tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5408901926264824281.post8547414196344058622..comments2023-10-08T07:04:38.239-07:00Comments on Philosophical Orthodoxy: Perspective ModalismIan Spencerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01282472629069770070noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5408901926264824281.post-18800231624029778282007-07-07T22:20:00.000-07:002007-07-07T22:20:00.000-07:00Thanks xavier,It's nice to see I'm not the only on...Thanks xavier,<BR/><BR/>It's nice to see I'm not the only one who thinks up wacky things! :)Ian and Gildahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03268880946042907925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5408901926264824281.post-77625023457219905402007-07-06T15:50:00.000-07:002007-07-06T15:50:00.000-07:00Hey, quite curious that you've had this view. I k...Hey, quite curious that you've had this view. I keep thinking something like this whenever I read William Craig on God and Time (though he would not in the least think I was acurately depicting his view):<BR/><BR/>Craig argues that God exists timelessly <I>sans</I> creation and temporally <I>since</I> creation. But it strikes me that the properties, intellectual states, etc., of these two would be so different, we would have to posit 2 different persons--albeit, persons with similar enough divine attributes properties. This would of course be just a binitarianism. God the Father would be the timelessly existing person. God the Son would be the one "begotten" as it were, <I>since</I> (in Craig's sense) creation. Mind you, this begetting would not be Arian, I think, because there was no <I>time</I> when He did not exist. <BR/><BR/>But this is wacky so I try not to say it in public :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com