god and time

[Osiris]

God is able to be anywhere He wants. He can even become a mortal who dies on a cross.

So, God doesn't exist anymore since he's dead(died on the cross)?

 

[Jamza]

Any more? Oh dear, past tense can't apply time to God

 

[Osiris]

Any more? Oh dear, past tense can't apply time to God

then god can't incarnate into human body...

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

then god can't incarnate into human body...

Obviously you don't believe God exists, but on what assumption are you stating this: on that He is all powerful, or that He isn't?

 

[Osiris]

Obviously you don't believe God exists, but on what assumption are you stating this: on that He is all powerful, or that He isn't?

I don't know if you read what I was replying to...

Any more? Oh dear, past tense can't apply time to God

If you can't apply time to God... then there is no way God can apply himself within Jesus(a temporal being).

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Okay, God is outside of time, but He manifest Himself in human flesh which was w/in time. So God isn't controled by time, but as Jesus in human flesh He is since human flesh is controlled by time.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

This sounds like an appeal to ignorance. Why the penchant to for an "we have no idea whatsoever " position, particularly when the "no idea whatsoever" is being contrasted with a fixed stance with a fixed meaning i.e. temporality. Moreover, the definition of temporality coupled with any "transcends" view means, at the least, accepting an absurdity? Why is this compelling?



Why believe God is greater than our concepts? If one says God is good does God necessarily transcend goodness? If so, then God is both good and amoral which impacts any devotional trust, loyalty or devotional necessity. A similar problem persists for any a-temporal appeal. To the degree God is a-temporal to that same degree He is irrelevant as only a temporal God can act.

I don't think you are reasoning from a meaningful definition of time. An object that has mass and takes up space also can be seen to have motion from one place to another. If an observer is located nearby this object with a clock, then (and only then) does this object also have a "time".

This measure, unfortunately, has no concrete existence and the rate at which time moves for it depends on it's velocity relative to the observer. This is not a question of time "seeming" to slow down but "really" moving at the "normal" rate, none of those words has any meaning when speaking about time.

An example. A mu-meson is a subatomic particle created when radiation strikes the atmosphere of the earth. It is very small and moves roughly 9/10 the speed of light. It also has a half life of only a few nanoseconds. If you calculate how far it can travel before ceasing to exist you will find that it can travel about half the distance from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth. These particles, however, are routinely detected on the surface of the earth, how is this possible? The answer is simple: it is moving at relativistic speeds and it's time moves more slowly than ours. To put it another way, it's few nano seconds last longer (from our perspective) than they should.

Armed with this real world (and awesome!) example of the elasticity of time I pose the following question to you Oteros. If an object's relationship with time is only defined by it's velocity relative to an observer, what prevents God from having any relationship to time that he wishes?

Also, please don't talk about the law of non-contradiction, it's not a winner for you for the following reason: it states that something cannot be both one thing and it's opposite at the same time.

At the same time.

For example it is not a contradiction that I will/have been both alive and dead, born and unborn. It is only contradictory if I say I am both alive and dead or born and unborn at the same time: that doesn't make any sense.'

At any rate, I am happy to talk about this subject but I invite everyone to rethink their beliefs about time. Albert Einstein was Time's (ha!) man of the century for a reason.

 

[Orontes]

I don't think you are reasoning from a meaningful definition of time. An object that has mass and takes up space also can be seen to have motion from one place to another. If an observer is located nearby this object with a clock, then (and only then) does this object also have a "time".

This measure, unfortunately, has no concrete existence and the rate at which time moves for it depends on it's velocity relative to the observer. This is not a question of time "seeming" to slow down but "really" moving at the "normal" rate, none of those words has any meaning when speaking about time.

An example. A mu-meson is a subatomic particle... o put it another way, it's few nano seconds last longer (from our perspective) than they should.

Hello,

What are you wanting to argue? The above doesn't seem to address what you quoted. Do you wish to argue God is temporal, a-temporal or both? Any penchant for a relativist conception of time remains by definition a time laden discussion, meaning something that occurs within time.

Armed with this real world (and awesome!) example of the elasticity of time I pose the following question to you Oteros. If an object's relationship with time is only defined by it's velocity relative to an observer, what prevents God from having any relationship to time that he wishes?

If God is an observer then He is observes. This is a temporal act. Thus, God would be temporal.

