Contemplating my decision to leave Christianity (Mormonism, versus, choices, Buddhism)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Augustine places God on top of pyramid of existence. He is the one that is infinite and eternal and there is no change and motion in nature of God. God is immutable in His essence and His attributes and so subject to no mutation. He is eternal and time-independent. "
"St. Augustine’s reflections on time started with the fact that time is a measure of change. As such, it presupposes the existence of things that change—which, of course, must be created things. Consequently, he said, “there can be no time without creation.” Time is thus an aspect of the created world and is itself a creation of God
God created time. but is not subject to time. because god existed before time was created.
just like God created forms, but has no form. because god existed before forms were created.
and just like God created space, but does not exist in space. because god existed before space was created.
"This led St. Augustine to a most remarkable insight, which is that it is meaningless to speak about “times before creation.” For if time is passing, then something created is already in existence, namely changing things and time itself, meaning that all times must be times after creation. There was no time before heaven and earth."
and this: "God himself is beyond space and time” "St Augustine argued that earthly time (which is part of God’s creation) must be very different to the nature of God’s existence. " "God’s eternity, in which “nothing is transient, but the whole is present” In eternity, there is no such thing as transition from past to present to future. Eternity is simply one whole present moment."
So actually what Augustine says supports that time is NOT an aspect of God. but is ONLY an aspect of physical creation. "Since the divine eternity is a never-ending present, it exists wholly separate from time." GOD EXISTS WHOLLY SEPARATE FROM TIME.
Tzaph, I really appreciate your thorough referencing and excerpts in response to these discussions because very few here are familiar with the sources. Early on I tried to do that as well in presenting my Synthesis, but few here seem to appreciate it and it was like casting pearls. I want you to realize that I DO appreciate it despite the inevitable "trampling" that the swine may do to it. I wearied of the trampling myself.
I referred to Augustine's concept of Time as the basis of our experienced Reality because it is scientifically verifiable. I personally reject his characterization of God for the same reasons I reject yours. They are platitudes created to satisfy human wishful thinking about what God SHOULD be (like the Omni's) that have no basis other than human desire. We do not determine what God is like no matter how clever and erudite we think we are.
The decades-long development of my Synthesis specifically addressed that aspect to ensure that my intellect could accept what we can actually discern, NOT what we think SHOULD be. My use of "God" as the label is entirely the result of my experiences of consciousness as the actual basis of our Reality. What else would a conscious Reality BE? The manifestation of conscious awareness is itself a time-dependent phenomenon so to talk of "timeless awareness" is not just irrational, it is completely incredible, IMO.
Tzaph, I really appreciate your thorough referencing and excerpts in response to these discussions because very few here are familiar with the sources. Early on I tried to do that as well in presenting my Synthesis, but few here seem to appreciate it and it was like casting pearls. I want you to realize that I DO appreciate it despite the inevitable "trampling" that the swine may do to it. I wearied of the trampling myself.
I referred to Augustine's concept of Time as the basis of our experienced Reality because it is scientifically verifiable. I personally reject his characterization of God for the same reasons I reject yours. They are platitudes created to satisfy human wishful thinking about what God SHOULD be (like the Omni's) that have no basis other than human desire. We do not determine what God is like no matter how clever and erudite we think we are.
The decades-long development of my Synthesis specifically addressed that aspect to ensure that my intellect could accept what we can actually discern, NOT what we think SHOULD be. My use of "God" as the label is entirely the result of my experiences of consciousness as the actual basis of our Reality. What else would a conscious Reality BE? The manifestation of conscious awareness is itself a time-dependent phenomenon so to talk of "timeless awareness" is not just irrational, it is completely incredible, IMO.
so then science determines your theology. it is circumscribed by and restricted to "what is scientifically verifiable."
and it does not include anything which is not addressed by science. and so it is limited to the physical worlds and physical phenomena and the dimensions of time, space, and form.
OK. that's fine. again, not trying to change your beliefs or convince you differently.
just clarifying what drives the theology.
And noting that other systems do go beyond that limited scope.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-18-2023 at 12:19 PM..
Tzaph, I really appreciate your thorough referencing and excerpts in response to these discussions because very few here are familiar with the sources. Early on I tried to do that as well in presenting my Synthesis, but few here seem to appreciate it and it was like casting pearls. I want you to realize that I DO appreciate it despite the inevitable "trampling" that the swine may do to it. I wearied of the trampling myself.
I referred to Augustine's concept of Time as the basis of our experienced Reality because it is scientifically verifiable. I personally reject his characterization of God for the same reasons I reject yours. They are platitudes created to satisfy human wishful thinking about what God SHOULD be (like the Omni's) that have no basis other than human desire. We do not determine what God is like no matter how clever and erudite we think we are.
The decades-long development of my Synthesis specifically addressed that aspect to ensure that my intellect could accept what we can actually discern, NOT what we think SHOULD be. My use of "God" as the label is entirely the result of my experiences of consciousness as the actual basis of our Reality. What else would a conscious Reality BE? The manifestation of conscious awareness is itself a time-dependent phenomenon so to talk of "timeless awareness" is not just irrational, it is completely incredible, IMO.
and an additional thought: i'd say that "satisfying your intellect" falls in the category of "satisfy human wishful thinking about what God should be" with "no basis other than human desire." As the post above references: We do not determine what God is like no matter how clever and erudite and rational and scientific a person thinks they are.
so then science determines your theology.
and it does not include anything which is not addressed by science. and that is limited to the physical worlds and physical phenomena and the dimensions of time, space, and form.
OK. that's fine. again, not trying to change your beliefs or convince you differently.
just clarifying what drives the theology. And noting that other systems go beyond that limited scope.
I have gone well beyond science, Tzaph, but refuse to accept anything that cannot at least be made compatible with what we know or that we can hypothesize from what we know. I cannot accommodate pure speculation especially when it contradicts what we DO know.
the problem with science determining theology
is that it doesn't.
This. They're both amazing, they both reveal amazing things but they are not the same thing and one can neither prove nor disprove the other. They're not supposed to, IMO.
the problem with science determining theology
is that it doesn't.
it is an inadequate tool for the task.
And yet, there are many christians, including some right here on this forum, who try to use fake science to prove their beliefs. You guys can't have it all ways.
And yet, there are many christians, including some right here on this forum, who try to use fake science to prove their beliefs. You guys can't have it all ways.
When asked for scientific qualification people try to give scientific answers.
You can't demand scientific proof, have people try to answer you and then claim the religious are "trying to use science."
You can't have it all ways.
You know by now God can't be proven scientifically and science can't disprove God so why keep sawing away? What ARE you proving? That you can't stand that some people believe in and derive comfort from something that doesn't give you comfort? That says more about you, frankly, than about God OR the religious, just saying.
The different number of mutually exclusive theologies would suggest that theology is an inadequate tool for the task.
there are many flavors of ice cream. it's still ice cream.
people may disagree about what is the best flavor or their favorite flavor.
but it's still ice cream.
what a peculiar notion that having more than one flavor (of anything) renders them "mutually exclusive" and "inadequate"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
