make more videos about this kind of stuff.
Oh my God. I study in Russia at the Faculty of Philosophy, finishing my bachelor's degree. Right now, I am writing my final thesis on the discussion of the eternity of God in modern analytical philosophy of religion. At some point, I began to naively believe that I understood everything)
But then I came across this thread. On the one hand, I am glad because it clarified and deepened a lot in my understanding. On the other hand, I’m a little embarrassed because I understand that I misunderstood a lot and I have to rewrite so much in my study, but ... when?) The deadline for submitting the text is already tomorrow😅))
Ah, time to express a change of mind......😅
What a great Conversation! Maybe we can have them back on to continue the conversation where it ended! A part two of the conversation.
Amazing conversation
It's odd but I never really expected to see a collab between David Lee Roth and Adam Young (Owl City). Such a cool video though.
Wow, that was good.🤣👊🏼
But in reality that couldn’t be David Lee Roth because he wasn’t talking about himself .
DLR is only second to Don Dokken for believing he was the sole reason for his bands success and had nothing to do with any of their failures
Bruce Wayne is Batman,
Clark Kent is Superman,
Has anyone ever actually seen David Lee Roth and William Lane Craig in the same room together?
@@bugslayerprime7674 I might pay to see that AND hear the conversation.
One or both heads would explode.
Great conversation. And thank you for being so open-minded. Great philosophers all abroad
This is amazing 😳.
YES hope he has them on again to discuss further, also Alan Rhoda would be a interesting guest as well to talk with WLC and Ryan about his Open Theist view of Creation, God IN Time.
Good discussion. Thanks 🙏
I think there are some serious mental gymnastics going on for god to not know his next move because of "middle knowledge" and having not yet chosen a possible reality. This such a strange ad hoc explanation to defend the nonsensical point about omniscience since its a paradoxical term, especially with "free will" taken into account
Can we lock up Craig and Mullins into a room for 2 days (and provide them with sustenance, just in case you're wondering) and I'm sure they will crack the 'problem' with time.
I think that's much more fruitful than having them go/not go at each other like this.
This 'friendly competition' is less likely to produce a net gain outcome, aside from the occasional "hmm" from one about the other's view of their own ideas, than either a full-frontal assault on each others' thoughts or (as I suggest) they're both on the same team, tackling the same problem.
So far this is awesome. Just thinking, “I wish Feser or Pat Flynn or Kerr were here for some scholastic metaphysics.” But we all know Feser wouldn’t appear- “too busy” (but not too busy to constantly make sassy blog posts)
Excellent!
Super interesting. I think I lean towards Craig view, but definitely have a lot to learn!
Would love to have a follow up video with your appraisal of some the arguments presented Joe.
Joe: "sans"
Billy C: "It's Saaaaaaaaaans, not saaans."
I also wish Joe had tried to debate more lol. I do appreciate your understanding and arguments, Joe. I need a Schmid vs Craig clash
I don't think debating moral arguments would be worth it but them discussing the kalam would be interesting
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf yes!!! Please
Thank you for all participants, this was absolutely great! The first video I have seen that really delves into the question of how the causation part of creation is coherent without some sense of time which provides an ordering for the cause and effect. Although I gotta say, I still don't see how it's coherent so I would love some further discussion it. However before I couldn't even properly think of the question and Dr Mullins's formulation of the question at 42:57 is beautiful.
One question about a statement of Dr Craig
26:25 'I'm deeply committed to the notion that time is a fundamental feature of reality'
27:40 'to say god is timeless is to say that he is not temporal' (temporal: has temporal location and temporal duration)
Doesn't divine timelessness dispute the fundamentality of time? As in reality of god is possible without time. Or is god sans creation not a reality in this sense?
Yeah, nicely pur. That's where I was noting that "God's being undecided" is only one possibility for God as divine Mind. I thought Craig was clearer about that, but he doesn't go there. He goes to God's freedom to choose. Then again, I'm an interfaith progressive Christian who draws from UUism, Quakers, Gandhi, nd more.
We these speakers talk about not wanting to accept something. What is driving their desires here? Is it theological commitments?
Regarding timelessness sans creation:
Assuming that god created the universe and time concurrently... and assuming that god made the conscious decision to create everything... when did god make that decision?
