It has always been the theistic view that God created this universe, which means time, space and matter. Thus God has always existed even though time has not. Hence time is a subset of the eternal.I now think that you are giving, "6. ...outside or beyond time or time relationships; timeless," as your definition of "eternal." Can you expound or explicate? I'd like to know what you think that means.
Parsed……….Yours isn't wrong. Yours was unknown. Maybe that is in part because you were previously, or intermittently taking the position that gods existed before time. Are you now abandoning that position in favor of this timeless thing?
I know. You just seemed like you were forcing God to be part of the universe, regarding time. You seemed to be forcing eternal to be only existent if time exists. Theism has never had this view. We‘ve been battling on this since we began our discussion began. Your version of theism isn’t theism it’s a straw man.Yours isn't wrong.
To you, but not to the theist. That’s again why I was referring to the historical understanding as to what theism actually is. God is eternal time is not. Theism 101.Yours was unknown.
God not gods. I have always taken the position that God existed “before” time.Maybe that is in part because you were previously, or intermittently taking the position that gods existed before time.
Not sure what you think I’m abandoning, because I have repeatedly proclaimed the God is timeless "before" the universe. Specifically God is timeless "before" time.Are you now abandoning that position in favor of this timeless thing?
Now
Please notice I intentionally used the word “before“ there only to clarify the thought. Technically the word “before” creates a contradiction…but perhaps it made the point clearer for you. The proper way to say the God existed “before” time is the God is timeless sans time, because using the word before creates a contradiction. But for clarity here with you I will use the word “before” in quotation marks to hopefully make it clearer.
I didn’t think you were intentionally doing that just to be contrary. I realized you didn’t have an accurate understanding of theism. Thus I had no secret thing going on there. I have been trying to establish with you what theism is.If I did that, I was wrong. I thought I was beating a definition out of you because you were uncooperatively keeping it a secret.I was addressing the reasoning we each had to be using different ….familiar “uses.” And you faulted me for doing that, in favor of just assuming you were right and I was wrong.
Of course I do. But what is it I have to prove. Because as I see it we are just trying to clear up our different perceptions on what theism actually is. The KCA is completely secondary at this point. Because the KCA is a theistic argument. So if your understanding is that theism proclaims that God is limited be time like pantheism then KCA would be senseless. I been attempting to show you that theism does not limit God to time. Never has. Theism 101.You are the affirmative. You have the burden of proof. You get to carry that burden in words of your choice.So can we reason this out or are do we just have to accept your familiar use?
Precisely.On the other hand, the word you have chosen is problematic, and I don't have the equivalent of "allaverse" and "partaverse" handy to distinguish between the more common meaning and the meaning that I don't yet understand.
Parsed…..I'm used to Christians saying that god goes back in time as far as time goes, and then, at that point, he does some inexplicable thing like turning at right angles to time, and somehow having an infinitely continuing regression of cause and effect that happens without any time passing.
That is your misperception, because you take that to mean the God is limited to time. Because as that is stated it is correct, God “goes back” as far as time goes……. AND MORE. Time began, thus God “goes back” to when time began and existed eternally “before” time began because he created time. Theism 101. Not something I’m making upI'm used to Christians saying that god goes back in time as far as time goes,
God existed “before” time so how does that create a regression of cause and effect?and then, at that point, he does some inexplicable thing like turning at right angles to time, and somehow having an infinitely continuing regression of cause and effect that happens without any time passing.
1) “but that things happened before that anyway.” …what did I say happened “before” time?But you took the contrary position that time goes back only as far as the big bang, but that things happened before that anyway. As I said earlier, in my experience, you're the only one who ever did this.
2) That is theism…..not particular only to me. This understanding is not new to theists….but it does seem new to you, because you misinterpreted basic theism.
Yes you did present the argument in your “way” to refute it. But the “way” you presented it contained a misperception of actual theism. Your objection (regarding beginning, time, eternal) to the KCA rested upon your misperception of theism. That has been what I’m trying to clear up. Theism in no way limits God to time. Never has.So, in my perception, (a) were not on the timelessness bandwagon, and (b) you resented it when I provided your arguments for you so that I could refute them. So I've been trying to get you to see the conflict between a timely eternity and a beginning of time.
So
Your attempt to refute the KCA there, rested upon a straw man of theism. Again I didn’t resent it. I’ve been trying to clarify the misperception…..an unintentional straw man.
No time is a subset of the eternal. God was timeless “before” he created time. That is theism. Do you deny that theism asserts that God created this universe…..time? If you don’t then God had to exist “before” time, because he created time. Again that is Theism 101.I'm not with you. Time is supposed to be a subset of timeless?I reasoned “exsiting through all time” to mean time is a subset of the eternal. Clearly supported by d6.
Parsed….Forget it. Not a problem. Though I think you often overstate your case about how much historical people agreed with your current position.I don’t think you were ever truly “familiar” with the theistic reasoning here, hence your assumed “use.” Thus why I continually referenced the history of this reasoning. Not in any way to proclaim that I’m smarter than you. (Sorry about that unintended perception. ) But to sincerely support that my position was common and point out that I’m not making this up.
Great.Forget it. Not a problem.
You assert that as if this is some kind of subjective consensus debate. The point there is I was presenting theism as it actually is. Granted many Christians have no clue to the understanding of what theism is as well. But I giving you what theism is, not my opinion. You just want your straw man of theism to exist so you can easily defeat it.Though I think you often overstate your case about how much historical people agreed with your current position.
Then your case against the KCA is based upon a straw man of theism.Case in point.Theism would not make sense, or even exist, if the eternal was restricted to time.