God and Time

[Willamena]

I believe I get you, but understand, I'm not arguing against a god that experiences 'each moment' or one that can experience all points in time at once, or anything of the sort. I'm not arguing against a god that has any connection to time whatsoever.

The argument presented to me was of a god that experienced no time at all - because it hadn't been created yet. My argument was that such a being would have no means to escape that 'timeless' state.

See my last post to 'Mister Emu' if you want all of the gruesome details, as I had to write a flippin' novel to explain my position.

Fair enough. Note though that I'm not presenting an image of a "God" that experiences "each moment," or all moments, but trying to explain (as implicitly asked in the OP) what timeless is. I'm presenting an image of timeless.

 

[Willamena]

But this specific state that was proposed (by the theist), was to represent how god existed 'before' he created anything at all, including time. Surely if he existed prior to this, he could be said to have been in some 'state'?

If taken literally. But if 'before' is taken nonliterally, as I used it eariler, then it's a broader term that presents an image.

Anything uncreated, not yet created, cannot be expressed in words. The metaphor will have to do.

 

[Nois Forme]

Well, I don't see why you wouldn't be prepared. If time and space existed without the universe, we would be subjected by their laws as well...

Sorry I didn't mean to imply 'without' the universe, more in addition to. Perhaps along the lines of the multiverse theory, or in a separate dimension of sorts. Only, that space and time might exist 'elsewhere' was what I had in mind. If physics dictates that that is unlikely, I'll gladly slink under my desk and retract. It was little more than a philosophical shot in the dark.

...but if you're omnipotent I think, and create the universe and its rules it stands to reason that you've got some mighty mojo backing for you.

You might think that would be the theist's position, and in many instances it seems to be...but when pressed, and things are taken to their logical conclusion, not so much.

If we are to dispense with all obstacles, assuming this deity is omnipotent with a big-O (read:zero restrictions), then those old sticklers like the square-circle and that really, really heavy rock rear their ugly heads.

I've not met a theist willing to dispense with the idea that their god is subject to logic, though they will try their hardest to word it in a some what less 'god isn't all that' way. It's simply 'in his nature' to be logical or something of the sort.

But I find no reason whatever, if we are dispensing with the laws of physics, causality, time, etc., in deference to his omnipotent power, why logic would get a free pass.

I await the brave soul that is willing so that I can propose that it is entirely reasonable that god both exists and does not exist simultaneously since logic does not apply. No takers yet.

 

[Abulafia]

You might think that would be the theist's position, and in many instances it seems to be...but when pressed, and things are taken to their logical conclusion, not so much.

If we are to dispense with all obstacles, assuming this deity is omnipotent with a big-O (read:zero restrictions), then those old sticklers like the square-circle and that really, really heavy rock rear their ugly heads.

I've not met a theist willing to dispense with the idea that their god is subject to logic, though they will try their hardest to word it in a some what less 'god isn't all that' way. It's simply 'in his nature' to be logical or something of the sort.

But I find no reason whatever, if we are dispensing with the laws of physics, causality, time, etc., in deference to his omnipotent power, why logic would get a free pass.

I await the brave soul that is willing so that I can propose that it is entirely reasonable that god both exists and does not exist simultaneously since logic does not apply. No takers yet.

Well, if there truly was a God, and he created the universe out of a primordial hole, consuming and empty....in fact in all logic "an irreconciable nothing, bound in nothing, and nonexistent".....then logic and reality, as we perceive it, would be subject to the original mover's jurisdiction....:bow:

That's why so many "If God suddenly condoned infanticide or matricide, we wouldn't know the difference, because..." arguments arise from. Speaking of ugly heads....

Otherwise, the creator, would have existed alongside logic, making him, ipso facto, nonomnipotent (is that a word?).... :run:

 

[Beaudreaux]

Dude seriously............................
Just last night I watched a physicist confess that time is not well understood.

Could it be that you don't either?

Wait, last night? As in around 12 hours ago? You are trying to tell me you decided time does not exist 12 hours or so ago?

 

[Thief]

Wait, last night? As in around 12 hours ago? You are trying to tell me you decided time does not exist 12 hours or so ago?

No...silly....
The scientists finally caught on.

 

[Mister Emu]

Before we go any further, I'd like to note that it was you, and not I, who led us to this point. It was you, and not I, who first argued over whether the state I described met the definition of atemporal.

