God isn't in "time"

[Tynan]

As for the objection that Christians are only coming up with arguments to validate their belief, I'd say that this is probably true, but not a problem. If arguments are coming from the quarter of scientific language, then that is the language with which Christianity must speak to defend itself.

?

And yet 'Outside of time' has no scientific merit, no reference, no definition, it is merely an abstract to aid the support of supernatural beliefs.

 

[Emre1974tr]

Hey,İ am a Muslim and i started this topic with light of Quran.

But my english is not very good. So i can't speaking very deep in English about this mind.

İ can speak Turkish good about these things.

Regards.

 

[Asimov]

This is inaccurate- action is only understood through the properties of the universe, but that does not mean that God cannot act, as we perceive it.

Then you are completely changing the idea of action, making it meaningless.

It does if you are talking about creating things that previously did not exist in any material form. I think a lot of people would challenge your definition of time anyway.

What does that have to do with time? Anything that acts is within the constrains of temporality. What does that mean? That they act.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Then you are completely changing the idea of action, making it meaningless.

How so? Things still occur. If, for God, the notion of doing things is different, how does that make action meaningless? Or even, as far as we are concerned, any different?

 

[Asimov]

How so? Things still occur. If, for God, the notion of doing things is different, how does that make action meaningless? Or even, as far as we are concerned, any different?

An action has a beginning middle and an end. Those are concepts of time.

If there is no time, you can't have a beginning, middle or end.

By saying that God can do actions that have a beginning, middle and end yet not be in time is incoherent.

He would be in a perpetual state of doing nothing, because you can't start something without time.

 

[Emre1974tr]

God doing anything in anything time spot.

past................now................future

God in all time spots and in forever spots, God can do anything.

 

[Asimov]

God doing anything in anything time spot.

past................now................future

God in all time spots and in forever spots, God can do anything.

I'm having trouble understanding anything you say.

 

[DailyBlessings]

An action has a beginning middle and an end. Those are concepts of time.

Yes, and thus they apply perfectly to a universe which is constrained by time.

If there is no time, you can't have a beginning, middle or end.

No one is arguing that time does not exist, but rather that God is unbound by it.

By saying that God can do actions that have a beginning, middle and end yet not be in time is incoherent.

Why? He doesn't have to perform actions in that way, and probably does not perceive action and change in the same sense that we do, but that hardly implies that She couldn't. Those actions which we describe are performed in the context of the universe, in which things do tend to have beginnings, middles, and ends. So would God's actions in the universe.

He would be in a perpetual state of doing nothing, because you can't start something without time.

I don't really understand how your statement follows from the premise. Even accepting your limited portrayal of God, which paints him as being every bit a slave to his circumstances as a human might be in the same, I don't think your conclusion is required. Why can't, for instance, God be "trapped" in a perpetual state of doing something, rather than nothing?

 

[Tynan]

[time]God is unbound by it.

What does this mean ?

What does it mean that an agent is unbound by time ?

Those actions which we describe are performed in the context of the universe, in which things do tend to have beginnings, middles, and ends. So would God's actions in the universe.

And prior to the creation of the universe, before god created matter and light and time how did he action his motives ?

There was no temporal nature to existence, no future, no past, how did he execute the process of design ?

Prior to god's creation of time, how did he advance to the point where he began creation ?, how did he execute creation at all, even the creation of time needs a frame of reference larger than zero.

It is sheer nonsensical language.

Of course if we are to be honest the context of the conversation is nothing more that an abstract absurdity, the pivotal point in this conversation is not what god can and cannot do 'inside' and 'outside of time' - it is that those who wish to support the idea of a supernatural need to employ such plainly nonsensical conceits.

Using the tools and logical trickery many Christians employ to explain the whimsical ideas they hold as inerrant fact can be employed to conjure up absolutely anything.

What does 'outside of time' mean ?

What does 'unbounded by time' mean ?

 

[DailyBlessings]

What does this mean ?

What does it mean that an agent is unbound by time ?

We proceed through time in one direction, at one speed, and have little say in the matter. This is not true of the omnipresent God, to whom the linear nature of time has little meaning.

And prior to the creation of the universe, before god created matter and light and time how did he action his motives ?

There is no "prior" to the creation of the universe, time and all of its related concepts are part of the universe.

There was no temporal nature to existence, no future, no past, how did he execute the process of design ?

I have no idea. However, the universe clearly exists at present.

