Re: God and Time

Garry DeWeese (deweese@ucsu.Colorado.EDU)
Tue, 19 Mar 1996 16:29:06 -0700 (MST)

>> Paul Arveson Wrote:
>>
>> ... I think it is also consistent
>> with the modern conception of the universe as a 4-dimensional space-time
>> continuum, as opposed to the Newtonian concept of absolute time and space.
>
And Jeff Webster wrote:
>
> However, the question of time is still a thorny one. For example, many
> theologians have abandoned the view that God is "outside time." He is not at
> its mercy, but is rather the "lord of time," to quote Richard Swinburne
> again. They adhere to the creator/creature distinction very strongly,
> but feel that removing
> God from time altogether is too extreme and Biblically untenable, eg. the
> incarnation poses enormous problems for the traditional view. Therefore, they
> take a middle ground between the classical and process theologians, at least
> where time is concerned.
>
> Also, I certainly agree with your comment about the 4-d universe according well
> with the classical view. Interestingly enough, process theology impales itself
> on this very point, for it demands an objective, universal "now" for the
> evolving universe. That is, it posits an absolute simultaneity for all
> observers, contrary to special relativity. . . .

There are, I think, many reasons for acknowledging that God experiences
succession in his being, and thus experiences time--although not the
measured time of our physical universe. To cite but two: First, the
members of the Trinity, eternally existing in the relationship of perichoresis
(mutual indwelling) must relate to each other dynamically, hence
successively. Second, as Chisholm shows in "Does God 'Change His Mind'?"
(Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct-Dec 1995), not all biblical statements of a
change in God's intentions can be explained as anthropomorphic, and so
there must be succession in God. The reasons for denying this are, it
seems, a conception of immutability where *nothing* about God can change,
when it is better understood, I think, as meaning God can not change in
his essential attributes/character, and also the Neo-Platonist conception
of God's simplicity. The "middle ground" Jeff Webster notes is occupied
by such people as Clark Pinnock, David Basinger, William Hasker, etc.

Now, if anyone is still with me, a comment which might stir up the
physicists among us. Given that absolute simultaneity is possible under
a Lorentzian interpretation of STR, and the Lorentz and Einstein
interpretations are empirically equivalent, is there any real reason to
reject the notion, which seems the most intuitive, that time is dynamic,
not static, that the past and present are real but the future is not?
For if future events are real, then it is very difficult, if not
impossible, to resist fatalism or determinism.

Garry DeWeese