How can god transition from not creating to creating in that singular, eternal, atemporal moment?
We are not worthy of this content. However, I am deeply disappointed that Joe missed his opportunity to do his Swinburne impression when he was mentioned. Think of the viewers next time joe!
Dr. Ryan is extremely smart and articulate, wow.
Awesome
Thank you 🙂
Watching this again, I wonder if one of the main problems isn't with the question itself, "what is time?" It seems to me that a more fruitful question would be "what are we committed to by our meaningful use of time-talk?"
Not bad. We all have a vague general idea of what time is but we really don’t know much at all. It seems to be dependent upon mass but we need to learn more. Good post mate.
Well, I gather I'm with you, and in fact have been operating on that basis, and see full force God's divine Mind for the loving and just integrity of Jesus, not anything else, as in Matt 7 21 on God's will.
UN human rights and sustainability might be the starting point, I say as an interfaith progressive Christian informed geeatly by UUism, Quakerism, Gandhi, and more.
@@therick363 Well, mass is part if the physical and energetic level. But mind is what's missing.
As an agnostic-atheist, this was a very interesting conversation. I may have to go back and listen again, however I never considered the idea of a god existing in "meta-time" (as I understand it, and how I'm understanding this) being able to create time from a substantival view. The difference between moments in time and time itself as a substance or some ontological fact outside of events is something I never really thought about.
I could be completely off course here but I guess because the relational theory of time is so intuitive, I'm having a hard time grasping the other theory.
An atheist being a Stan for WLC *gasp* haha.
@@rebelresource Being a Stan? I'm not sure what you mean. I'm literally trying to understand philosophical concepts about time. Could you actually contribute something to the discussion as to where im wrong? Or...?
@@gitstanfield2863 I do not think you are wrong or right by what I said. I guess I was just poking fun at the New Atheist community (you do not appear to be apart of btw) that constantly dunks on WLC. Stan-ing would be like defending it etc. It is a cultural euphemism. All in light jest.
@@rebelresource ahh okay my apologies
I don't like the language that God in a single timeless moment knows the future, and doesn't know the future. I prefer to think of it as, in a single moment God knows all possible futures, and simply hasn't decided which future to actualize. The only thing He doesn't "know", is His own decision. Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems the better way to think of it.
Really enjoyed the discussion. Have you ever thought about Franklin Richards in Marvel Comics, when he created a "pocket universe"? I wonder if that could be used as an analogy.
Cheers Joe
Thanks for hosting such interesting discussions, Joe! I've read some of Craig's work on time, although I don't remember him addressing this particular issue. I'm on minute 25 so far and still leaning towards Craig's view, but curious to see how the rest plays out. Also I find myself wanting to hear your takes on this discussion (philosophy of time in general), but I feel like (appropriately) that's not happening here. Have you written or spoken on the topic? I'd love to be referred to it. Thanks in advance!
Br?
@@belialord Sim. Foi meu nome ou o inglês precário que me denunciou?
I talk a lot about philosophy of time in my book “Existential Inertia and Classical Theistic Proofs”🙂❤️
@@MajestyofReason Joe, I'm sure you saw Parkers discussion with the Rabbi on kabbalah and Jewish philosophy.
He will have an interesting discussion on time as well if he is familiar with Nachmanides. I told Parker in the comments I would like to see you discuss philosophy with the Rabbi and if it requires a different philosophical approach.
Another Jewish philosopher was Baruch Spinoza, although the Rabbis declared him charem, excommunicated. If you recall, Einstein, who gave us the relativity of time, said he believed in Spinoza's God, so you see the lack of Jewish philosophy in these discussions leaves us all in a deficit.
@@brunoarruda9916 THE ONTOLOGY OF TIME:
One of the most misunderstood aspects of this space-time universe is just that - TIME. There are various extant theories of time. However, time is a very simple concept to grasp for one who has experienced his own timeless nature. That usually occurs during meditation practices or during awakening experiences (see Chapter 17 to understand spiritual awakening). Possibly the easiest way to understand time is to use the analogy of a movie. It may take a couple hours to watch a motion picture, yet the whole film is contained in the form of a single digital file (or in the case of older mediums, a reel of photographic film). The story of this universe may take hundreds of billions of earth years to complete, but from the perspective of eternity (literally, “no time”) it is not even as long as the blink of an eyelid. Indeed, it cannot be measured at all. To use movie jargon, the story of this cosmos is already “in the can” (of film). Read Chapters 08 & 11 to learn about causality and predestination.
