God exists outside of time?

Ken-1122 said:

Okay I think you are using the term "world" out of context. World is defined as the planet Earth. it doesn't include the moon, Saturn, Pluto, or various other stars and planets.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think that that is true.
world - Wiktionary
World as the "planet earth" is one definition. There are more. Amongst them my use.

Ken-1122 said:

As far as there being multiple universes, the term Universe is defined as "all that exists" so what-ever it is that you might wanna refer to as another universe is still a part of this universe.

Click to expand...

Again not quite true. The universe as "all that exists" is one definition. Another one is, (approximately) "this time-space continuum".
universe - Wiktionary

But that is all just semantics.

Ken-1122 said:

As far as trying to have it both ways, How do you figure?

Click to expand...

By following what the definition of "all that exists" demands. All that is, was, will be. All of it.

Ken-1122 said:

I agree the Universe is all that exists, but I never said anything about a "temporal context" those sound like your words not mine. And what does temporal context mean anyway? And what does it have to do with this conversation?

Click to expand...

ElijahW said:

I’m not sure if we are on the same track here. The point is that the universe/god/time has a beginning because going back infinitely in time seems impossible.

Click to expand...

So there was a state prior to the existence of the universe/god/time? What does that even mean?
And of course - no matter whether "time had a beginning " has a meaning or not - even if "time had a beginning" its existence "goes back infinitely in time".

Again to clarify, they haven’t always been.

Click to expand...

So there was a state when they haven´t been?

God has always been since the beginning of time and the universe… more importantly God doesn’t change. The qualities that God had in the beginning that led to the formation of the universe has remained and is supporting existence now, just like it did initially.

Click to expand...

And how comes the universe changes, then?

Like the first bit of code that started the universe is still integral to a much more complex code that is producing the universe that we see. Like what the ones and zeros produce on our computer can vary but what a one and zero actually are remains constant.

Click to expand...

Ones and zeros produce nothing. We are producing information by ones and zeros. This is an action, it´s a change and it requires time.
If you compare god to the most basic elements of information (ones and zeros) you get a very small god - not the complex intelligent creator god most people believe in. That´s ok, though.

ElijahW said:

Which hypothesis do you consider the most rational when it comes to the nature of the “cause for the Big Bang”?

Click to expand...

I’m not qualified enough to form an opinion on which is the most rational. However, it certainly isn’t rational to simply believe that some magic being did it without a single shred of sound evidence to prove that such a being is real. Do you have any sound evidence?

The question is what is the nature of the physical.

Click to expand...

Physical means having material existence—perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature. This is still irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is about your claims that the Christian God is outside time and that it is constant and unchanging. I keep asking you to establish the validity or truth of those claims, but you keep evading those requests.

Nothing created the Christian God or caused the initial cause.

Click to expand...

Prove it. Establish the validity or truth of this claim. First you need to prove that the Christian God is real.

I see that I was correct in my initial assessment of your position after all. You claim it is irrational to think the universe had no beginning, but you don’t think it is irrational to believe the Christian God to have no beginning despite there being a complete lack of sound evidence to support that belief. That isn’t sound reasoning.

You believe in a god you just label it “the cause of the big bang. That beginning has been labeled God historically. You believe in a God, you just haven’t thought out which understanding.

Click to expand...

I am so tired of Christians telling me what I believe.

All you are doing here is taking something for which we currently have no explanation and saying, “God did it”, which, as you note, people have been doing historically for ages. Saying "God did it" is an admission of ignorance and defeat. It is just a condensed way of saying, “I don’t know how it happened, but not knowing makes me feel insecure so I’m going to assume a simple explanation that reinforces my comforting religious beliefs and I'm unable or unwilling to investigate the matter any further.”

quatona said:

So there was a state prior to the existence of the universe/god/time? What does that even mean?
And of course - no matter whether "time had a beginning " has a meaning or not - even if "time had a beginning" its existence "goes back infinitely in time".

Click to expand...

No. Its existence doesn’t go back infinitely. That is the whole point of theorizing about the nature of the beginning is because anything going back infinitely is impossible. It’s a theoretical number that can’t be achieved with anything. Be it atoms or seconds the universe has existed.

So there was a state when they haven´t been?

Click to expand...

No. We are talking about the beginning of everything. If there was anything before the point you are thinking about then you haven’t gone back far enough. There is no state before the beginning and there is nothing going back infinitely in time.

And how comes the universe changes, then?

Click to expand...

How many steps there was before you get to a complex world in flux from a simple start that is constant is going to depend on your beliefs about the nature of the universe. But the fundamental principle is that the effect differed from the cause until we got to what we see now.

