Gauger: Alternate Reading Frames Unlike Human Design

You neglect (not really, but don’t account for) the fact that he is either atemporal or omnitemporal. (I tend toward thinking the latter.) In any case, it’s a mystery that we cannot wrap our minds around. (Funny that we can’t comprehend his infinitudes. :slightly_smiling_face: We can apprehend some of them, a little.) And I love it, how he intervenes in my life, pool shot or otherwise, but it is dynamic and predetermined at the same… time. Our tensed language and minds cannot fathom his timelessness, or timefulness.

1 Like

@jongarvey introduced me to a term I was unfamiliar with with respect to God’s providence, namely his divine concurrence. Meant primarily in the sense of God’s will concurring to processes or events happening, if I’m understanding correctly, it also works in the sense of the concurrent timing of events, correlating to my terms co-instants or co-instance(s), aka special providence. I also find the term hypernatural miracle to be useful, as has been mentioned before.

I have no problem with that possibility, either.

1 Like


Notice the tensed language, limited to progressive sequential time – “he will have to…”, future perfect tense.

That’s not a criticism, just a fact – it’s the only language we have to use.

…at various points in time.

1 Like

Randomness is not a problem. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

Yes, I also enjoy adjective noun.

You have an interesting usage of “fact” there.

1 Like

How’s this?: :slightly_smiling_face:

“You neglect (not really, but don’t account for) that he is either atemporal or omnitemporal.”

Sorry, but deleting the word doesn’t take out the assertion.

It looks like other people are answering for you. Apparently you are fine with that. However, if I have you ID’ed correctly, you are an atheist or agnostic and I believe evolutionists of your variety have real trouble with theistic evolution. But I can only guess because apparently you wish to remain silent. Should we read something into your silence? Who knows.

I’m ok with theistic evolutionists. I look at it as a question about ultimate causes, not proximate ones.


Not in my experience. From what I can tell, most of us just want to go about doing science and don’t feel like constantly fighting culture wars.


Yepp! I made the mistake of spending way too much time on this stuff. To the point I got burned out and all but left the life sciences.


Agreed. You complained about the word ‘fact’. I removed it. :slightly_smiling_face:

No, I complained about your definition of the word. Taking it out doesn’t alter the embedded claim about facts.

You are correct.

I hope things have improved since then!

1 Like

Seems to me that is exactly what the TE’s have been doing - taking a stand for faith and reason together. More power to them.


@noUCA Good place to start woudl be this short summary: Ken Ham’s Darwinism: On The Origin of Species by Means of Hyper-Evolution Following Noah’s Flood – Naturalis Historia