Also, please don't talk about the law of non-contradiction, it's not a winner for you for the following reason: it states that something cannot be both one thing and it's opposite at the same time.

Note post 14. If someone argues God is both temporal and a-temporal it is an absurdity because of the law of non-contradiction.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

Hello,

What are you wanting to argue? The above doesn't seem to address what you quoted. Do you wish to argue God is temporal, a-temporal or both? Any penchant for a relativist conception of time remains by definition a time laden discussion, meaning something that occurs within time.

Yo,

I don't know what God's relationship with time is, I was trying to make sure we were working from a definition of "time" that was consistent and accurate.

I do find your argument very vague on a few points. When you say something occurs "within" time, I think that you are looking at time as something outside of the observer that limits, encompasses and defines the parameters of an observer's experience. Relativity proves that quite the opposite is true: the observer's experience limits encompasses and defines time, without an observer there is no time.

If God is an observer then He is observes. This is a temporal act. Thus, God would be temporal.

You continue to work under the assumption that time is something that defines an observer. By saying that observing events makes God "temporal" you are literally saying that time becomes an attribute of the observer, this is factually incorrect, time is an attribute of the observed event only.

Note post 14. If someone argues God is both temporal and a-temporal it is an absurdity because of the law of non-contradiction.

This is exactly what I mean by my previous sentence. The law of non-contradiction means that something cannot both be something and it's opposite at the same time. Unless God is observed, the statement is meaningless since time is not an attribute that he posesses. As I said, I can without contradiction say that I have been unborn and I have been born, that I am living and I will be dead. The parts are opposites and yet my statement is true.

The same metric can be applied to God. Is God temporal? As with all things, he is temporal when he is observed and a-temporal when he is not.

 

[Orontes]

I don't know what God's relationship with time is, I was trying to make sure we were working from a definition of "time" that was consistent and accurate.

I do find your argument very vague on a few points. When you say something occurs "within" time, I think that you are looking at time as something outside of the observer that limits, encompasses and defines the parameters of an observer's experience. Relativity proves that quite the opposite is true: the observer's experience limits encompasses and defines time, without an observer there is no time.

If you don't know or aren't putting forward a position on God's relation to time then your posts are an aside. There are multiple definitions of time. Regardless those many definitions: I have offered no single definition. I have offered that a-temporality and temporality are mutually exclusive and that an a-temporal being, by that designation, is unable to act temporally, or even act at all. I have taken no position on time as either absolute or otherwise. Either stance is irrelevant to the larger issue. If one argues time is subject dependant that places the discussion within the temporal arena and thus God, as a subject, would be temporal.

You continue to work under the assumption that time is something that defines an observer. By saying that observing events makes God "temporal" you are literally saying that time becomes an attribute of the observer, this is factually incorrect, time is an attribute of the observed event only.

Of course time defines an observer. The very word "observer" is time laden as it means: one who observes. If time is "an attribute of an observed event only" that presupposes an observer i.e a subject. Thus there would be no time without a subject as the subject informs time.

This is exactly what I mean by my previous sentence. The law of non-contradiction means that something cannot both be something and it's opposite at the same time. Unless God is observed, the statement is meaningless since time is not an attribute that he posesses. As I said, I can without contradiction say that I have been unborn and I have been born, that I am living and I will be dead. The parts are opposites and yet my statement is true.

The same metric can be applied to God. Is God temporal? As with all things, he is temporal when he is observed and a-temporal when he is not.

You do not understand. Under all devotional systems God is an agent, an actor, a subject. The simplest example is God as Creator. He is not an object dependant on creatures to observe Him and thereby determine His status. If you believe God is determined by His creatures then God could not have created in the first place as He needs the very things in order to create that He is supposed to create.

Subjects, under the basest of phenomenological analysis, are temporal and cannot be otherwise. This means time is constitutive to the subject and what allows interaction with the world or what is beyond the self. This was part and parcel of Kant's "Copernican Revolution" that informs Western Thought up through the present.

Regarding non-contradiction: when positing X is Y the "is" precludes -Y as "is" is a being verb and is thus tied to the identity of the thing X. The standard applies as long as X is Y applies. Now if you wish to argue God moves from being a-temporal to temporal: you would need to explain how an a-temporal being becomes temporal without already being temporal.

