Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What I spelled out was a problem. You just posited a time before time.No. You just spelled it out.
If we're talking about an intelligent entity, then we're talking about a being that can plan, make decisions, and initiate an intended course of action. How is a timeless entity supposed to do that? You are presupposing that, at one point, there was God and no universe, and then, at another point, there was God and the universe he created. But that's a temporal sequence. It requires time, which God does not have because he is timeless.No. You just spelled it out.
Timeless without time.What I spelled out was a problem. You just posited a time before time.
The same problem presents itself: how did the event happen if the entity supposed to initiate it is static (as per your earlier construal of timelessness) and therefore in no position to initiate anything?Timeless without time.
You're merely assuming a substantival view of time. It assumes that in order for events to occur, time must exist.
I just think that's false. On a relational view of time, time exists because events occur. Events happening are explanatorily prior to the existence of time. So, time begins to exist when an event occurs.
Being timeless doesn't mean He has to remain that way. He is able to act.The same problem presents itself: how did the event happen if the entity supposed to initiate it is static (as per your earlier construal of timelessness) and therefore in no position to initiate anything?
Actually, being timeless does mean he has to remain that way. Timeless implies changeless. He cannot undergo any sort of transition or initiate any action. To do so would require time, or to put it differently, to do so would mean that he was not timeless.Being timeless doesn't mean He has to remain that way. He is able to act.
I've been thinking about what it means for God to create time itself, and it seems to mean strange things, so I thought I would share my thoughts and see what other people think.
Why?Actually, being timeless does mean he has to remain that way.
I would agree timelessness does imply changeless. It means one does not change. God is changeless, yet I am not sure that means He cannot change.Timeless implies changeless. He cannot undergo any sort of transition or initiate any action.
Well, this is exactly what I was talking about in my other post, which you didn't specifically address.To do so would require time, or to put it differently, to do so would mean that he was not timeless.
Yeah, try to make sense of that one! It is either stupidly profound or profoundly stupid.William Lane Craig says that God is timeless without creation and temporal with creation:
Because timeless implies changeless, which you already acknowledged when you said "if time does not exist, everything is static."Why?
That makes no sense.I would agree timelessness does imply changeless. It means one does not change. God is changeless, yet I am not sure that means He cannot change.
I said that but I still don't see how that means everything must remain static.Because timeless implies changeless, which you already acknowledged when you said "if time does not exist, everything is static"
On a relational view of time, which I explained earlier, it does.That makes no sense.
Because that is what timelessness entails, as you yourself acknowledged. Stasis. No movement. No transitions.I said that but I still don't see how that means everything must remain static.
As I noted earlier, that doesn't alleviate the problem: how did the event happen if the entity supposed to initiate it is static (as per your earlier construal of timelessness) and therefore in no position to initiate anything?On a relational view of time, which I explained earlier, it does.
Right, I simply think that doesn't mean there can be no changes.Because that is what timelessness entails, as you yourself acknowledged. Stasis. No movement. No transitions.
It does help though. You were saying "To do so would require time, or to put it differently, to do so would mean that the was not timeless." My point earlier is that that view of time IMO is false. On a relational view, time is not required to act rather time begins to exist when God moves.As I noted earlier, that doesn't alleviate the problem: how did the event happen if the entity supposed to initiate it is static (as per your earlier construal of timelessness) and therefore in no position to initiate anything?
Actually, being timeless does mean he has to remain that way. Timeless implies changeless. He cannot undergo any sort of transition or initiate any action. To do so would require time, or to put it differently, to do so would mean that he was not timeless.
I've been thinking about what it means for God to create time itself, and it seems to mean strange things, so I thought I would share my thoughts and see what other people think.
First, if time doesn't exist, then time can't pass. This seems self evident, but it is important to think about.
Second, without the passage of time words like "before" and "after" are nonsense.
So from this it seems that anything that happens while time doesn't exist must happen simultaneously. Now given the concept of God, I don't think this is anything that is too hard for him. Of course he can do an infinite number of things and think an infinite number of thoughts all simultaneously, so don't think this is supposed to be a disproof of his existence.
So I'll put it into argument form given these premises.
1. Time doesn't pass until time exists
2. We measure age based on the amount of time that has passed.
3. No time passed until God created time.
4. God's age is equal to the amount of time that has passed since time was created.
So wether you believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old, or you believe that the universe is 6000 years old, we all pretty much agree that time began to exist at the onset of creation. I believe the theory of general relativity and the big bang theory state this, and that is why it is so hard (impossible?) to see what is beyond that threshold.
But it seems that without time, "eternity" is a nonsense word just like "before" and "after". Eternity needs to extend infinitely backwards in time in order for it to make sense (and infinitely forwards). So to say that God is eternal, but to say that time is not, seems like nonsense to me.
So what explanation for this could there be? Thoughts?
Now again, if time didn't exist until God created it, then the point in time he created time is simultaneous with everything that "preceded" its inception.
Let's see if I can illustrate this idea. For the sake of argument, let's pretend we know the order in which God made some decisions before he made creation. We'll start with time existing, and so we will say we are at Time 0.I am not even sure what this means. The moment of creation has to vary greatly from that which existed without it. Which is God.
Does God really not change at all? Sure, he never stops being omnipotent, omniscient, immortal, omnibenevolent, or even just existing. So broad strokes, God doesn't change. But what about after he does some action? At one point God was God who hadn't created anything, and then he created everything. Now he is God who has created everything. Is that no change at all? It is a change in how he can be described. So doesn't that mean that he changed?I would agree timelessness does imply changeless. It means one does not change. God is changeless, yet I am not sure that means He cannot change.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?