God and Time

[elopez]

It follows from the definition of it.

All the definition implies is that timeless entails changeless. You're adding to it and saying changeless also implies cannot change, which is unwarranted to the definition.

You appeared to agree earlier: "If time does not exist, everything is static. There must be time for there to be movement. There must be time for change to occur."

Right but I never stated everything must remian static. Indeed I stated the opposite.

To ask that question is to betray a lack of understanding about what timelessness entails.

Again, all timelessness entails is changelessness. What that further entails is still in question and up for debate.

I don't think you understand how immobilising timelessness is.

And I don't think you understand how that may not be the case. At least you have not presented a good case for it.

What good is omnipotence if one cannot use it? In what sense can one be said to "move" if there are no spatial dimensions to move through? Just what is being "moved" anyway?

Omnipotence is to do the logically possible. My case is that it is logically possible for a timeless being to change and thus not be timeless.

Well you're think of moving in spatial terms. God does not have a body. God Himself moves. Omnipresence has not been explored much theologically. I am not sure exactly what moves being God is not composed of flesh or bone or any other materials.

 

[zippy2006]

"..but He does not exist in time, so as to be subject to temporal relations: His self-existence is timeless." From the Catholic Encyclopedia. Augustine and Boethius both advocated a timeless view. Anselm aslo had a timeless view of God. Aquinas as well.

As Ratzinger has pointed out, your understanding of "timeless" is essentially flawed. You use the word, but you don't mean the same thing.

For example, from the same article you quoted:

"By saying that God is eternal we mean that in essence, life, and action He is altogether beyond temporal limits and relations. He has neither beginning, nor end, nor duration by way of sequence or succession of moments. There is no past or future for God — but only an eternal present. If we say that He was or that Heacted, or that He will be or will act, we mean in strictness that He is or that He acts; and this truth is well expressed by Christ when He says (John 8:58 — A.V.): "Before Abrahamwas, I am." Eternity, therefore, as predicated of God, does not mean indefinite duration in time — a meaning in which the term is sometimes used in other connections — but it means the total exclusion of the finiteness which time implies. We are obliged to use negative language in describing it, but in itself eternity is a positive perfection, and as such may be best defined in the words of Boethius as being "interminabilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possessio," i.e. possession in full entirety and perfection of life without beginning, end, or succession."​

...yet, to the contrary, you have claimed that God is not beyond temporal limits and relations. You think that when God acts, time begins by virtue of measuring the very act of God. You believe God is subject to temporal relations. You believe that when God acts, a temporal relation is created (e.g. "All God has to do is act or move and time is created as a result").

No, you say I imply it when I have not and claimed nothing of the sort. I said God without the universe does not move but that He could.

How does the immutable and immovable move, with the universe or without it?

When I said "All God has to do is act or move and time is created as a result" it was in relation to my earlier claim that for events to occur, time must exist. The moment of creation is when God first moves which thus could not be measured by anything let alone time yet specifically from His will. At any rate, obviously that is not God in an atemporal state, so that couldn't be what I think of timelessness as you oddly suggest.

Again, what does this even mean? How does the immovable move? "...yet specifically from His will..."? Are you saying that God wills that his acts be measured by time? What could it mean to talk about "God in an atemporal state"? Apparently you think God was in an atemporal state before creation and then he was in a temporal state afterwards?

These are just a few of the difficulties I was alluding to above.

 

[zippy2006]

No, I'm raising the question. Is there any reason to assume that our causal intuitions apply in such a case?

I already addressed that question at length here.

That's my point. They aren't creation in the same sense; we don't have any experience of things "coming to be" ex nihilo; and we don't know whether such a phenomenon is even possible.

Therefore...? As I said, creatio ex nihilo is a matter of revelation.

Then it faces the same problems that all purportedly "revealed" claims face.

That seems obvious. What does this have to do with God and time?

In any case, you had no trouble restricting our temporal intuitions to the material, but you appear to want to make an exception for our causal intuitions.

I defined time, I never defined causality. Why you think that they have the same definition is beyond me.

