God exists outside of time?

[ElijahW]

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.

What change did God go through when the universe was created?

Regardless if your view of time is a measurement of change or like a dimension in space; there was no time for God to exist before the beginning of the universe. You can't say God changed from point A to point B if point A doesn't exist.

 

[Insane_Duck]

What change did God go through when the universe was created?

Regardless if your view of time is a measurement of change or like a dimension in space; there was no time for God to exist before the beginning of the universe. You can't say God changed from point A to point B if point A doesn't exist.

While this is the Christian rhetoric, it simply doesn't work with many views of time. Time (in the above view) isn't a "state" or a "thing" you can be in or out of. If you change in anyway, you would then be part of time.

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.

^ Like the above statement, this would be the change. You say that point A doesn't exist, but that would mean that God would create the Universe immediately as soon as he came into existence, meaning the universe would have to be created an infinitely long time ago. Your claims about God just aren't logically coherent in some of the differing views on time.

 

[ElijahW]

While this is the Christian rhetoric, it simply doesn't work with many views of time. Time (in the above view) isn't a "state" or a "thing" you can be in or out of. If you change in anyway, you would then be part of time.

It works with the main two I know of. Maybe you have an understanding of time you would like to share but that it is a measurement of change or it is like a dimension in space are the prevailing two opinions.

Could you please explain why you think God changed? What changed exactly?

^ Like the above statement, this would be the change. You say that point A doesn't exist, but that would mean that God would create the Universe immediately as soon as he came into existence, meaning the universe would have to be created an infinitely long time ago. Your claims about God just aren't logically coherent in some of the differing views on time.

How could time pass between when there is God and before the universe is created?

I didn’t understand the universe being created an infinitely long time ago bit. The concept of God is pushed because the idea of an infinitely long time ago is logically impossible.

 

[Devo49]

I just got deleted from a thread because the rules only allow one atheist per thread! How come there's so many non-believers on this one?

 

[SithDoughnut]

I just got deleted from a thread because the rules only allow one atheist per thread! How come there's so many non-believers on this one?

Were you posting in Exploring Christianity by any chance? The only non-Christian per thread only applies in certain forums.

 

[elopez]

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

Yeah I watched that too. I guess they think he has a spectacular voice. At any rate, I believe time as having a beginning, that is, finite in the past. Yes scieticts are divided on the nature of time but I would say most accept that time had a beginning and is not eternal.

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.

This assumes that God can only interact in the created world through direct contact, yet this is not the case. There are multiple ways that God is able to communicate and interact with mankind without actually directly intervening Himself. God could therefore remain timeless while these various agents facilitate on God's behalf.

If time is some absolute mysterious standard that just is, then God could exist (theoretical) outside of it.

I wouldn't define time as that as I cannot make sense of what it even means.

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

Hmm. I would think if all the objects in the universe were stopped and did not change it would definitely be an indication that time has 'ceased.' As change requires time and as something would not change or be immutable, it would be timeless.

 

[quatona]

Yeah but that is your personal issue.

No. If you don´t understand what I mean by A, and if someone explained it as being B (which you either don´t understand), and then would explain B as A there would be no progress in your understanding, either.

The reality of how words are used is that they define each other, often in a circular fashion.

Words don´t do anything. You are the one who defines them.

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).

I´m not surprised to find it there (among others). In the given case, it was the only explanation given, though.

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?

An ongoing, continuous change, of course.

 

[3sigma]

No, there is reasoning behind it.

I’m sure there is reasoning behind your beliefs, but is that reasoning sound?

If the universe had a beginning (God) and if that beginning was still active it would have to be because it is constant.

Both those “ifs” are unproven. Your argument isn’t sound unless its premises are true. You need to prove that the Christian God created the universe and that it is still active. If you can’t then this isn’t sound reasoning.

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.

So you think it is irrational and conceptually impossible for the universe to be eternal, but I’m guessing you don’t think it is irrational or conceptually impossible for the Christian God to be eternal despite there being a complete lack of sound evidence to support that belief. That isn’t sound reasoning at all.

 

[ElijahW]

Words don´t do anything. You are the one who defines them.

No I don't. Their use defines them. The most common of which are recorded in a dictionary.

I´m not surprised to find it there (among others). In the given case, it was the only explanation given, though.

Were you hoping for a different definition? Maybe you should tell me which definition of these words you think we should use since you didn't like the ones I provided from the dictionary.

An ongoing, continuous change, of course.

What kind of change? Please explain what changes you think God is going through and why.

 

[ElijahW]

I’m sure there is reasoning behind your beliefs, but is that reasoning sound?

Feel free to point out where you think it isn’t sound.

Both those “ifs” are unproven. Your argument isn’t sound unless its premises are true. You need to prove that the Christian God created the universe and that it is still active. If you can’t then this isn’t sound reasoning.

The other possibility to the “ifs” can’t be proven either. It’s just about what is the most reasonable position, not where there is proof. Can you explain your position reasonably or is the limit to this discussion going to be I need to offer you proof or you are right and I’m wrong? Without you ever explaining your position?

Why do you say “Christian” God? Do you believe in God rationally but have a problem with what you consider the Christian understanding of God?

So you think it is irrational and conceptually impossible for the universe to be eternal, but I’m guessing you don’t think it is irrational or conceptually impossible for the Christian God to be eternal despite there being a complete lack of sound evidence to support that belief. That isn’t sound reasoning at all.

Poor guess. To clarify the problem isn't being "eternal" in that it won't last forever... it's stretching back infinitely into the past that is the problem.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

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.

I would say that the universe exists outside of time. And if not the universe, the world certainly does. Now if someone were to add a God to the picture, it would not be any different for that entity too. God and the universe/rest of the world would exist outside of time, and therefore not have any temporal relationship to each other. If anything, the relation would be one of contigency, i.e. the universe/world would be contigent upon God.

