He just "IS". As in, in the present. Always. No beginning. Here is where we either begin with athiesms view of a singularity, or theisms view of God. God just is. I believe He is in a different dimension. I also agree time works differently in His dimension. But to be outside of time in every sense of "time" is somewhat ridiculous. I don't think anyone really believes it actually. Heaven for example, is a place where we still interact with God and each other. This relies on time. Time might work differently, but it doesn't just "not exist". If time doesn't exist, space doesn't exist. And if there's no space, then what is there? Spirits? Consciousness? And can we interact with others? Because this relies on time also. I just think it's a cop out to say "we can't understand, just trust God" because we could say this for anything whenever we come up against a difficult question.
OK. But it sounds to me as if you've accepted that "time" is different as relates to God. I think what you describe and what others would say is similar, so I don't see a point of argument?
If God is "outside time" (which I often hear), or "not constrained by time" (which is what I usually say, and what I believe I said in this case) or "in a different dimension where time runs differently" (your point) ... I'm thinking it's not worth tremendous effort to make distinctions there.
But I really, really don't think God is constrained by time "in our dimension" as you say ...
He is responsible if He sees the outcome of His creation and still creates it. But if He doesn't know the outcome, then He is not responsible. Here lies the difference between Open Theism and Molonism from my (very shallow) understanding (which I'm very open to being refuted by the way, even if I do come across quite strong in my opinion).
By whose definition? Parents are sometimes held responsible for what their children do because they are their parents, even if they did not know what they would do. The same for owners of animals who cause damage, etc. From a human, legal standpoint, certain knowledge of outcome is not necessary for the purposes of assigning responsibility.
Just the Google dictionary definition:
being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.
Yes. But if I am put in a situation where it is known what I will freely choose, IF the agent who put me there could have put me in a different situation, then that agent is responsible.
For example in door 1 a man will kill my family if I don't kill him first. In door 2 is just my family.
If the agent intentionally places me in door 1, who is responsible for my actions? Only me?
As you wish. But how do you know the outcome would not have been WORSE if God had placed you in another situation?
As I said, I'm not interested in arguing. Really, such wranglings are fairly pointless from my point of view.
We don't have the full knowledge of "what could have been" under other circumstances, nor do we know the full effect of events or the ultimate outcome, so ... how can we judge?
And I believe God DOES know the "future" from our point of view. Otherwise, prophecy becomes impossible (unless you say that God ONLY interferes when He wants things to turn out a certain way, then you have an even worse problem defending God because one can ask why does He make HIS things turn out well but allow people to suffer because He won't interfere there?)
But I'm not really interested in trying to change your mind, and I don't have any need for such a belief to let God off the hook and am quite comfortable and secure in what I have studied and believe to be true so ... apart from interesting discussion, if we don't have a goal, we don't need to keep pursuing this?
