God and the idea that he's timeless

[Thief]

What would qualify as a secondary point for God?

you

 

[Thief]

Is time JUST the measure of movement?

If I set in one place doing nothing but thinking, am I depending on 'time' for those thoughts to occur sequentially?

But let's say that's true. If that's the case, then a basic form of the natural world may not be moving, so the measure of time may not apply to that either.

everything of substance is moving
time (a measure) can be applied

Spirit is not substance

I believe ....Spirit First
God as Creator

 

[Thief]

btw....time is not a force or a substance

it is only a quotient on a chalkboard

 

[Aupmanyav]

"The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of "real particles". It is not. "Real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix."
Virtual particle - Wikipedia

One particle exchange scattering diagram

One-loop diagram with fermion propagator

"What exists" is "excitations of the underlying quantum fields." No excitation, no existence. RigVeda said existence and non-existence are kins. Time does not matter.

It is best avoid attributing anthropomorphic attributes of God. There most likely never was a first thought by God.

But then, did not Allah create the universe and sent various manifestations, including Joseph Smith, Bahaollah and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad with his messages?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

"Time" itself is sort of just a construct we humans introduced in order to put relative measure to the various changes and rates of change we see happening around us. Do we believe that the universe at large regards or adheres to "time?" I do not think it does in the slightest. To the point that the universe itself simply goes on churning, changing, without regard to what "time" any of its aware inhabitants think it is. Things happen, and simply continue to happen regardless how the idea of "time" that we impose on the processes plays into it. To the point that, what we aware beings get is a window of opportunity within all that change to actually measure out our portion of it. Who can say it wasn't always here, changing, churning and bubbling? The culmination taken to get us to "humanity" really means absolutely nothing, relatively. I believe this is just our lucky little (very little) window within the process. Nothing more.

There is the proposed idea of a "heat death" of the universe to overcome - but I, for one, don't necessarily buy into that idea anyway. I am as skeptical of it as I am of the idea of "God." We have obviously never witnessed, or demonstrated a "heat death" of any universe. And so, we can't know that there aren't extenuating circumstances within the process of change in the universe that cause some (perhaps seemingly temporary) stay on entropic "expectations." For example, what if some unfathomable accumulation of mass breaks form with what we currently "know" about interactions between masses and at some certain point explodes massively, scattering matter infused with energy back out into the universe for it to again begin coalescing, gathering, and ultimately exploding again? We're talking about processes that could take trillions of years. We have seen what, in that scope? A sliver? Not even that? We don't know what happens after long spans of what we call "time." And that's where, I believe, it stands. We just don't know.

 

[Rizdek]

This is from that link:
This argument is then transferred to the beginning of our universe by creationists. The claim is that we cannot have an infinite amount of preceding events that led to ‘The Big Bang’, otherwise ‘The Big Bang’ would never have happened as we would be caught in ‘infinite regress’.

I don't see why that would make Big bang unable to happen. If something have always existed, which have the ability to create Universes, whether its through godly powers or some unknown energy, it might have already created an infinite number of Universe (Multiverse), and we simply happen to exist in one of them. The moment we accept that a Universe can exist, which it can, since we live in one. It doesn't really matter at which point we come into existences. Our Universe might be finite in how long it will last, but that doesn't mean that it have any resemblance to whatever caused it to exist in the first place. It might simply be a byproduct of something that have always existed.

The likes of WLCraig would say that THAT does not solve the problem...because each created world is part of a series of events which must have had a beginning.

you

everything of substance is moving
time (a measure) can be applied

Spirit is not substance

I believe ....Spirit First
God as Creator

First, what do we mean by 'substance?' Is that your word for everything that is part of the natural world? Is a field "substance?" IE is the electromagnetic field a 'substance' in the context of your statement. Is the gravity field a substance? Is it possible there is some part of the physical/natural world that isn't substance?

I don't know that everything of substance is moving. How would one determine that?

 

[Thief]

I don't know that everything of substance is moving. How would one determine that?

look through a telescope
everything is moving

it's not readily obvious
took some serious fascination on the part of the observers

but yeah.....it's all moving

and the fields of energy that drive it.....move with it

if you like.....you could call God a form of energy

so.....may the Force be with you

 

[Rizdek]

btw....time is not a force or a substance

it is only a quotient on a chalkboard

Yes, I am somewhat aware of that...and that 'time' is a vague and often misunderstood concept.


That is why I tried to take the problem OUT of what we often think of at 'time.' Granted it is anthropomorphizing, but regardless of what time is, a series of events suggests that they be separated by something either spatially or temporally otherwise they happen all at one in one place.