In practical terms, time is the perception of a succession of physical or mental events (that is to say, time corresponds to phenomenal change).
I want to see Dr. Craig and Joe to discuss the Kalam so bad lol
Please make vidoes about tier list philosophical distinctions.
Great discussion, well hosted! I wonder how both views hold up in light of relativistic and quantum physical discoveries. For Craig, if time is tensed, it's weird that whether an event can be considered (by a viewer) future-tense, present-, or past-tense can change if an observer's reference frame changes. This makes it unclear whether there is a fact of the matter timeline (i.e. god's)
For Mullins, if time is an attribute of god, then these relativistic effects on time, if real, seem to make less sense. For, if time were an attribute of god, and god is perfect, unchanging, etc, then you would expect time to be constant and unimpacted by relativistic circumstances
"Just give me one moment in time...."
Professor Whitney Houston.
Well, empirical reality and epistemics, and knowledge systems as epistemology give us real discilpines of history, multiple disciplines actually. I've noted incomplete attention to multidisciplinary knowledge , which is available to people if it is acknowledged, not ignored or denied, and used. I was just reading about Julius Caesar ans his wife Calpurnia's actual dream in premonition of Caesar's assassination. Descartes' own dreams are another. Perhaps the sequence of Swedenborg to CC Bonney organizing with J Barrows the 1893 Chicago Parliament of World Religions is another. For example.
Change… the definition of change could simply be: differences in the state of affairs. One need not introduce time into the definition of change. Time could be a concept to be understood logically rather than temporally.
how does a "timeless" entity know when to do anything?
The question implies time as a prerequisite.
@@mahmoudgouda7972 Yes, it does. Show how an intelligent entity can know when to do something when there is no time involved.
Such an interesting discussion. These are the two analytic theologians that I trust the most, almost implicitly, but here they are disagreeing. God and time is certainly more of Ryan’s specialty or at least what he’s associated with the most (as opposed to WLC with the Kalam, Atonement, Historial Adam, etc.). They’re also two of the most clear thinkers and orators and yet can still not quite be on the same page, same line, at the same time.
THE ONTOLOGY OF TIME:
One of the most misunderstood aspects of this space-time universe is just that - TIME. There are various extant theories of time. However, time is a very simple concept to grasp for one who has experienced his own timeless nature. That usually occurs during meditation practices or during awakening experiences (see Chapter 17 to understand spiritual awakening). Possibly the easiest way to understand time is to use the analogy of a movie. It may take a couple hours to watch a motion picture, yet the whole film is contained in the form of a single digital file (or in the case of older mediums, a reel of photographic film). The story of this universe may take hundreds of billions of earth years to complete, but from the perspective of eternity (literally, “no time”) it is not even as long as the blink of an eyelid. Indeed, it cannot be measured at all. To use movie jargon, the story of this cosmos is already “in the can” (of film). Read Chapters 08 & 11 to learn about causality and predestination.
In practical terms, time is the perception of a succession of physical or mental events (that is to say, time corresponds to phenomenal change).
No thanks
Joe, do you think the Oxford school's non-metricated moment of time makes any sence? It's all dependant on a conventionalism about temporal metric which sounds so implausible to me.
I’m baffled at the argument it’s self, my first “time” hearing this. Time is a tool of an active measurement by beings of all existence given by God, imo. A cat, dog, tree, Milky Way etc. moves in different time but perfectly sequenced in harmony, God the conductor. We witness it and play along the motif. Even as humans we experience time differently, like some would say you haven’t aged a bit! It’s dynamic in its existing and still in its capture, but useless with out the agent. If we say time was with god before existing, then we cannot exist, because the forever consumes. Time is only in the beginning, where word was born, like a nanny 😊 sweet ol nanny, could you read me a story! Yes dear, In the beginning…
Joe should be getting an award for this.