Whether we can treat as our causal intuitions as independent of our temporal intuitions remains unclear.

Again, this is addressed in detail in my previous post.

 

[Moral Orel]

If time works as we understand it (in a straight line) then an infinite regress is impossible. This can be proven: if you have an infinite series of past events you could never have reached your present event (assuming time runs in a straight line). Therefore, in order to have an infinite regress time would have to run radically different. Perhaps it does for God, perhaps it does not.

So imagine that a straight line is a road. You stand in the middle of the street and look both ways and you can't see the end. You pick a direction and start walking, looking for the end of the road. As you walk, you see people along the way going about their business, paying you no mind. And you walk on forever.

Where is the impossibility? On a round and limited Earth this would be impossible, but remember that I just said you were on a road that was a straight line, so you can't go there. And the events of the people walking along the road don't even have to interact with each other to create some sort of causal relationship. There are galaxies out there that we will never come into contact with and their events have no impact on us whatsoever.

 

[elopez]

As Ratzinger has pointed out, your understanding of "timeless" is essentially flawed. You use the word, but you don't mean the same thing.

There is no one true understanding of timelessness. It is pure speculation. Now, I don't know who Ratzinger is, but I have pointed out a reason given as to why it's flawed is unfounded to another poster.

For example, from the same article you quoted:

"By saying that God is eternal we mean that in essence, life, and action He is altogether beyond temporal limits and relations.​

...yet, to the contrary, you have claimed that God is not beyond temporal limits and relations.

Ah, yet I have indeed. I claimed God is timeless. I do, however, maintain that temporality does not effect God.

You think that when God acts, time begins by virtue of measuring the very act of God.

As I noted earlier there is no such measuring. Time begins by virtue of God's eternal will and plan to create.

You believe God is subject to temporal relations. You believe that when God acts, a temporal relation is created (e.g. "All God has to do is act or move and time is created as a result").

None of this seems to follow. Time as a creation would mean God is not subject to temporal relations. He transcends time exactly because He created it.

The bottom line, to which younhave continously evaded, is that God created time.

How does the immutable and immovable move, with the universe or without it?

Well, what do you think?

Again, what does this even mean? How does the immovable move? "...yet specifically from His will..."? Are you saying that God wills that his acts be measured by time?

I'm not saying God's anything is measured by time.

What could it mean to talk about "God in an atemporal state"?

Well I believe that to be oneof the points of this thread. To delineate what it means for God to be in an atemporal state. There is no denying that God is timeless without the universe, if you believe in a creator God.

Apparently you think God was in an atemporal state before creation and then he was in a temporal state afterwards?

These are just a few of the difficulties I was alluding to above.

Not "before" since that imples time. Rather "without." Although yes I believe God to be timeless without the universe and "in time" once the universe began to exist.

 

[elopez]

..

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I already addressed that question at length here.

Yes, to which I already responded.

What does this have to do with God and time?

You tell me. You brought it up.

I defined time, I never defined causality. Why you think that they have the same definition is beyond me.

I never claimed that they have the same definition. I think you may have confused my point, a point that you would otherwise seem to agree with.

Again, this is addressed in detail in my previous post.

Which I already addressed.

 

[zippy2006]

Not "before" since that imples time. Rather "without." Although yes I believe God to be timeless without the universe and "in time" once the universe began to exist.

I'm not here to instruct you in the faith, I'm just pointing out where your ideas are contrary to it. Here are a few such points that are contrary to Catholicism:

• God is atemporal without the universe and temporal with the universe
• God moves, and his movement necessitates the existence of time
• God changes (by moving, and by becoming temporal)

A good place to start would be the encyclopedia that you quoted earlier:

"He does not exist in time, so as to be subject to temporal relations: His self-existence is timeless."​

 

[zippy2006]

Yes, to which I already responded.

You replied but you did not respond. You just re-asserted the point that I had already addressed, claiming that causality has the same metaphysical context that temporality has.

My reply to your charge already exists here. I have no need to write anything else given what you've said. It's all there. Anyone who is interested can read it.