Prior to god's creation of time, how did he advance to the point where he began creation ?, how did he execute creation at all, even the creation of time needs a frame of reference larger than zero.

To the former, I reiterate that time-related concepts have no meaning in a discussion of that which is not the universe. To the latter, I don't know that either, though personally I view the creation as an ongoing process, not something that had an endpoint some time in the past.

It is sheer nonsensical language.

I'd be willing to concede this (the debate is starting to feel rather pointless to me) but realize that your own arguments are no more sensical.

Of course if we are to be honest the context of the conversation is nothing more that an abstract absurdity, the pivotal point in this conversation is not what god can and cannot do 'inside' and 'outside of time' - it is that those who wish to support the idea of a supernatural need to employ such plainly nonsensical conceits.

This I don't agree with. I don't believe in God because of some silly semantic debate- I play the game only because you seem to think that semantics can disprove the existence of God, and this is not the case.

Using the tools and logical trickery many Christians employ to explain the whimsical ideas they hold as inerrant fact can be employed to conjure up absolutely anything.

Would you be saying this about any theory you disagree with? Since when is it unusual for someone to defend what they believe to be true? If I come up with some clever new argument against the death penalty, is it "trickery" for you to produce a counterargument in favor of it? I mean, if we were talking about actual data that would be different, but this is all just word games. Frankly I severely doubt that any of us truly understand time, its nature, or its implications, any more than Newton understood quantum physics.

What does 'outside of time' mean ?

What does 'unbounded by time' mean ?

Semantics. I explained the latter, as I meant it. And upon later reflection, I think that "outside of time" is probably a poor metaphor, with its misleading spatial implications.

 

[Tynan]

We proceed through time in one direction, at one speed,

Time has no speed, for something to have the attribute of speed it would need a reference.

It has none.

Would you know if this mysterious property of time you call 'speed', slowed down or sped up ?

Or if we suddenly rushed through time at twice the 'speed' we are 'travelling through time' now would you notice - how could you tell ?

Maybe you can tell me time's current 'speed' ? - is it one minute per minute perhaps ?

And the direction ? Is that 'forward" ? Would you know if it started to travel backwards tomorrow ?

This 'one direction / one speed' of time is a profoundly parochial understanding.

...and have little say in the matter. This is not true of the omnipresent God, to whom the linear nature of time has little meaning.

'Linear' suggests a constant, a constant we have no bench mark to validate it consistency against, there is nothing to show time is linear.

There is no "prior" to the creation of the universe, time and all of its related concepts are part of the universe.

We have at least established the intellectual notion that eternal is logically sensical, indeed it is attributed to god - so we know entities can be eternal and we know the universe has no period prior to its creation - so the universe is eternal.

So then the universe is eternal and if it is eternal then it was not created.

Tynan: There was no temporal nature to existence, no future, no past, how did he execute the process of design ?

I have no idea. However, the universe clearly exists at present.

We are not discussing whether the universe exists, that is something we can both agree on, we are discussing how it could be created without time.

The question remains how, without a temporal dimension, can temporal actions be acted ?

If you say you have no idea then how can you be inerrant in your beliefs that god did create ?

Tynan: It is sheer nonsensical language.

I'd be willing to concede this (the debate is starting to feel rather pointless to me) but realize that your own arguments are no more sensical

No Daily Blessings, my arguments are sound, feel free to question me on any of my arguments, I have the advantage of not having to conform my thoughts to a pre-decided immovable set of ideas to which I must conform all future knowledge, this means I am free to be right.

Tynan: Of course if we are to be honest the context of the conversation is nothing more that an abstract absurdity, the pivotal point in this conversation is not what god can and cannot do 'inside' and 'outside of time' - it is that those who wish to support the idea of a supernatural need to employ such plainly nonsensical conceits.

This I don't agree with. I don't believe in God because of some silly semantic debate

I said 'support' not 'believe' - I am saying you need to employ such plainly nonsensical conceits to support your beliefs.

I do not believe you think god is a real object because of language, that is an entirely different conversation, I just think that to defend your beliefs and all their absurd baggage you are compelled to fall back onto magical language that on even the most cursory inspection can be shown to be meaningless.

For example if I had to defend the 16,000,000 'magic blue time horses' that live in France, people may ask why they have not been sighted, I may have to employ the idea that they are invisible, when asked why nobody has knocked in to one as there are so many, I then might have to employ the idea that when you almost touch them they go back in time to 5 minutes prior when you did not try and touch them.

