God and Time

[elopez]

So there is God and no universe and no time at time 1, and then there is God and the universe and time at time 2. That seems a tad problematic, no?

No. You just spelled it out.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No. You just spelled it out.

What I spelled out was a problem. You just posited a time before time.

 

[pshun2404]

When we look at our personal experience of "time" we can see there are two conceptualizations. Now please try and get this it is very subtle.

1.Chronological time is a relative term only applicable to things in the Universe. This "time" is a function of the Universe and is different in different places/spaces and is effected by mass and velocity and who knows what else elsewhere in space. Biblically "chronos" time only applies to "things", i.e., that which has been created which goes from a point in the past through the experience of a present toward any one of a possible number of futures ending in degeneration and disintergration of the materiality of form.

In Genesis 1 and 2 we see that initially God creates (bara - to call forth - beginning with Light and Sound - this can have scientific implications that the ancients He was communicating this to would not have understood) and then He "forms" or makes (yatzar - gives materiality to the created ideation - which some see as instantaneous and others as process).

2.This kind of time is said to be destroyed when God makes the new (or renewed) heavens and earth (Revelations 10:6). This passage says that "time" (chronos) will be no more (regardless of how liberal scholars try to change the meaning of this and so many other verses)

3.The other experience of "time" is called "Now"! It is always Now ever was now and ever shall be Now. This is similar to (but relative for we are only made in His image) to the experience of the eternal...past, present and future are only relative to the Now, and the Now is really all we experience and everything else falls to memory or imagination...in the eternal the beginning and the end are one!

Paul

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

 

[elopez]

What I spelled out was a problem. You just posited a time before time.

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.

 

[elopez]

.[/QUOTE]

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

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?

 

[elopez]

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?

Being timeless doesn't mean He has to remain that way. He is able to act.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Being timeless doesn't mean He has to remain that way. He is able to act.

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.

 

[Achilles6129]

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.

William Lane Craig says that God is timeless without creation and temporal with creation:

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Eternity...38144&sr=1-1&keywords=william+lane+craig+time

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/scholarly-articles/divine-eternity

Personally, I think that time may not run in a straight line for God like it does in this universe. Rather, it may run radically differently for him. I'm still trying to figure out how that might work in reality, however.

 

[elopez]

Actually, being timeless does mean he has to remain that way.

Why?

Timeless implies changeless. He cannot undergo any sort of transition or initiate any action.

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.

To do so would require time, or to put it differently, to do so would mean that he was not timeless.

Well, this is exactly what I was talking about in my other post, which you didn't specifically address.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

William Lane Craig says that God is timeless without creation and temporal with creation:

Yeah, try to make sense of that one! It is either stupidly profound or profoundly stupid.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why?

Because timeless implies changeless, which you already acknowledged when you said "if time does not exist, everything is static."

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.

That makes no sense.

 

[elopez]

Because timeless implies changeless, which you already acknowledged when you said "if time does not exist, everything is static"

I said that but I still don't see how that means everything must remain static.

That makes no sense.

On a relational view of time, which I explained earlier, it does.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I said that but I still don't see how that means everything must remain static.

Because that is what timelessness entails, as you yourself acknowledged. Stasis. No movement. No transitions.

On a relational view of time, which I explained earlier, it does.

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?

 

[elopez]

Because that is what timelessness entails, as you yourself acknowledged. Stasis. No movement. No transitions.

Right, I simply think that doesn't mean there can be no changes.

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?

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.

 

[pshun2404]

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.

No this being is beyond "Chronos". The eternal IS. The temporal is fleeting moment by moment. That which is caused does not have any effect on the cause. The cause does not have to act it simply is the cause. That which it caused fulfills its purpose. However the cause can act and not change because that is its nature. The terms used are merely for our comprehension (so we can catch a glimpse). In the eternal the past, present, and future are one. That which will occur in the temporal are a done deed in the eternal. The entire temporal process has already played out. It is only in our experience that one event follows the other.

This is how He speaks of the future in completed actions foreknowing the outcome exactly. So prescient sections of the Bible (like Daniel 9) do not have to occur after the events (and in fact did not). Not because He caused the specific actions and choices but because He foreknew them. Real genuine choice is still there. His creatures have a will, Him knowing the final actions and choices every created thing will do or make. All this was included (even the end) from Bereshith (the Beginning). This beginning only refers to the temporal, as does the chronos concept of time (it is a relative term).

Initiating action is the nature of this eternal being (He is the ultimate cause of all "things") He is just not subject to the effect of chronos (beginning, maturing, and ending). The initiated actions are already what was to be temporally experienced by His creation.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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?

There's a few logical explanations.

1. Time exists outside of our universe, quite possibly in the exact or very similar way. It would seem to me that in this situation, a creator god would begin to exist and possibly cease existing at some point.

2. Time doesn't exist outside our universe. It doesn't seem to me a creator god would exist either...nor would there be a need for one as the universe is eternal in this situation.

3. Time exists in some way significantly different from how it exists in our universe. This seems the least likely to me and is basically the hardest to reason your way to...speculation about a creator god in such a situation is just that, speculation. It seems to be even more difficult to reason your way to a creator god in this situation than the others.

Of course, I think it's important to point out that we can just as easily (if not far more easily) speculate about time outside our universe without any consideration of a creator god in any of the three situations outlined above.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

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.

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.

Time 0: God decides to make matter.
Time still doesn't exist, so no time passes until...
Time 0: God decides to make energy.
Since no time passed, it is still Time 0.
Time still doesn't exist, so no time passes until...
Time 0: God decides to make time (he hasn't made it yet, he just decided that he will make it).
Since no time passed, it is still Time 0.

So the time hasn't changed, because it hasn't passed, because it doesn't exist.

Next God creates time itself. How much time passed between God deciding to make time and time existing? None. 0 units of time measurement pass before it exists, so time begins to exist at Time 0. The same exact time that all of his other decisions were occurring. So everything happened at the same time until after time existed in order for it to pass.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

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?