Define outside of time

[Syd the Human]

Not if entity is infinite. The acts don't define the one doing it. Basically you're claiming that in infinite being would be unable to do finite things.

If he does things, he does them in some sort of order. For example, he created universe at one point, that's an event.

Also, a guy said that god is nothing and since nothing does not apply to time because only matter applies to time. So god is the living embodiment of nothingness...but what IS nothingness? He hasn't answered yet so I'll post when he does.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not if entity is infinite.

What does that mean?

The acts don't define the one doing it.

True. But the acts DO define the context in which they take place.

The verb "to create" implies temporal conditions. I'ld be willing to acknowledge something like the fact that our language was developed to comprehend "classical physics". Meaning macroscopic objects traveling at sub-light speeds. We aren't wired to comprehend what happens inside a black hole or at the quantum level.

However, the entire basis of classical theistic doctrine is simply not compatible with an entity in a timeless context. First, there's the thing about "creation" (it even speaks of days - sounds pretty temporal to me). Then there's the thing about that entity intervening at different points in time. After stuff went down that he didn't like.

Everything we read in the bible about this entity, clearly assumes that the entity is subject to temporal contexts. It clearly assumes that he is subject to some time dimension.

Basically you're claiming that in infinite being would be unable to do finite things.

First, I have no idea what an "infinite being" is. And I doubt you do.

Secondly, ignoring the non-sensical notion of an "infinite being", it's not about what it can or cannot do. It's about what words mean and simple logic.

If there is an entity (of whatever form) that plans things, does things, intervenes in things etc.... then time passes for that entity. It needs to make decisions and engage in planned actions. All those things require a temporal context to take place as they are sequential events.

At least, that is what physics tells us. If you are going to engage in special pleading and say that none of those rules apply to your god of choice "for some reason", then there's nothing left to be said. Then I can only shrug my shoulders and move on.

You speak about an "infinite being". I don't know what that is.
You claim sequential events can take place without time passing. I don't know what that means.
By extension, you claim an "infinite intelligence" can exist without a physical brain. I don't know what that means.

It sounds like nonsense and I'll assume it is until you can point out otherwise.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not if entity is infinite. The acts don't define the one doing it. Basically you're claiming that in infinite being would be unable to do finite things.

That's an odd thing to say. Acts don't define the one doing it?

Don't they?

What is your god if not a creator? What is he if not a being which interacts with his creations? Pardon me for disagreeing...but it seems that christians define god exactly according to his acts.

Imagine him without his acts for a moment. He never created a universe or life...how would you define him? He would have no distinguishing characteristics at all. He would be literally no different from nothing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I've always taken the whole "god is timeless" as a post hoc argument to avoid considering that god started at some point (this creates the need for an explanation of how he began and subsequently eliminates any useful explanatory power for god creating the universe) and that quite possibly he has or will end at some point (which defeats the whole purpose of an afterlife, admits the possibility that he's no longer relevant).

I mean just imagine for a moment that the christian god wasn't eternal.... this really would throw a wet blanket upon the whole religion wouldn't it? They could still claim to know how the universe began...but would be unable to explain how their god began. If god were already dead or will eventually die...then he would be unable to keep his promises of eternal life for everyone... that wouldn't jibe too well, would it?

So, because he has to be in order for their religion to make any sense, in order for anyone to have an incentive to follow it....god must be eternal. Once you start considering "eternal" you run into problems though...

So to fix those problems god must be "timeless". "Timeless" itself doesn't mean anything...it's just an abstract thought with no real definition that's used as a placeholder for answering problems that occur when we start considering "eternal".

 

[Chesterton]

I've always taken the whole "god is timeless" as a post hoc argument to avoid considering that god started at some point (this creates the need for an explanation of how he began and subsequently eliminates any useful explanatory power for god creating the universe) and that quite possibly he has or will end at some point (which defeats the whole purpose of an afterlife, admits the possibility that he's no longer relevant).

I mean just imagine for a moment that the christian god wasn't eternal.... this really would throw a wet blanket upon the whole religion wouldn't it? They could still claim to know how the universe began...but would be unable to explain how their god began. If god were already dead or will eventually die...then he would be unable to keep his promises of eternal life for everyone... that wouldn't jibe too well, would it?

No, I don't think it would necessarily throw a wet blanket on the whole religion. Explaining how God began (if He did) might be an interesting philosophical or scientific question, but not a question Christianity needs to answer. It's enough that God is timeless compared to the dimensions we exist in, relatively speaking.

There could be higher realities of time that we can't readily perceive, and in view of that, I'm starting work on my new theory. You've heard of "dark matter" and "dark energy"? I'm going to theorize "dark time". (Soon as I find my pencil.)