Horses going back in time is no less meaningless than a diety existing outside of time, in fact with the horses at least we know horses exist.

I play the game only because you seem to think that semantics can disprove the existence of God, and this is not the case.

I have made no attempt to disprove the existence of God.

Why not check each of my 678 posts here on CF and see if I have ever sought to disprove god in any manner whatsoever - the cognition which informs you that I "seem to think that semantics can disprove the existence of God" is mistaken, the same cognition that tells you with such inerrancy of gods and demons, inside and 'outside of time' and other such fanciful flights of the imagination.

The subject here is the nonsense of ideas such as 'outside of time', I am not here to disprove invisible, incorporeal, undetectable, silent objects that don't exist in time !

Since when is it unusual for someone to defend what they believe to be true?

It is not unusual at all, it is commonplace, I have made no claim that your defense of your supernatural beliefs is 'unusual'.

I have made the claim that you defend it with nonsensical and abstract language devoid of any real meaning, I also make the further claim that the nature of these religious thought patterns forces you to jump through increasingly convoluted hoops in order to hold together a rational conversation on the subject.

The magic in the bible is a stricture to rational conversation and to even hold your own you must rely on entirely vacuous notions.

If I come up with some clever new argument against the death penalty, is it "trickery" for you to produce a counterargument in favor of it?

The trickery is not in the engagement in discourse but the tools employed.

Namely 'outside of time'.

I mean, if we were talking about actual data that would be different, but this is all just word games. Frankly I severely doubt that any of us truly understand time, its nature, or its implications, any more than Newton understood quantum physics.

And yet you can say with certainty that god exists 'outside of time' this god can create time, he can action temporal acts without a temporal reference frame, and that we proceed through time in one direction and at one speed, you can say all this, you can guarantee its inerrancy and then add that you don't truly understand time ?

 

[JGL53]

1. God isn't in time, assuming he exists.
2. Humans are in time.
3. God is therefore irrelevant to humans, assuming he exists.

Irrelevance is existentially equivalent to non-existence.

Q.E.D.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Time has no speed, for something to have the attribute of speed it would need a reference.

I agree with you, though not for the same reason. Speed is the rate of motion, or equivalently the rate of change of position, many times expressed as distance d moved per unit of time t. It doesn't need a reference, but it does need to physically move through space. Although time is often referred to as having a "speed" or "flowing" in colloquial speech, and this was how I intended my statement, it does not exhibit the technical physical property of speed. (In fact, if all you need is a reference, then time does have a speed. Plenty of references occur between one moment and another. Immanuel Kant thought that all time was merely a measuring system used by the brain in an attempt to piece together reference frames.)

Would you know if this mysterious property of time you call 'speed', slowed down or sped up ?

Actually, time does differ from place to place. An extreme example would be in the vicinity of a black hole. An observer tumbling into one would experience the event at a "normal" pace, where to an outside observer it would seem to take an extremely long period of time. In fact, given the curved nature of space-time, the "speed" of time is not a constant between any two given locations in the universe.

Or if we suddenly rushed through time at twice the 'speed' we are 'travelling through time' now would you notice - how could you tell ?

If, as in the previous example, one had another observer placed in an area where time had the original "speed" one could infer by the differences in their perceptions, or better yet their pocketwatches, that time had affected them differently.

Maybe you can tell me time's current 'speed' ? - is it one minute per minute perhaps ?

That's a silly way of talking about it. I suspect this is your point. But we can only talk about time relatively, not absolutely.

And the direction ? Is that 'forward" ? Would you know if it started to travel backwards tomorrow ?

Probably not. Sequence of events would reverse, but then I assume my perception and thought processes would as well.

This 'one direction / one speed' of time is a profoundly parochial understanding.

Not mine, really. However, time does affect people at a certain rate, depending. Direction is irrelevant in a literal sense, but not in the relational sense. Time might, as you suggested, "reverse" without our noticing, but in no circumstances would an event suddenly begin with an effect and end with a cause.

'Linear' suggests a constant, a constant we have no bench mark to validate it consistency against.

There is no constant, but there is a certain order of occurence, and one which was used to structure the argument we've been feeding off of. I retract my statements concerning speed and direction, as linguistic oversimplifications of a complicated concept, but the concept is not wholly devoid of meaning, just too simple to be wholly accurate.

We have at least established the intellectual notion that eternal is logically sensical, indeed it is attributed to god - so we know entities can be eternal and we know the universe has no period prior to its creation - so the universe is eternal.

