Too much for you to understand.

(August 14, 2010 at 3:12 pm)Watson Wrote: Too much for you to understand.

No, you mean not enough to take seriously.

Sure, why not? Let's go with that.

(August 11, 2010 at 5:05 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Is god in stasis or is he dynamic in that he has internal processes and acts. If he is in stasis then how did he do the things he is claimed to have done. If he is dynamic than he must exist in an environment which includes time because dynamic events only unfold in time, and if in time then he must exist in a universe and be finite, therefore not god.

A timeless being would know all things at all times. It's still dynamic but not constrained by time, which you don't allow for in your classifications. It is in stasis from our time frame, but not it's own.

(August 15, 2010 at 3:23 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(August 11, 2010 at 5:05 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Is god in stasis or is he dynamic in that he has internal processes and acts. If he is in stasis then how did he do the things he is claimed to have done. If he is dynamic than he must exist in an environment which includes time because dynamic events only unfold in time, and if in time then he must exist in a universe and be finite, therefore not god.

A timeless being would know all things at all times. It's still dynamic but not constrained by time, which you don't allow for in your classifications. It is in stasis from our time frame, but not it's own.

This is a very intersting construct. But I would need a rough sketch to get my head around it. Because fro my perspective if god is outside of time he cannot, not be in stasis either from our frame of reference or his.

Maybe I'm wrong there. Could a timeless being, therefore ultimately knowledgeable, ever be considered to have developed to that state? In timelessness all things become known at a single point. Is that stasis?

To us; Gods dynamism could be seen in the ongoing and developing influence on our lives. From our perspective it would be dynamic but from God's perspective everything is known.

I think dynamism means changing reaction in relation to an action. To us that appears to be true.

(August 15, 2010 at 4:30 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Maybe I'm wrong there. Could a timeless being, therefore ultimately knowledgeable, ever be considered to have developed to that state? In timelessness all things become known at a single point. Is that stasis?

To us; Gods dynamism could be seen in the ongoing and developing influence on our lives. From our perspective it would be dynamic but from God's perspective everything is known.

I think dynamism means changing reaction in relation to an action. To us that appears to be true.

Yes I can see how you can reconcile this dilemma under this construct. It does pay a price for the Christian theology though, gods intervention in humankind cannot be true. Your position seems more diesm than theism. Is that fair?

I am less convinced that the state of timelessness would render omniscience. It seems a speculative conclusion. A timeless and spaceless environment is a state of nothingness where there can be no information.

Why can't God intervene in the physical universe by that reasoning? I am theist.

I'm assuming that God is closely involved. His timeless attribute works with his attachment to his creation. He caused everything to be from himself. He is in the universe as well as outside it.