With that out of the way I'll address one point from your discussion about definition afore heading to the main point:

One last thing before I move on - the definition you supplied;
"Independent of time"
This neither implies 'eternal' or 'simultaneously existing in multiple times' as you suggest, nor does it negate 'cannot interact with time'. It wasn't terribly helpful in other words.

You've completely missed the point again... I never said that it implied simultaneously existing in multiple times. In fact I specifically noted saying all X are Y does not say all Y are X.

You've gotten it backwards. Simultaneously existing in multiple(or all) times denotes an existence independent of time, not the other way around.

And yes, being independent of time does not necessitate the impossibility of interaction with time, thus it negates "cannot interact with time" as a necessary component of it.

Simple enough, yes?

Yes.

3) from 1) and 2) we can extrapolate that in state 'x' there could be no movement, action, thought, consciousness, as all of these things require something of 1) or 2) to come to fruition, or even to begin to come to fruition

I disagree with portions of this... actions, and movements yes, there could be none of that in a timelessness.

But consciousness and thought I have disagree on. There is room for a being that has been eternally aware with a single thought, within logic. This being need not have become conscious and thoughtful, only always existed with consciousness and the thought.

It is in this state that some theists/theologians (perhaps most notably, William Craig), argue that their deity once existed, but has ceased to do so since 'creation'.

Interesting...

I'd say God is still in state x... being omni-present he exists within but is not affect by time. The temporal world gives God expression while still remaining constant.

It is my contention that;

1) No such state 'x' is named, discussed or eluded to in the Christian Bible. I am somewhat less concerned with this first point, as the idea of an entity moving from state 'x' to a temporal state is logically indefensible, regardless of Biblical support. That said, I find no such support.

I would agree that the idea is not explicit. I would argue that it is implied though, most notably in verses that discuss God's unhampered ability to interact with time as He wills.

2) It is logically impossible for any thing to move from state 'x' to a temporal state for all the reasons I have mentioned, and I have heard no arguments to defend such a position outside of an appeal to magic ('god is mysterious'). That is, of course, no argument at all.

As I said above, I don't believe God ever left state "x". That he exists within our non-"x" world is a function of His omnipresence, but He remains fundamentally unchanging.

 

[Abulafia]

No...silly....
The scientists finally caught on.

"Finally" being an indefinite measurment of time....so not "finally", rather, somewhere in a space that....wait...no.....:help:

 

[Nois Forme]

Thanks for the response.

Before we go any further, I'd like to note that it was you, and not I, who led us to this point. It was you, and not I, who first argued over whether the state I described met the definition of atemporal.

Understood. And hopefully you will also understand that I was forced to play devil's advocate against my own argument. I was, in fact, defending the definition as proposed by the theists I was arguing against!

With that, you'll excuse me from further arguing for or against the definitions either you or they put forth. I will accept that they proposed a particular state of being, and that that is what I am arguing against.

I disagree with portions of this... actions, and movements yes, there could be none of that in a timelessness.

But consciousness and thought I have disagree on. There is room for a being that has been eternally aware with a single thought, within logic. This being need not have become conscious and thoughtful, only always existed with consciousness and the thought.

This of course exposes a fundamental difference in our philosophical views (to be expected). I do not view any consciousness or thought in a way that could exclude 'movement' or 'action'. Largely, because I have no belief in mind devoid of a physical body. But that gets a bit off topic.

More on topic, I would contest the notion of a static 'thought', and instead contend that thought is always a process. I'm not sure what the notion of a 'single thought' in the way you present it is supposed to mean.

Consciousness as well, with no...animation(?), would likely not be consciousness at all. What is there left of consciousness if we remove any active thought, any processes, movement, development, etc.? I'm not sure anything is left that we could call consciousness. I suppose I am saying that I believe consciousness need be 'active' to be consciousness at all. To remove any activity or process from consciousness leaves us...what?
I will explore this further on my own though, as it is an intriguing thought....process. heh

I'd say God is still in state x... being omni-present he exists within but is not affect by time. The temporal world gives God expression while still remaining constant.

Except that, as per the definition in the original argument, state x only existed when there was no time, and ceased to exist when time began. To say that he exists in that state (x) even after time began is contradictory in the context of this argument.

