god and time

[Orontes]

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 have not contradicted myself. More importantly, it does not follow that because some thing is the source of another thing that the source is not impacted or bound by its product. For example: if one says God is the source of morality it isn't the case that God can then be immoral or is at liberty to breach the good. Another example from the Biblical Tradition: if God is the source of a covenant with man, is God not bound by that covenant? An immoral being cannot be God.

Regarding God and time: one can say either God created time or He didn't. Of course, if God created time then He would have to work within time in order to create time. This begs the question. Time is not simply a rock, but the very mode of action and experience.

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.

It doesn't follow that because God cannot do some things then He cannot do anything. God is constrained on a number of levels. For example: God cannot not be: He is constrained by His being. God cannot perform evil: He is constrained by His nature. God cannot create a married-bachelor: He is constrained by reason.

I am also still waiting for a competing definition of time...

I don't think anyone has put forward a definition of time because it is not relevant. The point revolves around temporality vs. a-temporality. Thus, whatever one defines time to be is a secondary issue as temporality can never be a-temporality. The two notions are mutually exclusive.

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).

If one is discussing the God of the Bible then God is definitely a being, particular and distinct (a Y) and as such something extended which could not be a -Y. Exactly so.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

he is everywhere

Are you sure about that? Is that the Christian viewpoint?

 

[freelight]

Greetings all,

I think two essentials here in our exploration is coming to a definitive understanding of 'God' and 'time'....both ontologically and relationally. As we consider 'God' in His Original, primal Being/essence/Existence.....we must come to realize that there is a domain of existence that is prior to time(creation/motion of matter/space)....and this beinghood of Deity may be likened to Infinite Space without dimension. This Being or 'I AM' -Presence exists in a State of static dynamicy as the One Still Light. This primordial State of 'God' because it is unconditional, undifferentiated, unqualified DEITY....has only eternal existence. I AM. In this Eternal Nowness or Isness Is the Omni-hood of God existing independent of any time concept. Divine Being simply IS. Therefore.....'God' primally exists prior to all time definitives - He exists before, within and beyond all time definitives being the eternal Ground, substance or Space wherein all time/motion of matter/space arises and comes into being thru the motion or will of creation. When God creates his divine will moves matter/space and in this relativity of motion time comes into being only as a perceptual referential. It is only phemonenal perception within the relativity of the motion of matter/space. Time only has existence as a referential within the movement/formation/generation of matter/space.


Now as we get a sense of what 'time' is....we see that it can only exist as a perception within the relativity of space-matter movements. Time is relative to motion...and is ever a sense-referential of sequence. We could also say time is existence in motion. As long as there is movement of matter/space time-perception will continue.


Now back to God - we must go into the very nature of divine Being...the core, the center of God who is Eternal Existence. This Presence exists in total independence of anything for its Existence. The One, the All, the Totality.....exists always and is the substrate of All that IS and ever will Be. This original unconditional BEING does not depend on time to exist! It simply IS....and ever will BE. One can assume that God exists in an endless duration of time....but this is still trying to identify God with time.

God exists for all time and eternity...meaning that God is forever the Infinite Space(a domain of Being independent of time) wherein all finite space-matter movements(creation/fluxation/motion) takes place. God is the One Still Light where all creative-motions of matter/space springs from and returns to. So God is existing both in time and eternity - in finite temporal existence/dimensions as well as natively in His infinite, transcendent Domain of Existence. God is before, behind, beyond all time definitives, finite realms, matter-ial worlds, etc.


The issue of God being a-temporal or temporal is silly on the face of it. God is eternal Existence and I would not even call it a-temporal....such a term is unnecessary. Also to call or assume God as 'temporal' is absurd...expcept if such means that God is involved as 'immanent' within time. Of course God is involved in creation (which brings into being 'time' via space/matter motions) as 'immanent'. The 'transcendence' of God includes his priority of Being not only before creation(all time referentials) but above/beyond creation as the Infinite ONE who is boundless, limitless, unconditional.


