God exists outside of time?

[ElijahW]

In this case, you cannot prove the Christian God is constant and unchanging because you cannot even prove it is real.

Nope. No proof. That’s where faith comes in.

What use is an explanation based on a claim that can’t be proven? If someone told you that the reason ghosts are transparent is because they are vibrating at tremendous speeds, would you think that explanation was reasonable or useful? Would you believe that person’s claims?

It would maybe be of use for people who don’t believe that empirical evidence is the end all to everything. If you believe that because you can’t perceive it, then it doesn’t exist, there is nothing I can do about that. I have good reason to be skeptical of my physical senses giving me the complete picture of the universe since it would be impossible to detect constants, physically.

I also have good reason to believe the universe is following and is the product of a set of eternal laws, that exist but can’t be proven to exist.

For me, it is reason over physical evidence, if you realize the evidence is only a partial picture because it is limited to what is in flux.

 

[quatona]

A temporary action you could say would change the entity but if the action is constant, then what change is expected in the entity?

I am having trouble understanding what a "constant action" is. To me this appears to be an oxymoron.

 

[ElijahW]

I am having trouble understanding what a "constant action" is. To me this appears to be an oxymoron.

How so?

 

[quatona]

How so?

Please give me your definition of "action", for starters.

 

[ElijahW]

Please give me your definition of "action", for starters.

Definition of ACT a: the doing of a thing.

Is defining "a thing" next?

 

[quatona]

Yes, please. And, even more importantly, "doing".

 

[ElijahW]

Yes, please. And, even more importantly, "doing".

Definition of DOING

1
: the act of performing or executing : action

Definition of THING

b : a product of work or activity

 

[3sigma]

Nope. No proof. That’s where faith comes in.

Religious faith is nothing more than belief without sound evidence or sound reasoning. You are simply admitting you are credulous. It is hardly an admirable trait.

For me, it is reason over physical evidence, if you realize the evidence is only a partial picture because it is limited to what is in flux.

Then please explain the sound reasoning you used to reach the conclusion that the Christian God is constant and unchanging. First though, please explain the sound reasoning you used to reach the conclusion that the Christian God is even real. I’m intrigued to hear what you consider sound reasoning given that you’ve already admitted that you have no proof and you apparently lack physical evidence as well.

 

[quatona]

Definition of DOING

1
: the act of performing or executing : action

Definition of THING

b : a product of work or activity

So action is defined as doing something, and doing something is defined as action. So far, so circular.

In my understanding of these words (action, doing, producing, working, executing) they all necessarily imply changes.

 

[ElijahW]

Religious faith is nothing more than belief without sound evidence or sound reasoning. You are simply admitting you are credulous. It is hardly an admirable trait.

No, there is reasoning behind it. Like I said once you realize your perception is chained facing a wall with flickering light, you begin to question what is beyond your ability to sense.

I agree with trusting faulty information (credulous) isn’t an admirable trait. I just think this time the faulty information is coming from our senses and showing us only what is in flux.

Then please explain the sound reasoning you used to reach the conclusion that the Christian God is constant and unchanging. First though, please explain the sound reasoning you used to reach the conclusion that the Christian God is even real. I’m intrigued to hear what you consider sound reasoning given that you’ve already admitted that you have no proof and you apparently lack physical evidence as well.

If the universe had a beginning (God) and if that beginning was still active it would have to be because it is constant. That is the only rational explanation. You can go deist or that the universe didn’t have a beginning and just goes back infinitely into time, so there is no God at all. But if there is an active God it is a constant one.

It’s not a rational position to think the universe goes back without end. It is conceptually impossible to me. So at that point God being real is the only logical solution, since the alternative seems impossible.

 

[ElijahW]

So action is defined as doing something, and doing something is defined as action. So far, so circular.

I’m sorry you don’t approve of the words' definitions but words are defined by other words, sometimes in a “circular” fashion.

In my understanding of these words (action, doing, producing, working, executing) they all necessarily imply changes.

There can be changes involved when you look at the total activity but that doesn’t mean that the actors involved in the activity are subject to change or change what they are doing suddenly.

 

[Tzaousios]

Religious faith is nothing more than belief without sound evidence or sound reasoning. You are simply admitting you are credulous. It is hardly an admirable trait.

Incorrect. For atheists with a shred of genuine willingness to consider other epistemological foundations besides scientific experimentation, it might be worth the theist's time to present arguments.

For presuppositional misotheists, however, faith is something to be mocked by demanding that it be recreated in a scientific laboratory with test tubes and Bunsen burners, which they present the illusion of being the only valid method of proof.

If that illusion is not employed, then it is demanded that theists present "valid arguments" with "true premises," even though in the misotheist's mind the premises of God not existing and theists being delusional are already immovably crystallized.

I’m intrigued to hear what you consider sound reasoning given that you’ve already admitted that you have no proof and you apparently lack physical evidence as well.

Translation: For 3sigma, sound reasoning by a Christian theist would be exclusively to declare that there is no God, that the Bible is an evil book, and that hypothetically if the Christian God did exist he should be hated.