Ones and zeros produce nothing. We are producing information by ones and zeros. This is an action, it´s a change and it requires time.
If you compare god to the most basic elements of information (ones and zeros) you get a very small god - not the complex intelligent creator god most people believe in. That´s ok, though.

Click to expand...

It is an example that is comparable, not exact. Of course there are temporal aspects at play in the example but the point is that like 1’s and 0’s in the binary code, the function of the initial code is also unchanging even though what it produces is in flux.

Most people believe in a God that resembles their understanding of a man. The philosophers and those influenced by them at the time of Christ didn’t though.

ElijahW said:

That is the whole point of theorizing about the nature of the beginning is because anything going back infinitely is impossible.

Click to expand...

Anything but God?

3sigma said:

I’m not qualified enough to form an opinion on which is the most rational. However, it certainly isn’t rational to simply believe that some magic being did it without a single shred of sound evidence to prove that such a being is real. Do you have any sound evidence?

Click to expand...

I’m not talking about a magic being. You just assume that is what people mean when you hear the word “God” because you are unfamiliar with the philosophical discussion that was going on at the time and assume that everyone back then thought like the uneducated religious person thinks today.

You should consider informing yourself on the opinions so you can feel qualified to have one of your own that you consider the most rational, instead of walking around asking for proof that doesn’t require you to do any thinking.

Physical means having material existence—perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature. This is still irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is about your claims that the Christian God is outside time and that it is constant and unchanging. I keep asking you to establish the validity or truth of those claims, but you keep evading those requests.

Click to expand...

”Subject to the laws of nature”? What is the nature of these “laws” and how do they have control over matter?

Prove it. Establish the validity or truth of this claim. First you need to prove that the Christian God is real.

Click to expand...

I don’t need to prove anything. I just need to get you to realize you already believe in God. You just haven’t thought out which understanding of God you consider the most rational.

I see that I was correct in my initial assessment of your position after all. You claim it is irrational to think the universe had no beginning, but you don’t think it is irrational to believe the Christian God to have no beginning despite there being a complete lack of sound evidence to support that belief. That isn’t sound reasoning.

Click to expand...

Nope. Try rereading what I wrote.

I am so tired of Christians telling me what I believe.

All you are doing here is taking something for which we currently have no explanation and saying, “God did it”, which, as you note, people have been doing historically for ages. Saying "God did it" is an admission of ignorance and defeat. It is just a condensed way of saying, “I don’t know how it happened, but not knowing makes me feel insecure so I’m going to assume a simple explanation that reinforces my comforting religious beliefs and I'm unable or unwilling to investigate the matter any further.”

Click to expand...

Get over your issue with labels and familiarize yourself with the discussion and you won’t run into being misunderstood as much. You will be able to communicate what you believe and maybe even explain why.

You are working with an understanding of God that belongs in Sunday school, not one that belongs in philosophical discussion. You need to recognize what “God” means isn’t a magic man. It’s the beginning, which you also believe in. You just don’t know what you believe about it and are assuming nonsense of everyone else because you can’t identify people who have thought this out, from those who haven’t

Insane_Duck said:

Anything but God?

Click to expand...

No. Infinite regression back into time isn't possible. The whole point of believing in a concept of God is that anything having existed infinitely is impossible.

ElijahW said:

No. Its existence doesn’t go back infinitely.

Click to expand...

Why do you bring up "infinitely" then, at all? And why do you use confusing terms like "infinitely in time"?

My term was "time has always existed". If this statement is incorrect there must have been a state before time (which is logically impossible). Next: If it has always existed it can´t have had a beginning - because a "beginning" is a change and requires the existence of time.

That is the whole point of theorizing about the nature of the beginning is because anything going back infinitely is impossible.

Click to expand...

...but you can´t solve this problem by making claims that contradict each other.

It’s a theoretical number that can’t be achieved with anything. Be it atoms or seconds the universe has existed.

Click to expand...

You are arguing against your own strawman here.

No. We are talking about the beginning of everything. If there was anything before the point you are thinking about then you haven’t gone back far enough. There is no state before the beginning and there is nothing going back infinitely in time.

Click to expand...

Then time can´t have had a beginning (or I have no idea what "beginning" might mean in your terminology).

It is an example that is comparable, not exact. Of course there are temporal aspects at play in the example but the point is that like 1’s and 0’s in the binary code, the function of the initial code is also unchanging even though what it produces is in flux.

Click to expand...

Yes, and the difference is that 0s and 1s are not said to have created anything.

Most people believe in a God that resembles their understanding of a man. The philosophers and those influenced by them at the time of Christ didn’t though.

Click to expand...

I don´t know why you bring that up. Anyway: the terminology when describing god in the bible is extremely anthropomorphic.

quatona said:

Why do you bring up "infinitely" then, at all? And why do you use confusing terms like "infinitely in time"?