It could be that creation is eternal in the sense that there never was a time when there was not some kind of movement of matter/space in Gods vast Being or Universe. I do sometimes entertain the concept of 'eternal generation'. This is very feasible while still allowing for God to exist as the eternal substrate from which all creation is springing and eventually subsides into - the one Still ground of Being....or the One Still Light. Here we have that which is prior to and transcendent of time....and that which is subject to or brought into being within time - finite creation, motion of matter/space. Time/creation/motion of matter and space arises within somthing! There is eternal cycles of motion and rest in the Universe. The divine Center, rest, static dynamicy of Light is 'God'. - time has no relation to divine Stillness/Being. Only in motion/relativity does time come into being as a relational perception within creation/evolution.


Lets not forget - the Eternal Existence of 'God' who needs nothing to be....not even time. The ONE besides whom there is no other, who has no 'others'...no second....no dimensions,...no divisions,....no finity.....in this Absolute Domain of Existence there is only Being. -there is only one absolute. Time only comes into being via relativity...and as long as it exists....the sense of time will be. God therefore always exists before time, during time and beyond time....on one plane being independent of time. All linearity arises within the One infinite Field that is non-linear, the eternal substrate of All Existence. All temporality arises from the substrate of the Eternal. All time and eternity exists in God the One, the All, the Totality. That which is prior to time exists independent of it.





paul

 

[I <3 Abraham]

I have not contradicted myself. More importantly, it does not follow that because some thing is the source of another thing that the source is not impacted or bound by its product. For example: if one says God is the source of morality it isn't the case that God can then be immoral or is at liberty to breach the good. Another example from the Biblical Tradition: if God is the source of a covenant with man, is God not bound by that covenant? An immoral being cannot be God.

These examples are not good ones. They both use situations in which God agrees to do something. Morality is an especially bad example since morality is defined by God (in the OT laws and the NT laws) and they are standards of HUMAN action which God agrees to react to in a certain way. My original point still stands that God frequently violates the apparent scientific laws of the universe in the bible. This is, in fact, the very essence of a "miracle" as opposed to a really really big coincidence.

Regarding God and time: one can say either God created time or He didn't. Of course, if God created time then He would have to work within time in order to create time. This begs the question. Time is not simply a rock, but the very mode of action and experience.

This argument is false because it is infinitely regressive. If God had to work within time to create time then time would have to already exist prior to his creation of it, otherwise there would not be time for him to work within. The only other alternative is that God did not create time, that is to say, that time is primary to God.

It doesn't follow that because God cannot do some things then He cannot do anything. God is constrained on a number of levels. For example: God cannot not be: He is constrained by His being. God cannot perform evil: He is constrained by His nature. God cannot create a married-bachelor: He is constrained by reason.

This question is premature, I have not yet admitted that God cannot do anything. You have not yet addressed my argument that God can create laws (both physical and purelyy rational) as he wishes. The very existence of these laws is evidence that they exist in the way that he wished. To deny this is to place those laws above God.

I don't think anyone has put forward a definition of time because it is not relevant. The point revolves around temporality vs. a-temporality. Thus, whatever one defines time to be is a secondary issue as temporality can never be a-temporality. The two notions are mutually exclusive.

Two things. First, it is non-sensical to speak of temporality or a-temporality without first defining time. The words are literally empty of meaning without a definition of time. Second I have never argued that temporality can become a-temporality. I am arguing that time, like distance, like the speed that objects fall under the influence of earths gravity, like the rock that falls under that gravity,are merely things that were created by God and can be altered or destroyed at his pleasure. To deny this is to deny that these are somehow greater than God and not subject to his power. This is, of course, nonsense since they were subject to God's power insofar as they were created by God.

 

[Orontes]

Hello, This reply was long in coming.

These examples are not good ones. They both use situations in which God agrees to do something. Morality is an especially bad example since morality is defined by God (in the OT laws and the NT laws) and they are standards of HUMAN action which God agrees to react to in a certain way. My original point still stands that God frequently violates the apparent scientific laws of the universe in the bible. This is, in fact, the very essence of a "miracle" as opposed to a really really big coincidence.

Actually, they're really good examples and serve to show how a thing can be bound by its product.

