GOD IS TIME | Ryan Mullins, PhD

[@HJM0409]

good interview! Always appreciate hearing from Ryan Mullins and his helpful perspective.

[@ghostman8163]

Interesting topic and guest! Thank you for this interview. It tickled my perception of God and time in general.

[@onceamusician5408]

we are puny minds who cannot even solve the paradox of light - wave form or particle stream, it can't be both BUT IT IS- and yet we presume to speculate about God Almighty, who, lest we forget, IS INFINITE

[@beammeupscotty3074]

HEY ryan, if god is time that obviously something simpler exists that god, so obviously GOD is not the creator of all things because something simpler exists than a creator GOD does . Are people that blind to simple concepts of reason ?

[@wstaylor1953]

Excellent interview, thanks!

[@Alex_Pinkney]

Excellent interview!🔥

[@Anselmiankey]

Eph. 5:13 commands us to redeem the time. Are we to redeem God?

[@EgbertWarriorforChrist]

stupid argument.

[@apilkey]

Huh? How does redeeming the time equate to redeeming God? Redeeming the time simply means making the most out of the time God has given us and trying to turn this evil world into good.

[@thomasthellamas9886]

Ephesians 5:13 KJV But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light, for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. ESV But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, NIV But everything exposed by the light becomes visible-and everything that is illuminated becomes a light.

[@rogersacco4624]

If Jesus was resurrected, and his brain also he is not outside of time .If the future exists now you are already dead and buried and dust.Or were you already resurrected and Jesus met you

[@beammeupscotty3074]

HEY ryan, if god is time that obviously something simpler exists that god, so obviously GOD is not the creator of all things because something simpler exists than a creator GOD does .

[@novazemlja313]

Лакирани нокти? "Благо" феминизирани покрети? Хмм..

[@prorocanstva3249]

Ima ženu..

[@novazemlja313]

@@prorocanstva3249 Небитно да ли има жену или не.. Створитељ сигурно није "замислио" да овако изгледају Адамови и Евини потомци.

[@beammeupscotty3074]

HEY ryan, if god is time that obviously something simpler exists that god, so obviously GOD is not the creator of all things because something simpler exists than a creator GOD does . Are people that blind to simple concepts of reason ?

[@onceamusician5408]

this guy will grow up when he encounters the holy and terrible MYSTERY who is God Almighty IN PERSON, just as Job did. but don't worry i am done pestering you. i will block any channel which indulges such futility as this

[@williammcenaney1331]

Since Dr. Mullins does analytic philosophy, I'd expect him to make sharper distinctions. But he sounds confused. Let me explain. Being a classical theist, I agree God is everywhere, so the question is what we mean when we say he's there. I suggest it's absurd to believe God relates spacially to material objects when he doesn't occupy space. But I think it makes sense to say God causes events and sustains whatever he creates. Here's why even you can stay the same when you make something happen. Suppose you're napping where I want to read a book. So, I leave when I see you because I'd hate to disturb you. Though you stayed the same, you still sent me away. But you would have changed by going from sleeping to being awake. Classical theists believe God knows things by causing them. He's like a novelist who knows everything about his book because he thinks up the story and writes the book. I think Dr. Mullins's belief about God's nature is clearly false if each composed object requires a cause. In that case, God needs a cause if he has parts, which means that Dr. Mullins's "God" idea produces a vicious infinite causal regress. If it does that, it's a heresy that implies atheism. The divine simplicity doctrine is ancient. In the fourth century, St. Hilary of Poiters wrote: God, Who is Life, is not a Being built up of various and lifeless portions; He is Power, and not compact of feeble elements, Light, intermingled with no shades of darkness, Spirit, that can harmonise with no incongruities. All that is within Him is One; what is Spirit is Light and Power and Life, and what is Life is Light and Power and Spirit. He Who says, I am, and I change not (Malachi 3:6), can suffer neither change in detail nor transformation in kind. For these attributes, which I have named, are not attached to different portions of Him, but meet and unite, entirely and perfectly, in the whole being of the living God. Fuqua, Jonathan; Koons, Robert C.. Classical Theism: New Essays on the Metaphysics of God (Routledge Studies in the Philosophy of Religion) (p. 234). Taylor & Francis. Kindle Edition.

[@apilkey]

So in your view it’s impossible for Almighty God to know anything unless He determined it?

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@apilkey It seems absurd to say that God has always been all-knowing if ne needed to discover some true proposition to know that's true. That's partly why I believe that God must be absolutely simple if he exists. Dr. Mullins's God concept suggests that God has at least metaphysical parts. But an object with parts can't exist without them. Since self-causation implies a self-contradiction, no object with parts can put itself together. After all, it must already exist to do that. But if it already exists, it doesn't need anyone or anything to build it. So, again, I suggest nonclassical theism implies atheism. Dr. Mullins and other nonclassical theists believe God. But if I'm right, they're mistaken about the divine nature. You might reply that Christ, God the Son, has parts, since eyes, arms, legs, and so forth are parts. But he got those thing when he incarnated. He didn't begin to exist in Mary's womb. He existed in heaveb without those parts. He made them his own. He took on a human nature. And being a human being implies having a human body, a human intellect, a human will, and a human soul. No orthodox Christian believes two persons share Christ's body. If someone believed that, he'd be a Nestorian heretic. Dr. Craig believes the Monothelite heresy. He thinks Christ's divine will is his only one. That's unbiblical, though, because of what Our Lord said while he walked to Calvary. He distinguished between his will and God the Father's will. If Our Lord had only the divine will, did he talk to himself then? No Christian I know of believes God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost have separate divine wills. If they did, that would suggest polytheism.

