[Avodah] Creation eternal heretical - hashkafa question

[Hankman]

RDR wrote:
> It seems to me that your second sentence is predicating time of God,
> while your first sentence is ambiguous. But time is a property of the
> world, not of God; and God's exercising of His hatavah takes place in
> the world. It is not incorrect to predicate will of God, but it should
> follow that it is incorrect to predicate time of God's will.

I apologize for my not taking the care to include the word "always"
in quotes as it too implies time. I naively assumed it would be obvious
that my comment in brackets applied to all such terms I used - not just
"eternal," since I do so for lack of a better vocabulary.

My use of these terms that imply a temporal dimension are a stand in
for the notion that under any and all circumstances (not meaning in
the temporal, for I clearly stated that HKB"H is above [outside] of
zeman), the existance of HKB"H implies the existance of his creation -
the universe. So what you state in your comment I took as a given.

You seem to have ignored what I stated explicitly and jumped on the
implication of the lack of quotes on the word "always" for which I
apologize.




RMB wrote:
> Second, I don't believe your line of reasoning WRT my own position.

> As we already saw the Rambam noting, time is itself a beryah. "Always"
> means across all time -- that time is relevent, but we're discussing
> something that has an infinite time. However, Hashem's eternity isn't
> infinite time, but lemaaleh min hazeman. Time is an irrelevent concept.

> The theory you're promoting acknowledged that time is a nivra WRT maaseh
> bereishis being lemaalah min hazeman, but it falls short by placing
> Ratzon Hashem within zeman.

> Hashem wants (for lack of a better tense) the universe, but there is no
> "when" to that desire. Your argument presumes there is a when -- but it
> is infinitely long.

Please see my comments to RDR I posted just a few minutes ago. Basically,
I had no intention to imply zeman even though I used the unquoted word
"always." If that mislead you, then I apologize for that.

RMB wrote:
> So, even though the existence of the universe depends only on his will,
> Hashem didn't *always* want a universe, and therefore one can't conclude
> the universe always existed. "Always", meaning the time line, is itself
> a product of that Will too.

Again, I repeat, I did not mean "always" in the temporal sense, but used
it to mean (under any circumstances): existence of HKB"H implies existence
of creation. It is in this "timeless" sense that I use the word "eternal."

So I repeat the question. Why don't you buy it? Why does this not mean
that creation is "eternal"? Whether or not you believe the Rambam meant
this or not - where is the flaw in the logic?

Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster