[1]  The differences between temporal and atemporal eternities go quite a bit deeper than their mere superficial definitions of being "in time" or "outside of time." This is an ages-old debate that has been influenced by such diverse participants as early theologians, classic and modern philosophers, and last but not least, physicists. And while "God" has been a major component in most of these thought experiments, the implications of time, and exactly what it is and how it works, are relevant and important whether God exists or not.

     This is a course focusing on rational theology, and as I am not necessarily a theist I find the field quite provocative. The arguments in The Divine Attributes are impressive and well-informed, with plenty of educational references to classic and modern philosophers on the subjects. I don't necessarily agree with all the conclusions, but find myself thinking a lot harder about it all, and what exactly I do believe- and that's the point, isn't it?

     I think a much overlooked pitfall of Western theology is how much it anthropomorphizes God- projects human qualities upon a supreme entity. Yes, we're humans and that's the only frame of reference we have; but it might be a bit arrogant to imagine that we're the only intelligent life in this vast universe. The odds are against it. Maybe such raw emotions as anger, jealousy, love, pride... are unknown in galaxies far away. There could be totally alien emotions on other worlds that we can't comprehend. Maybe some animals that we share this planet with have a much better relationship with God than we do. What if an insect's life turned out to be a paradise, in it's short intensity? What would it feel like to be an eagle?

     Our time is measured in earth-centric increments too: based on our rotation daily (24 hrs) and around our particular sun (365 days); and the moon phase of 28 days. It's natural, and it works well for us. But it's not the time a God would keep. A "day" is meaningless to God- it's our invention, based on observing nature. Time itself would have to be a totally different experience for God than for us.

    Everywhere/all the time/as time goes by is the temporal perspective. God has existed since before (or at least when) time began, exists now in the present at every possible location, and (most importantly) is experiencing the future with us (and the rest of the universe, too).

     Everything that has ever happened/happens now/and ever will happen- already exists is the atemporal God's infinity. "He" knows how it never began and how it will never end, but since it's an infinite "movie" after all, maybe He still enjoys some of the drama. It would be a sort of "enduring present" too. Maybe even selective, as God could focus on any moment and stay there. Or everywhere.

     I have a favorite author- Kurt Vonnegut Jr. In his novel Slaughterhouse 5 there's a sub-plot featuring an alien race that lives atemporally- experiencing all time at once. They have no words that mean now or then. They say "so it goes."

[3]  Although I'm not yet convinced of the existence of God, at least the model proposed in Western theism, for the sake of these discussions I imagine myself as a believer. And I have to concede that I do, indeed, believe that there is some sort of supernatural presence at work in the universe- I just don't believe we are capable of defining it. I guess that makes me an agnostic.

     But in adopting a hypothetical belief in a maximally great God, I find myself troubled at the prospect of a God that couldn't understand human emotions. The Bible has many instances that indicate otherwise- anger and revenge (at Adam and Eve for eating from the "Tree of Knowledge", or flooding the earth because mankind had turned away from Him); jealousy ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me"); pride ("This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased"- after John the Baptist performed the ceremony for Jesus)... Now, if a suspicion of mine is correct- that we assign these attributes to God in order to make him more like us, then of course we are just projecting our wishes upon what we want our God to be. And it doesn't work that way- God is what He is, despite our wants.

     The most disturbing idea I gleaned from the text is that God might be capable of positive emotions, but not negative ones. Well, while that might be very convenient for a believer, it is also a case of wanting to "have your cake and eat it too"... it's hypocritical. Either God has emotions or He doesn't; we don't get to decide which. And the idea of "dispassionate" love, pride, or approval is meaningless to me. What exactly would be dispassionate love? It's the equivalent of asking one to imagine a "colorless color."

     One thing I have to remind myself of, in all of this: The Divine Attributes is a treatise on rational theology, and is therefore intentionally dispassionate; our human emotions are not (or at least shouldn't be) a factor in the final analysis. We project our emotions and beliefs here in this forum, nevertheless, and I have to assume, not having heard otherwise, that this is okay.