But regardless, that would seem to permit me to then conjecture that some aspect or form of the natural world is not bound by time...since it is not a force or substance and is (merely?) a quotient on a chalkboard.

 

[Rizdek]

look through a telescope
everything is moving

it's not readily obvious
took some serious fascination on the part of the observers

but yeah.....it's all moving

and the fields of energy that drive it.....move with it

if you like.....you could call God a form of energy

so.....may the Force be with you

Well, we see things moving, for sure. But maybe that's because we are embedded inextricably in this spatial/temporal realm like a seed is embedded in a watermelon and therefore cannot experience what is outside of, or other than, the watermelon. Or like a hypothetical 2-dimensional being is locked into his two dimensional world and cannot fathom a third dimension and only sees a 3-d object for the split second when it passes through HIS plane of existence whereupon it suddenly disappears only to inexplicably reappear somewhere else. IT looks like magic to the 2-d being, but is simply a 3-d object behaving normally.

But does that mean that ALL of the natural world is and has always been moving?

I could call God a form of energy. In fact I have no problem imagining there is God or a God...even of the supernatural variety. But the issue I was exploring was how does imagining God as a form of energy or God as a supernatural person solve the conundrum of the infinite regress.

IOW, I'm not trying to talk anyone out of anything here, merely exploring what I find to be an interesting dilemma.

 

[Thief]

Yes, I am somewhat aware of that...and that 'time' is a vague and often misunderstood concept.


That is why I tried to take the problem OUT of what we often think of at 'time.' Granted it is anthropomorphizing, but regardless of what time is, a series of events suggests that they be separated by something either spatially or temporally otherwise they happen all at one in one place.

But regardless, that would seem to permit me to then conjecture that some aspect or form of the natural world is not bound by time...since it is not a force or substance and is (merely?) a quotient on a chalkboard.

ok....

but I do recognize one outstanding quality of what we call.....time

it goes forward

and I believe God is moving with us

many believe He can be anywhere.....all at once
and that aspect of presence....puts Him outside of the construct
He does not travel as we do

but I don't believe He ventures to the past
nor does He see the future

He might understand how current events lead to prediction
He's been around.....for a long time


hehehehehe

 

[Thief]

what I find to be an interesting dilemma.

the paradox that stumps me.....

how to say....I AM!
when there is nothing to show for it

but science led me to the singularity
and then failed to say .....how

I'm going to ask Him
when I get there

time is on my side

 

[Nimos]

The likes of WLCraig would say that THAT does not solve the problem...because each created world is part of a series of events which must have had a beginning.

I know

But let's be fair here and put in into perspective. So WLCraig gets to argue that his God is timeless, the first cause, eternal and whatever attribute he apparently knows about this being. Yet, he won't allow something that is not his intelligent God, to have existed forever, which could create Universes, because that is what it can do?

Honestly, that doesn't really sound fair to me, if he can make his God all those things and not provide any evidence, surely I can make something that is not intelligent, is eternal and capable of creating universes

I have played with the idea before, that if such energy or force is existence itself, then there wouldn't need to be a first cause. Its a binary system or state, either something exists or it doesn't. There is no middle ground, and since we exists... well

 

[BilliardsBall]

For many years, I've been an atheist who finds arguments for God fascinating. Lately I've been reading more about the various cosmological arguments. Part of the foundation for those arguments is the idea that the natural world cannot have an infinite past because of the assumed impossibility of an infinite regress. The impossibility is either expressed as something that is intuitively understood to be true or examples are given to show how if the past was infinite, we could never, for example, arrive at this point in time, because that would imply that an infinite amount of time had to have passed in order to arrive at this point. And since it is impossible for an infinite amount of anything to have transpired, the natural world cannot have an infinite past.

The argument then proceeds to assert something else must exist that is other than or outside of the natural world. And it is further asserted that this thing must, almost by definition, be infinite/timeless/non-temporal. And that thing ( which of course ends up being God based on further arguments and reasoning) is supposed to solve the conundrum of the infinite regress.

But...I just can't figure it out. How does just 'saying' something is timeless avoid the problem of an infinite regress? Most theists who believe in a creator God also believe God thinks. So even if one is comfortable seeing that this God doesn't change...there is an implication that God thinks and thinks multiple thoughts. Now...does God think all these thoughts at once, in that one eternal, timeless moment, or does he actually have sequential thoughts where, for example, he 1) decides to create, 2) weighs the pros and cons of creating, 3) plans how to create, 4) actually creates and then 5) thinks about whether and how to involve himself with his creation, whether to bless, judge, penalize, or whatever. And did God have OTHER thoughts than just those relating to creating? You know...'what was God thinking before he decided to create?' or 'what was God's first thought?'

