God exists outside of time?

[elopez]

"If God is outside of time, then was there ever a point, a moment, or whatever you want to call it...when the God existed, and the universe did not?".

No, there was not a moment when God existed and the universe did not as that would imply the passage of time. I would prefer to say that God existed timelessly without the universe.

If not, then God's existence is simultaneous with the universe. And if you admit that the universe is finite, this presents a problem for the idea that God 'always' existed.

Let's see.

The word, 'always', means 'at any time', 'at all times', etc.

To even start speaking of God existing always, while the universe did not, doesn't make sense. Saying he's 'outside' of always doesn't do anything, either.

Always can also mean continuously, so it could be said of God that He existed continuously without the universe. To say God "always" existed or that God existed "prior" to the existence of the universe is, for me at least, meant as a manner of speaking rather than literally speaking.

 

[Btodd]

No, there was not a moment when God existed and the universe did not as that would imply the passage of time. I would prefer to say that God existed timelessly without the universe.

I still don't see how 'existing timelessly without the universe' actually means anything.

Always can also mean continuously, so it could be said of God that He existed continuously without the universe.

'Continuously' also requires the passage of time. If ever God existed while the universe did not...then I don't see how we get around the passage of time. Sure, we can use words like 'timeless', but I can't decipher any actual meaning out of that, other than, 'whatever gets God out of the problem'. That probably sounds more sarcastic than I intended it to be.

To say God "always" existed or that God existed "prior" to the existence of the universe is, for me at least, meant as a manner of speaking rather than literally speaking.

That's where I'm coming from...as soon as we try to make any sense of the idea, language itself fails. We can't even talk about it, and therefore I don't know how to accept it or derive any meaning from it.


Btodd

 

[quatona]

Atheists, those that are skeptical of supernatural claims, cannot understand that to Christians God is incomprehensible.

Actually, I do understand that part quite fine. The part I don´t understand is when Christians who claim God to be incomprehensible pretend to understand God by making statements that replace the "I don´t know" by positive but absurd statements.

 

[ThePilgrim101]

Actually, I do understand that part quite fine. The part I don´t understand is when Christians who claim God to be incomprehensible pretend to understand God by making statements that replace the "I don´t know" by positive but absurd statements.
[/FONT]

I always love that old defense.

"You can't understand because it's incomprehensible!"

And you comprehend it how?

"Oh, well I just believe." or "I know because I know."

 

[AlexBP]

OK, this sounds cool. If you're still following this thread, Alex, I'd like to hear about one of these different types of ordered sets that could be used to conceive a different cause-effect relationship. If not, maybe I'll bug you with a PM.

There are an infinite number of different partially ordered sets that are possible.

In a totally ordered set, every element is related to everything other element. For example, if we order the real numbers by < and > (greater than and less than) that's a totally ordered set. This means that for any two distinct numbers x and y, either x > y or x < y.

In a partially ordered set, some elements may be related while others are not. For example, we can order the whole numbers by divisibility. (In mathematical shorthand x|y means &quot;x dividesy&quot;.) So for instance 2|12, but it's not true that 2|11. Now for some pairs of elements, such as 4 and 6, we see clearly that neither 4|6 nor 6|4, so those two elements are not related in this partial ordering in any way.

Now, in relation to the topic of time, time within the universe is a totally ordered set. If we identify two moments in time and call them A and B, either A came earlier than B or A came later than B. This relates to the idea of cause and effect because every cause must come before its effect as long as they are bounded by time.

However, we have no reason to presuppose that in the cosmos as a whole, cause and effect are a totally ordered set. They may, instead, be partially ordered set. Imagine an analogy to the whole numbers and divisibility again. Imagine that the time in our universe corresponds to the powers of two: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, ...Those numbers would be the only 'times' that we can comprehend. Meanwhile God is present at all whole numbers. So if God chose to act at the number 3 or 17 or 99, we would not be able to relate that to anything taking place in our universe because those numbers don't divide any number that's a 'time' in our universe, nor are they divided by any number that's a 'time' in our universe.

Obviously I'm not saying that this is literally how the causes and effects in cosmos are arranged. I'm merely offering it as an illustration of how, if we expand beyond the understanding of time as a straight line, we can begin to understand how God might exist in ways that are &quot;outside of time&quot;. It's worth noting as well that some of the great mystics report that while in communication with the divine, they experienced great lengths of time while relatively small amounts of time were observed to pass in this world, thus providing some backup for the suggestion that God's relation to time is not our own.

 

[elopez]

I still don't see how 'existing timelessly without the universe' actually means anything.

It may not mean anything to you, in fact I wouldn't suspect it to. Though time indeed had a beginning, correct? If so, would that not imply there was no time "before" time, again so to speak?

