God exists outside of time?

[Aconba]

...

 

[Ken-1122]

Elopez
(quote)”What isn't necessary? My point is that time cannot be infinite. It is quite literally impossible for the reason just explained and to which you gave no response.”

(reply)I did address your point! You made the claim that “an infinite set of events of the past is impossible because there can’t be an infinite number of objects that can be instantiated into reality” That simply isn’t true. All that is necessary is an infinite number of moments of the past to take and the concept of time applied to those moments.

(quote) “in an atemporal state there would be no time at all, so I would not be frozen in time in a place where time would not exist. However yes, it would be an unchangeable state of affairs.”

(reply) So is that a “yes” in a timeless state you would be unable to move; kinda like a video recording left on “pause”?

Drich0150
(quote) “Without a sun how do you suggest we keep track? Remember we are not talking about a few thousand more years. At some point in eternity doesn't science say our sun will die? What happens when the corner stone of "time" ceases? Then time can no longer be measured. So what is left besides eternity?

(reply) then we will have to find another “cornerstone”. Maybe the human pulse or heart beat; but even if we couldn’t figure out a way to measure time, that still doesn’t mean it won’t exist! Animals haven’t figured out a way to measure time; would you say time won’t exist if humans weren’t on this planet to measure it?

K

 

[elopez]

I did address your point! You made the claim that “an infinite set of events of the past is impossible because there can’t be an infinite number of objects that can be instantiated into reality” That simply isn’t true. All that is necessary is an infinite number of moments of the past to take and the concept of time applied to those moments.

That does not address my point at all. An infinite number of moments in the past is logically impossible in the first place. That is my point. Actually addressing my post would be explaining how that cannot be so, not simply saying it isn't true.

So is that a “yes” in a timeless state you would be unable to move; kinda like a video recording left on “pause”?

Not exactly like that as the video would have had a beginning and an atemporal state would not. If by "pause" you mean unchangeable, then yes.

 

[Ken-1122]

That does not address my point at all. An infinite number of moments in the past is logically impossible in the first place. That is my point. Actually addressing my post would be explaining how that cannot be so, not simply saying it isn't true.

(reply) So is it safe to say you don’t consider your God to be infinite? That he had a beginning?

Not exactly like that as the video would have had a beginning and an atemporal state would not. If by "pause" you mean unchangeable, then yes.

Does this apply to your God as well?


Ken

 

[elopez]

So is it safe to say you don’t consider your God to be infinite? That he had a beginning?

God is infinite in that He had no beginning.

Does this apply to your God as well?


Ken

Yes. God is immutable, meaning God is unchangeable.

 

[Ken-1122]

God is infinite in that He had no beginning.



Yes. God is immutable, meaning God is unchangeable.

Okay let me see if I’ve got this straight.
You say to be in a timeless state would mean you can’t move, think, or do anything; akin to a video recording left on “pause”
Then you say your God was in a timeless state before time was invented which tells me he was unable to create, move, think, etc. during those moments; akin to this video recording left on pause;
Then you say; your God is unchangable!
Well unless your god is still left on “pause” he has obviously changed from the frozen state he was in before time; right? If not where am I going wrong?

Ken

 

[Aconba]

...

 

[elopez]

Okay let me see if I’ve got this straight.
You say to be in a timeless state would mean you can’t move, think, or do anything; akin to a video recording left on “pause”
Then you say your God was in a timeless state before time was invented which tells me he was unable to create, move, think, etc. during those moments; akin to this video recording left on pause;
Then you say; your God is unchangable!
Well unless your god is still left on “pause” he has obviously changed from the frozen state he was in before time; right? If not where am I going wrong?

Ken

Existing timelessly without the universe God would not need to have had 'thought' about anything as He would have had the eternal desire to create. The creative act is simultaneous with the moment of creation and time, which only means that God would not have created temporally for time would have to already exist and so God could not have created it.