Click to expand...

I bring it up to say it isn’t possible to those who think that it is for the universe or assume I think it is for God.

My term was "time has always existed". If this statement is incorrect there must have been a state before time (which is logically impossible). Next: If it has always existed it can´t have had a beginning - because a "beginning" is a change and requires the existence of time.

Click to expand...

There is no time before time started. There is no state before any state. Slow down and think about this for a few minutes because this is getting repetitive and I think you could see what I’m saying easily if you just took a second to think about what I’m trying to get across here.

...but you can´t solve this problem by making claims that contradict each other.

Click to expand...

I don’t know where you think I am making a contradiction but I’m fairly certain you aren’t understanding me so I’m not worried about you thinking that right now.

You are arguing against your own strawman here.

Click to expand...

If you think I have misrepresented the other position then by all means, explain how.

Then time can´t have had a beginning (or I have no idea what "beginning" might mean in your terminology).

Click to expand...

Why can’t time have a beginning? Either you see it at a measurement of change and you believe that change started at some point in the past. Or you believe that it is like a 4th dimension in space that was formed with the rest of the universe.

Yes, and the difference is that 0s and 1s are not said to have created anything.

Click to expand...

They create the program we see. They create it by doing the same function each time they are called on. One flicks a magnetic switch one way and the other switches it back.

I don´t know why you bring that up. Anyway: the terminology when describing god in the bible is extremely anthropomorphic.

Click to expand...

Yes and those descriptions God were taken allegorically by those trying to get their beliefs in line with the philosophy of the time.

I bring it up because you made point that what I was describing wasn’t a complex intelligent understanding of god and I pointed out that the sky daddy concept of God wasn’t what the educated folks back then had going on.

ElijahW said:

No. Infinite regression back into time isn't possible. The whole point of believing in a concept of God is that anything having existed infinitely is impossible.

Click to expand...

God falls under "anything". Why is God magically immune to infinite regress? Or is anything just the non-your-God things?

(Hence the discussion "can God be outside of time"? I maintain that he cannot, but that's beside the point. Why can't any of the myriad other causes for the universe also be magically "outside of time"?

ElijahW said:

There is no time before time started. There is no state before any state. Slow down and think about this for a few minutes because this is getting repetitive and I think you could see what I’m saying easily if you just took a second to think about what I’m trying to get across here.

Click to expand...

Umm, I have spent not only one or several seconds to think about what you are trying to get across here. I have spent minutes upon minutes and quarter of hours upon quarters of hours; I have asked for your definitions (only to get tautological answers). So please.

If you think I have misrepresented the other position then by all means, explain how.

Click to expand...

Which other position?
Mine? I am just trying to follow you around. I suggested that you might mean that god/the universe/time have always existed.
Is that your position or not?

Why can’t time have a beginning?

Click to expand...

Because "beginning" in the terminology I am familiar with is a change from "not having existed" to "existing", and this is a sequence, i.e. a change that is measured in time.
If you want to be understood, I´d urgently ask you to clarify your terminology.

Either you see it at a measurement of change and you believe that change started at some point in the past.

Click to expand...

Yes, in my terminology "time" is a measurement of change, and "beginning" is a change. Therefore "time has a beginning" is a category error.
Now clarify your terminology so that I can understand what you are trying to communicate.

They create the program we see. They create it by doing the same function each time they are called on. One flicks a magnetic switch one way and the other switches it back.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. 1s and 0s don´t flick anything.

Yes and those descriptions God were taken allegorically by those trying to get their beliefs in line with the philosophy of the time.

Click to expand...

Good. Now you just would have to explain what they are supposed to be an allegory for, and you´d have made a step forward.

I bring it up because you made point that what I was describing wasn’t a complex intelligent understanding of god and I pointed out that the sky daddy concept of God wasn’t what the educated folks back then had going on.

Click to expand...

Then please clarify why you assume that "god has created time and the universe", and not "time created god and the universe" or "the universe created god and time" when they all began simultaneously. Give me an idea what "creating" means, in your terminology.
Actually, I have never understood what "creating" might possibly mean in a world in which nothing is fabricated from nothing but in which there is only permanent change of that which is. However, your assertions bring my cluelessness to new heights.


But even more urgently: I was under the impression that you were defending the position this thread is about: "God is outside time". Maybe, though, I was mistaken, and you don´t agree with that statement (and all your argument now seem to confirm that I was mistaken: You keep arguing that god and time had the same beginning, after all).
However, if you subscribe to "God is outside time" I would like to know how all your arguments support this notion (or are even only reconcilable with it).

Insane_Duck said:

God falls under "anything". Why is God magically immune to infinite regress? Or is anything just the non-your-God things?