For real, this guy is one of my heroes
47:51 well for that to be true that would indicate that the decision to create came before the actual creation. Which would mean that a temporal state existed at the point of decision not at the point of creation.
Interesting
Imaginary creatures are very pliable to whatever one needs it to be.
Would also like to see defend his view of time against Tim Maudlin
Amazing discussion. I think both of their views are really weird though.
I'm pretty sure their views are fairly dominant. I couldn't say with more than 10% confidence
Let’s consider the relationship between the English language & Alphabetical order. Alphabetical order is a construct that is useful for organising words of the English language, but English could still exist & be spoken without this order. As an English speaker, I can access any English word as I need it because the construct of Alph. order exists within my mind, I do NOT exist in alphabetical order!
Even so, God has access to any moment in time. Even if God adopts time to relate to things in time, & would be interpreted as temporal by temporal beings, He is never actually temporal.
When we say that the person who invented the alphabet existed before “A”, we don’t mean that He existed as some letter preceding A, because whoever invented the alphabet existed independently of it.
Next please invite Ed Feser, Andrew Loke and Alexander Pruss (written dialogue)
Add John C. Lennox, Richard Swinburne, and Alvin Plantinga, and you would have built an indestructible, bulletproof, unbeatable team that will annihilate folks like Graham Oppy or Paul Draper _instantly_
when are they going to stop saying i'm made in god's image, since when has anyone been timeless, spaceless, immaterial, omniscient or omnibenevolent? i bear no resemblance to god whatsoever.
Neither Craig or Mullins view the image of God as being identical to God or having any of those attributes. So your criticism doesn’t apply.
You look spaceless to me.
imago dei has nothing to do with whether you have the exact same attributes a maximally great being would have. Read "Maximal God: A New Defence of Perfect Being Theism" by Yujin Nagasawa
Must have been tough to see city take the title, Joe. I'm a utd fan but was rooting for Arsenal since Christmas.
I was incredibly disappointed, yes, but overall I’m very happy with the boys - exceeded expectations by miles upon miles. #COYG
@@MajestyofReason A great season nonetheless. Always next year!
Am I the only one who notices Joe trying to surpress a laugh or smirk at around 12 mins in haha when WLC is rattling off attributes that God has but time does not haha
Dr. Craig seems to believe God makes something begin to exist when He creates it from nothing. But it seems to me that he must continue creating to sustain that thing. He's like a light socket electricity flows from to keep a lamps lightbulb shining. God doesn't recreate the universe, for example. Instead, he gives it existence. So if he "unplugged" the universe, that would annihilate it.
Most Christians I talk with seem to believe that after God made the universe, he quit creating, i.e., making it exist. But that sounds almost deistic. Deists believe that after God created the universe, he ignored it because it could sustain itself.
People sustain their lives by eating, drinking, exercising, sleeping, and so forth. But that assumes that something or someone enables material objects, natural process, and so forth to exist to begin with. Natural science can't explain why there's something instead of nothing when science presupposes that there's something. So scientists will argue in a circle by using natural science to explain why there's anything at all.
Had no idea the lead singer of the cure was a philosophy of religion scholar.
"Just give me one moment in time...."
Professor Whitney Houston.
“God is timeless” and “sans creation” are supposed to be taken as two separate statements. God is timeless until he creates Sans Undertale, where he fights him for eternity. However, due to Craig’s Neo-Lorentzian view of time, he thinks that God would pick out a special time while he’s fighting Sans as the “metaphysical time”.
Is Mullins arguing that time is a mode of God, as Craig phrases it, or is he arguing that time is a property of God? What's the difference between a property and a mode? When I think of a mode, I think of modalism, where one God appears in different ways. When I think of properties, I think of qualities one possesses that are shown through actions, such as love being shown by ones acts of kindness and caring and affection, or justice being shown through impartiality and righteous anger, etc. if time were a property of God, it would be shown in some way that we could see, such as when I tell my family I want to spend my time with them, I have a limited property of time that is the unknown span of my life. To me this isn't the same as saying God is time in the same way God is Love or God is Just.
