God and Time

[Archaeopteryx]

Say more. What is the reason that we must acknowledge this, and to what "may they not apply"?

Because principles that describe the interaction of matter and energy in spacetime need not apply in the absence of matter, energy, and spacetime.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Points in time, simultaneity, and "preceding" are impossible absent time. This isn't semantics. Sometimes you can use words analogously or loosely and get away with it, but it's not clear how you can use temporal terms even analogously when you are at the same time positing the total absence of temporality. Creatio ex nihilo is a heady mystery; most take it for granted and don't perceive its depth.

It is indeed a deeply baffling mystery, but more to the point, we don't know whether it is even possible for such a phenomenon to occur, much less the the conditions under which it will occur.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You seem to be leaving God out of the equation.

Doest the insertion of theological concepts into the model improve our understanding in any way? If not, then we can safely exclude such concepts.

We really do not know what existed before creation.

More to the point, we don't know if such a question even makes sense. Does it make sense to talk of a time "before" time?

We do not know if matter existed. We think that creation began as a Big Bang originating in one place, that seems most likely near the Earth.

This is a slight misunderstanding of the Big Bang. Minutes Physics has a nice video that clarifies it as the "everywhere stretch."

It makes sense that before time there is no distance so that place would be tiny not matter how big it was actually. You seem to be confused by trying to reduce the infinite to something finite. Time is something we exist in moment by moment and cannot be in another time or many times like God can. God's time is not chronological or in one plane in time and space like us.
You are never going to be able as a mortal to grasp what is beyond our ability to know and provide answers for. We can only speculate which is what I have done. I have presented some ideas, that you may or may not understand, may accept or not. If you don't get it you don't get it. It may not be right anyway. I think I am close though.

So long as it's clear that you are speculating, as compared to asserting that this is how it must be.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Points in time, simultaneity, and "preceding" are impossible absent time. This isn't semantics. Sometimes you can use words analogously or loosely and get away with it, but it's not clear how you can use temporal terms even analogously when you are at the same time positing the total absence of temporality. Creatio ex nihilo is a heady mystery; most take it for granted and don't perceive its depth.

To clarify what I meant earlier by borrowing from your own words, it's not clear how you can use causal terms even analogously when you are at the same time positing the total absence of matter, energy, and spacetime - the very context in which such terms make sense.

 

[sparow]

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.



Your premises are all false or meaningless until such time as you define time.


Time can never pass because it is not a physical entity; time is the mechanics of the human brain perceiving motion. Time as we normally perceive it is one revolution of our planet divided by 24, divided by 60, divided by 60, divided by 1000, divided by 1000 and divided by 1000 giving nanoseconds. But this is a scale and time is a measure using this or some other scale.


I am 76 earth orbits old but time hasn’t passed, time has measured; what has passed is the earth orbiting; if one considers time to be the earth orbiting and rotating then we could say God created time. A person’s age can be calculated in other units; from conception a person evolves according to an algorithm; a clock later expressed as heart beats controls the algorithm, so my age could be expressed as heart beats and averaging 75 per minute times 60 times 24 times 365 times 76 = 2,995,920,000 heart beats; some will be relatively young after this number of heart beats others will be dead so what do you say has passed and in what form does it exist?


God did not create time He defined time; one day from evening to evening, one year 360 days etc.

 

[sparow]

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?

Your premises are all false or meaningless until such time as you define time.


Time can never pass because it is not a physical entity; time is the mechanics of the human brain perceiving motion. Time as we normally perceive it is one revolution of our planet divided by 24, divided by 60, divided by 60, divided by 1000, divided by 1000 and divided by 1000 giving nanoseconds. But this is a scale and time is a measure using this or some other scale.


