Commenting on what
Rebecca Wrote
I think the idea is usually that something is omnitemporal if and only if it exists at every time, i.e., if, for any time you pick, it exists then. Or, in other words, that there is no time at which it does not exist. So I think the 'in all times at the same time' is misleading, and yes, I think you are right that that phrase is contradictory.
Atemporal simply means timeless; while eternal usually goes back to Boethius's claim that eternity is the complete possession all at once (i.e., without being measured out temporally) of unlimited life. But I find that the meanings tend to shift from context to context.
Okay, thanks. I think I understand. I think someone should think up a better word for it. 
From the sounds of the words themselves, omnitemporality and atemporality sound like they would be contradictory states, but are they?
I have another question or two, but I have to go out for the evening, so I'll ask them tomorrow.
I think it's often assumed that they are; but I think it probably depends on how 'atemporal' or 'timeless' is understood. When people talk about God being atemporal, for instance, I don't think they'd usually disagree that God exists at every time; rather, they would deny that He does so in Himself, or things like that. I know I've used it in similar ways -- when I say God is atemporal I mean that His life cannot be adequately measured or characterized by any temporal concepts. In that sense it just identifies one particular aspect of eternity. But it's a slippery term, I think, one that people often find confusing; which is why I only use it occasionally.
Looking for and waiting for the unveiling! and very curious!
Temporal can refer to worldly as opposed to spiritual affairs as well as to time (OED). Is it possible that omnitemporal is drawing upon this kind of meaning rather than a time based one? Could you give us a context for the word? I can't find it in my dictionary either.
I have an Irish answer to this question for you.
...Or perhaps this will work better.
Third time lucky...?
http://regainingparadise.wordpre...mnitemporality/
Ditto what Darlene said.
God created time, so it is an "object" in a sense. One which God condescended to enter into incarnationally. So I like the definition "in all time at the same time". He is Lord over time. Perhaps that needs to be in there too. thoughtful post!
Hi Missm,
How impressive. Impressive paper, and impressive that you've worked the idea of temporality into the Irish theme.
I'll link as soon as my connection to Blogger starts working.
This person is using omnitemporality in regards to God, so it isn't quite the same way you are using it. Frankly, I like your definition better.
I like the definition "in all time at the same time".
Maybe you'd like "always in all time" better?
When people talk about God being atemporal, for instance, I don't think they'd usually disagree that God exists at every time; rather, they would deny that He does so in Himself, or things like that. I know I've used it in similar ways -- when I say God is atemporal I mean that His life cannot be adequately measured or characterized by any temporal concepts.
I suspect that this is a slightly new usage of the word omnitemporal in regards to God—a way to get around the idea of openness theology that if God knows the future, then the choices of human beings are determined. I'm not sure the person explaining the idea really understands it, which makes discussing it difficult.
Here's what I think it is, but I'm not sure: God's relationship to time is one of being in every moment in a sort of "eternal now" (another oxymoronic phrase, if there ever was one). That way, according to the theory, God knows, in what's a past moment (to me), the outcome of a future (to me) choice of mine, without that knowledge making my choice certain before I make it, because even though God knows the outcome of my choice it in all moments, for him, no moment is past in comparision to another that's future. (Clear as mud?)
So here's what I'm thinking: If that definition of omnitemporal is going to have any hope of accomplishing what they hope to accomplish, then God's knowing (and thus God himself) has to be omnitemporal only - existing in every moment in an eternal now only. In other words, he has to know creation by his view (or experience, or whatever) of each point in time, and not by anything else, especially not by knowledge that exists beyond or outside time. Or, to put it another way, God has to receive his knowledge of creation from creation, and he can't have knowledge of it any other way, or the idea won't accomplish what it purports to accomplish.
Rebecca - omni is used in words to mean infinite - and the Concise Oxford dictionary has infinite for "omni" words.
e.g. omniscient - having infinite knowledge
omnipotent - having infinite power
omnipresent - present everywhere at same time
"omnitemporal" sounds like a mixture of infinite time (eternity) and omnipresence. I think those two words are better actually - because God created space-time, and is not confined by space-time. He is eternal and omnipresent.
"Omnitemporal" would at best mean eternal anyway I think. I've not heard the word before either - is it really a word? Or has some-one just prefixed omni- to temporal because they like the sound?
atemporal would mean literally "without time", in the same way "amoral" would mean without any morals. It could be said of God - but he is both outside of space-time and present in it - since he is omni-present.
Well, since the person may be a little confused (or at least confusing!), perhaps one way to get a handle on it would to be to rough out the standard sorts of views and see how this use of 'omnitemporal' fits into it. (The names I'll be using for the groups will be a bit arbitrary.)
Views about God's knowledge of freely made choices split into two big groups. One group holds that God lives through time in a way analogous to the way we do -- i.e., He lives from moment to moment just as we live from moment to moment, even if His moments are not exactly the same as ours. The other group holds that this living from moment-to-moment is an imperfection and limitation that cannot be attributed to God. (The difference between the two groups boils down to a difference between those who think God is mutable, gaining new experiences through time, and those who think God is immutable, and so does not have to experience new things.) The Mutable group breaks down into two as well:
Open Views (Process theism, open theism, etc.) -- God does not know free choices in the future.
Meticulous Views -- God knows free choices in the future, because, while God learns what's happening onlyas it plays out through time, He knows all time all at once.
The Immutable group holds that God does not naturally experience time -- time is something He creates. This group breaks down into two smaller groups:
Higher-Dimension Views -- God sees time in the way, for instance, we can see the whole of a line. If an ant is walking on a piece of paper (two dimensional) he can only see part of the paper at a time; but since we can see it from a higher dimension (the third dimension), we can see the whole thing. So with time and God.
Traditional Views -- God knows, without having to learn it bit by bit, everything done in every moment because everything at every moment depends on him. (There are lots of different versions of this, but for a long time these were the most common views. Most of these hold that God is atemporal, but hold that this does not mean that he is less than temporal, but that He has none of the limitations -- like having to learn things bit by bit -- that come with being temporal creatures.)
That's all crude and rough (and it doesn't include every possible view). But I think you get the idea. So is the person you're talking to trying to argue for a Mutable & Meticulous view (in which case he's holding a view that is usually considered to have a lot of logical problems with it), or is he giving a confused version of an Immutable & Traditional view (in which case he's probably just stating it very badly)? Or is it something else entirely?
I've not heard the word before either - is it really a word? Or has some-one just prefixed omni- to temporal because they like the sound?
I suspect that if it's a word, this person is using it with a different definition than usual for it. And I do think you've hit the nail on the head when you say it probably combines infinite time with omnipresence.
Brandon,
Aha! It sounds really, really like a mutable meticulous view, which, BTW, I didn't even know existed. It comes, I think, from accepting some of the presuppositions of open theism, and trying to develop a system that still has God knowing free choices in the future. It ties God's knowledge of everything to God's omnipresence in every moment, which is "all at once", which means God knows everything "all at once."
That would explain, I suppose, why whatever is being promoted seems to have so many glaring logical problems to it. (Don't get me started!) I think the word omnitemporalhas probably been co-opted to make it sound like it's making God "more" rather than "less".
Thanks for that explanation of the various views. That is really, really helpful.
Fascinating comment, really. You should make it into a post.
I don't know the original context, of course, but I think you're exactly right about what usually leads to a M & M view. Most people who hold such views, I think, just haven't really thought about whether all their starting-points are actually consistent with each other; they just assume they are, and end up struggling. I can't think of any major theologians or philosophers who hold such a view, but I think it's probably fairly common among people who only dabble a bit in theology.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