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, I don't think it would necessarily throw a wet blanket on the whole religion. Explaining how God began (if He did) might be an interesting philosophical or scientific question, but not a question Christianity needs to answer. It's enough that God is timeless compared to the dimensions we exist in, relatively speaking.

There could be higher realities of time that we can't readily perceive, and in view of that, I'm starting work on my new theory. You've heard of "dark matter" and "dark energy"? I'm going to theorize "dark time". (Soon as I find my pencil.)

Well...it would throw a wet blanket on the explanatory power of god. If god had a beginning... then he necessarily had a creator (according to the logic of apologists who posit that all things with beginnings necessarily have a creator). If he was "born" or evolved into godhood, then it's not at all unreasonable to speculate on his death...a literal one, not figurative. I'm sure you can see how that would cause problems for any religion.

I don't think you're necessarily wrong about time. Physicists discuss the big bang as the "beginning of space and time" and I think that's a little misleading. I don't think it rules out the existence of some concept of space and time outside of our universe... we just can't know anything about it (yet?). Any physicists here are welcome to correct me on this, of course.

 

[beotos]

Why do you think you can wholly grasp eternity from our finitude? We only have a glimpse.

Furthermore, to say "God acts" in the universe does not necessarily bound him to time. It becomes paradoxical, yes, but not contradictory.

I honestly don't see an issue between an eternal being acting in and out of time.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why do you think you can wholly grasp eternity from our finitude? We only have a glimpse.

Furthermore, to say "God acts" in the universe does not necessarily bound him to time. It becomes paradoxical, yes, but not contradictory.

I honestly don't see an issue between an eternal being acting in and out of time.

Well, the issue is two-fold the way I see it. You believe god does interact with our universe...wonderful.

Let's picture that act as a starting point in a moment in time. We could then say that there was a moment that preceded it...and describe it by whatever god did at that moment (whether or not it was an interaction with our universe). We could then say in relation to that moment, there was another moment which preceded it...and describe by whatever god did in that moment. If we follow this chain backwards... we arrive at one of two conclusions.

1. We eventually reach the first thing that god did...implying that this is when god (much like our universe) began. That is, unless you imagine god as this thing which exists infinitely backwards in time without thinking or doing anything...kind of like a god statue.

2. We continue to go backwards through this chain infinitely.... which carries with it two problems of its own. The first would be, "If this chain of actions continues backwards infinitely....how did we ever reach our starting point?" (That interaction that god had with the universe at the beginning of the example). The second problem is really more theological than mathematical or physical. If our creation and entire existence and ultimate destruction (in the christian view) is merely a tiny blip in a relative infinity of god actions... of what real significance/importance are we to him? Clearly whatever else god does with all his infinite time...it has nothing to do with mankind's existence. He does far more things and spends far more time without us at all. Discussion of things like god's love for man, the importance of salvation, his tremendous sacrifice....they all lose a lot of significance when you consider mankind's destiny takes up less than one second of his year (metaphorically).

 

[beotos]

Well, the issue is two-fold the way I see it. You believe god does interact with our universe...wonderful.

Let's picture that act as a starting point in a moment in time. We could then say that there was a moment that preceded it...and describe it by whatever god did at that moment (whether or not it was an interaction with our universe). We could then say in relation to that moment, there was another moment which preceded it...and describe by whatever god did in that moment. If we follow this chain backwards... we arrive at one of two conclusions.

1. We eventually reach the first thing that god did...implying that this is when god (much like our universe) began. That is, unless you imagine god as this thing which exists infinitely backwards in time without thinking or doing anything...kind of like a god statue.

2. We continue to go backwards through this chain infinitely.... which carries with it two problems of its own. The first would be, "If this chain of actions continues backwards infinitely....how did we ever reach our starting point?" (That interaction that god had with the universe at the beginning of the example). The second problem is really more theological than mathematical or physical. If our creation and entire existence and ultimate destruction (in the christian view) is merely a tiny blip in a relative infinity of god actions... of what real significance/importance are we to him? Clearly whatever else god does with all his infinite time...it has nothing to do with mankind's existence. He does far more things and spends far more time without us at all. Discussion of things like god's love for man, the importance of salvation, his tremendous sacrifice....they all lose a lot of significance when you consider mankind's destiny takes up less than one second of his year (metaphorically).

1. God, in eternity, could have been inactive - like a statue - or He could have been doing whatever He wanted without beginning or end.

2. (a) We reached our starting point when God, from eternity, caused the universe to begin to exist. This would be our starting point and all notion of space/time, but would be a tangent from eternity. (b) God's expression of infinite love for us occurred on the cross.