At the same time, we don't avoid saying God is Love because we don't see that as pantheism, why would time being a property of God, or even mode of God, or even saying God is time, result in pantheism?
Does Craig endorse both these statements
God timelessly exists without the universe
God exists alongside the universe
The "timeless sans creation" view has never been intelligible to me (and probably never will). God is either timeless or temporal; there's no other option. And if he is temporal, then he has *always* been temporal (since "always" means "at all times"). And if God has *always* been temporal, then... how can he be "timeless" in any sense?
To me it's basically like expecting a character in a paused movie to unpause the movie from within. If they are capable of doing that, then clearly they were never actually 'paused' to begin with.
@@fanghur
Yeah, the issue is that there has never been a state of affairs "without creation". Thus, God cannot be _anything_ "without creation".
The only thing it can mean for God to be "timeless without creation" is that _if_ there was no creation, _then_ God would be timeless. But that doesn't appear to be what Craig is saying.
I see no reason to think that God's timelessness had to change at the inception of creation. Whatever God is doing is eternal. Hence, if God directly interacts with creation, that interaction has its archetype upon the eternal platform despite appearing to take place within relativistic time.
I find creatio ex nihilo to be incomprehensible in the ultimate sense. Obviously, God isn't a nothing out of which creation comes about. Even when we say that creation doesn't arise from the substance of God Himself, it still necessarily follows that God, being eternally accompanied by the powers or energies that entail His omnipotence, is therefore not creating out of absolute nothingness.
I can't heard sans and not imagine Sans
52:15 "[On molinism], Logically prior to God's foreknowledge of the future [there] would be God's natural knowledge and his middle knowledge; and in that state of affairs God does not know what will happen because he hasn't yet decreed which of the feasible worlds shall be actual".
That sounds like either some sort of open theism, or you have to say that God simultaneously from all eternity knew the future and didn't know the future, which is a rather bizarre claim. I really don't understand the aversion to Open Theism. It makes so many topics insanely easier
Yes, all consistent Molinists and Calvinists begin by affirming the starting point is Dynamic Omniscience (the future is open). However, the Molinist and Calvinist then abandon this for various flavors of determinism.
@@IdolKiller Honestly, I've always been of the opinion that Molinism is simply just Calvinism in disguise.
Time is the endurance of reality.
Please explain.
I think the best view is that time doesn't exist
The verb endure requires time to describe it...
@@Sveccha93 Not for me. To endure is simply to continue wholly existing.
@@ChrisBandyJazz what does continue mean?
Do you learn Phillipp Mainländer philosophy?
I don't understand tensed theory of time, presentism. Creation does not exist so it could not have happened. Yesterday does not exist, so the stuff yesterday could not have caused the stuff today, because things that don't exist don't cause anything. Cause and effect goes out the window.
Craig says 'that is pantheism though I think we wanna resist that', but he never explains why we want to resist this, what is his reasoning for rejecting pantheism outright?
Maybe because his entire project is to reverse engineer the god of the Hebrews into the fundament of existence.
I somehow still believe that theists should not be afraid of embracing an infinite past, lol.
If time is continuous, as seems quite conceivable (at least in principle), then infinite regress problems are no more paradoxical on an infinite past than they are on a finite interval of, say, one second.
Is it so inconceivable to think of time as for example a real number line?
it seems to me that any concept that entails the concept of a (actually) complete incompletable is inherently incoherent and can, on that basis, be ruled out as (at least) highly implausible .
@@blbphn I'm not sure I understand the word completable. Could you elaborate please?
@@tymmiara5967 Well, there are a lot of ways I could elaborate, but basically I'm referring to the fact that *all* the members of an infinite set (say the set of counting numbers) can never in principle be literally and exhaustively instantiated, since by definition such a set is without possibility of being literally and exhaustively complete, for it is not completable by definition (as there is no last counting number) -- such a notion is undefined being inherently incoherent. This is why, for example, in calculus we have the more technically precise language of "infinitely approaches" rather than "reaches" (though these can be treated equivalently for most practical purposes). There is simply no coherent notion of actually reaching the end of, or completing, an infinite series - at least not in the literal and exhaustive sense (though there are of course mathematical/logical shortcuts that can be used in such cases, eg, convergence, etc).