'Continuously' also requires the passage of time. If ever God existed while the universe did not...then I don't see how we get around the passage of time. Sure, we can use words like 'timeless', but I can't decipher any actual meaning out of that, other than, 'whatever gets God out of the problem'. That probably sounds more sarcastic than I intended it to be.

Because time had a beginning along with the universe, or did it not? If God existed "prior" to the universe and so time then there was no passage of time at all "prior" to the universe existing.

That's where I'm coming from...as soon as we try to make any sense of the idea, language itself fails. We can't even talk about it, and therefore I don't know how to accept it or derive any meaning from it.


Btodd

How can we not even talk about the concept of atemporality yet here we are discussing just that? Just because you do not understand it does not mean it cannot be understood at all, or does it?

 

[Btodd]

It may not mean anything to you, in fact I wouldn't suspect it to. Though time indeed had a beginning, correct? If so, would that not imply there was no time "before" time, again so to speak?

No, that would not imply that there was no time before that. All we can say is that currently, we cannot know what happened before the Big Bang. It doesn't necessitate that time did not exist before our universe, it merely results from our only being able to go back to the initial conditions of our universe (and not even quite that far yet)...but we may not be capable of having evidence beyond that point.

Because time had a beginning along with the universe, or did it not? If God existed "prior" to the universe and so time then there was no passage of time at all "prior" to the universe existing.

As soon as you say 'prior', it necessitates 'before'. It's tied to time. If the word doesn't apply, then there's no sense appealing to it to resolve the supposed dilemma.

How can we not even talk about the concept of atemporality yet here we are discussing just that? Just because you do not understand it does not mean it cannot be understood at all, or does it?

I also cannot understand a square circle, but surely you see why I wouldn't appeal to one.


Btodd

 

[Ken-1122]

Ken (quote) “Just because humans aren’t around to give it a name doesn’t mean the concept of time can’t be applied to that moment in history. Dinosaurs were around long before humans yet we apply the concept of time to when they roamed the earth.”

Drich0150
(quote) “You are still thinking too small. what about before then?
what about before that? and that, and that? What happened before your big bang?”

(reply) As long as something exists, time exists.

(Ken) “So please give me the date that time was born. If you can’t then your argument fails.”

Drich0150 (quote) “In the creation account it started on a very bright and earily Sunday Morning when the Heavens and the earth were separated”

(reply) What about before creation? Whatever happened before then, the concept of time can be applied to that as well.

(Ken) “A measurement of time has boundaries because it starts at one point and ends at another. Time does not have such boundaries.”
Drich0150 (quote) “What you have described is eternity, not time.”

(reply) Eternity IS time! The past, present, future, eternity, infinity, these are all references to time.

(quote) “Time is measured by celestial events. If not give me an example of common measure of time not related to a celestial even in anyway. "If you can't your argument fails!"”

(reply) Time exists in outer space, and on the moon.

(quote) “Why? Because it shows that time is a finite commodity, one that marks the passing of itself according to how we move around the sun. Once this brief measure of infinity stops, or their is no one left to record it "Time" as we know it stops. what is left is infinity.”

(reply) so is it you position that time only exists because there are humans here to recognize it? That if all humans were gone and only animals and insects lived on Earth, that time would no longer exist because there would be no one here to recognize it?
If that’s your position I understand what you are saying even though I disagree with it. I believe time exists even if there were nobody here to give it a name.

Elopez
(quote) “How then do you define time? And also, what logical support do you have for the idea of time being eternal and how do you also reconcile that with the support that is present to show that time had a beginning?”

(reply) I believe time is a system used to measure one moment to the next. I believe time is eternal because the system is based upon numbers and numbers are eternal.

(quote) “I have explained it. Time has an origin while God does not. Naturally, time cannot be applied to an eternal God”

(reply) you keep saying time has an origin but you aren’t explaining why it has to have an origin. Let me put it this way; suppose you were at a place where time didn’t exist, how would this place be any different than where you are right not? Your heart would still beat 70-80 times per minute, your watch would still work right? So how would a timeless place be any different than right now?

(quote) “I am making claims about an issue as far as I understand it.”

(reply) That explains a lot!

Ken

 

[elopez]

No, that would not imply that there was no time before that. All we can say is that currently, we cannot know what happened before the Big Bang. It doesn't necessitate that time did not exist before our universe, it merely results from our only being able to go back to the initial conditions of our universe (and not even quite that far yet)...but we may not be capable of having evidence beyond that point.

So do you believe time is eternal? If not and time had a beginning, then that does very much so imply there was no time without the universe.

As soon as you say 'prior', it necessitates 'before'. It's tied to time. If the word doesn't apply, then there's no sense appealing to it to resolve the supposed dilemma.