 

[Cleany]

This sounds like an appeal to ignorance. Why the penchant to for an "we have no idea whatsoever " position, particularly when the "no idea whatsoever" is being contrasted with a fixed stance with a fixed meaning i.e. temporality. Moreover, the definition of temporality coupled with any "transcends" view means, at the least, accepting an absurdity? Why is this compelling?

uhh im just saying that we simply cannot conceive what it is like outside time, you may know otherwise?

Why believe God is greater than our concepts? If one says God is good does God necessarily transcend goodness? If so, then God is both good and amoral which impacts any devotional trust, loyalty or devotional necessity. A similar problem persists for any a-temporal appeal. To the degree God is a-temporal to that same degree He is irrelevant as only a temporal God can act.

well it would be a pretty sad outlook for whristians throughout the globe if god wasnt bigger than our concepts.

i choose to have faith that he is, you do what you like.

 

[Orontes]

uhh im just saying that we simply cannot conceive what it is like outside time, you may know otherwise?

We can certainly conceive some things, for example what is a-temporal is not temporal. What is not temporal cannot interact with what is temporal therefore if God were a-temporal He would be irrelevant as we are temporal.

well it would be a pretty sad outlook for whristians throughout the globe if god wasnt bigger than our concepts.

i choose to have faith that he is, you do what you like.

If God is bigger than concepts, as in transcends or is not bound by, then the very real question arises as to how one can trust the object of one's devotion is in fact God or a salvatory force? For example, if God is not bound by goodness then He could be its opposite or even amoral, such a being is not worthy of devotion and cannot be trusted to save. If God is not bound by rationality then any statement about God would be equally true: God is the moon, God is gum, God is the number 4. To each his own, but I think in religious terms appeals to ignorance are theoretically wanting and practically dangerous.

 

[Jellon]

I think time isn't a thing to be created. It is merely a concept. Do you believe that God created love? Did God create merecy? No, these things merely existed. Time is a concept which is hard to define because it is reletive to movement. If all movement stopped down to a molecular level, there could be no measurement of time unless some thing else in a place with movement was observing the place that didn't have movement. So before there was movement, God existed. If nothing happened before creation, there could be no measurement of time, therefore it is plausible to say that God has been around for eternity. Will time stop? I don't understand why anyone says it will. Some say that when we get to heaven there will be no time, but where did they get this idea? What do people expect our experience of no time to be like? I believe time will never cease because we will always have a concept of things moving. We may, however, be like children who lack sence of time in the manner that we have eternity so it no longer matters to us, but that does not jepodize the existence of the concept, and even Children know understand that things can be measured in in units of time.

 

[Cleany]

We can certainly conceive some things, for example what is a-temporal is not temporal. What is not temporal cannot interact with what is temporal therefore if God were a-temporal He would be irrelevant as we are temporal.

i totally agree, thats why i said that god "transcends" time, rather than being "outside" it.

If God is bigger than concepts, as in transcends or is not bound by, then the very real question arises as to how one can trust the object of one's devotion is in fact God or a salvatory force? For example, if God is not bound by goodness then He could be its opposite or even amoral, such a being is not worthy of devotion and cannot be trusted to save. If God is not bound by rationality then any statement about God would be equally true: God is the moon, God is gum, God is the number 4. To each his own, but I think in religious terms appeals to ignorance are theoretically wanting and practically dangerous.

i see what you are saying, but of course the other end of the scale is that we domesticate god.

you are right in that we should be very careful in what we attribute to god, but there must be things that we simply cannot understand about him. then again the clues to those things will be found in those things that we do understand about him.

whew

 

[Orontes]

i totally agree, thats why i said that god "transcends" time, rather than being "outside" it.

Hmmm, This is why I asked you what you meant by transcends. In your earlier reply you stated 'transcends' is to go beyond the limits of. Now, if God goes beyond the limits of time then He is outside of time is He not? What is the difference between transcending time and being a-temporal? I think there are only three options: God is temporal, God is a-temporal or God is both. Do you think there is a fourth option or do you see your stance as fitting in with one of the three mentioned?

i see what you are saying, but of course the other end of the scale is that we domesticate god.

you are right in that we should be very careful in what we attribute to god, but there must be things that we simply cannot understand about him. then again the clues to those things will be found in those things that we do understand about him.