How does that follow? Eternal things can exist, therefore the universe is eternal? Why does the universe need something to proceed it? If that something existed, it too would be part of the universe by definition.

The question remains how, without a temporal dimension, can temporal actions be acted ?

The creation of the universe need not be a temporal event. Temporality is part of the universe.

If you say you have no idea then how can you be inerrant in your beliefs that god did create ?

I never claimed to be inerrant about anything... Nor would I. Nor would I ever compel someone to accept my conclusions on a subject, for any reason except the genuine value of my arguments.

No Daily Blessings, my arguments are sound, feel free to question me on any of my arguments, I have the advantage of not having to conform my thoughts to a pre-decided immovable set of ideas to which I must conform all future knowledge, this means I am free to be right.

I am questioning your arguments, and you are accusing me personally of charlatanry and "vacuous notions".

Daily blessings, let us stick to the subject at hand, your missuse of language to defend a position.

The subject at hand, I believe, is the relationship between God and time. Not the personal characteristics of those involved in the discussion. We are not here to discuss me. Or you. And that's the last I'll say on the matter.

 

[DailyBlessings]

1. God isn't in time, assuming he exists.

Why not?

2. Humans are in time.

'k

3. God is therefore irrelevant to humans, assuming he exists.

Why?

Irrelevance is existentially equivalent to non-existence.

Untrue. My existence may be irrelevant to the experience of a Mongolian sheep herder, but neither one of us are non-existent. Especially if I decide to travel to Mongolia.

 

[Asimov]

Yes, and thus they apply perfectly to a universe which is constrained by time.

No, we're not talking about a universe constrained by time. We're talking about anything that does something.

No one is arguing that time does not exist, but rather that God is unbound by it.

Which means that he cannot act.

Why? He doesn't have to perform actions in that way, and probably does not perceive action and change in the same sense that we do, but that hardly implies that She couldn't. Those actions which we describe are performed in the context of the universe, in which things do tend to have beginnings, middles, and ends. So would God's actions in the universe.

Action is defined as an event, an event occurs in time. All events occur within a context of time. God creating something was an event, therefore it occured in time.

Simple logic.

God could be transcendant to the Universe, and he would still be a subject of temporality. Explain why you have trouble with this, and why it's unacceptable that God is temporal.

I don't really understand how your statement follows from the premise. Even accepting your limited portrayal of God, which paints him as being every bit a slave to his circumstances as a human might be in the same, I don't think your conclusion is required. Why can't, for instance, God be "trapped" in a perpetual state of doing something, rather than nothing?

Because doing something implies time. You can't do anything without a measure between events.

How is it a limited portrayal? How does it paint him as beinga slave to his circumstances?

You're making all these assertions and you so far haven't really backed up much logically or evidentially.

 

[DailyBlessings]

No, we're not talking about a universe constrained by time. We're talking about anything that does something.

You just said that your terms were "concepts of time." I agree. If not everything is constrained by time, then your terms, which are concepts of time, are not the only way to talk about things happening.

Which means that he cannot act.

Why?

Action is defined as an event, an event occurs in time. All events occur within a context of time. God creating something was an event, therefore it occured in time.

Time is what was being created. Creating a universe is not the same thing as creating a batch of eggs, nor is it subject to the same "rules."

Explain why you have trouble with this, and why it's unacceptable that God is temporal.

I don't. God is temporal. Temporality is not the sole descriptor of his nature, however, and neither time nor sequence constrain God. It is you, in demanding that God is unable to take actions, that would place her entirely outside the realm of time.

Because doing something implies time. You can't do anything without a measure between events.

Well, the temporal distance between God's actions can be measured from our perspective. It's been, for instance, 1 974 years since Christ walked our world. But this fact has more meaning to us than it would to God.

How is it a limited portrayal? How does it paint him as being a slave to his circumstances?

Well, if I existed outside of time, I might well be "trapped" there. But I am not an omnipotent being, nor did I create time and the universe to begin with. If God can create time, he can probably also do whatever he wants with it.

You're making all these assertions and you so far haven't really backed up much logically or evidentially.

*shrug* It's not that kind of argument. Your arguments aren't backed up evidentially either- you've only made an appeal to logic, which doesn't sound at all logical to me, and is therefore useless.

I think the debate is mostly pointless, if interesting.

 

[Asimov]

You just said that your terms were "concepts of time." I agree. If not everything is constrained by time, then your terms, which are concepts of time, are not the only way to talk about things happening.