Again I am not saying "before" literally hence the quotations on the word originally. The point is without the universe God existed timelessly.

I also cannot understand a square circle, but surely you see why I wouldn't appeal to one.


Btodd

No one I think has claimed to know a square circle, though not everyone has claimed to not know what timelessness means in respect to God.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

What does that mean? I&#8217;ve heard many theists make that claim as if time has parameters or something, and it&#8217;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&#8217;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

Time is a real thing. You can create a three dimensional function to to find that at X value and Y value, there is some Z value. Time is a fourth value in what we conceive as a three dimensional universe. If I pick up a ball and throw it, at one second it will occupy points x,y,z, and at another second, it will occupy another set of three dimensions.

Were I to draw a one dimensional line, a two dimensional piece of paper, a three dimensional computer model or a four dimensional video, I have created a closed system. In simple terms, if I create a function with two, three, four, five, etc variables that could be plotted in many different dimensions or ways, it has no relationship to me or where I am in my time.

From Socratic philosophers to the Neo-Scholastics, God was considered to be outside of time since anything in the divine realm would not be in relationship to the created. If I create a function like f(x) = 3x + y, then it doesn't matter where I am or what year I am. That function is a closed system which has no relationship to me, the creator.

This is a very simple example to explain the relationship between something which is infinitely knowable (God) and everything that exists. Finally, some philosophers would argue that one cannot say that God exists, since existence is a character of the created, which cannot apply to God. Hegel would say that the very question of the existence of God is nonsensical.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

When I was a Christian, I posited that God had his own time reference. This, of course, can be only pure speculation in the absense of physics. Positing also that God created ex Deo rather than ex nihilo, I allowed that we inherited some properties from God.

As such, God has time even if it is different and perhaps mutated from him to the universe. This would allow God to act mostly independently of our time if not completely.

Well, in any case, I recognized that it was problem. A god without time is a static and certainly not a person.

That is exactly what philosophers held. If God is perfect, then God cannot change and thus, the divine is static.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

But the moment he did create, the concept of time can be applied to that moment; correct?

K

No, because that would be putting the divine in relationship to the created.

Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote:
"I answer that, It is manifest that time and eternity are not the same. Some have founded this difference on the fact that eternity has neither beginning nor an end; whereas time has a beginning and an end. This, however, makes a merely accidental, and not an absolute difference because, granted that time always was and always will be, according to the idea of those who think the movement of the heavens goes on for ever, there would yet remain a difference between eternity and time, as Boethius says (De Consol. v), arising from the fact that eternity is simultaneously whole; which cannot be applied to time: for eternity is the measure of a permanent being; while time is a measure of movement. Supposing, however, that the aforesaid difference be considered on the part of the things measured, and not as regards the measures, then there is some reason for it, inasmuch as that alone is measured by time which has beginning and end in time. Hence, if the movement of the heavens lasted always, time would not be of its measure as regards the whole of its duration, since the infinite is not measurable; but it would be the measure of that part of its revolution which has beginning and end in time.

Another reason for the same can be taken from these measures in themselves, if we consider the end and the beginning as potentialities; because, granted also that time always goes on, yet it is possible to note in time both the beginning and the end, by considering its parts: thus we speak of the beginning and the end of a day or of a year; which cannot be applied to eternity. Still these differences follow upon the essential and primary differences, that eternity is simultaneously whole, but that time is not so." ( S.T. I, Q10, A4)

 

[drich0150]

(reply) Eternity IS time! The past, present, future, eternity, infinity, these are all references to time.

(reply) so is it you position that time only exists because there are humans here to recognize it? That if all humans were gone and only animals and insects lived on Earth, that time would no longer exist because there would be no one here to recognize it?
If that’s your position I understand what you are saying even though I disagree with it. I believe time exists even if there were nobody here to give it a name.

Ok One last effort.
Time is only a finite measure of eternity. Time ceases to exist when our measures to meter it fail. days weeks months years. In the course of eternity these things will eventually cease to exist given enough "time." What is left is the immeasurable. Because there is nothing to measure it by. That boundless span is eternity.

Time is only a small measured portion of eternity.

 

[elopez]

I believe time is a system used to measure one moment to the next. I believe time is eternal because the system is based upon numbers and numbers are eternal.

I don't really find any justification in this explanation. Sure you can say time is a system to measure moments and this system is based on numbers and numbers eternal, but again how do you reconcile this with the evidence that points contrary to this concept of time? I'll take the route Craig does here on metaphysics.