Do you think any statement about God constitutes a domestication? I think most (if not all) devotional traditions would agree that the creature is inferior to the Creator and that part of that inferiority includes an epistemic gap. Even so, I don't think rather basic statements about Deity (by these same traditions) fall into the unknowable category. If that were the case then what is the point of a canon? For example: God in the Bible is thoroughly temporal. The God if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is continually referred to as the Living God: meaning, among other things, a Being one can have a relationship with and know as a moral arbiter.

 

[Cleany]

Hmmm, This is why I asked you what you meant by transcends. In your earlier reply you stated 'transcends' is to go beyond the limits of. Now, if God goes beyond the limits of time then He is outside of time is He not? What is the difference between transcending time and being a-temporal? I think there are only three options: God is temporal, God is a-temporal or God is both. Do you think there is a fourth option or do you see your stance as fitting in with one of the three mentioned?

both

Do you think any statement about God constitutes a domestication? I think most (if not all) devotional traditions would agree that the creature is inferior to the Creator and that part of that inferiority includes an epistemic gap. Even so, I don't think rather basic statements about Deity (by these same traditions) fall into the unknowable category. If that were the case then what is the point of a canon? For example: God in the Bible is thoroughly temporal. The God if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is continually referred to as the Living God: meaning, among other things, a Being one can have a relationship with and know as a moral arbiter.

?

 

[I <3 Abraham]

I think there are only three options: God is temporal, God is a-temporal or God is both. Do you think there is a fourth option or do you see your stance as fitting in with one of the three mentioned?

Ah, but now you're contradicting yourself, you stated earlier that the creator is necessarily greater than the creature that was created. So much the more so for "things" that were created: rocks, the speed of light, the incompressabilty of liquids, rationality. What makes time so different than any of the rest of creation? It is contradictory to say that God is both the creator and beholden to his creations, that he is both lawgiver and inescapably bound by those laws. There are only 2 possiblities: Either God did not create time or he did create time and is not bound by it.

I can make the same point this way: does God have the power to change the constant of gravitation? What about simply removing gravity as a force from the universe? Of course He has that power. To deny that he does is to deny that he has any power at all, for if God has not the power to change a thing, that thing is ontologically primary in relation to God.

I am also still waiting for a competing definition of time, as far as this discussion is concerned, my definition has been the only one put forth. As it stands, "time" is a quantitative measurement, the first reading on a clock subtracted from the second reading on a clock. It is a measurement, not the thing being measured. The same is true of distance, it is merely the first reading on a ruler subtracted from the second reading on a ruler. Your arguement makes no sense if you swap in distance for time in your dichotomies.

For instance: God must have extension in space (distance) because he appears extended within space during the bible (Genesis). Because distance is based on the observation of an observer, then God as observer, is acting within extended space which makes God extended. The very premise that God is Y (extended) precludes that possibility that God is -Y (without extension in space).

I'm afraid that your argument's epistemic modality is based on a flawed ontological preconception!

 

[elman]

I think time isn't a thing to be created. It is merely a concept. Do you believe that God created love? Did God create merecy? No, these things merely existed. Time is a concept which is hard to define because it is reletive to movement. If all movement stopped down to a molecular level, there could be no measurement of time unless some thing else in a place with movement was observing the place that didn't have movement. So before there was movement, God existed. If nothing happened before creation, there could be no measurement of time, therefore it is plausible to say that God has been around for eternity. Will time stop? I don't understand why anyone says it will. Some say that when we get to heaven there will be no time, but where did they get this idea? What do people expect our experience of no time to be like? I believe time will never cease because we will always have a concept of things moving. We may, however, be like children who lack sence of time in the manner that we have eternity so it no longer matters to us, but that does not jepodize the existence of the concept, and even Children know understand that things can be measured in in units of time.

I think Einstein is supposed to have shown how time is relative. Yes I think God created everything good, time, love, mercy, mortal life, He created us with the ability to create good things, i.e. being loving and we have the ability to create evil, i.e. being unloving.

 

[quatona]

If words still have meaning, a being that "exists outside time" doesn´t exist at all.

 

[Orontes]

both

If God is both a-temporal and temporal then God is an absurdity. This is a rationally unsustainable position.

?

What didn't you understand or what didn't I explain clearly enough?