Maybe God is Time

[TravisD]

You believe in it because it's not disproven? That's not how logic works. Burden of proof. Read about it.

Are you saying that you only believe in things that are "proven"?

We would never have progressed as a society without people bold enough to believe in things that have not yet been proven.

 

[TravisD]

Right, that doesn't mean you've reasoned correctly, or aren't making a logical error.

Of course... nobodies logic is flawless.

The difference is, I care what I believe or disbelieve is true. Going by what you've said, it appears you don't care so much about that.

I prematurely ended an earlier reply to your message.... the part about false conclusions goes here....

It's not a matter of believing or not based on your own reasoning, of course everyone uses their own reasoning. However, people are also often wrong. What you should care about is if your reasoning is logically sound.

I do... and it is..

I would say you're likely making a special pleading fallacy in your belief in God, as I would imagine you probably do not use the same criteria for belief for anything else in your life.

Ahhhh... back to that false conclusions thing... you may see it this way based on your experiences with other individuals but everyone is different. Generalized assumptions to an individual are often wrong. You should have asked this rather than stating it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You shouldn't assume so much... it leads to false conclusions.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm basing my reply off what you said.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Are you saying that you only believe in things that are "proven"?

We would never have progressed as a society without people bold enough to believe in things that have not yet been proven.

Actually, people believing things that haven't been proven is one of the major problems in society today.

Society progresses when people prove to be true what was once unknown. There has never been progress made from believing as fact that which is not yet known.

 

[TravisD]

I'm not assuming anything, I'm basing my reply off what you said.

I never said that I didn't care whether or not what I believe was true or not. You may have thought that I implied that and assumed it was what I meant, but it couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[TravisD]

Actually, people believing things that haven't been proven is one of the major problems in society today.

Society progresses when people prove to be true what was once unknown. There has never been progress made from believing as fact that which is not yet known.

Ok... I'll write the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and tell them to stop believing there is a cure for aids because they are contributing to societies problems.

Are you telling me that there is absolutely nothing unproven that you believe in?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Of course... nobodies logic is flawless.

But when it's pointed out you have a flaw in your logic, if you care if your beliefs are true, you either correct your logic, or change your opinion on the matter. That's the intellectually honest thing to do.

I prematurely ended an earlier reply to your message.... the part about false conclusions goes here....

And my rebuttal still stands.

I do... and it is..

Believing something until it is proven is not logically sound. You are believing what is not justified.

Ahhhh... back to that false conclusions thing... you may see it this way based on your experiences with other individuals but everyone is different. Generalized assumptions to an individual are often wrong. You should have asked this rather than stating it.

Well, what other things in your life do you have a positive belief in without solid evidence? And why do you not accept the existence of every other God, given the fact they have roughly equal evidence to back them all?

 

[elopez]

A simple thought, but, IMO, useful.

It depends on your view of time. Specifically if we want to say "God is time," we have to look at what that would suggest. If God is time, then either time is personal and conscious, or God is impersonal and not conscious.

Even claiming that it is like saying "God is love" all that means is God is all the aspects of love, like the Bible says, slow to anger, forgiving, etc. So too, if God is time, then he would be all the apsecpts of time. He would then be temporal in nature, which begs the question of the temporal ontology of the divine.

This is why, like the reast of creation, God should be considered distinct from time, like the universe (unless we ascribe to sort of panthiesm at that point), and us. This explanation seems more ambigous than any other solution for that reason.

Since God is distinct from creation, again like the universe, time was created. At the first creative act to cause the universe, time began as a result. I don't really understand the issue with a beginning to the universe and so time, espicially since the Bible affirms a beginning. There is no 'before' time because there could be no time 'prior' to the existence of time. There is just timelessness, which is strictly implied by the eternal nature of God sans creation.

If God has no beginning and no end, that alone constitutes God as being distinct from time, thus not time Himself as He is love. If God is distinct from time and created it, God is atemproal without the universe.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I never said that I didn't care whether or not what I believe was true or not. You may have thought that I implied that and assumed it was what I meant, but it couldn't be further from the truth.

Believing something when you have a lack of evidence is not showing care for whether your belief is actually true.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Ok... I'll write the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and tell them to stop believing there is a cure for aids because they are contributing to societies problems.

They don't believe there is a cure for AIDS. They believe aids research may one day find a cure.

Are you telling me that there is absolutely nothing unproven that you believe in?

Yeah, that's pretty well it!

 

[TravisD]

But when it's pointed out you have a flaw in your logic, if you care if your beliefs are true, you either correct your logic, or change your opinion on the matter. That's the intellectually honest thing to do.

Well of course.... I was pointing out that NOBODY has flawless logic... IMO except Jesus of course.

And my rebuttal still stands.

As expected...

Believing something until it is proven is not logically sound. You are believing what is not justified.

I'm going to ask a 3rd time.... are you 100% certain that there is nothing that you believe in that has not been proven???

Well, what other things in your life do you have a positive belief in without solid evidence?

I'll let you answer my question first....

And why do you not accept the existence of every other God, given the fact they have roughly equal evidence to back them all?