You tell me. You brought it up.

lol. I brought it up with a different poster, in a different context. The question of why you brought it up still stands, but I'm not expecting an answer at this point.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You replied but you did not respond. You just re-asserted the point that I had already addressed, claiming that causality has the same metaphysical context that temporality has.

No, I did not claim that. I even clarified the point here: "I didn't claim that it must be restricted to the material realm. A careful reading of what I wrote is that it need not apply for reasons already mentioned. In any case, you had no trouble restricting our temporal intuitions to the material, but you appear to want to make an exception for our causal intuitions. Whether we can treat as our causal intuitions as independent of our temporal intuitions remains unclear."

lol. I brought it up with a different poster, in a different context. The question of why you brought it up still stands, but I'm not expecting an answer at this point.

You made a comment about it being mysterious. I noted that it's far from certain whether it is even a real phenomenon and that, in any case, our causal intuitions may not even apply, for reasons previously mentioned.

 

[zippy2006]

No, I did not claim that. I even clarified the point here: "I didn't claim that it must be restricted to the material realm. A careful reading of what I wrote is that it need not apply for reasons already mentioned. In any case, you had no trouble restricting our temporal intuitions to the material, but you appear to want to make an exception for our causal intuitions. Whether we can treat as our causal intuitions as independent of our temporal intuitions remains unclear."

I noted that it's far from certain whether it is even a real phenomenon and that, in any case, our causal intuitions may not even apply, for reasons previously mentioned.

You say nothing here that you didn't say in the three posts I already replied to. Indeed, my reply is as relevant with respect to these quotes as it was to the others. That reply addresses both the claim that causality is limited to the material realm and that it is limited to the temporal realm (both of which are coextensive according to my definition of time). Using your own words, there are four positions you may be espousing:

• Causality must be limited to the material realm.
• Causality must be limited to the temporal realm.
• Causality need not apply to the material realm.
• Causality need not apply to the temporal realm.

My previous post addresses each of those propositions.

While you made a point about creatio ex nihilo, you also made a related point about the coextensivity of causality and temporality. The latter is the more interesting, and is the one I have addressed.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You say nothing here that you didn't say in the three posts I already replied to. Indeed, my reply is as relevant with respect to these quotes as it was to the others. That reply addresses both the claim that causality is limited to the material realm and that it is limited to the temporal realm (both of which are coextensive according to my definition of time). Using your own words, there are four positions you may be espousing:

• Causality must be limited to the material realm.
• Causality must be limited to the temporal realm.
• Causality need not apply to the material realm.
• Causality need not apply to the temporal realm.

My previous post addresses each of those propositions.

While you made a point about creatio ex nihilo, you also made a related point about the coextensivity of causality and temporality. The latter is the more interesting, and is the one I have addressed.

So we are talking past each other then. You appear to broadly agree with my comments on creatio ex nihilo, which is really the only point I intended to make. I alluded to the question of whether causality can be assumed without time, but that was not essential to my point.

 

[zippy2006]

So we are talking past each other then. You appear to broadly agree with my comments on creatio ex nihilo, which is really the only point I intended to make. I alluded to the question of whether causality can be assumed without time, but that was not essential to my point.

Just to be clear, creatio ex nihilo must also adhere to metaphysical causal principles, but the fact that it happened is not generally held to be something accessible apart from revelation. However, there are some philosophers who think it can be demonstrated.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Just to be clear, creatio ex nihilo must also adhere to metaphysical causal principles, but the fact that it happened is not generally held to be something accessible apart from revelation. However, there are some philosophers who think it can be demonstrated.

As I noted previously, principles that describe the interaction of matter and energy in spacetime need not apply in the absence of matter, energy, and spacetime. You are appealing to principles that may not apply to explain events (creatio ex nihilo) that have no precedent in our experience. To your credit, you seem to acknowledge this latter point.