[@apilkey]

@@williammcenaney1331So again, in your view it’s impossible for Almighty God to know anything unless He determined it? Are you able to answer that plainly, yes or no?

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@apilkey I believe God knows things by causing them. I also think Dr. Mullins's theistic personalism is false because it implies a vicious infinite regress of cases. The same goe for Craig's theistic personalism. By Catholic standards, that theistic opinion is a self-refuting heresy. Think of it this way. If there were a past-infinite set causes, there would be no current effects in our world since causal power would never reach it. God could create infinitely many things, but he would need to be outside that group to do that. Classical theists believe that God makes everything and everyon except himself exist, even if his creatures always have existed will exist forever. Only two metaphysically possible kinds of causality exist. Either a cause and its effects must exist together or the ultimate source of causal power must be atemporal. But Dr. Craig says God became temporal. There trouble is that any object with parts needs a cause and a possibility is a metaphysical part requires a cause. So Dr. Craig's theory about the divine nature implies that God needs a cause. But if he does, he's not God after all. Before the Protestant Reformation, there was no theistic personalism because Christians, Jews, and Muslims agreed that God was absolutely simple. Theistic personalists reject absolute divine simplicity partly because they believe it contradicts the Bible. But even they know that some Biblical passages are metaphorical. They says God is love. They'll also insist that love one of his distinct properties. How can he be love if his love is distinct from him? He can't since he can't be distanct from himself as such. We can say he has properties. Classical theists talk analogically when they argue that God is all-good, all-powerful, and so forth. Stilll, when he say that, those property words each stand for God. They have different meanings, though they denote or stand for exactly the same referent, for God. We need the distinctions because we think analytically. But those properties are not distinct ones in God. "In God" is misleading, too, because it suggests that God has parts when he doesn't.

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@apilkey What do you mean by "determined?" Are you suggesting that if God knows everything, no one else has free will? I believe God is absolutely unchanging and absolutely unchangeable. If he could go from being one way to being another, that change woyld require a cause. Imagine that God is flying s helicopter ab0ve your neighborhood. He watches each even that happens on earth and knows exactly where each person is and what he's doing. But God doesn't force anyone to do anything. Suppose you share a home with your best friend. Each morning, when he talks to work, he buysj a newspaper and a cup of coffee from the convenience store he passes when he's halfway to his office. Since you know him very well, you know exactly what he'll while strolling to his office. But your knowledge doesn't coerce him. Aristotle and Thomists says that God is the most fundamtaal, the one everyone else and everything else gets existence from. For anyone or anything other than God to exist, that person, place, or thing needs God to sustain that person or that thing. If there were no God, there would be nothing at all. That's why I tell atheists that if there were no God, there would be no fossil record gaps because there would be no one and nothing at all. Since God is all-knowing, he doesn't discover anyththing. If he could go from not knowing about it to knowing about it. But if he learned anything about it, he wouldn'r be all-knowing,. Dr. Mullins's "God" concept implies that God can change. But if God could do that, he wouldn't be the biblical one. He'd be a creature instead. It's self-contradictory to tell me that God is the caused uncaused cause. Jesus is God the Son who has a divine nature and a human one. According to his divine nature, he's absolutely immutable. But since he uses his human nature, he can use it to learn. You might say that while he Lears with his humanity, he doesn't use his divinity to do that. His divine and human natures form a whole. So, there aren't two persons sharing his body. He's a divine person only who made humanness his own.

[@onceamusician5408]

and how does young Mullins KNOW THIS? does he know the mind of God that he is His counsellor? here yet again we see questions that are presumptuous and voyeuristic in their nature and intention he makes assumptions as every theologian of this sort does and then runs with them and has NO IDEA whether his assumptions are true Job was full of questions, and then he encountered God as HOLY AND TERRIBLE . . .and the questions died on his lips I would submit that NO ONE who has any sense of the terrible majesty of the Almighty Dread Lord ( a medieval styling for kings) and Sovereign could even dream of asking such foolish questions Mullins and his ilk ( and I was one of them once) only show the fallenness of the human mind with its inordinate and greedy appetite for pointless questions. this is far beyond any bible study for the purpose of equippiing the saints, so is not theology AT ALL

[@apilkey]

And yet here you are claiming to know the mind of God by stating that Mullins doesn’t. We can know what’s in God’s revealed Word because God has revealed it to us. But when you make judgement against someone for claiming to know a truth, then you yourself are guilty of your very charge.

[@beammeupscotty3074]

yes he is, because the real gob told me