Greg Bahnsen - Problems for Unbelieving Worldviews (part 2)

Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen - Basic Training for Defending the Faith. Problems for Unbelieving Worldviews - part two of nine.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• atheism
• christianity
• debate
• philosophy
• hitchens
• christ
• apologetics
• TAG
• billy
• graham
• william
• lane
• craig

[plato7770]

@godkilleratheist. So I can tell which 1 of the Greeks u r

[GodKillerAtheist]

let's see

My realistic, skeptic, humanistic (that means doing good for humanity) world view

verses his superstitious apocalyptic world view...hmmmm?

I think I'll stay myself instead of perverted like this freak

[jaynkay100]

@HatemongerNTBSF1129 You seem to be missing the point as well. The problem is that "time" is not an affector to begin with. It is a descriptor. The only way to make reference to time is through change. Otherwise it isn't as if it exists as some sort of mysterious dimension one can slip in and out of.

If god is not static then he enters the causal chain and is "affected by time" tho that simply means he can be described in reference to time. I can't make this any more simple.

[HatemongerNTBSF1129]

@jaynkay100 Oh yea, i forgot to mention this... Its not that say time would be static, its just that it wouldn't be an effector. For example

Lets say that you come across a rock in the forest, you see its dimensions as defined by x, y, and z... Lets say that time is a lot like one of these dimensions. If someone threw the rock at you and missed, it wouldn't be static by any means it just wouldn't affect you. This is essentially what I'm saying

[HatemongerNTBSF1129]

@jaynkay100 Lol, and yes, it would tend to "undermine all understanding of any sort of divine plan"... you ever heard a theist talk about the "mysteries of god's plan"... This makes perfect sense in their framework

[HatemongerNTBSF1129]

@jaynkay100 I think either I'm having a problem explaining to you what I'm talking about, or you're having a problem understanding it, or you understand it fully and completely so you decide to basically restate a component of my assertions dressed up in a different face. I'm making the assertion that if there is an omnipotent being, time is not an effector on it... you're just reiterating a portion of my same argument pal...

[jaynkay100]

@HatemongerNTBSF1129 If time were in fact static, then cause and effect are meaningless, as the effect exists simultaneously with the cause, thus eliminating any dependencies. This would undermine all understanding of any sort of "divine plan" as its conclusion is already in existence. No future, no past, only ONE simultaneous moment. And yet we can distinguish time as 'that' point and 'this' one, indicating two distinct occurrences, and a lack of homogeny in the time/space department.

[HatemongerNTBSF1129]

@jaynkay100 Why is this a problem? My explanation subscribes explicitly to the idea that time would not be static to such an individual. As they would not be subject or limited by any such variable then the set parameters of interaction with a "static" observation of time would make this possible. Without a dependence on time, but existing outside of time, you could theoretically be in all places and maintain multiple identities to any point of observation subject to time/space.

[jaynkay100]

@HatemongerNTBSF1129 Assuming its even possible to be in multiple times and spaces at once assumes time/space is static, thus "cause/effect" are illusory, as both happen at once, point 'A' in time and space must exist before 'X' can inhabit it, unless you were unrestricted by that, which means you would be back to the 'cause & effect' model, with one thing happening before another in sequence, which is 'Time' as we know it.

[HatemongerNTBSF1129]

@mathgeek37 Subjective truth or "what my truth is" will only be determined by the standards we use. This is absolutely reasonable. The real issue is which standards best explain human experience and natural law. If you do indeed like Bahnsen you should look into his writing on standards, specifically "By What Standard"