Taking into consideration my life experiences, my own reasoning, tacit knowledge, continual studies of other religions, and a strange built in instinct to believe in a divine creator, I choose Christianity.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Well of course.... I was pointing out that NOBODY has flawless logic... IMO except Jesus of course.

As expected...

And again, your logical flaw has been pointed out to you.

I'm going to ask a 3rd time.... are you 100% certain that there is nothing that you believe in that has not been proven???

From what I can think of, yes.

I'll let you answer my question first....

Ok, now it's answered... what's your answer?

Taking into consideration my life experiences, my own reasoning, tacit knowledge, continual studies of other religions, and a strange built in instinct to believe in a divine creator, I choose Christianity.

On what basis? What's your evidence?

 

[TravisD]

And again, your logical flaw has been pointed out to you.

In your opinion...

From what I can think of, yes.



Ok, now it's answered... what's your answer?

Well... I know for some time scientists were saying that gravity hasn't technically been proven.... Through my own reasoning... I believe in gravity.

On what basis? What's your evidence?

Sorry.... goes back to the tacit knowledge gained through life experiences and pure instinct. I have no hard scientific evidence for you. If you are looking for pure scientific evidence that will undeniably prove the existence of God, you probably won't find it... but you probably already know that.

Likewise.... You can't produce any scientific evidence that undeniably proves God does not exist.... I know, I know... we can't prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist either.

It boils down to faith, faith so strong that men have allowed themselves to be tortured for years and finally killed because they did not want to deny Jesus. This still happens to Christians today. Once one truly believes, it is such a powerful thing that many are very willing to give up their life for it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

In your opinion...

I prove my point.

I'm using the basic rules of logic, you aren't. Opinion doesn't enter into it.

Well... I know for some time scientists were saying that gravity hasn't technically been proven.... Through my own reasoning... I believe in gravity.

This is a mis-characterization of the argument. Gravity has been proven, however every intricate detail of how it works has not been proven.

It's much the same as believing your car will turn on when you turn the key, while not knowing exactly how an engine works. You can observe the phenomenon in action, even if you don't understand every detail yet.

However, if I claimed I have a positive belief my car turned on because of angels when I'm lacking the correct answer, my argument is unjustified and logically unsound.

Sorry.... goes back to the tacit knowledge gained through life experiences and pure instinct. I have no hard scientific evidence for you. If you are looking for pure scientific evidence that will undeniably prove the existence of God, you probably won't find it... but you probably already know that.

Correct, which is why your belief is not justified. You don't have evidence to back it up.

Likewise.... You can't produce any scientific evidence that undeniably proves God does not exist.... I know, I know... we can't prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist either.

I have never made the assertion that God does not exist. I have simply not been convinced of the arguments for his existence, and cite a lack of evidence to back my position.

It boils down to faith, faith so strong that men have allowed themselves to be tortured for years and finally killed because they did not want to deny Jesus. This still happens to Christians today. Once one truly believes, it is such a powerful thing that many are very willing to give up their life for it.

How about faith so strong that you'll fly aircraft into the world trade center? That must mean their beliefs are also correct, right?

How strongly someone believes something is irrelevant to whether their belief is true.

Faith is the excuse given for believing something without good reason. If you had justification for your beliefs, faith is then not required.

 

[TravisD]

I prove my point.

I'm using the basic rules of logic, you aren't. Opinion doesn't enter into it.

Ok, I would never argue with your satisfaction in your own ability to produce what you reason to be a logical conclusion to anything.

This is a mis-characterization of the argument. Gravity has been proven, however every intricate detail of how it works has not been proven.

It's much the same as believing your car will turn on when you turn the key, while not knowing exactly how an engine works. You can observe the phenomenon in action, even if you don't understand every detail yet.

ok fair enough... but still a lot of scientists say it is not proven. There words not mine. That's ok... people look at things differently. Besides... if you choose not to believe in anything that has not been "proven", I am ok with that.

Correct, which is why your belief is not justified. You don't have evidence to back it up.

Not justified in your opinion. But religion is justified for the vast majority of the worlds population. My personal beliefs are justifiable in the minds and hearts of 100s of millions. If you cannot accept my beliefs, I understand.

I have never made the assertion that God does not exist. I have simply not been convinced of the arguments for his existence, and cite a lack of evidence to back my position.

Ok, well I also cite a lack of evidence to back my position. So be it.

How about faith so strong that you'll fly aircraft into the world trade center? That must mean their beliefs are also correct, right?

Every religion has there crazies... Jesus teaches that we should love our enemies.

How strongly someone believes something is irrelevant to whether their belief is true.

I can agree with that, but just because something lacks evidence does not mean it is not true.

Faith is the excuse given for believing something without good reason. If you had justification for your beliefs, faith is then not required.

This is your idea of faith... it is not in sync with the vast majority of the worlds population.

Through faith, I have good reason for my beliefs. I also have justification for my beliefs and my faith.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Ok, I would never argue with your satisfaction in your own ability to produce what you reason to be a logical conclusion to anything.