The problem only start if, for whatever reason, you bring up stuff like "the universe began to exist" or some such.

 

[Xenocide]

MOYERS: In classic Christian doctrine the material world is to be despised, and life is to be redeemed in the hereafter, in heaven, where our rewards come. But you say that if you affirm that which you deplore, you are affirming the very world which is our eternity at the moment.

CAMPBELL: Yes, that is what I’m saying, Eternity isn’t some later time. Eternity isn’t even a long time. Eternity has nothing to do with time. Eternity is that dimension of here and now that all thinking in temporal terms cuts off. And if you don’t get it here, you won’t get it anywhere. The problem with heaven is that you will be having such a good time there, you won’t even think of eternity. You’ll just have this unending delight in the beatific vision of God. But the experience of eternity right here and now, in all things, whether thought of as good or as evil, is the function of life.

 

[Xenocide]

Extracts from The Power of Myth

 

[freezerman2000]

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

The system we came up with is a measurement OF time..not the other way around..Time has been in existence since the beginning of everything, ie, the relationship between time, space and movement-E=mc square.

 

[Ken-1122]

Like an image on a paused video recorder would be the closer example. There is nowhere for God to move to, we move within God. There is no other function for God to do other than the function God did from the start.

(reply) So how do you explain Exodus 33:22-23

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Insane Duck
(quote) "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?
　
(reply) I believe time is a system humans came up with to measure one moment to the next. As far as stopping all the objects in the Universe, let's narrow it down a little. Supposed you stopped all objects in a room! Would that stop time in that room? OF COURSE NOT!!! Getting rid of movement doesn't get rid of time.
　
Lord Emsworth
(quote) "I would say that the universe exists outside of time. And if not the universe, the world certainly does. Now if someone were to add a God to the picture, it would not be any different for that entity too. God and the universe/rest of the world would exist outside of time, "
　
(reply) How did you come to that conclusion? And how are you defining the universe? I define the Universe as "all that exists" so how can you claim the concept of time can't be applied to all that exists? Please explain.
　
Freezerman2000
(quote) "The system we came up with is a measurement OF time..not the other way around..Time has been in existence since the beginning of everything, ie, the relationship between time, space and movement-E=mc square."
　
(reply) I agree! That's why when people say their God exists outside of time or before time, it makes no sense.

Ken

 

[ElijahW]

(reply) So how do you explain Exodus 33:22-23

Ken

I would go with something like this. I certainly wouldn’t take it literal and assume it means God changes (unsure of your point) or has a face, back and speaks like a man.

"Thou shalt see my back parts, but my face thou shalt not” and the meaning of this is, that all the things which are behind God are within the comprehension of a virtuous man, but he himself alone is incomprehensible; and he is incomprehensible by any direct and immediate access (for by such means it is only explained what kind of being he is), but he may be understood in his subsequent and consistent faculties; for they, by means of the works accomplished by them, declare not his essence, but his existence.” Philo, On Prosperity of Cain​

 

[Ken-1122]

I would go with something like this. I certainly wouldn’t take it literal and assume it means God changes (unsure of your point) or has a face, back and speaks like a man.

"Thou shalt see my back parts, but my face thou shalt not” and the meaning of this is, that all the things which are behind God are within the comprehension of a virtuous man, but he himself alone is incomprehensible; and he is incomprehensible by any direct and immediate access (for by such means it is only explained what kind of being he is), but he may be understood in his subsequent and consistent faculties; for they, by means of the works accomplished by them, declare not his essence, but his existence.” Philo, On Prosperity of Cain
​

So you dont believe God made man in his own image as the bible says? You don't believe God spoke to Moses as the bible says?
Are you Christian who worships the God of the Bible? Or do you worship some other God.

K

 

[ElijahW]

So you dont believe God made man in his own image as the bible says? You don't believe God spoke to Moses as the bible says?
Are you Christian who worships the God of the Bible? Or do you worship some other God.

K

Christian God. Just not an understanding based on taking allegorical writings literally. That is for the uneducated and the opposition.

Philo on being made in his image:

So then after all the other things, as has been said before, Moses says that man was made in the image and likeness of God. And he says well; for nothing that is born on the earth is more resembling God than man. And let no one think that he is able to judge of this likeness from the characters of the body: for neither is God a being with the form of a man, nor is the human body like the form of God; but the resemblance is spoken of with reference to the most important part of the soul, namely, the mind: " Philo, On creation​

Origen on God speaking:

”We read in many passages of the divine scripture that God speaks to men. For this reason the Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions. Because of this it seems to be that I must first discuss these few matters and then come to those words which have been read.

First therefore, let my word be to those outside the Church who arrogantly clamor around us, saying that it is not appropriate for the most exalted and invisible and incorporeal god to experience human affections. For if, they say, you give him the experience of speaking, you will, doubtlessly, give him also a mouth and a tongue and the other members with which the function of speaking is performed. But if this be so, one has departed from the invisible and incorporeal God.” Genesis Homily 3, Origen​

 

[quatona]

No I don't. Their use defines them.

Yes, your use of a word defines what you mean by it.

The most common of which are recorded in a dictionary.

Undisputed - doesn´t solve the problem, though.

Were you hoping for a different definition? Maybe you should tell me which definition of these words you think we should use since you didn't like the ones I provided from the dictionary.

Any definition that´s not tautological will do.

What kind of change? Please explain what changes you think God is going through and why.

Depends on the changes his acts are supposed to cause. God changes along with those changes - from not having caused those changes to having caused those changes.
Unless, of course, you think that creation is not causing any change.