 

[elopez]

I'm not here to instruct you in the faith, I'm just pointing out where your ideas are contrary to it. Here are a few such points that are contrary to Catholicism:

Are they contrary to your beliefs or Catholicism? So far you've merely claimed they are contrary to Catholicism yet have not explicitly shown that. For example, you haven't shown where in Catholic doctrine or any other source that it is not believed that God 'moves' or that He doesn't create time.

• God is atemporal without the universe and temporal with the universe

Catholic doctrine states God is eternal. From that, we deduce that He is timeless. By that it is understood as "altogether beyond temporal limits and relations." Which means God has no origin and does not cease to exist. Time doesn't effect God in a sense that He needs to think about what is happening next, indeed, He is omniscient and knows all with an eternal knowledge.

So by me even saying God is "temporal" it is still maintained, as per Catholic doctrine, that He is beyond temporal relations as He still existed timelessly without the universe. I am not claiming temporality effects God. I am claiming that in a certain sense, God is temporal. By that I mean the Incarnation. Jesus literally experienced time as we do. Jesus is God. You could think of this temporal view as divine immanence, which is Catholic doctrine.

• God moves, and his movement necessitates the existence of time

Again this really baffles me. Catholics believe time was part of creation. There is no specifics stating how that happened except for by the will of God. This is but an idea of that. Nothing in Catholic doctrine states that time couldn't have existed by God moving. Nor does Catholic doctrine state that God doesn't move!

• God changes (by moving, and by becoming temporal)

Immutablity means there is no internal change in God. I am not saying God stops being omnipotent or omniscient. I am sayng God exists without the universe, then exists with the universe. So there is no internal change. Just in the loose sense mentioned.

A good place to start would be the encyclopedia that you quoted earlier:

"He does not exist in time, so as to be subject to temporal relations: His self-existence is timeless."

Again, none of what I've said is inconsistent with this. God's existence "in time" is not subjected to temporal relations rather is restricted to that of immanence.

 

[D2wing]

in general I agree with this. God was never frozen in time. The idea that time must pass for change to occur is a material or temporal thought. God exists in both temporal and eternal time. Eternal does not mean time doesn't pass at all or nothing can change. It means that God is supernatural and is not limited like we are to temporal time and he can manipulate temporal time. This is shown in the book of Joshua when God makes time stand still and in another place when he makes the sun go backwards.
God also made the material laws, again he is not limited to them. If you do not want to believe in God or limit him to the temporal that is another matter which I will not respond to.

 

[Achilles6129]

So imagine that a straight line is a road. You stand in the middle of the street and look both ways and you can't see the end. You pick a direction and start walking, looking for the end of the road. As you walk, you see people along the way going about their business, paying you no mind. And you walk on forever.

That's not an accurate analogy. In your analogy, you just appear in the middle of the road. With time, you have to start at the beginning. Since in this case the road has no beginning there's nowhere to start.

 

[Moral Orel]

That's not an accurate analogy. In your analogy, you just appear in the middle of the road. With time, you have to start at the beginning. Since in this case the road has no beginning there's nowhere to start.

Are we at the beginning of time right now? Were there people at the beginning of time to see it? No. The position we find ourselves in is somewhere in the middle of the road. We can see that it goes on forward for a long time at least, maybe forever, and we can see that it goes back to a point where we can't see beyond it. It doesn't mean that we can see the beginning of time, we just can't see beyond a certain point. That doesn't constitute a beginning, just a murkiness we can't see beyond.

 

[zippy2006]

As I noted previously, principles that describe the interaction of matter and energy in spacetime need not apply in the absence of matter, energy, and spacetime.

Yes, and as I already noted, you've provided no argument to show that these principles merely describe the interaction of "matter and energy in spacetime." You're just asserting your way into a 2500 year-old debate.

It's a bit like saying, "Principles that describe the interaction of matter and energy in Australia need not apply outside Australia."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, and as I already noted, you've provided no argument to show that these principles merely describe the interaction of "matter and energy in spacetime." You're just asserting your way into a 2500 year-old debate.

It's a bit like saying, "Principles that describe the interaction of matter and energy in Australia need not apply outside Australia."

No, it's not like that at all. Your analogy misses the point entirely.