@@blbphn So how do you answer the Zeno's paradox, about Achilles never outrunning a tortoise because it would take an infinite number of events (of when Achilles reaches each of the consecutive halfway points) to even reach the turtoise?
I argue that such infinite set of events (of reaching that infinity of consecutive halfway points) is easily instantiatable and we do it every day. Every time you move from A to B you have traversed all the points on your path. Is that impossible on the assumption of a continuous space?
There is absolutely no paradox on the assumption that we are able to traverse a continuum of points at any interval.
I agree with that. I don’t think anything actually can be timeless so I think it’s necessarily true.
What would be the difference in saying the category of time is identical to existence? Intervals of existence being moments in time.
aren't "moments" and "intervals" incommensurate (ie, a category mistake)?
@@blbphn prob a poor formed question. It just seems god and existence could be interchangeable
@@Leg-locky But is "existence" a thing that itself exists and has properties -- or is "existence" just a word that reflects our awareness that there are things that exist in virtue of having properties, and a word that can also refer to the set of all such existing things? God is generally posited as existing and having properties, including subjective properties, while "existence" is generally not referred to in that way. So they don't seem to be interchangeable concepts, generally speaking.
Does God see you already dead buried and dust or after the resurrection talking to people for an eternity ? I am with John Polkinghorne the future is spontaneously unfolding and not here yet.If there is a god his eternity adds out time as it happens with new realities coming into existence continually
I'm confused. Why would it be wrong to have that pantheistic view of God (God is time...or god is everything)? Unless I'm missing the point. It's hard to follow
Presumably, because God is Theistic in Christianity. In pantheism, God is not personal... and may not be a creator, either.
@@Alan_Duval I understand that. Thank you for clarifying. Then I guess a more theistic diety is more confusing because it's limited
Joe, I totally agree these two gentlemen and you are well informed and educated in the field of time, theology, philosophy and so on. But you guys are talking with the assumption that 'a god' exists. Sorry, I'm afraid I might be wasting my time here. I'm not being arrogant or trying to be supersmart. One thing though, if their arguments are somewhat valid and worth listening to, what do you say for example when Dr. Bart Ehrman simply provides the likely framework for stories of the ancient figures like Gilgamesh, where the text doesn't inform much about time, is it temporal, static whatever. But they're just products that came out as our stone age ancestors were contemplating about death, what happens after death, companionship, human existence and so on and nothing about time like Dr Craig and Dr. Mullins are validating here. Because I see time and again Dr. Mullins says this civilization that eastern etc says this and that about time. The myths creating these stories must have time as a part and some might say god and universe started together or they may state God was timeless and universe was created by him. They may not even say universe or something equivalent. They might simply mean the land they see and whatever that they know exists. Again, did god create the universe out of nothing or something? That's not the goal of these ancient myth creators. Out of their ignorance about the natural world like today we have a perfect explantion for lightning, they just thought someone is up there, very fierce and gets angry and creates fire whenever he's angry. And maybe he's communicating something to us. Or threatening us to behave good. When some of the tribe asked how did he come about? Who made him, the sky fire maker? Some smarts started adding to the stories. Yeah, he was there before anything was there. So, anything was there? Did he have trees, mountains, lakes, rivers before us? A resounding yes, leads to a god forming himself with the natural elements of nature. No, he was just alone. He made everything from scratch. What did he make those things with? And questions and questions followed by myths after myths... And now two well dressed professors arguing as if those myth creators were NASA's noble price winner scientists???
The investigation can most fruitfully be seen as what God's relationship to time *would* be if God *did* exist. So even atheists can benefit from the discussion. In fact, exploring this question can equip atheists with new arguments against theism, if (say) there's no sensible way of relating God and time.
@@MajestyofReason Agreed sir! But I vote for your video dissecting Mike Winger piece by piece exposing his sleight of hand. When time permits I'll watch this time stuff later. Good job though.
