The Timeless Solution

[TheBeast]

This is just something I'm pondering for my dissertation.

The Boethian Solution posits God as being timeless, which creates many objections. If God could be posited as being both temporal and atemporal, might that suffice as an answer to many of these objections?

I mean, how much stronger does the Timeless solution become if God is granted, in conjunction with His timeless nature, temporality?

[livius drusus]

Do you mean in the same way as Christ's dual nature is fully God and fully human? Not that I would know what to say about it even if that is a fair analogy, mind you. I've always found the one person-two natures doctine difficult to ken.

Also, if you don't mind -- and I'll understand fully if you do -- could you back up a moment and cover the objections your posited dual nature answers?

[TheBeast]

More in the sense of the relation between Father and Christ/Son. Although in this case I take into consideration the purported omnipresence of God - simply replace the mind of Christ with the mind of every sentient agent, such that our knowledge truly is God knowledge, yet at the same time (if you will) He is essentially omniscient by virtue of existing beyond the plane/s of time.

Relativity Theory may end up playing a large part in this, I should imagine - if it is plausible that time can be reduced to a temporal point, then we may be able to postulate a plausible nature for a timeless observer. That, coupled with the addition of His temporal presence, may afford a positive solution to the Divine Fatalist Dilemma.

I don't intend to claim it answers anything until I have considered it more fully - this was just a notion that popped into my head as I was researching the Boethian Solution

The objections I currently have in mind are the Solution's commitment to a B-theory of time (I'll explain what this is if anyone doesn't know :)) especially the problem tensed propositions pose for an atemporal being, making it seem that there are things known to us but not to God (E.g. - It is not the case that God knows that I typed this sentence after deciding to do so)

Furthermore, positing an atemporal God may aid the theist in defending against problems of omniscience vis-a-vis a purely temporal God, while allowing Him to know the truths of indexicals and tensed sentences.

[godfry n. glad]

And I'm not clear on why anyone needs to posit a "god" in any case.

[TheBeast]

This is just for my dissertation - there's no need to bring up the whole theism-atheism debate here.

In any case, I can't imagine theism surviving without positing a God ;)

[livius drusus]

For mental exercise if nothing else, godfry. Consider yourself a dissertation consultant.

Beast, I'm afraid it's all a little above my head. Okay, a lot. :blush: I'm going to have to look some things up before I can form even a vaguely cogent reply.

[TheBeast]

It's OK - Any feedback is appreciated.

Currently I'm wondering how it is affected by necessity per accidens (necessity of the past) as being purely confined to the past and how future tensed propositions may be known by a God of dual-natured existence without compromising our freedom (through, for instance, leading to logical fatalism).

[godfry n. glad]

This is just for my dissertation - there's no need to bring up the whole theism-atheism debate here.

Ah... Okay. Nevermind.

In any case, I can't imagine theism surviving without positing a God ;)

That's rather the whole point.

Neither can I. It's self-defining isn't it? Is that tautological?

You can, however, have religion without a god. I can think of three significant examples, offhand.

Anyway, that's all off-topic. I shall watch from the sidelines. I will do my best to ask civil questions. The language is a bit difficult for me to follow. What field? Philosophy? Theology? Marketing? What kind of institution? Maybe if I had a better idea of the context....

So, what is this "time" that one's supposed "god" is without? What does it mean to be "timeless"? (Humor me.) I think operating with the same definitions might help. Who is Boethe and what is his explicit statement regarding the timeless god? To what is it a solution?

And to which "god" are we referring?

Is there any way to test your theory/thesis?

[TheBeast]

This is just for my dissertation - there's no need to bring up the whole theism-atheism debate here.

Ah... Okay. Nevermind.

In any case, I can't imagine theism surviving without positing a God ;)

That's rather the whole point.

Neither can I. It's self-defining isn't it? Is that tautological?

You can, however, have religion without a god. I can think of three significant examples, offhand.

Anyway, that's all off-topic. I shall watch from the sidelines. I will do my best to ask civil questions. The language is a bit difficult for me to follow. What field? Philosophy? Theology? Marketing? What kind of institution? Maybe if I had a better idea of the context....

Philosophy [of religion]

So, what is this "time" that one's supposed "god" is without? What does it mean to be "timeless"? (Humor me.)

Truth be told I'm not quite sure. ET-Simultaneity seems to give a fair indication.

All temporal events are simultaneous with eternity, making them all seem as though at present to an eternal being. Aquinas favours the circle analogy - God is the central point and time is the circumference. Hence each moment is equidistant from the centre, while being successive to each other moment of time.

I think operating with the same definitions might help. Who is Boethe and what is his explicit statement regarding the timeless god? To what is it a solution?

Beothius tried to answer the dilemma between omniscience and freewill by denying that God is foreknowing. Instead, He knows things timelessly (although I'm still not quite sure how this makes a difference to future propositions from a temporal perspective).

And to which "god" are we referring?

Omniscient, though that usually seems to get tied in with omnimax or, more specifically, the Judeo-Christian God.

Is there any way to test your theory/thesis?

Just consider if it's possible (for a negative solution) or plausible, granting the existence of God (for a positive solution).

E.g. - (It is not the case that) if an omniscient God exists we have freewill

[godfry n. glad]

Omniscient, though that usually seems to get tied in with omnimax or, more specifically, the Judeo-Christian God.

Okay. Can there be two of them? Or more?

Is there any way to test your theory/thesis?

Just consider if it's possible (for a negative solution) or plausible, granting the existence of God (for a positive solution).


I don't think I'm going to be of much value here, sorry. Really. I should just watch.

[Dragar]

All temporal events are simultaneous with eternity...

Would you be deeply offended if I called this a nonsense statement?

Would you think the sentance 'all spatial events have the same spacial coordinate as all of space' has any semblance of meaning to it?

[TheBeast]

Hang on, let me correct it

Let 'x' and 'y' range over entities and events. Then
(ET) for every x and every y, x and y are ET simultaneous iff
(i) either x is eternal and y is temporal, or vice versa; and
(ii) for some observer, A, in the unique eternal reference frame, x and y are both present - i.e., either x is observed as eternally present and y is observed as temporally present, or vice versa; and
(iii) for some observer, B, in one of the infinitely many temporal reference frames, x and y are both present - i.e., either x is observed as eternally present and y is temporally present, or vice versa.

Hence all temporal events are ET simultaneous with the eternal observer, A, or in this context, God. Even if God is simply atemporal, since He observes time from outside the temporal reference frame/s all temporal events may be said to be present to, or simultaneous with, His perspective.