I would agree that the idea is not explicit. I would argue that it is implied though, most notably in verses that discuss God's unhampered ability to interact with time as He wills.

Again, the 'x' state as described is one that only existed (or could exist) prior to time's creation. To say it's implied by his ability to interact with time is contradictory. If you simply disagree with how this state 'x' was set up or described, that's fine - but that's a different argument. By definition, this state 'x' cannot exist concurrently with time.

As I said above, I don't believe God ever left state "x". That he exists within our non-"x" world is a function of His omnipresence, but He remains fundamentally unchanging.

Not to sound like a broken record, but the definition of this state 'x' disallows its coexistence with time. That you contend that they can both exist simultaneously, necessitates you have a different definition of state 'x'.
Again, that's fine for some other argument, but not this one. Redefining state 'x' so that it can coexist with time is merely changing my premise (or rather, the premise of Craig and his ilk). Different conclusions are bound to present themselves if you do this.

Don't get me wrong, I think what you are proposing is at least quite interesting, it just doesn't address what I was arguing against in the OP. I will certainly ponder what you have presented here.

 

[Nois Forme]

"Finally" being an indefinite measurment of time....so not "finally", rather, somewhere in a space that....wait...no.....:help:

Ha! Oh no, no help for you. You've fallen into the rabbit hole...worm hole?...black hole? Whatever. It's deep, and I don't plan to see you again. Good voyage...

(Why must language be so woefully inadequate when it comes to the most interesting topics?)

 

[Abulafia]

Ha! Oh no, no help for you. You've fallen into the rabbit hole...worm hole?...black hole? Whatever. It's deep, and I don't plan to see you again. Good voyage...

(Why must language be so woefully inadequate when it comes to the most interesting topics?)

Goodbellyfeels speak goodthink. Badthinks oldthinkers to newspeak speak.

Whatever hole it is, the Thesaurus Junkies are waiting for me at the bottom.

 

[waitasec]

Some of the more interesting debates in my opinion center around the various attributes assigned to god (I am thinking specifically of the Judeo-Christian concept of god), these attributes presumably being deduced from what is contained in the Christian Bible.

As a proposed solution to some philosophical problem or another, I've heard it said that this god is 'timeless'. For the moment, I'll put aside that this term has no meaning for me. Suffice to say that those who use the term seem to mean outside of, unaffected by or beyond time.

My question is, is there any biblical support for this notion? I am at a loss to find any. I find some support for an eternal entity, and that is rather scant - only a couple of passages. Regardless, this is quite different from 'timeless'. Any specific reference to a deity that is timeless, beyond time, unaffected by time, etc., seem to be conspicuously absent from the text.

1 - Are there any references to this sort of a timeless deity in the Christian Bible?

2 - If not, is the use of such a term/concept justifiable when describing the god of the Bible?

3 - 'extra credit' - If you are one that uses such a term to describe god, can you assign any coherent meaning to the term? (preferably, something other than negation)



-for reference, the couple of passages I find that relate to an 'eternal' god, along with the meanings of the words used;

Deu 33:27 (NIV) The eternal God [is thy] refuge...

eternal from 'qedem';
1) east, antiquity, front, that which is before, aforetime
a) front, from the front or east, in front, mount of the East
b) ancient time, aforetime, ancient, from of old, earliest time
c) anciently, of old (adverb)
d) beginning
e) east

Psalm 90:2 (NIV) 2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

everlasting from '`owlam';
1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world
a) ancient time, long time (of past)
b) (of future)
1) for ever, always
2) continuous existence, perpetual
3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity

as i see it,
our concept of time is different from the judeo-christian god... when i was a believer and studied scripture, gods timelessness coincided with his all knowing, which actually falls into a tricky situation; our free will... if god knows what we are going to do before we do it in his timelessness... is it free will?
it is all rather silly...
believing in a "supreme being" and having a so-called "relationship" with it is a rather far fetched notion...

did god know about the fall or that he was going to destroy the earth with a flood? did god know about sodom and gomorrah and the tower of babel in his timelessness? did he now he was going to have the israelites murder innocent babies and then have them rape the midianite young virgins while condoning the subjection of women and slavery?

if he did then this christian god is a masochistic tyrannical god
and we are bound to be doomed anyway

 

[Beaudreaux]

No...silly....
The scientists finally caught on.