I am 76 earth orbits old but time hasn’t passed, time has measured; what has passed is the earth orbiting; if one considers time to be the earth orbiting and rotating then we could say God created time. A person’s age can be calculated in other units; from conception a person evolves according to an algorithm; a clock later expressed as heart beats controls the algorithm, so my age could be expressed as heart beats and averaging 75 per minute times 60 times 24 times 365 times 76 = 2,995,920,000 heart beats; some will be relatively young after this number of heart beats others will be dead so what do you say has passed and in what form does it exist?


God did not create time He defined time; one day from evening to evening, one year 360 days etc.

 

[D2wing]

Doest the insertion of theological concepts into the model improve our understanding in any way? If not, then we can safely exclude such concepts.

More to the point, we don't know if such a question even makes sense. Does it make sense to talk of a time "before" time?

This is a slight misunderstanding of the Big Bang. Minutes Physics has a nice video that clarifies it as the "everywhere stretch."

So long as it's clear that you are speculating, as compared to asserting that this is how it must be.

No, we cannot exclude God as he is the Creator. Creation cannot be without a Creator. Matter and energy did not create themselves.
As far as the stretch theory, that is pretty silly in that it is merely an attempt to avoid having a center of the Universe or a starting point. It makes less sense than a point where it began, and also contradicts observed space. As science it is a joke.
Science cannot explain what it does not know. If you leave God out you have even less to go on. Without God there is no explanation that makes any sense at all.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, we cannot exclude God as he is the Creator. Creation cannot be without a Creator. Matter and energy did not create themselves.
As far as the stretch theory, that is pretty silly in that it is merely an attempt to avoid having a center of the Universe or a starting point. It makes less sense than a point where it began, and also contradicts observed space. As science it is a joke.
Science cannot explain what it does not know. If you leave God out you have even less to go on. Without God there is no explanation that makes any sense at all.

As I said before, if theological concepts furthered our understanding of cosmogony in any significant way, then scientists would have good reason to integrate those concepts into their cosmological models. As it stands, theology has little to nothing to offer cosmology, so it's largely ignored. "Goddidit" merely masks our ignorance, but it doesn't advance our understanding any further than "I don't know."

 

[D2wing]

As I said before, if theological concepts furthered our understanding of cosmogony in any significant way, then scientists would have good reason to integrate those concepts into their cosmological models. As it stands, theology has little to nothing to offer cosmology, so it's largely ignored. "Goddidit" merely masks our ignorance, but it doesn't advance our understanding any further than "I don't know."

I do not agree, the main purpose of some in science is to provide explanations that exclude God regardless of evidence or logic. God did do it. I am a Christian, as such, I do believe in God and that he is the Creator. I don't believe that science has the answers or is even honest. Ask a scientist if he dares say God did anything. If you believe otherwise fine.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I do not agree, the main purpose of some in science is to provide explanations that exclude God regardless of evidence or logic. God did do it.

Then provide evidence.

I am a Christian, as such, I do believe in God and that he is the Creator. I don't believe that science has the answers or is even honest. Ask a scientist if he dares say God did anything. If you believe otherwise fine.

What is dishonest about admitting that we don't know how the universe came to be? Wouldn't it be more dishonest to feign knowledge and pretend that we know when we really don't?

 

[elopez]

That's exactly what I said in the OP! If anything happened without the existence of time, then it must be simultaneous, or nothing happened of course.

Well if it happened simultaneous then there would be no order of events such as you listed earlier. Regardless God existed without the universe and time and God created time.

As I was saying earlier, time exists because events occur. Events happening are explanatorily prior to the existence of time. Time begins to exist when an event occurs. All God has to do is act or move and time is created as a result.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well if it happened simultaneous then there would be no order of events such as you listed earlier. Regardless God existed without the universe and time and God created time.

As I was saying earlier, time exists because events occur. Events happening are explanatorily prior to the existence of time. Time begins to exist when an event occurs. All God has to do is act or move and time is created as a result.

Then why not save a step and simply say that all matter has to do is move and time is created as a result? Why posit the existence of a personal creator deity at all?

 

[ScottA]

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.