It depends on what we mean by 'change.' The immutability of God refers specifically to the nature and will of God, in that God's nature nor will changes. [FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[quatona]

As humans, we are only capable of understanding God in anthropomorphic expressions. To try and comprehend that which is infinite with a finite mind is absurd. We can only apprehend such concepts.

You seem to be saying here that you don´t understand what "infinite" means - yet you use this word as if it were somehow meaningful.

Most atheists only allow for empirical knowledge, therefore, the transcendent is unknowable.

Isn´t that exactly what you have been saying yourself above?

 

[Aconba]

...

 

[quatona]

The key is in the difference between comprehending and apprehending as they relate to knowledge.

The empiricist only allows for knowledge that is comprehensible and any concept that is purely philosophical is said to be unknowable.

However, I am saying (as well as the ancient philosophers) that the knowledge of God is apprehensible and is in fact ‘a priori’. The Bible goes on to say that the knowledge of God is also ‘a posteriori’ in the things that are made. (see Romans 1)

I´m sorry, but in essence I am hearing: "I don´t comprehend what 'infinity' means but despite having no idea what it is I a priori believe in it."
Is that a mis-paraphrasing?

 

[Aconba]

...

 

[quatona]

The correct phrasing would be something like this:

"I don't fully comprehend what 'infinity' means, but nevertheless, because this knowledge is a priori, I do apprehend it's meaning."

1. So why is it you have this a priori knowledge and I don´t?
2. I´m not sure what exactly you mean by "apprehension" (in contrast to "comprehension"? Would you be willing to explain where you draw the line?
3. What exactly does "knowledge" mean when the result is apprehension (as opposed to comprehension)?
4. You emphasize that you don´t comprehend it fully. Shouldn´t you talk about the parts you do understand?
5. Is simply declaring something " a priori knowledge" really a good argument? Or isn´t that actually just a euphemism for "premise/preassumption"? May I use that argument in order to get my bases covered, too?

 

[Aconba]

...

 

[Eudaimonist]

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. [Romans 1:18-23]

What does this quote have to do with the subject of the thread? Can we keep this thread on topic, instead of degenerating into veiled insults?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[freezerman2000]

What does this quote have to do with the subject of the thread? Can we keep this thread on topic, instead of degenerating into veiled insults?


eudaimonia,

Mark

thank you...you said it first. Good catch.

 

[quatona]

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. [Romans 1:18-23]

I notice that you have switched to preaching mode.
So do I understand this correctly: You can´t or don´t want to answer my questions?

 

[Aconba]

...

 

[Ken-1122]

Most everyone knows that Einstein proved that time is relative. The faster you travel, the slower your time will pass relative to someone planted firmly on the Earth. If you were able to travel at the speed of light, your time would cease completely and you would only exist trapped in timelessness.

"...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one." ~Albert Einstein

Actually it would only appear that time has stopped to the observer. The way I understand it, when you look at something, what you are actually seeing is the light that is reflected from the object you are observing.
If you were on a very fast space craft and you looked at the activity on planet Earth, what you will see is the light reflected from earth going towards you. Now the faster you travel away from earth, the slower the light will come towards you and it will appear to you (the observer) that time is slowing down on the planet. As you approach the speed of light; because you are now traveling at the same speed as the light that was coming at you previously, it will appear to you that time on the planet has stopped and as you surpass the speed of light, it will appear that time is in reverse on the planet because you are now observing the light that was previously in front of you
Now of course time has not been altered for neither you nor the people on the planet, it will just appear that way when you are traveling near or at the speed of light.
Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Existing timelessly without the universe God would not need to have had 'thought' about anything as He would have had the eternal desire to create. The creative act is simultaneous with the moment of creation and time, which only means that God would not have created temporally for time would have to already exist and so God could not have created it.

It depends on what we mean by 'change.' The immutability of God refers specifically to the nature and will of God, in that God's nature nor will changes.

I was asking was God able to move, think, or do anything before time existed? Was he akin to the video recording left on pause?

K