 

[Ana the Ist]

1. God, in eternity, could have been inactive - like a statue - or He could have been doing whatever He wanted without beginning or end.

2. (a) We reached our starting point when God, from eternity, caused the universe to begin to exist. This would be our starting point and all notion of space/time, but would be a tangent from eternity. (b) God's expression of infinite love for us occurred on the cross.

2. A. Go ahead and count backwards from infinity to zero (we'll call zero the starting point when god created the universe)...are you starting to see the problem? If "infinite" moments preceded the creation of the universe...how do we reach the point where god creates the universe?

 

[Chesterton]

Well...it would throw a wet blanket on the explanatory power of god. If god had a beginning... then he necessarily had a creator (according to the logic of apologists who posit that all things with beginnings necessarily have a creator).

And according to the apologists who posit materialism, He need not have a creator.

If he was "born" or evolved into godhood, then it's not at all unreasonable to speculate on his death...a literal one, not figurative. I'm sure you can see how that would cause problems for any religion.

We see in our universe that energy/matter can't be created or destroyed, but merely changes forms. My body and yours will be dust someday, but maybe it's possible in God's realm that, once coming into being, "stuff" doesn't change form, so He doesn't age and die?

 

[Ana the Ist]

And according to the apologists who posit materialism, He need not have a creator.



We see in our universe that energy/matter can't be created or destroyed, but merely changes forms. My body and yours will be dust someday, but maybe it's possible in God's realm that, once coming into being, "stuff" doesn't change form, so He doesn't age and die?

If he need not have a creator...why would the universe?

"Once coming into being, stuff doesn't change form."

I can't really imagine a process of coming into being where something doesn't change form....can you?

 

[beotos]

2. A. Go ahead and count backwards from infinity to zero (we'll call zero the starting point when god created the universe)...are you starting to see the problem? If "infinite" moments preceded the creation of the universe...how do we reach the point where god creates the universe?

I see your struggle here. But this only occurs because we can't fully conceive of eternity. If God exists in timelessness, all words of cause and effect are useless. Time began at the big bang so there is no kind of scale which to measure God in eternity. Language issues.

If he need not have a creator...why would the universe?

"Once coming into being, stuff doesn't change form."

I can't really imagine a process of coming into being where something doesn't change form....can you?

The universe is not eternal. It began to existence at a point.

Design points to Designer, but the Designer does not require design if He is eternal.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Part of the problem with this thread discussion is lack of knowledge.

For instance, how do 'we' know the Universe had a beginning and will have an end?

What requires a 'cause'?

The older I get, the more I realize willful ignorance is a universal defense against learning.

 

[Syd the Human]

Part of the problem with this thread discussion is lack of knowledge.

For instance, how do 'we' know the Universe had a beginning and will have an end?

What requires a 'cause'?

The older I get, the more I realize willful ignorance is a universal defense against learning.

Isn't asking questions and debating one of the best ways to gain knowledge?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Isn't asking questions and debating one of the best ways to gain knowledge?

Listening to the answers provided by people with some knowledge is a way to gain knowledge.

Asking a question then ignoring the answer if said answer doesn't flatter the questioner's ego is the best way to remain ignorant while presenting a facade of learning. Please, don't concern yourself about what I say.

 

[Syd the Human]

Listening to the answers provided by people with some knowledge is a way to gain knowledge.

Asking a question then ignoring the answer if said answer doesn't flatter the questioner's ego is the best way to remain ignorant while presenting a facade of learning. Please, don't concern yourself about what I say.

Actually, not knowing something and asking questions and debating is a way to gain knowledge. That's how school works. You don't understand, you ask a question, and you keep talking back and forth until it makes sense.

I don't think people are necessarily ignoring the answer, they just think the answer is not correct.

This is a discussion board, if you don't want people to respond to what you say why post?

 

[Deidre32]

If a god should exist, no one could possibly know when he/it begins and ends. I was once a Christian, and I thought this way then, too. The Bible is guesswork. All holy books are guesswork. No one could possibly know what existed or did not exist prior to the BB. This is why 'uncaused,' makes a bit more sense, until we know more...if we ever do, as mere mortals.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I'm not exactly sure what it would mean to exist outside of time. The Bible says that God is eternal. He is without beginning or end. He does not change.

If God is eternal, then he can't be outside of time.

Eternity is a measurement of time. If God is defined as eternal (a measurement of time), then he must by definition be within time.

 

[beotos]

If God is eternal, then he can't be outside of time.

Eternity is a measurement of time. If God is defined as eternal (a measurement of time), then he must by definition be within time.

Eternity is not a measurement of time; you would need eternity to measure it!

I think it fairer to say eternity is the fullness or the absence of time.