So...even if we are to somehow SAY God is timeless, if he has sequential thoughts, those would seem to indicate a kind of time passing because for all intents and purposes, isn't time the thing which keeps everything from happening all at once? And if his thoughts didn't happen all at once, they happened sequentially. So at a minimum we would think of sequential thoughts instead of ticks of a clock as being the measure of time, for God.

It would seem that if God did all that thinking in one eternal moment, then the natural world that he is supposed to have created must have also existed eternally since no time...no sequence of events, nothing could separate the moment when God thought to create and when the natural world popped into existence. And this gets us back to the problem of infinite regress...if the universe has always existed, how did we ever transcend an infinite amount of time and arrive at this point.

But beyond that, if there is some hypothetical explanation for how God can be timeless/eternal AND still have sequential thoughts, then I guess as a naturalist I can borrow that hypothetical explanation and apply it to some arrangement of the natural world and say it too is eternal and timeless, never had a beginning and still managed to do something that resulted in the time/space matter/energy universe emerging from the timeless background existence.

I realize this is just one part of the many arguments for God, but it is among the most intriguing, to me.

The problem is an infinite regress tied to laws of conservation and thermodynamics. Almost 100% of physicists/cosmologists refute the idea of an oscillating universe. This universe had a finite beginning, as the Bible states (Genesis 1:1).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The argument then proceeds to assert something else must exist that is other than or outside of the natural world.

The problem all conceivable solutions to the problem of the origin of our universe is that they all require either that something has always existed, creating the problem of passing through infinite time to reach this moment as you have noted, or something bootstrapped itself into existence to become either our universe or its source.

Perhaps you or anybody else reading this can think of another possibility - either the universe is all there is or something preceded it and served as its source, and if there was such a something, that something must have been a conscious agent (a god) or an unconscious substance (multiverse), and that whichever of these is correct, something either has always existed or created itself from nothing before it existed.

Unless somebody can come up with another possibility, we're forced to accept that something highly counterintuitive is the case. This means that we cannot rule out an explanation such as that the universe is all there is and created itself from nothing because it defies common sense.

Candidate hypotheses for the origin of the universe:

[1] Our universe came into being uncaused.
[2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.

[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.

[5] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[6] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.​

So, my point is that it appears that one of these must be the case, and all are absurd. Either add another possibility and show that it is not true that one of these must be the case, or choose one of these however absurd (or don't choose, but recognize that all choices are absurd).

Furthermore, and just as absurd, is using reason as I have to argue that something that defies reason must be the case.

And it is further asserted that this thing must, almost by definition, be infinite/timeless/non-temporal.

It doesn't make sense, as you have alluded, to say that anything creates, thinks, or even exists out of time. All of those verbs imply the passagee of time and both a before and an after state. To exist means to occupy a succession of consecutive instants in which an oblect is capale of acting on other objects and being acted upon by them, once again implying a before and after state through which that object or process or relationship continuously existed. Consciousness alone implies a sense of "I am here now" which implies a there and a was/is/will be intuition.

And that thing ( which of course ends up being God based on further arguments and reasoning) is supposed to solve the conundrum of the infinite regress.

Here's where the cosmological arguments for a god go wrong. Here's Craig's version of the Kalam cosmological argument:

1. “Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.”
2. “The universe began to exist.”
3. “Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.”

4. “If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.”
5. “Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is “beginningless,” changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.”​

Think of this as two connected syllogisms, with the conclusion of the first (3.) being a premise of the second. Look at the incredible leap of faith in that second syllogism. You just saw my analysis, which includes the logical possibility of an unconscious multiverse being the universe's cause, but this one just doesn't even consider the possibility,or it has ruled it out without justification.

Worse, Craig not only assumes on faith that this source is conscious, but it has all sots of other qualities that aren't necessarily the case. I just made the argument against a creator existing out of time.

I'd appreciate any feedback from any poster who wants to either say, "That sounds right to me. I see no flaw in that argument about existence, thought and creation all implying the passage of time, nor the rebuttal of Craig" or "I disagree with the following points you made for the following reasons."

 

[Windwalker]

The argument then proceeds to assert something else must exist that is other than or outside of the natural world. And it is further asserted that this thing must, almost by definition, be infinite/timeless/non-temporal. And that thing ( which of course ends up being God based on further arguments and reasoning) is supposed to solve the conundrum of the infinite regress.

[Emphasis mine]

If someone starts with an idea that God is a "thing", such as referring to God as an "entity", that makes God an object, distinct from the rest of the universe, like a black hole, or dark matter, a Yeti, or some other object distinct from other objects. That mental image of God itself does not solve the problem of infinite regress, as the question is what created that entity or "thing" still remains.