Fascinating discussion! I understand more know, after watching this, about how people go about doing philosophy. I think it was very telling that Dr. Craig said that he thinks his view better conforms to the bible. It seems that the bible acts as a constraint on his philosophy. Other theists may loosen those constraints, or disregard them altogether, when doing philosophy - this producing many varieties of opinions. I think bible-believing Christians would be more convincing if their ideas could be shown without biblical constraints. To be fair, all philosophers, seem to have some bedrock constraint of some kind - but their opponents will say that those constraints are merely problems to be solved by differing intuitions and constraints. I can't help being agnostic about a lot of these debates until there is convincing argument as to why some intuitions should be taken over others.
Am I petty for hating the idea that Mullins paints his nails?
Every second exists eternally in chronological order. I’m not saying each second lasts forever. I’m saying that God creates them in the Eternal now. God doesn’t change, so there is no “pre-2023 God” & “post-2023 God”. He creates all time a-temporarily. Time cannot emerge from time.
@@Maximex123 I don’t understand your question.
@@Maximex123 No. God is outside of time. So for creatures in time we can talk about what God did today & what He did yesterday, & what He did last year, & what He will do tomorrow. But in God, there is only one state, & it’s timeless.
@@Maximex123 You’re contracting yourself then. There is no “God before creation” or “God after creation”. There is just “God”. Nothing “happens” to Him.
Things happen to us & the creatures within creation. Do not ask creaturely questions about that which is not a creature.
This is like fan theory. Two people having a discussion about the physics in their favorite anime.
but more serious and less wanky.
@@jonathacirilo5745 Oddly enough it can get quite serious...
@@MyContext yeah
I generally find Craig to be a bit insufferable, but I appreciate his willingness to show up to discuss things with people of good faith (I mean that in the colloquial sense, not the religious) like Joe, Paulogia and others.
His interaction with Paulogia wasn't any fruitful. His conversation with Alex O’Connor was outstanding though
@@logans.butler285 "His interaction with Paulogia wasn't any fruitful" When did that interaction occur? Was it a conversation?
@@nemrodx2185 Ah, my bad. No it wasn't a direct conversation, but they both have responded to each other several times, particularly on the issue of the resurrection.
@@logans.butler285 "Ah, my mistake. No, it wasn't a direct conversation, but the two of you have responded to each other several times, particularly on the subject of resurrection."
Oh I understand. In what format? Video?
@@nemrodx2185 yes, through video. I don't think Paul has ever had a conversation directly with WLC like he did with Michael Jones or Erik Manning. Just write "William Lane Craig Destroys Paulogia" on the search bar and you'll find a whole series of views where Paulogia respond to pre-recorded episodes of WLC's podcast where he tries to refute Paulogia's skepticism to the empty tomb.
I've always said that Craig's idea that God 'started out' timeless and then somehow 'chose' to become temporal with creation is a little bit like expecting a character in a paused movie to unpause the movie from within. If they were capable of doing then then clearly they were never 'paused' to begin with. So I think Craig's model here is just completely nonsensical.
I don't know whether Craig is right or wrong but there's clearly no comparison between God and a character in a video
@@stephenglasse9756 it’s an analogy. The word ‘timeless’ implies an absolute absence of any kind of change whatsoever, as well as the lack of any potential for change. Hence, loosely analogous to someone in a paused movie.
@@fanghur yes I think Craig disagrees with that and I'm inclined to agree with him. Keanu may be 'the One' but he has zero ability to pause or unpause a movie from within. It's not clear on the other hand that God existing timelessly can't choose to act if he so desires.
Maybe this is where I struggle, but if God "thinks" doesn't that require a before and after (time). I have fanghur's issue. How does one even start deciding in a timeless state. I struggle with the single, eternal moment view, too, for the same reason. It seems that God would be preprogrammed to "think"/create at a certain point, which I have many problems with, or thought doesn't require time, which I don't comprehend since thought seems to be discursive. Either way, I don't see how he escapes the problem pointed out. I don't know that claiming "God can escape the tape" helps. Anyway, I am somewhat a layman on the issue.
04.00 : Just like proper scientists they can't agree about 'time'
This should be interesting...
3.18 : But I was always told that God was timeless or exists outside time.. when did this change?
4.30 : so, God is Time? Sounds like that's what you are telling me..
5.19 : don't think Newton said or thought any such thing. If he did, WHEN??
Y'all ought to get Sean to come talk to ya! (Sean M Carroll) He'll put you straight....
