Can God undo the past?

[public hermit]

I mean that the only logic behind a "need" to undo the past - is that in the present (however far that is from the past) one finally discovers that a mistake was made in the past and the unfolding of time has shown that a different past would be "better

That's like saying God had a need to create in the first place, but that is not what we hold. There is no need to create. God is free. Why is God not free to undo it all? What bounds him to the need to preserve the past other than the divine will?

But since God is a being that can already see infinitely far in the future - then any future where He would have "discovered" that He made a mistake to permit some event in the past - was already known to him some infinite number of years before that event ever happened in the past in the first place. Why would He "discover" some new thing about the past - in the future - so as to even have a need to undo/redo it

What discovery is needed? Perhaps it was part of the eternal decree to undo it all. In that case, it would not be the discovery of some flaw, but part of the divine decree. That doesn't seem likely, to me, but nowhere near impossible.

 

[public hermit]

God can do anything He wants. He has the power to end the world whenever He wishes. Nothing is outside of the realm of possibility for Him because all is possible through Him. However, He won't. I believe the end of the flood is proof of this. It's not that He can or cannot, it's that He won't. Furthermore, for Him to undo the past would be Him effectively saying that He was wrong, which is not possible. Ergo, He can...but He can't, so He won't.

This seems right to me. I see no reason God preserves creation (past, present, future) except by divine will. God could erase the past. God doesn't do that, not because past events are magically conferred some necessary ontological status simply because they happened, but because God so wills it.

 

[Clare73]

Isn't it still a contingent fact that my mother gave birth to me? It's not a necessary fact, unless we make all facts of history necessary.
But what confers the necessity on the whole set of facts? It can't be that God willed them. God wasn't determined by some outside cause to create this particular world. In other words, the events of history are all contingent on the will of God, which itself is not necessitated. God is free. So, what would make historical facts necessary?

I suspect if you really knew his cosmic plan, as well as his plan for each human being, you would know what made the actual historical facts necessary.

In all of this, I am assuming God is the only necessary being, and that all
entities, relations, and events in creation are contingent on the free will of God.

Indeed.

And the free will of God ordained a plan whereby his goodness, mercy and justice would be glorified through the glory of his Son, his plan being down to the last sparrow that falls to the ground, and even to the number of hairs on your head. . .unless, of course, your God is too small for that kind of sovereignty (Daniel 4:35).

 

[public hermit]

And the free will of God ordained a plan whereby his goodness, mercy and justice would be glorified through the glory of his Son, his plan being down to the last sparrow that falls to the ground, and even to the number of hairs on your head. . .unless, of course, your God is too small for that kind of sovereignty

All this means is that past, present, and future are sustained by God. It means neither that the past is necessary nor that God is unable to erase it.

 

[Clare73]

All this means is that past, present, and future are sustained by God. It means neither that the past is necessary nor that God is unable to erase it.

It means they are ordained by God through all the various factors that cause them to be, in the same way that all the factors in the death of Jesus were ordained by God (Acts 4:28, Acts 2:23).

The present which he has ordained came out of the past which he ordained to result in this present--any other pasts would not have produced this exact present, and this exact present is ordained to produce the exact future he has ordained.

 

[public hermit]

Because God already certified/approved it having taken in - every consideration at infinite scope. What "else" would there be that was "unknown to God" in the past and then He "just now found out" so as to create the need for a "re-do"?

I just came across the following line in Thomas Aquinas's Shorter Summa:

"But coordination is opposed to perfection" (156).

I think that's like what you're saying, perhaps. What a perfect God ordains is for a perfect end, and therefore "deordination" is not possible.

 

[hedrick]

Change means that at one time something was one way and at another time it was different. In what time would this change occur? This would seem to suggest that God is within a separate time line perpendicular to ours, so that different human timelines intersect his at different of his times. This seems a needlessly complex model, unless we have reason to think it’s true.

 

[Clare73]

I just came across the following line in Thomas Aquinas's Shorter Summa:

"But coordination is opposed to perfection" (156).

I think that's like what you're saying, perhaps. What a perfect God ordains is for a perfect end, and therefore "deordination" is not possible.