 

[quatona]

I’m sorry you don’t approve of the words' definitions but words are defined by other words, sometimes in a “circular” fashion. [/(quote]
The issue is not whether I approve of circular definitions but that they don´t help.

There can be changes involved when you look at the total activity but that doesn’t mean that the actors involved in the activity are subject to change or change what they are doing suddenly.

If change is involved the actor necessarily is subject to change, as well - if only from someone who is planning to act to someone who has acted.

 

[ElijahW]

The issue is not whether I approve of circular definitions but that they don´t help.

Yeah but that is your personal issue. The reality of how words are used is that they define each other, often in a circular fashion. If you ask for a definition of one word (A)within the definition of another word(B), don’t be surprised to find the word (B) within the definition of the other word (A).

If change is involved the actor necessarily is subject to change, as well - if only from someone who is planning to act to someone who has acted.

And if there is no planning to act, to acting but the action is continuous? If the act of creation is ongoing from beginning to end, what change is necessary in that actor?

 

[Insane_Duck]

What does that mean? I’ve heard many theists make that claim as if time has parameters or something, and it’s never made sense to me. Time is simply a system humans came up with to measure one moment to the next. To exist outside of time sounds as ridicules as claiming something exists outside of miles, gallons, or numbers; if something exists, the concept of time can be applied to it; and it doesn’t matter if you are talking about the physical world, the spiritual world, the imaginary world, or whatever; it seems to me nothing can exist outside of time because there are no parameters to time. Am I wrong? If so please explain.

Ken

It depends entirely what time is. Scientists are still very divided on the issue. (and yes, I just saw it explained by Morgan Freedman )

If it is simply relationships between the movement of objects then it makes not sense that God is outside of time, because any interference into our universe would violate his claim to timelessness. If time is some absolute mysterious standard that just is, then God could exist (theoretical) outside of it.

A better question would be: "If you stopped all the objects in the universe, have you stopped time, or will it still tick on?

 

[Insane_Duck]

Yeah but that is your personal issue. The reality of how words are used is that they define each other, often in a circular fashion. If you ask for a definition of one word (A)within the definition of another word(B), don’t be surprised to find the word (B) within the definition of the other word (A).

A definition can't use the word it's defining. You lose the point of defining the word in the first place.

And if there is no planning to act, to acting but the action is continuous? If the act of creation is ongoing from beginning to end, what change is necessary in that actor?

Not necessarily planning to act but deciding to act. The change would happen when God made the decision to make the universe.

 

[impblack]

If there is a God, it is my philosophical belief that we cannot understand how he is timeless or eternal. And that is applied to everything that could be timeless or eternal (whatever that means), since our mind are limited and "programmed" (by intelligent design or evolution or even something else) to think is certain limits (in this case to think "within" spacetime).

Beeing myself a physics student, i have no idea what time is. And that is because within physical and mathematical definitions of time, there's still a lot of space for philosophical interpretations.

Mathematically (in which definitions are somewhat generalized to every possible logical situation) time can be considered eternal. You can say that time start in minus infinite and will stop in plus infinite. In that kind of thought, you can say that, even if there isn't motion in the universe, there is still time (or it would be if mathematicians could think without time xD joke). Physically, as far as i know, time is more "thing" to which you can compare motions. I'll try to be more clear (please excuse me, English is not my primary language). Time is "only" (i might be wrong here) useful to measure motion. We use it to know which things happen faster or slower. So, if we think a little, in a physical definition, if there is no motion, there is no time, if there is no time, nothing happens so on could say that everything that exists in that no time situation is eternal. So something timeless would be something eternal/never changing and eternity would be the lack of time (time wouldn't be within eternity, but rather they would be two (and i don't know it is correct to say this but) "different" yet related things).

Anyway, can God be timeless (whatever that means)?
Every argument that i thought until know doesn't answer successfully that question, probably because i cannot think outside the box that is spacetime. He might be, he might not be. He might be sometimes, He might be always, he might be never. We might never even know exactly what timeless is. Same way scientist say we probably never know what existed before the big bang, before time, same applies to God here. I can only conclude that if there is a God as described in the Bible, we cannot understand everything about him, and i also believe that we cannot understand this question about him in particular.

I might be wrong, and that's why i shared my knowledge here, so you might use it to correct me, or even correct my knowledge itself.

 

[ElijahW]

Not necessarily planning to act but deciding to act. The change would happen when God made the decision to make the universe.

Problem with that thinking is that there is no "when' for that decision to be made. We are talking about the beginning of the universe and measurement of time. There is no "before" to make that decision.

 

[sandwiches]

ITT: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

 

[Insane_Duck]

Problem with that thinking is that there is no "when' for that decision to be made. We are talking about the beginning of the universe and measurement of time. There is no "before" to make that decision.

If you saw my other post, it depends on what time is. If time is merely a dimension of spacial relationships the "start" of time is when the first sequential change occurred. I.e. God can't be "before" or "outside" of time as he changed when he created the universe.

This is however, just one view of time.