Oh really? I'm the silly one? You own a clock, set an alarm to tell you when to get up in the morning, have appointments on your calendar and yet, to win a religious argument, you will claim that time does not exist.

 

[Thief]

Oh really? I'm the silly one? You own a clock, set an alarm to tell you when to get up in the morning, have appointments on your calendar and yet, to win a religious argument, you will claim that time does not exist.

It doesn't exist.
It is not a force...or a substance.

Only a measurement...a ratio on a chalkboard.

 

[waitasec]

It doesn't exist.
It is not a force...or a substance.

Only a measurement...a ratio on a chalkboard.

how can you measure something that doesn't exist

 

[Mister Emu]

More on topic, I would contest the notion of a static 'thought', and instead contend that thought is always a process. I'm not sure what the notion of a 'single thought' in the way you present it is supposed to mean.

If you think of the number three, that is a single thought. If you think of the number three and only the number three for ten minutes, you've had a single thought for ten minutes.

Consciousness as well, with no...animation(?), would likely not be consciousness at all. What is there left of consciousness if we remove any active thought, any processes, movement, development, etc.? I'm not sure anything is left that we could call consciousness. I suppose I am saying that I believe consciousness need be 'active' to be consciousness at all. To remove any activity or process from consciousness leaves us...what?

I don't think consciousness demands activity. I've always understood it to be an awareness of the self, and I think that can exist regardless of activity.

Don't get me wrong, I think what you are proposing is at least quite interesting, it just doesn't address what I was arguing against in the OP. I will certainly ponder what you have presented here.

My apologies, I failed to understand how particular the purpose of this debate was.

 

[javajo]

Some say that when God set the world in motion, time began. The earth revolves and we have day and night, and it revolves around the sun giving us years, seasons, etc. But God is not bound to earth, he is outside it, and to him a thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years. I suppose that means he's very patient. I believe he is in control and all things are moving according to his schedule.

 

[doppelganger]

I don't think consciousness demands activity. I've always understood it to be an awareness of the self, and I think that can exist regardless of activity.

Can there be a self without the motion of thought?

Hume explains this conundrum rather nicely, I think, in his Treatise on Human Nature:

I am willing to affirm of the rest of mankind that they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions that follow each other enormously quickly and are in a perpetual flux and movement. Our eyes can’t turn in their sockets without varying our perceptions; our thought is still more variable than our sight; and all our other senses and faculties contribute to this change in our perceptions, with no one of them remaining unaltered for a moment. The mind is a kind of stage on which many perceptions successively make their appearance: they pass back and forth, glide away, and mingle in an infinite variety of positions and situations. Strictly speaking, there is no simplicity in the mind at one time and no identity through different times, no matter what natural inclination we may have to imagine that simplicity and identity.

He goes on to explain how the mistake of replacing motion with identity leads to phantasm:

That action of the imagination, by which we consider the uninterrupted and invariable object, and that by which we reflect on the succession of related objects, are almost the same to the feeling, nor is there much more effort of thought required in the latter case than in the former. The relation facilitates the transition of the mind from one object to another, and renders its passage as smooth as if it contemplated one continued object. This resemblance is the cause of the confusion and mistake, and makes us substitute the notion of identity, instead of that of related objects. However at one instant we may consider the related succession as variable or interrupted, we are sure the next to ascribe to it a perfect identity, and regard it as enviable and uninterrupted. Our propensity to this mistake is so great from the resemblance above-mentioned, that we fall into it before we are aware; and though we incessantly correct ourselves by reflection, and return to a more accurate method of thinking, yet we cannot long sustain our philosophy, or take off this bias from the imagination. Our last resource is to yield to it, and boldly assert that these different related objects are in effect the same, however interrupted and variable. In order to justify to ourselves this absurdity, we often feign some new and unintelligible principle, that connects the objects together, and prevents their interruption or variation. Thus we feign the continued existence of the perceptions of our senses, to remove the interruption: and run into the notion of a soul, and self, and substance, to disguise the variation.

 

[doppelganger]

Time slows down in the presence of a gravitational field, which appears near any mass.

Well, technically speaking, devices by which we measure "time" appear to slow down.

 

[Thief]

how can you measure something that doesn't exist

As if you have no imagination.....
Don't you know what a mental construct is?