• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the Almighty God Outside Space and Time?

Nehustan

Well-Known Member
Deut. 10:19 said:
Of course it is, but that is not at all the issue raised by me with respect to James' comments. I simply wished to point out that creation ex nihilo is not a necessary component of Judeo-Christian theology.
Nehustan said:
Creation of the 'Universe' or this Stellar System. I differentiate between the two for this reason, creation of the Universe would by its nature have been ex nihilo, not only from nothing, but also by 'no thing', i.e. that which is beyond quantifiability, whereas creation of this stellar sytem would have used the elements formed at the birth of the Universe. I often like to ponder the three veils Ain, Ain Soph, and Ain Soph Aur in this regard, Ain Soph Aur being synonymous with Al Nur, The Light which I previously alluded to by quoting Surah 24:35, and the Universe i.e Heavens alluded to by Surah 2:255
Deut. 10:19 said:
A request: if you're choose to respond to something I wrote, respond to something I wrote.
You are of course right Deut. and I can fully see why you think I am not responding. My question was without a question mark, and thus easily misunderstood, let me then respond to what you said above...


Deut. 10:19 said:
'...creation ex nihilo....'
my response to what you wrote is a question which I thought I had put clearly, but I'll try again. Which creation are you talking about 1.)the birth of the Universe or 2.) the birth of this stellar sytem? The reason I ask is that one is

Deut. 10:19 said:
'...creation ex nihilo....'
while the other would be 'ex quispiam' or how about 'ex res' or even 'ex elementum'....I think I like the last one best...don't you just love the web!!!
 

Nick Soapdish

Secret Agent
Deut. 10:19 said:
Of course it is, but that is not at all the issue raised by me with respect to James' comments. I simply wished to point out that creation ex nihilo is not a necessary component of Judeo-Christian theology.
Creation ex nihilo is not necessary according to the Old Testament, but as far as Christian theology goes, the New Testament certainly points in this direction.

John 1:3

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Hebrew 11:3

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Colossians 1:16

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
Deut. 10:19 said:
Did you read my thread on Gen. 1:1-3? Given Clement's:

... would you insist that God as creator of space and time is fundamental to Christian theology? It certainly appears as if Clement was speaking of something less than creation ex nihilo.
I do think it's fundamental, yes. I don't know what Clement meant. Perhaps his disorder refers to nonexistance - it seems quite possible to me that at that time things could have been described as existing only once they hard form or order. Then again, the language he uses is ambiguous. Perhaps He means that God created this world from disordered matter after the beginning of the universe (and what he means by universe is ambiguous also, in his times the meaning could have been anything from all that exists, to this world, to the Empire. The latter is highly unlikely given the context, though). That would be in line with Church teachings and does not imply that the matter was eternal as God is. Of course, he could have meant what you read him to have said, I don't deny it. One Father's opinion is an irrelevance, however, particularly when it is in the more 'scientific' sphere. The Patristic concensus certainly appears to speak against Clement's theologoumenon if, indeed, that is what he meant.

Regardless of what Clement meant, however, I would find it very difficult to believe that He thought God was bound by either time or space. If He were bound by time He could not be eternal and if He were bound by space, how could He be omnipresent? Regardless of his view on the creation, I can't believed Clement did not hold to the ideas that God was eternal and omnipresent.

James
 

soma

John Kuykendall
God is infinite. To say God is outside time would say that there had to be two infinites and that can't be. There is only one infinite.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
JamesThePersian said:
My faith most certainly does not anthropomorphise God.
In fact, if you look into Orthodox theology you'll see that we use the apophatic approach almost to the exclusion of cataphaticism. In other words, we acknowledge that the Creator is completely other than His creation and hence we can never really say what He is because any concept we apply to Him will be at best a poor approximation made intelligible to human reason. Rather than do that we tend to describe God by what He is not, except in those instances where He has revealed something of His nature to us. It is impossible to anthropomorphise God using the apophatic approach.
Very interesting James. Would love to discuss this further but I don't know how to go about it.