Regarding morality: If God is the source of morality, meaning anything He decides is good, is thereby good: the first question is why? Why can God decide this? Is this simply because He is more powerful? Is this an argument for might makes right? One cannot simply assert a thing. What justifies this stance? Second, if God's deeming anything good makes it so, then should He make the pronouncement 'torturing babies is the ultimate good and serving one's fellow man is evil in its purest form' then any act X is inherently a-moral (always dependant on God's whimsy). This means God saying X is good is simply emotive. This of course eviscerates the very notion of morality. If God is a moral agent then He cannot act contrary what is moral and is thus constrained.

Regarding scientific laws: scientific laws are a product of science. As such they are constructs within a larger theoretical strata: Newtonian law being one example. None of this applies to the notion of temporality vs. a-temporality. The point remains: one can say either God created time or He didn't. Of course, if God created time then He would have to work within time in order to create time. This begs the question. Time is not simply a rock, but the very mode of action and experience.

This argument is false because it is infinitely regressive. If God had to work within time to create time then time would have to already exist prior to his creation of it, otherwise there would not be time for him to work within. The only other alternative is that God did not create time, that is to say, that time is primary to God.

The argument isn't infinitely regressive. It simply states that an a-temporal God doing anything is incoherent as doing necessarily implies time. If you disagree then explain how a-temporality can produce temporality without assuming the very thing being produced.

If one wants to hold to a God that can act then either time is prior to God or it is constitutive to His being. Regardless a God that acts must of necessity be temporal.

This question is premature, I have not yet admitted that God cannot do anything. You have not yet addressed my argument that God can create laws (both physical and purelyy rational) as he wishes. The very existence of these laws is evidence that they exist in the way that he wished. To deny this is to place those laws above God.

You stated: "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." The power referred to was changing the constant of gravitation. The inference is flawed for the reason given.

God cannot create any law He wishes: He cannot make a married-bachelor. He cannot not be. He cannot act contrary His nature etc. To say a law is what it is because God wished it begs the question.

Two things. First, it is non-sensical to speak of temporality or a-temporality without first defining time.

No, it isn't. Temporality and a-temporality are simply place holders: similar to X and -X. The two notions are antithetical regardless the content assigned. This is the key point.

Second I have never argued that temporality can become a-temporality. I am arguing that time, like distance, like the speed that objects fall under the influence of earths gravity, like the rock that falls under that gravity,are merely things that were created by God and can be altered or destroyed at his pleasure. To deny this is to deny that these are somehow greater than God and not subject to his power. This is, of course, nonsense since they were subject to God's power insofar as they were created by God.

Is this your main point? It sounds like you are arguing God created time. This means God is prior to time. Create is a time laden notion. How does God create time without already working within time?

 

[Code-Monkey]

Hello,

If God is outside of time then how does He interact with or in time? Any action is necessarily time laden.

If action were required, which is arguable, then the only end where it should be required is on the end that has time. From God's end nothing is changing, from the temporal end, something may be changing.

But your question wouldn't be limited to time, but it would probably also be applicable to mass or location. How does a God with no mass interact with something with mass. Or how does a God with no location interact with something with location.

I'll say that the rules of logic seem to be able to "interact" in a manner of speaking with the universe and they don't themselves have any mass, time, or location either though.

 

[Orontes]

If action were required, which is arguable, then the only end where it should be required is on the end that has time. From God's end nothing is changing, from the temporal end, something may be changing.

Hello,

I don't think action is required, but a God who doesn't act is irrelevant as judgment and creation are acts. If God does act then the problem of positing an a-temporal God raises its head.

But your question wouldn't be limited to time, but it would probably also be applicable to mass or location. How does a God with no mass interact with something with mass. Or how does a God with no location interact with something with location.

That's right! Mass, location, in short: materiality is a problem if God is a-material. If God is a-material then how does He interact with the material order? It is a similar logical conundrum.

I'll say that the rules of logic seem to be able to "interact" in a manner of speaking with the universe and they don't themselves have any mass, time, or location either though.

Logic doesn't interact with the universe. Logic is a mental construct created by men in order to establish criteria for knowledge claims i.e. coherence and validity. I don't think you want ot argue God is a mental construct.

 

[Telephone]

I don't think you want ot argue God is a mental construct.

God is a mental construct.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

God is a mental construct.

 

[I <3 Abraham]

God is a mental construct.

