God and Time

[Archaeopteryx]

Right, if God creates something He can destroy it, but does destroying it mean he takes it out of existence? If so then it would be like what he destroyed never existed in the first place, thus no need to destroy it. I believe God has destroyed evil through the power of Jesus Christ and since I've accepted this as truth, God will destroy all evil within me and when I physically die, I will live forever with God devoid of evil. So, from our perspective in the new Jerusalem it will be as if evil never existed, but this cannot change the fact that Jesus had to die and conquer death in order for us to be able to attain this perfect existence. There was a price paid for those chosen by God, in order that they may glorify God for all that he has done. You can't just take that price out of existence, otherwise all meaning of what the price paid for is lost.

Does that mean there is no free will in Heaven?

 

[Chriliman]

Does that mean there is no free will in Heaven?

Free will meaning free from Gods will? Once you truly realize Gods will is perfect, this is the only will you will ever want. You'll glady want God to destroy your will and replace it with His perfect will because it makes perfect sence and is perfectly true. Of course if you don't believe this you can't understand what it's like to see Gods will in action in your life making sense out of all the questions both in the bible and in life itself, it's a real joy, but at the same time you realize your still in this fallen world where evil rules, but you have hope in knowing there is a perfect plan that can only be realized through Jesus Christ.

 

[Moral Orel]

Aristotle even saw this, dubbing him the "Unmoved Mover."

The unmoved mover concept was used to explain momentum, not timelessness. Aristotle didn't consider this when he came up with that idea. I know that Aquinas later came along and used some of these ideas to expand his own ideas, but you should really be citing him, and not Aristotle to support this argument.

 

[elopez]

I don't think it is what Catholic doctrine states. Consider what Cardinal Ratzinger, later to become the prefect of the CDF and then Pope Benedict XVI, says on the matter:

Catholic doctrine states God is eternal. God is timeless. If you had paid any attention to what I've actually said, you'd notice I have not stated God is "trapped." Indeed, I have stated God is able to cease to be timeless in a certain sense. So far, I've said nothing that isn't alinged with doctrine.

Granted, the context is slightly different, but he is addressing an objection to petitionary prayer that is based on precisely the kind of "timelessness" that you are asserting. God is not some being trapped outside the confines of time, constrained from movement lest he "set off" the temporal realm. Aristotle even saw this, dubbing him the "Unmoved Mover."

Again, what you're suggesting as an alternative is unclear. You are seemingly igmoring the theological fact that God is timeless. Or what that means.

 

[Achilles6129]

Why do you believe that time came into existence rather than always existing?

Because you can't have an infinite regress. If there are an infinite series of past events, how'd we arrive at our present event?

God didn't create intelligence or life either because those concepts have always been a part of him eternally. Perhaps time is a staple of existence just like those qualities of God.

That seems to be what Isaac Newton thought (from what I've read). If that's the case, we still have the "infinite regress" problem. Or, as I suggested earlier, time would have to run radically different for God than it does for us.

 

[Achilles6129]

Because one cannot make sense of what is being proposed. But perhaps you could explain it better than Craig?

OK, fine. Without the existence of time God is timeless because there's just no reason for him to experience temporal succession, since there's no time. However, when time comes into being God is temporally related to creation and therefore it makes sense that he became temporal with the creation of time. So with the creation of time God himself "entered into" time.

I'm not saying that that's necessarily correct, it's just one idea. There could be other possibilities, but I'm not sure why this idea doesn't work, at least in theory.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Catholic doctrine states God is eternal. God is timeless. If you had paid any attention to what I've actually said, you'd notice I have not stated God is "trapped." Indeed, I have stated God is able to cease to be timeless in a certain sense. So far, I've said nothing that isn't alinged with doctrine.

I'm not sure, but I think zippy may be stating the obvious: that a timeless being is trapped. It cannot move. It cannot even contemplate moving.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

OK, fine. Without the existence of time God is timeless because there's just no reason for him to experience temporal succession, since there's no time.

If you are talking about an intelligent being, then yes, experiencing temporal succession becomes important. Otherwise that being cannot undergo any sort of mental transition or initiate any action, since there's no time to do any of that.

 

[OliviaMay]

Because you can't have an infinite regress. If there are an infinite series of past events, how'd we arrive at our present event?

Infinite regress isn't a problem. The past can be infinite and still have a present.

That seems to be what Isaac Newton thought (from what I've read). If that's the case, we still have the "infinite regress" problem. Or, as I suggested earlier, time would have to run radically different for God than it does for us.

Time doesn't run.

 

[Moral Orel]

Because you can't have an infinite regress. If there are an infinite series of past events, how'd we arrive at our present event?

Why can't we have an infinite regress of events, yet still have the present? It seems like it may be unfathomable, but so is the idea of God being timeless, isn't it? We can't fathom it, but where is the logical contradiction that causes it to be impossible?

Furthermore, does time really require events to exist? We've found that it can be bent and warped using gravity, so it seems to be more than just a "concept" that we use for measurement. So if this is true, that it is some kind of substance (and no, I don't mean that it is material or made of matter, I just can't think of a better more vague word for something that is made of something) then why does it need events in order to exist at all? Perhaps time existed to make it possible for events to occur even if they were not occurring?