Yeah. . .that's what I said.

 

[Andrewn]

There is no need to create. God is free. Why is God not free to undo it all? What bounds him to the need to preserve the past other than the divine will?

Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Because God loved the world He chose to die for it rather than destroy it. Except for occasional miracles, God will not contradict the Laws He created. For example, He will not create a square circle or send satan to the LOF before the appointed time.

 

[Eftsoon]

nce existed, so that it still existed in the divine mind? How far should we take it that God's forgiveness entails an erasing of the past? I don't know.

What if God alters the present in such a way that the causal chainis disrupted? The past is effectively erased, but not directly. The end result is the same. In this case, God can 'erase the past'. I'm not sure that God would want to do so however. It's true that that could entail some violation of our free will by the imposition of a new pattern on reality. Would we be free actors from that point?

Consider that though the present could be altered to reflect an erasure of the past, this would require such extensive interference as to constitute a serious issue for the preservation of freedom.

 

[public hermit]

it rather than destroy it. Except for occasional miracles, God will not contradict the Laws He created. For example, He will not create a square circle or send satan to the LOF before the appointed time

I'm glad you brought up logic. The question of the OP was entertained by theologians in the 14th century during the rise of Nominalism (e.g. some were revisiting the argument by Peter Damien, who rejected the possibility). Occamists, who were voluntarists, who argued that almost everything, including morality, was up to the fiat of divine will seemed tentatively in support of the possibility, or at least argued that it was not logically evident it's not possible.

Occamists argued that one could be certain only of logical deductions whose conclusion, if negated, was a contradiction. So, they agreed with you that God could not create a square circle. But they waffled on whether or not undoing the past would result in transgressing the law of non-contradiction.

Look at #5 for Peter Damien's reasons for rejecting the possibility that God could undo the past. Part of his argument is that God is outside time (Boethius), which seems to change the dynamic of the question. This might be what @hedrick is getting at above.

Peter Damian (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[hedrick]

Look at #5 for Peter Damien's reasons for rejecting the possibility that God could undo the past. Part of his argument is that God is outside time (Boethius), which seems to change the dynamic of the question. This might be what @hedrick is getting at above.

To be clear, I wasn't making the assertion that God is outside of time (though in fact I think he has to be at least partially outside it). I was saying what I think is logically necessary to make sense of the idea of changing history.

Unlike Damien, I'm arguing from the standpoint of physics, not philosophy. (I've never been entirely sure the philosophy actually exists.)

 

[public hermit]

What if God alters the present in such a way that the causal chainis disrupted? The past is effectively erased, but not directly. The end result is the same. In this case, God can 'erase the past'. I'm not sure that God would want to do so however. It's true that that could entail some violation of our free will by the imposition of a new pattern on reality. Would we be free actors from that point?

Consider that though the present could be altered to reflect an erasure of the past, this would require such extensive interference as to constitute a serious issue for the preservation of freedom.

Good point. If one is not determinist, and a certain kind of free will is imperative, the breaks in the causal chain would undercut responsibility and one's ability to choose based on the flow of events, i.e. the choice might or might not have any relation to what is happening. I hadn't considered that, but I think you're right.

 

[public hermit]

To be clear, I wasn't making the assertion that God is outside of time (though in fact I think he has to be at least partially outside it). I was saying what I think is logically necessary to make sense of the idea of changing history.

Okay, I went back and looked at what you said. You mean, in order for time to be undone (whatever that might mean) it must occur within time? And if that's the case, God has two timelines going?

Couldn't it be undone if God is outside of time? Or, why not?

 

[hedrick]

Okay, I went back and looked at what you said. You mean, in order for time to be undone (whatever that might mean) it must occur within time? And if that's the case, God has two timelines going?

Couldn't it be undone if God is outside of time? Or, why not?

The problem is that the concept "change" is inherently connected to time. It means that at one time it was one way and at a later time it was some other way. It might be that our concepts of time aren't good enough to describe reality, but if so they would need to be described using concepts we don't have. "Change" is a concept inherently tied to time or at least sequence.