I had just posted a thread on the timelessness of God, or what "eternal life" supposedly means. While it doesn't specifically address the question of "infinite regression" in some cosmological argument, it does seem to pertain. It address this mental notion of "eternal" as a linear progression, one event followed by another event on a infinite timeline.

I argue that thinking is flawed when it comes to God, in that is rooted in linear thought, whereas "God" would be non-linear. I suppose a possible way to describe that would be the Holographic universe, where all events in a 3D universe, are all already existing at the same time on a 2D plane. I would see God as something like that.

The "timeless" of God is not on a linear timescale, but is all moments, at all time, in the only reality that exists, which is Now. The problem with these arguments, such as Craig and others try to deal with, is from the vantage point of linear reality, not non-linear.

Anyway, give this a read and share you thoughts, if any: Eternal Life?

 

[Rizdek]

The cosmological argument is a flawed argument. First of all, even if we assume that it is true, it does not proof any specific God, which means that all religions could be equally wrong. They simply assume that if this argument is accepted, then obviously their God is the right one.

Furthermore, the argument is one out of ignorance, because nothing seem to suggest that the first cause should be a God. It could be anything really. Also who say that something can't simply have existed forever? We know that our Universe were created, but that doesn't mean that everything else has to outside of it? And in that case there doesn't need to be an intelligent creator of anything.


I don't know, if I would use the word timeless, rather than saying that time is irrelevant. If something have always existed, they might still experience time, obviously if we are talking about an intelligent being, it will probably be boring at some point But if it's not, why should time matter?

I think that most people who use the cosmological argument do NOT assume that it, in and of itself, leads to the conclusion that the God of the Bible, for example, is true...or even any other specific god exists. Usually they present a series of arguments and lines of reasoning that they would say should lead one to believe in the God they believe in. I imagine some don't even go that far and would say it just leads them to conclude there probably IS some sort of first cause without assigning it a name or definition...eg a Deist's god or just an energy source as you mentioned.

Of course, IMHO just imagining God as some energy source seem somewhat academic as in...who cares? Maybe everyone who believes in some sort of god will get a B for belief.

 

[Rizdek]

I believe the regression is plausible in thought

take all the motion we see in our telescopes .....and draw it back
all the way back

and you arrive at the primordial singularity

MOVEMENT is then the question
science would have you believe the object will remain motionless until
Something moves it

science would also have you believe in action and equal reaction
once the BANG begins it would be a hollow sphere of energy
expanding equally is all directions
one percussion wave

but that is NOT what we see when we look up

so.....I SAY......
the rotation would need to be in play BEFORE the expansion begins

the singularity was pinched .....and snapped
by the fingers of God

so to speak

That is an interesting way of describing it and probably what Aristotle (and others) had in mind when they talked about a 'prime mover.'

 

[osgart]

God lives in a frozen moment free of time; timeless.

God is immaterial and exists as an idea.

Spaceless is God, so God exists in total non existence.

 

[Nimos]

I think that most people who use the cosmological argument do NOT assume that it, in and of itself, leads to the conclusion that the God of the Bible, for example, is true...or even any other specific god exists. Usually they present a series of arguments and lines of reasoning that they would say should lead one to believe in the God they believe in.

Im not really sure, I agree with that. Whether it has to be the biblical God or not, is less important I think. But I don't recall having ever heard a secular scientist and not even sure, I have even heard a "religious" scientist, use this argument, in regards to some force or energy as an explanation or argument. if you have, I would be interested in knowing who just out of curiosity?

And the reason for that, I think, is because it doesn't really explain anything. Even in my example, with it being existences itself, doesn't answer anything. It can be a fun thought experiment, but besides that it's pretty much useless. It's just filling a gap for no good reason, so personally no one gains anything out of such speculation. Yet some religious people however, think it is a very good argument for a/their God. So again I haven't heard anyone other than religious people use this argument to try to explain God. And obviously if a person believe in a specific God, like WLCraig, it would be absurd, if he ended up concluding that the God he is arguing for is Allah and not the Biblical God as he understand it (Now I do actually think to recall, that WLcraig is not trying to hide that he is speaking of the biblical God, so he is honest about that.)

 

[Heyo]

I'd appreciate any feedback from any poster who wants to either say, "That sounds right to me. I see no flaw in that argument about existence, thought and creation all implying the passage of time, nor the rebuttal of Craig" or "I disagree with the following points you made for the following reasons."

I have come to the same conclusion as you. Thinking about a beginning without a cause or eternal existence leads to a paradox either way. Those who think they have a solution just stopped thinking at a convenient point.