Ipse dixit, an arbitrary and unsupported assertion. Bare assertions are fallacious insofar as they summarily deny that an issue is even debatable.
Then you should stop making them.
Since the alternative view that I presented doesn't involve a contradiction, it is possible by definition.
It does involve a contradiction.
It is—but in our singular, linear temporal dimension, which God transcends in his eternity.
Red herring. Not once have even remotely suggested time or the discussion is limited to "our singular, linear temporal dimension," and scores of posts in this forum and forums throughout cyberspace demonstrate I hold a much different view than that....
...which has, so far been ignored.
Saying that eternity is hyper-temporal is no more question-begging than saying that it is extra-temporal.
LOL.
Do you understand the meaning of the prefixes "
hyper-" and "
extra-"? If so, then you know that statement is incorrect.
Both views attempt to describe eternity and neither is self-evident
That is incorrect.
— they both require argumentation.
Yep, but "extra-temporal" is a logical necessity and inevitability given Genesis 1:1 (and many other passages in the Bible). "Hyper-tempporal" necessarily and inescapably begs the question. I have explained how that is the case and you have ignored all of that content.
You would need to show why hyper-temporality assumes what it's trying to prove in a way that extra-temporality does not.
Already done. Start addressing that content instead of posting fruitless content.
We are bumping up against the limitations of human language...
You sound like
@makesends!
I will concede there exist limits in human understanding and our ability to articulate that which we do not fully comprehend but appeals to those limits is fallacious.
.....insofar as the term "dimensions" (as used in physics) refers to distinct, measurable parameters of reality—our four-dimensional spacetime continuum.
As far as our current degree of comprehension goes, we humans live in a ten or eleven-dimensional singularity. Limiting this discussion to four is factually wrong and logically irrational (and to the degree that the lapsarian views were first formulated prior to that knowledge we can reasonably infer serious errors occurred on both sides of that debate).
In that sense, it is the creation of God, yes, which his existence necessarily transcends. If you want to constrain this discussion to the limits of human language and eschew seeking to explore, not just mention but explore any reality beyond this universe God created, so be it.
Self-contradictory.
You were the one asserting human limits of language. You are now the one putting that on me as if I were the one wanting to constrain the discussion, and you are doing that in direct violation of
Rule 2.2. How about you speak for yourself and let me do the same. We both know the other is capable of being very articulate. That statement is beneath you and has no place in this discussion.
However, I enjoy stretching my brain and our linguistic barriers in order to talk about the things of God that necessarily defy our immediate comprehension.
Then ditch the notion of "
linguistic barriers" and stop sabotaging your own case.
I recognize that scientifically the term "dimensions" implies measurability, but I am using it analogically to describe a framework in which God's relationship to time could be more complex than mere timelessness.
(shakes head) When employing an analogy, state the example is an analogy so readers don't think you're being literal. Yes, "dimensions" does imply measurability so don't use that word if you mean something immeasurable.
The first verse of the Bible says, "In the beginning ..."
The beginning of what? Time? Please, provide the historical-grammatical exegesis which supports that.
Before I do so I will simply observe the fact that you not knowing this is something you should consider about yourself and your ability to contribute anything decisive to this discussion.
I
know you to be a studious individual. I
know you endeavor to reason well. I
know this from reading your posts. The problem
as I see it is that you have not yet thought through your own positions (at least a few of which are factually incorrect and poorly reasoned) and as a defense of those positions you seek first to blame me rather than self-examine. I
know this because I have already answered your question. I, therefore, know you are asking a question already answered in multiple posts in multiple forums. That implies you either haven't read those posts, have read them but did not consider the relevant content, or have read them and don't care and are being willfully misleading. For the sake of good will and fellowship, I will assume the former because I do not trade posts with those who ask questions already answered. They waste my time.
The beginning of creation.
Now, knowing the answer to your question, do you really need me to provide bow to the select hermeneutic you've imposed (historical-grammatical) when many other equally viable alternatives exist? Or can you see the request is foolish because we both already know the answer?
I believe you and I can have the needed conversation.