If you say numbers are infinite (something I am not really arguing against) and correlate them with time to conclude time is infinite there are two solid grounds for rejecting this. I'll explain the first. The first reason is that an infinite set of events or moments of past events or moments is impossible on account that there cannot exist an infinite set of objects that could be instantiated in reality.

you keep saying time has an origin but you aren’t explaining why it has to have an origin. Let me put it this way; suppose you were at a place where time didn’t exist, how would this place be any different than where you are right not? Your heart would still beat 70-80 times per minute, your watch would still work right? So how would a timeless place be any different than right now?

Well right now, as in this temporal existence I eventually experience change. My heart would not always beat the same 70-80 times per minute but would vary at some point. My watch would still tick and the moments would still pass. Now if we are talking about me existing in an atemporal state which would be impossible anyway, my heart would probably not even beat and my watch would most definitely not move because there would be no time to measure by. That is the difference.

 

[Ken-1122]

Time is a real thing. You can create a three dimensional function to to find that at X value and Y value, there is some Z value. Time is a fourth value in what we conceive as a three dimensional universe. If I pick up a ball and throw it, at one second it will occupy points x,y,z, and at another second, it will occupy another set of three dimensions.

Were I to draw a one dimensional line, a two dimensional piece of paper, a three dimensional computer model or a four dimensional video, I have created a closed system. In simple terms, if I create a function with two, three, four, five, etc variables that could be plotted in many different dimensions or ways, it has no relationship to me or where I am in my time.

From Socratic philosophers to the Neo-Scholastics, God was considered to be outside of time since anything in the divine realm would not be in relationship to the created. If I create a function like f(x) = 3x + y, then it doesn't matter where I am or what year I am. That function is a closed system which has no relationship to me, the creator.

This is a very simple example to explain the relationship between something which is infinitely knowable (God) and everything that exists. Finally, some philosophers would argue that one cannot say that God exists, since existence is a character of the created, which cannot apply to God. Hegel would say that the very question of the existence of God is nonsensical.

So let me ask you; if you were at a place where time didn't exist, how would this place be different than where you are right now? Will your heart still beat? will your watch still work? how would things be different?

 

[Ken-1122]

Spiritual Antiseptic
(quote) “Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote:"I answer that, It is manifest that time and eternity are not the same. Some have founded this difference on the fact that eternity has neither beginning nor an end; whereas time has a beginning and an end.”

(reply) Really! So what moment marked the beginning of time?

(quote) “there would yet remain a difference between eternity and time, as Boethius says (De Consol. v), arising from the fact that eternity is simultaneously whole; which cannot be applied to time:”

(reply) what does it mean to be “simultaneously whole” and why can’t that be applied to time?

(quote) “for eternity is the measure of a permanent being; while time is a measure of movement.”

(reply) and why can’t time measure the movement of this permanent being?

K

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok One last effort.
Time is only a finite measure of eternity. Time ceases to exist when our measures to meter it fail. days weeks months years. In the course of eternity these things will eventually cease to exist given enough "time."

Why must days, weeks, months, and years cease to exist? Remember they are based upon numbers and numbers never end; so why must years?

K

 

[Ken-1122]

Elopez
(quote) “If you say numbers are infinite (something I am not really arguing against) and correlate them with time to conclude time is infinite there are two solid grounds for rejecting this. I'll explain the first. The first reason is that an infinite set of events or moments of past events or moments is impossible on account that there cannot exist an infinite set of objects that could be instantiated in reality.”

(reply) That isn’t necessary! The only thing is necessary is for this infinite being to function for eternity. The only way I can see time as not existing is if nothing existed.

(quote) “Well right now, as in this temporal existence I eventually experience change. My heart would not always beat the same 70-80 times per minute but would vary at some point. My watch would still tick and the moments would still pass. Now if we are talking about me existing in an atemporal state which would be impossible anyway, my heart would probably not even beat and my watch would most definitely not move because there would be no time to measure by. That is the difference.

(reply) so are you saying to be in a place where time does not exist you would be frozen in time unable to move; sorta like a video recording that is put on pause?

Ken

 

[elopez]

That isn’t necessary! The only thing is necessary is for this infinite being to function for eternity. The only way I can see time as not existing is if nothing existed.

What isn't necessary? My point is that time cannot be infinite. It is quite literally impossible for the reason just explained and to which you gave no response.

so are you saying to be in a place where time does not exist you would be frozen in time unable to move; sorta like a video recording that is put on pause?

Ken

Okay, in an atemporal state there would be no time at all, so I would not be frozen in time in a place where time would not exist. However yes, it would be an unchangeable state of affairs.

 

[drich0150]

Why must days, weeks, months, and years cease to exist? Remember they are based upon numbers and numbers never end; so why must years?

K

Without a sun how do you suggest we keep track? Remember we are not talking about a few thousand more years. At some point in eternity doesn't science say our sun will die?
What happens when the corner stone of "time" ceases? Then time can no longer be measured. So what is left besides eternity?