The black fingernail polish sort of killed any of Ryan's credibility for me. I couldn't get past it. Anybody else have a problem with that?
Not a fan of it, but he is a big metal music fan and that is why he does it. However, I think he spanked Craig in this debate, but I tend to like josh Rasmussen view a bit better.
Why does Mullin sound like he's referencing philosophers who disagree w WLC, as opposed to having his own thoughts. Seems like he wrote down a strategy and outlines his talking points
The two are not mutually exclusive. Ryan is referencing philosophers who share his thought, so by sharing them he's effectively sharing his own thoughts as well. Also, referencing philosophers who share your position and defend it adds strength to your argument.
Listening to this debate feels like people discussing the merits of alchemy or humor theory. It's very frustrating, because it's a matter that science has definitively settled - and almost 100 years ago, might I add.
Time is a dependent property of space; general relativity tells us this. Unless you want to deny hard experimental evidence gathered in numerous space flight missions, you must accept that time is definitely, for sure, no arguments, a substance.
Bro, neither deny scientific data. Instead, Craig claims that there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the data, such as from a Lorentzian perspective which is empirically equivalent.
I attended a philosophy and physics seminar this past summer, and examined a PhD dissertation on time and quantum physics. What physics has "shown" to be true about time is very much in debate.
if Jesus was resurrected and his brain also he can't be outside time
Yes I would agree with the Absolute Theory of Time/Space that Grounded in God.
WLC believes Time is Created and Contigent on Creation-Man?
Not sure how God Can have the FREEDOM [Time/Space] to Create without [Time/Space] already assumed before creation?
Isaac Newton
absolute time and space were independent and separate aspects of objective reality, and not dependent on physical events or on each other. Time, in this conception, was external to the universe, and so must be measured independently of the universe.
Henry More
became convinced
that there would be time even if there were no universe at all time and space became infinite eternal containers independent of their contents furthermore wanted a way to inject God back into the world this led him to identify time and space with God's eternal duration and His infinite omnipresence every event in time and every material body in space is in God because God literally is time and space.
God = Time + Space
He has explained this issue multiple times already?
@@acemxe8472 Yes we all heard wlc view at the 40min mark? Very strange a Molinist view of God who is Atemporal some how has the TIME/SPACE to pick a possible world and comes into Time/Space to press play and watch the Movie of the fatalistic [past- present- future] world he picked?
@@hudsontd7778 All you’ve said that it’s strange? You asked how, and WLC has been providing how You just need to read more of his work on this.
@@acemxe8472 I understand how, wlc explains at the 40min mark, Not only is it strange, it's Unbiblical because Time/Space is NOT contigent on Creation in fact Time/Space is the Nessassarry precondition to create anything at all.
God is FREE to create "In the Beginning" no verse in the Bible says that God was ever outside from "in the Beginning" as wlc asserts.
wlc wants possible worlds that God randomly picked for no apparent reason[Fatalism](past-present-future) then this Timeless/Spaceless God enters
"In the Beginning God" Genesis 1:1
Vain Imagination at the very least.
@@hudsontd7778 Not sure what you mean that it’s unbiblical. William Lane Craig asserts that time is correlative to creation. In the Bible it says God created all things which doesn’t pertain to himself. So this would include time.
Exactly, as you say in the beginning. What is the problem????? In the beginning God created… Not sure what you mean that God was outside of the beginning? What does that mean? And when does Craig assert that? He posits that God entered into creation in the first moment of time.
Clarify your last paragraph.
I’m with Dr Craig here that there’s no way time is a substance and equivalent with God, that’s a pretty wild take. Ryan’s almost too smart to the point of losing common sense, you intellectualize yourself into believing God is a ham sandwich.
Well, Ryan quite literally clarified that he doesn't think that time is equivalent with God the next minute. He thinks of time in the same way omnipotence and omniscience are related to God; that is, time's not equivalent to God, but a property of His.
How tf is this homie to the left a professor.
Great stuff. But no mentjon of God as divine Mind. God as undecided, or unready. Mental phenomena of humans gives us notions of ideas, and abstractiins. That would make layering, cerebral conceivable, dipolar, as AN Whitehead is credited, I believe.