 

[ScottA]

If you are talking about an intelligent being, then yes, experiencing temporal succession becomes important. Otherwise that being cannot undergo any sort of mental transition or initiate any action, since there's no time to do any of that.

But then (if that were true), he wouldn't call himself, "I AM."

 

[Achilles6129]

If you are talking about an intelligent being, then yes, experiencing temporal succession becomes important. Otherwise that being cannot undergo any sort of mental transition or initiate any action, since there's no time to do any of that.

Correct. He would have to know everything in one eternal "now."

 

[Achilles6129]

Why can't we have an infinite regress of events, yet still have the present? It seems like it may be unfathomable, but so is the idea of God being timeless, isn't it? We can't fathom it, but where is the logical contradiction that causes it to be impossible?

God being timeless is not unfathomable at all. It's just very difficult to conceive of God being timeless with a temporal creation. An infinite regress of events really is unfathomable, though.

Furthermore, does time really require events to exist? We've found that it can be bent and warped using gravity, so it seems to be more than just a "concept" that we use for measurement. So if this is true, that it is some kind of substance (and no, I don't mean that it is material or made of matter, I just can't think of a better more vague word for something that is made of something) then why does it need events in order to exist at all? Perhaps time existed to make it possible for events to occur even if they were not occurring?

Right, and that goes back to what I said earlier: time may run radically different for God.

 

[JM]

In relation to the subject...Justification

 

[Moral Orel]

God being timeless is not unfathomable at all. It's just very difficult to conceive of God being timeless with a temporal creation. An infinite regress of events really is unfathomable, though.

Unfathomable just means very difficult to understand, it doesn't mean impossible. It is very difficult to understand (for us who only know a temporal dimension) something that is not temporal. An infinite regress of events is unfathomable too, but not impossible. Unfathomable =/= impossible.

Right, and that goes back to what I said earlier: time may run radically different for God.

What I asked about was why time as we know it has to have events in order for you to prove that it had a beginning. This does not answer that question. If time flows differently for God after he created it then it has nothing to do with the problem. If God has some other time that he uses that flows differently, then there is an eternal time, just not the sort of time we know of.

 

[zippy2006]

It's no more controversial than claiming that our causal intuitions must continue to function in the absence of the very context in which they were derived and served a function.

You're begging the very question about the proper context of causality.

In fact, I would think that that would be more controversial a claim given that we have no experience of things "coming to be" ex nihilo or of supernatural entities causing anything to begin existing either ex nihilo or ex materia.

Your case is built on the exhaustive disjunction between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia. It's a false dichotomy. Beyond that, they aren't even creation in the same sense.

Creatio ex nihilo is a matter of revelation, not philosophy. It isn't a conclusion of metaphysics. Regardless, your claim that causality is restricted to the material realm runs into the problems I noted in my last response. Certain kinds of causes that transcend the material order are proper conclusions of metaphysics. (You're conflating any number of things)

 

[zippy2006]

The unmoved mover concept was used to explain momentum, not timelessness. Aristotle didn't consider this when he came up with that idea. I know that Aquinas later came along and used some of these ideas to expand his own ideas, but you should really be citing him, and not Aristotle to support this argument.

You are forgetting the fact that time itself is a measure of motion. That which is essentially unmoved is not measured by time. No need for Aquinas.

 

[zippy2006]

Catholic doctrine states God is eternal. God is timeless.

It says he is eternal. I don't know where it says he is "timeless." Perhaps you have a source?

If you had paid any attention to what I've actually said, you'd notice I have not stated God is "trapped." Indeed, I have stated God is able to cease to be timeless in a certain sense.

You've implied it. I already addressed why here.

Again, what you're suggesting as an alternative is unclear. You are seemingly igmoring the theological fact that God is timeless. Or what that means.

I am suggesting, via Ratzinger, that your understanding of timelessness with respect to God is flawed. For example, you think God moves and that his motion is measured by time:

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?

He literally could not have being timeless.

I'm not sure, but I think zippy may be stating the obvious: that a timeless being is trapped. It cannot move. It cannot even contemplate moving.

As Ratzinger points out, that rationale is distinctively modern. I'm opposing the clump of problems associated with the claim, "God is timeless until he moves."

Many of the positions in this thread are manifesting as somewhat undisciplined thoughts about time. Presumably very few have historical philosophical pedigree. Because of this I don't intend to get into long arguments with any number of intuitions about time, but would rather simply encourage folks to familiarize themselves with one or more established positions in order to provide some coherent sources (and premises) for their beliefs.

 

[Achilles6129]

An infinite regress of events is unfathomable too, but not impossible. Unfathomable =/= impossible.

No, an infinite regress of events (in our time, where time flows in one direction) is impossible. Please explain how it's not.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You're begging the very question about the proper context of causality.

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

Your case is built on the exhaustive disjunction between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia. It's a false dichotomy. Beyond that, they aren't even creation in the same sense.

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.

Creatio ex nihilo is a matter of revelation, not philosophy. It isn't a conclusion of metaphysics.

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

Regardless, your claim that causality is restricted to the material realm runs into the problems I noted in my last response.

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.