I am glad they selected this topic to announce in an email, or I might have missed it. Great topic. I wrote a book about it.

Just picking out the above part of the topic to comment on for now:

The purpose of time is God's way of telling us His story. We have a part in it. But the before and after nonsense, is just God's way of explaining timelessness within the context of time to people who know nothing else. We first consciously exist within the context of time and then must be born out of it (out of its nothingness). The entire explanation is given in "before" and "after" terms, and ALL matters of time are first large, but then reduced to Him who the story is really all about, and then reduced to, not his time, or the "year" of the Lord, or his day, but all the way down to His "hour"...and yes, then ALL things are indeed before and after.

So, the yesterday, today, and forever description of the Lord, is just God's way of breaking it down for us, and yet the best and most accurate description is: I "am"...which, in truth, must and "is" stated in complete timelessness. Time is a finite creation, an illusion that breaks down the true timelessness of God in easier to understand terms. We should appreciate that many things done slowly are not violent, while the same things done instantly, are explosive. Hence, the big bang theory, and hence, the great mercy of God toward his children. We do the same for our own children...do we not?

That's a start.

 

[Moral Orel]

All God has to do is act or move and time is created as a result.

So then God did nothing until he created time?

 

[zippy2006]

Because principles that describe the interaction of matter and energy in spacetime need not apply in the absence of matter, energy, and spacetime.

It is indeed a deeply baffling mystery, but more to the point, we don't know whether it is even possible for such a phenomenon to occur, much less the the conditions under which it will occur.

To clarify what I meant earlier by borrowing from your own words, it's not clear how you can use causal terms even analogously when you are at the same time positing the total absence of matter, energy, and spacetime - the very context in which such terms make sense.

First, the reason that temporal terms cannot legitimately be used in the context noted is because all parties involved in the discussion are intentionally talking about a possibility where time does not exist. I noted some concepts that implicitly rely on temporality and thus cannot be legitimately used in such a context (e.g. successive ordering, successive decisions).

You are proposing the idea that all causal activity also implicitly relies on temporality. Effectively you are claiming that all of our causal notions are limited to the realm of physics rather than metaphysics. Philosophers have traditionally distinguished between different kinds of causes, some of which operate only on the level of physics and some of which operate even on the level of metaphysics.

I am not going to get into an argument about the categorization of different causes, in part because it is highly complex and in part because it would take me some time to review the details. It should be noted, however, that your claim contextualizing causality within the temporal (and material) realm is not privileged with any clear burden of proof. Even the claim that we are not privy to extra-material causality depends on the controversial premise of materialism--a premise which cannot even make sense of causality within the material realm (a la David Hume). Claiming that human beings are fully subsumed within the temporal and material realms is a controversial move, to say the least.

 

[elopez]

So then God did nothing until he created time?

He literally could not have being timeless.

 

[elopez]

Then why not save a step and simply say that all matter has to do is move and time is created as a result? Why posit the existence of a personal creator deity at all?

Honestly that's not the question of topic and I'd rather not get into it.

 

[zippy2006]

All God has to do is act or move and time is created as a result.

He literally could not have being timeless.

Do you believe God is immutable? Immaterial? Eternal?

You are claiming that God had to stand very, very still lest he accidentally set off the entire time-space continuum! Yet that's faulty from the get-go. A rock, even if it doesn't move or change at all, is still temporal. Being-at-rest as well as change implies temporality, given the proper substance. Strictly speaking, it is not the existence of change but rather the possibility of change that inaugurates the temporal realm. Time exists once a being that can change exists--it need not go through all the trouble of changing!

I'm sorry, but your theology seems to be heavily riddled with anthropomorphisms. I hope it is clear to your interlocutors that you are not attempting to represent the tradition of Catholicism?

 

[ScottA]

He literally could not have being timeless.

"I AM."

Where is the "time" in that statement?

 

[Achilles6129]

It's nonsensical.

Why?