Thanks for the response K. I need to look how to clarify my points then. I am aware that you disagree on God's temporality, and that's perfectly fine. I even cite Craig as an example of someone who believes God is temporal but who affirms my argument (see p7n16). I there refer to Craig's
Time and Eternity, and readers can happily view the relevant pages here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=mHRdzX ... ty&f=false
Just click "page 29" or if the search doesn't work, just read pages 29-32. I know you've read the book before.
Anyway, I am aware that there is a weak definition of immutability such that a temporal God can be "immutable" in that sense. But that, of course, is precisely what I'm challenging in the paper. I've said repeatedly throughout that a temporal God cannot be immutable in the strong, classical sense, which is something Craig also says. To quote just that relevant portion:
- Similarly, if God is immutable, then even if He is not simple He cannot be temporal. Like simplicity, the immutability affirmed by the medieval theologians is a radical concept: utter immobility. God cannot change in any respect. He never thinks successive thoughts, He never performs successive actions, He never undergoes even the most trivial alteration. God not only cannot undergo intrinsic change, He cannot even change extrinsically by being related to changing things. But obviously a temporal being undergoes at least extrinsic change in that it exists at different moments of time and, given the reality of the temporal world, co-exists with different sets of temporal beings as they undergo intrinsic change. Even if we relax the definition of "immutable" to mean "incapable of intrinsic change," or even the weaker concept "intrinsically changeless," an immutable God cannot be temporal. For if God is temporal, He at the very least changes in that He is constantly growing older--not physically, of course, but in the purely temporal sense of constantly adding more years to His life. Moreover, God would be constantly changing in His knowledge, knowing first that "It is now t1" and later "It is now t2." God's foreknowledge and memories must also be steadily changing, as anticipated events transpire ad become past. God would constantly be performing new actions, at t1 causing events at t1, and at t2 causing events at t2. Thus a temporal God cannot be changeless. It follows, then, that if God is immutable, He is timeless.
So, given this--and I'm really not trying to debate whether I am right in my overall position or not--what would help clarify my position here? Because I do think I'm right that if God is temporal He is mutable or if He is immutable He must be atemporal, unless, of course, we are adopting a very weak definition of immutability
a la Dorner, Ware, Craig, Moreland, Chisholm, etc. That is, the so-called "onto-ethical" view of God's immutability, which is what you seem to be subscribing to. And that is the entire purpose of the paper, to say that their position is inconsistent with the biblical text. I could be wrong, obviously, but I need to at least be clear.
Thoughts?
edit:
And we're obviously in complete agreement about the philosophy thing. And I got a good laugh out of the video--yes, freaky timing. But soooo good. I will probably use that next time I'm teaching a class just to lighten things up a bit!