Roooooiiiight.

 

[Code-Monkey]

I don't think action is required, but a God who doesn't act is irrelevant as judgment and creation are acts. If God does act then the problem of positing an a-temporal God raises its head.

That's right! Mass, location, in short: materiality is a problem if God is a-material. If God is a-material then how does He interact with the material order? It is a similar logical conundrum.

There's no logical reason why an atemporal being could not interact with a temporal being. If time is simply some attribute of the universe, then it's basically the same as suggesting that one man without an apple is able to communicate to another man with an apple. The only position you have in trying to argue that God, an atemporal, massless being is unable to interact with the universe is simply to suggest assert & assume that he cannot.

It's very clear when we look at things people create that they themselves are not a part of the creation. And yet they are still capable of interacting with it. Thus it's very rational to suspect that if God creates the universe that he is still capable of interacting with it.

Logic doesn't interact with the universe. Logic is a mental construct created by men in order to establish criteria for knowledge claims i.e. coherence and validity. I don't think you want ot argue God is a mental construct.

Your description of logic may be a mental construct in the same way that my mental picture of the monitor in front of me is a mental construct. But logic and the monitor both exist. If logic doesn't exist, reason falls apart.

 

[SaintAugustine]

I think my namesake..Saint Augustine, in his Confessions...came to the conclusion that first there was just God, after creation there was matter/time/space..all three crated simultaneously.

In short before creation..just God. No time, Just being.

 

[happygrl35]

w00dy

There is no ONE theory of time itself let alone a ONE theory of how God relates TO time.There is great debate in both of these area's. I have my *pet* theories on God and Time,but for the most part I don't waste my TIME on vain philosophies of man IMO Here are some links to some good articles on the subject.

http://http://www.quodlibet.net/aco-godtime.shtml

http://http://www.quodlibet.net/bishop-eternity.shtml

http://http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/eternity.html

http://http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2003/0400/0403.php

 

[quatona]

In short before creation..just God. No time, Just being.

Blame it on my naivity, but I have no idea what the term "before" might even mean in the absence of time.

 

[elman]

Blame it on my naivity, but I have no idea what the term "before" might even mean in the absence of time.

If there is a beginning of time, then before would be prior to that beginning of time.

 

[quatona]

If there is a beginning of time, then before would be prior to that beginning of time.

"Beginning", "before" and "prior" are concepts that signify temporal relations. "Before time" or "prior to the beginning of time" are nonsensical terms.

 

[Orontes]

God is a mental construct.

See, there you go. Assuming one has control of his thoughts: this pretty much takes care of the whole notion of God as source of damnation or salvation.

 

[Orontes]

There's no logical reason why an atemporal being could not interact with a temporal being.

Actually, it's a logical absurdity. If you disagree then provide the proof whereby -A produces A without begging the question.

If time is simply some attribute of the universe, then it's basically the same as suggesting that one man without an apple is able to communicate to another man with an apple.

A man and an apple are both part of the same fabric of being (extension, mass, locality etc.) A-temporality and temporality are necessarily antithetical. The analogy is not relevant.

It's very clear when we look at things people create that they themselves are not a part of the creation.

A creator is part of the creation by the very designate 'creator'. In Aristotelian terms the creator constitutes the efficient cause.

Your description of logic may be a mental construct in the same way that my mental picture of the monitor in front of me is a mental construct. But logic and the monitor both exist. If logic doesn't exist, reason falls apart.

Logic is a mental construct in that it has no independent being. In other words: it has no ontic standing.

 

[elman]

"Beginning", "before" and "prior" are concepts that signify temporal relations. "Before time" or "prior to the beginning of time" are nonsensical terms.

To us maybe since we have no experience of anything that is not subject to time, but this does not mean there is nothing that is not subject to time. It simply means we are unable to understand how something could not be subject to time.

 

[quatona]

To us maybe since we have no experience of anything that is not subject to time, but this does not mean there is nothing that is not subject to time. It simply means we are unable to understand how something could not be subject to time.

Sure, if words don´t have meaning, "before", "prior to" and "beginning" could be atemporal terms.
And colours can be heard.
And all sort of nonsense can be expressed and must be considered possible.