JamesThePersian said:
However, that is an aside. It is not the problem that I was referring to (though it is tangentially related). To say that anything is outside of space is logically nonsensical as 'outside' is a word specifying a spatial relationship. It is impossible to be in a position where all spatial relationships are non-existent and have that position described using spatial references. That is the problem I was referring to - one of language used to create logical impossibilities. God is, of course, not bound by time or space, but to describe Him as outside time and space is not correct either. If that were the case, quite apart from the linguistic difficulties mentioned, then you'd have to explain how He can have any effect on us who are bound by time and space without 'coming inside'. Inside/outside space or time is an idea that has no relevance to God whatsoever. He is unbound by anything.

James
Very good point.

~Victor
 

Nehustan

Well-Known Member
soma said:
God is infinite. To say God is outside time would say that there had to be two infinites and that can't be. There is only one infinite.
I am assuming the two infintes you refer to (and I may be wrong) are God as infinite and absolute, and, on this I'm not clear, the Universe i.e Space Time continuum? If this is your second infinite, I would beg to differ, Space and time are not infinite. The Universe may appear to us as infinite, like the oceans did to the first sailors, but they do not correspond in actuality (now there's a verging on finite qualification) to the appellation infinite, only The God does that.
 

Nick Soapdish

Secret Agent
soma said:
God is infinite. To say God is outside time would say that there had to be two infinites and that can't be. There is only one infinite.
I do not follow... if there can only be one infinite, are you claiming that time is infinite or that God is infinite?
 

soma

John Kuykendall
God is infinite. Time is a system of measurement used by man, which is inside God. God which is infinite is also in the finite. In-finite.
 

mr.guy

crapsack
soma said:
God is infinite. Time is a system of measurement used by man, which is inside God. God which is infinite is also in the finite. In-finite.
So, god (who's infinite) is inside the finite. Which is ultimately of his own composition. He is outside time, which is finite, thus part of him. Because he is inside of the finite which is part of his infinite self, how does one distinguish anything as finite if an infinite god fits into it/himself? Is the sum finite, yet the total infinite? Most importantly, is the universe just God's inside-out guts, or are they rightside in within the outside?
 

soma

John Kuykendall
So duality is in Unity. They both exist like the yin yang symbol. It depends on the perspective. Do you see the tree or the forest?

We can attempt to see the infinite by directing our thoughts to one all pervading pure consciousness rather than each individual consciousness by looking at the whole picture. The solution is to be open to all even negatives, but not to condemn one negative over another; each is necessary and a vital force for all the possibilities of the macrocosm to become actualized. In the absence of these opposites, the positive and negative, the universe could not hold together and would cease to exist. To go beyond these polarities is to realize what I like to call Christ consciousness. We must rise above the disconnected, the dissociated and become unified with the whole, which I like to call pure consciousness or God the Father.

http://thinkunity.com
 

mr.guy

crapsack
soma said:
So duality is in Unity. They both exist like the yin yang symbol. It depends on the perspective. Do you see the tree or the forest?
I don't think the yin yang (tao) symbol is dualist. It's representational (false) dualism as ultimately perceived within moniesm (apperently), but still points to the world as illusion once "defined". Any distinction between god and anything else in the universe (or reality, let's say) would be absurd.

We can attempt to see the infinite by directing our thoughts to one all pervading pure consciousness rather than each individual consciousness by looking at the whole picture.
And where does the artchitect live while building this house of "whole" consciousness?

In the absence of these opposites, the positive and negative, the universe could not hold together and would cease to exist. To go beyond these polarities is to realize what I like to call Christ consciousness. We must rise above the disconnected, the dissociated and become unified with the whole, which I like to call pure consciousness or God the Father.
When isolating the "positive and negative", is that not analogous to sorting out the trees in the forest? How can you "go beyond" these polarities without "unglueing" the universe?
 
Top