Perhaps my suggestion of two-dimensional time isn't the only possibility, but at the very least changing the past is inconsistent with time as a simple sequence. There would need to be additional complexity to support the sequence within which the change occurred, or the term "change" has no readily determinable meaning.

Obviously for change in time to happen, God has to be outside of time. But in order to use "change" to describe this change, there has to be a sequence in whatever space he is in, or change makes no sense. And for the statement of changing the past to make sense, there has to be a sequence of at least partial timelines. Otherwise there's no way to talk about both the old and new sequences of events.

I think this comes very near the question of whether God can make something too heavy for him to lift. I believe that is a combination of words that has no meaning (or at least the assert that he can has no meaning). That's not to say that God might not do things we can't describe, of course. But saying "can God X," where X is meaningless (e.g. it's self-contradictory) doesn't make the statement take on meaning.

 

[public hermit]

The problem is that the concept "change" is inherently connected to time. It means that at one time it was one way and at a later time it was some other way. It might be that our concepts of time aren't good enough to describe reality, but if so they would need to be described using concepts we don't have. "Change" is a concept inherently tied to time or at least sequence.

Perhaps my suggestion of two-dimensional time isn't the only possibility, but at the very least changing the past is inconsistent with time as a simple sequence. There would need to be additional complexity to support the sequence within which the change occurred, or the term "change" has no readily determinable meaning.

Obviously for change in time to happen, God has to be outside of time. But in order to use "change" to describe this change, there has to be a sequence in whatever space he is in, or change makes no sense. And for the statement of changing the past to make sense, there has to be a sequence of at least partial timelines. Otherwise there's no way to talk about both the old and new sequences of events.

I think this comes very near the question of whether God can make something too heavy for him to lift. I believe that is a combination of words that has no meaning (or at least the assert that he can has no meaning). That's not to say that God might not do things we can't describe, of course.

That makes sense. Nicholas of Autrecourt (Occamist) rejected the idea that we could know causal relations since distinct entities believed to be causally related can be conceptualized without reference to each other, i.e. like Hume he rejected certain knowledge of causal relationships and even posited Hume's assertion that we assume causal connection by observation of repetitions. And, he would be open to the possibility that God could undo what is not logically related. Great intuition you have on this.

 

[hedrick]

God could do something close: He could change all memories, records, geological evidence, etc, to make it look like the past was different. I'm not sure why would do that since it would effectively be lying to us. If it's likely that he might, it causes serious problems for our ability to understand the universe.

 

[BobRyan]

Change means that at one time something was one way and at another time it was different. In what time would this change occur? This would seem to suggest that God is within a separate time line perpendicular to ours, so that different human timelines intersect his at different of his times. This seems a needlessly complex model, unless we have reason to think it’s true.

"Change over time" is very different from "Changing a past event in its time"

 

[public hermit]

Yeah. . .that's what I said.

Yes, that is what you said. I didn't see your post (#25) before I quoted Thomas Aquinas. If I had I would have included you both. My apologies. But, yes, you are saying the same thing.

 

[Andrewn]

Look at #5 for Peter Damien's reasons for rejecting the possibility that God could undo the past. Part of his argument is that God is outside time (Boethius), which seems to change the dynamic of the question. This might be what @hedrick is getting at above.

Peter Damian (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The article summarizes several of Damian's arguments. I didn't attempt to understand everything that is said there. Perhaps you can explain some of his arguments.

But 14th century debates did not benefit from our modern scientific understanding. My approach is based on science and it is really simple. We know that God did not only create the physical universe but also created the laws of physics. I believe that He also created laws of metaphysics.

Even though God is omnipotent, He has chosen to limit His powers so as not to transgress the laws of physics and of metaphysics. In order not to transgress the law of sin and death that He created, He (or His Son) had to die. So, God is limited by His own choice. He cannot draw a rectangular triangle or create a rock that He cannot carry. And He cannot change the past or the present or the future, except through the effects of the Jesus' incarnation and the power of the Holy Spirit functioning inside history.

BTW, I'm not sure if God is outside time. He may be in all time simultaneously.

Is any of what I said relevant to the discussion .