(Hence the discussion "can God be outside of time"? I maintain that he cannot, but that's beside the point. Why can't any of the myriad other causes for the universe also be magically "outside of time"?

Click to expand...

I'll try again:
Originally Posted by ElijahW It's not magically outside of time... it's constant. Why do you maintain that there can't be anything constant about the universe?

ElijahW said:

It's not magically outside of time... it's constant. Why do you maintain that there can't be anything constant about the universe?

Click to expand...

To much William Lane Craig maybe?

Insane_Duck said:

To much William Lane Craig maybe?

Click to expand...

None actually. Plato, Philo, Justin and Origen. Did you have a response to why you thought it wasn't possible for anything to be constant (outside time)?

ElijahW said:

None actually. Plato, Philo, Justin and Origen. Did you have a response to why you thought it wasn't possible for anything to be constant (outside time)?

Click to expand...

I'm confused. What do you think I'm arguing?

I don't see the rational of making the following two assertions:

1. Nothing can be infinite.
2. Only a theistic God is immune to this rule.

I'm not sure why anyone would think either of those two things. (although I do see and reject the reasoning behind the first, that's not my main argument)

Why can't I postulate an Omni-Doughnut to solve the regress problem?

Insane_Duck said:

I'm confused. What do you think I'm arguing?

I don't see the rational of making the following two assertions:

1. Nothing can be infinite.
2. Only a theistic God is immune to this rule.

Click to expand...

I think you are misunderstanding him. He doesn´t claim god to have existed infinitely (this, however, is not to say that I have the faintest clue what he is actually trying to say).

quatona said:

Which other position?

Click to expand...

That there is no beginning to the universe. That considering the nature of God isn’t necessary because the universe stretches back infinitely in time. Two choices. Either the universe had a beginning or it didn’t.

Mine? I am just trying to follow you around. I suggested that you might mean that god/the universe/time have always existed.
Is that your position or not?

Click to expand...

No that is not my position. My position is that the whole talk of God is in contrast to the concept of anything having anything that stretches back into time without limit.

Because "beginning" in the terminology I am familiar with is a change from "not having existed" to "existing", and this is a sequence, i.e. a change that is measured in time.
If you want to be understood, I´d urgently ask you to clarify your terminology.

Click to expand...

It’s not the terminology that you is throwing you off here. It’s how you are understanding the concepts. I’ll try another example.

Ok we have a number line that goes from 0 -3. Now in your mind you are saying if we have 0 apples and we get one apple there has been a change and we have moved down the number line. That is fine thinking for events that are already in the flow of time because the state of us not having an apple actually exists and is represented by the number 0.

Now in our example of the universe, 0 doesn’t represent a time when we don’t have any apples, it represents a time when there is nothing. There is no state where we don’t have an apple. If at point 1 we have an apple we didn’t change from having a state of not having an apple. We have always had an apple since the beginning because that is where we are at, at point number 1. Again because point 0 doesn’t exist, it represents a point before the universe/anything existed. It’s not real.

Yes, in my terminology "time" is a measurement of change, and "beginning" is a change. Therefore "time has a beginning" is a category error.
Now clarify your terminology so that I can understand what you are trying to communicate.

Click to expand...

I agree that time is a measurement of change. I still don’t understand how you don’t think that change can have a starting point and I don’t understand what you think the alternative is to time having a beginning if it is a measurement of change.

Nonsense. 1s and 0s don´t flick anything.

Click to expand...

Ok if you say so. The programs just magically appear on the computer?

Good. Now you just would have to explain what they are supposed to be an allegory for, and you´d have made a step forward.

Click to expand...

Each allegory has a different point so that would be hard to answer. The point is to interpret what is obvious allegory as rational as you can and realize that taking it literally is going to lead to superstition and nonsense.

Then please clarify why you assume that "god has created time and the universe", and not "time created god and the universe" or "the universe created god and time" when they all began simultaneously. Give me an idea what "creating" means, in your terminology.
Actually, I have never understood what "creating" might possibly mean in a world in which nothing is fabricated from nothing but in which there is only permanent change of that which is. However, your assertions bring my cluelessness to new heights.

Click to expand...

I believe in a beginning. I’m not sure what you believe. When I get some idea I’ll try to give you an idea of why we differ… if we do.

So you believe that everything is in flux and nothing is constant in the universe? It’s all matter just bumping into more matter?

quatona said:

I think you are misunderstanding him. He doesn´t claim god to have existed infinitely (this, however, is not to say that I have the faintest clue what he is actually trying to say).

Click to expand...

I got a point across!!!

ElijahW said:

I got a point across!!!

Click to expand...

So what are you trying to say? If your God isn't infinite, then who created him? (otherwise, apparently, he is infinite in time)