Yes they are, anything that isn't "constrained" by time doesn't act.

Why?

Because actions occur within time.

Time is what was being created. Creating a universe is not the same thing as creating a batch of eggs, nor is it subject to the same "rules."I don't. God is temporal. Temporality is not the sole descriptor of his nature, however, and neither time nor sequence constrain God. It is you, in demanding that God is unable to take actions, that would place her entirely outside the realm of time.

Time is never created, it is just the measurement between two events. Temporality pertains to time.

Well, the temporal distance between God's actions can be measured from our perspective. It's been, for instance, 1 974 years since Christ walked our world. But this fact has more meaning to us than it would to God.

So? That doesn't mean that God isn't bound by time.

Well, if I existed outside of time, I might well be "trapped" there. But I am not an omnipotent being, nor did I create time and the universe to begin with. If God can create time, he can probably also do whatever he wants with it.

You can't create the measure between two events, it's a concept, nothing more.

*shrug* It's not that kind of argument. Your arguments aren't backed up evidentially either- you've only made an appeal to logic, which doesn't sound at all logical to me, and is therefore useless.

Logic isn't subjective, so just because you don't like the logic doesn't mean it's useless.

You're just being obtuse.

I think the debate is mostly pointless, if interesting.

It is pointless, you're wrong.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Because actions occur within time.

Do you consider time to be an autonomously existent struture/dimension or not? In the next paragraph you insist that time is merely a cognitive construct, "never created, it is just the measurement between two events". This is a fine and valid opinion, but if that is the case saying that God is "in" or "out" of it is a meaningless phrase. Moreover, there's really no reason why God would be shackled and unable to act simply because he does not fit into an existing cognitive precept.

Logic isn't subjective, so just because you don't like the logic doesn't mean it's useless.

I'm not complaining about the use of logic to solve problems- I can and will complain about the use of bad logic. Logic simply does not imply the nonsensical stance that you seem to be taking. At least, you've so far given me no reason to believe that it does.

 

[Tynan]

I agree with you, though not for the same reason. Speed is the rate of motion, or equivalently the rate of change of position, many times expressed as distance d moved per unit of time t.

Yes, this is the commonly understood explanation of speed, the rate of motion.

It doesn't need a reference, but it does need to physically move through space.

I am not sure I am following you here ?

Are you saying that time 'needs' to 'physically move through space' ?

(In fact, if all you need is a reference, then time does have a speed. Plenty of references occur between one moment and another.)

Are you seriously suggesting time's reference frame is itself ?

You can judge the speed of time by measuring time (the temporal space between one moment and another) ?



Good grief !

Do you know that a meter is measured by the distance travelled by light in absolute vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second - or historically - 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the equator to the north pole through Paris.

It is a pity you were not around when all those scientists were wasting their time deciding on the reference frame for a meter - you could have simply told them that "plenty of references already occur between one centimeter and the next" - or maybe just divide 10 meters in to 10 and that will give you a meter.

I see little point in this conversation, it is apparent that one of two things are happening.

Either your understanding of the concept of time is overly simple and you genuinely do not understand that time has no speed, no reference frame, no 'outside' and so on - or you do understand what we are taking about but choose equivocation because of the need your supernatural beliefs places on these conceits to shore up its magical tales.

 

[JGL53]

Originally Posted by JGL53
1. God isn't in time, assuming he exists.

DailyBlessings replied: Why not?

- God is either bound by time or he is not. If he is then he is not god. If he is not, then he is not “in” time. Q.E.D.
----------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by JGL53
2. Humans are in time.

DailyBlessings replied: 'k

- One for two.
------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by JGL53
3. God is therefore irrelevant to humans, assuming he exists.

DailyBlessings replied: Why?

- Because he is out of time and we are in it. Men are from Mars, but god is from, not Venus, but planet X in another dimension. Q.E.D.
-------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by JGL53
Irrelevance is existentially equivalent to non-existence.

DailyBlessings replied: Untrue. My existence may be irrelevant to the experience of a Mongolian sheep herder, but neither one of us are non-existent. Especially if I decide to travel to Mongolia.

- The operative phrase was “existential equivalent”. I suppose I should have said “for all practical purposes”. My point was that god is out of time and humans are in it, thus it matters not if god is really there or not. Thus non-existence, for all practical purposes, equals irrelevance.

Until you and the sheep herder on the other side of the world have some sort of actual contact, your existence and his existence are a complete irrelevancy to each other, just as if one or both of you do not exist.

Q.E.D.