@31:00 - why is timeless begetting not also subject to this logical problem of being simultaneously incomplete and compete? And why is it not also subject to the problem of entailing an ontological subordination of the son to the father? Why would the causation being “timeless” solve this problem? It seems like what causes the subordination concern is the causing itself, regardless of when it does or doesn’t occur. It’s the lack of aseity of the son, for me. Hollingsworth says, “Insofar as these relations of origin are Productive causes, it seems weird to say that the Father is eternally producing the Son.” But why is saying that he’s “timelessly producing the son” any less weird? I don’t even know what that means. Again, it seems to me the problem is the producing, itself.

I think maybe the real problem isn’t whether or not the causing is in time or “timeless.” The real problem is the “causing” itself. I personally think it’s meaningless to say that the causation is “timeless.” What does that mean? I understand the concerns with an eternally in-time causation. There’s no discernible difference (as far as I can tell) between asserting that the relations of origin are “timeless” and just denying them altogether, and instead simply asserting the full aseity of each person of the Trinity. Arguably the concept of “tingles begetting” is nonsensical to begin with. The widow analogy demonstrates how an effect can be simultaneous with its cause, but it still requires an *occurrence.* Death occurs, and *because of that* the “widow status” obtains, simultaneously. But the widow status still requires a cause which is temporal. As Arian Yoda would say: a time there was when Widow she was not. I suggest that if eternally temporal begetting is problematic, then a-temporal begetting is equally so. Moreover, neither of these concepts are biblical. “To which if the angels did he ever say: ‘You are my son - THIS DAY have I begotten you.’”

@hudsontd7778

11 ай бұрын

Correct, what would you say is the motivation for pushing this Incoherent/Unbiblical doctrine of Eternal Generation/Relation of Origin. I Personally believe it has to do with Thomas Divine Simplicity, that a Neccessary God in there view CANNOT take on Accidental/Contigent properties Time/Space/Location because that would be Parts of God?

In defence of William Hasker, I'm trying to imagine a different analogy. A disturbance in an electric field instantaneously (withouth any temporal delay) and inevitably causes (produces) a disturbance in the magnetic field in a perpendicular direction. Such a disturbance travels (in empty space) at the speed of light as an electromagnetic wave. Moreover, the electric field continuously produces the magnetic field - it is not a case of mere coexistence and existential inertia.These are not two separate waves travelling together. The magnetic field is constantly being induced by the electric field. And yet, there is nothing incomplete about the magnetic field. Sure, a travelling electromagnetic wave isn't a good analogy for the TRInity (since it uses only two fields and not three), but it defeats the objections from incompleteness raised by Dr Hollingsworth. We could imagine the Father begetting the Son persistently through all of time without the problem of Son's incompleteness just like we can imagine an everlasting photon's electric field persistently through time inducing the magnetic field without any incompleteness.

@yourfutureself3392

8 ай бұрын

isn't the relation between the electric field and the magnetic field grounding instead of efficient causation? And aren't those two actually the same field (the electromagnetic field)?

Why do you talk about arianism as if avoiding it were a valid reason to prefer the nonsense of atemporal causation? Any serious thinker would believe what makes sense, no matter what label is attached to it.

@hudsontd7778

11 ай бұрын

Yes these terms like Eternal Generation, Eternal Relations of origin and Atemporal Causation are ALL non-starters, completely incoherent before the arguments are made. This is why CULTS have formed over the years because the many articulation of Trinity are Self-Refuting. An Yes I am a Trinity believer