Again, I'm not using my standards, I'm using what is taught in logic 101 classes. It's the exact same process you likely use for every belief you have apart from God.

ok fair enough... but still a lot of scientists say it is not proven. There words not mine. That's ok... people look at things differently. Besides... if you choose not to believe in anything that has not been "proven", I am ok with that.

What didn't you understand? Gravity has been proven, it's clearly observable. There's some argument as to the nitty gritty details, but to say Gravity as a whole has not been proven is a falsehood.

Please show me a physicist that does not believe Gravity exists.

Not justified in your opinion. But religion is justified for the vast majority of the worlds population. My personal beliefs are justifiable in the minds and hearts of 100s of millions. If you cannot accept my beliefs, I understand.

This is an appeal to popularity fallacy, and a particularly bad one as the vast majority of the worlds population does not follow your religion.

For example, how does the religious beliefs of Hindus lend any kind of backing at all to your religious views? The theological beliefs are completely different.

Ok, well I also cite a lack of evidence to back my position. So be it.

And therefore you are unjustified in holding a positive belief your position is true.

Every religion has there crazies... Jesus teaches that we should love our enemies.

Please demonstrate he said that.

I can agree with that, but just because something lacks evidence does not mean it is not true.

That's absolutely correct. However, without that evidence we are wrong to accept it as true. The time to accept the truth of the matter is once we discover the evidence that shows it's truth.

This is your idea of faith... it is not in sync with the vast majority of the worlds population.

Then what is faith?

Through faith, I have good reason for my beliefs. I also have justification for my beliefs and my faith.

No you don't, faith is not justification. Faith is a cop-out (pending your definition of faith from the previous answer).

 

[Resha Caner]

Hi, elopez. I'm sure you'll make the conversation interesting!

If God is time, then either time is personal and conscious, or God is impersonal and not conscious.

An unnecessary dichotomy that sounds too Platonistic for my tastes.

Even claiming that it is like saying "God is love" all that means is God is all the aspects of love, like the Bible says, slow to anger, forgiving, etc. So too, if God is time, then he would be all the apsecpts of time. He would then be temporal in nature, which begs the question of the temporal ontology of the divine.

Here we might have a bit of trouble with words. "Temporal" is often given as an antonym of "eternal," while also meaning "in time." I'm trying to separate these two ideas. I'm saying something can be "eternal" (in the sense of everlasting) and "in time." I would call this "omnitemporal". So, God is omnitemporal whereas we are temporal (i.e. mortal).

As such, time was never created. It simply exists because God exists. If love is one of God's traits, you would not say God created love. Neither would you need to say love is "personal and conscious" as if it were a Form apart from God. Love simply is because God exists. Likewise, time simply is because God exists.

This is why, like the reast of creation, God should be considered distinct from time, like the universe (unless we ascribe to sort of panthiesm at that point), and us.

No, it's not pantheism. It is not that time is in nature, but nature is in time. Again, we also have love, yet you don't consider that to be pantheism.

I don't really understand the issue with a beginning to the universe and so time, espicially since the Bible affirms a beginning. There is no 'before' time because there could be no time 'prior' to the existence of time. There is just timelessness, which is strictly implied by the eternal nature of God sans creation.

The fact that you can't express that idea without using time-laden language should be a clue. We're into a Noam Chomsky thing here (colorless green ideas sleep furiously). You can say "there could be no time 'prior' to the existence of time", but that is a meaningless sentence. I've read literature on "eternalism" and I have to agree with those who reject the idea. It is incoherent no matter how hard people try.

The eternalist solution requires separating concepts like action from that of time, and I've never seen it successfully done. And to me it seems all the effort stems from a fear that saying God is omnitemporal somehow diminishes him. It doesn't. In the same way it doesn't diminish God to say he possesses knowledge just because we also possess knowledge. His position is omniscient and ours is not (though I actually prefer to say he has perfect, complete knowledge to avoid the baggage of the word "omniscient").

 

[elopez]

Hi, elopez. I'm sure you'll make the conversation interesting!



An unnecessary dichotomy that sounds too Platonistic for my tastes.



Here we might have a bit of trouble with words. "Temporal" is often given as an antonym of "eternal," while also meaning "in time." I'm trying to separate these two ideas. I'm saying something can be "eternal" (in the sense of everlasting) and "in time." I would call this "omnitemporal". So, God is omnitemporal whereas we are temporal (i.e. mortal).

As such, time was never created. It simply exists because God exists. If love is one of God's traits, you would not say God created love. Neither would you need to say love is "personal and conscious" as if it were a Form apart from God. Love simply is because God exists. Likewise, time simply is because God exists.



No, it's not pantheism. It is not that time is in nature, but nature is in time. Again, we also have love, yet you don't consider that to be pantheism.



The fact that you can't express that idea without using time-laden language should be a clue. We're into a Noam Chomsky thing here (colorless green ideas sleep furiously). You can say "there could be no time 'prior' to the existence of time", but that is a meaningless sentence. I've read literature on "eternalism" and I have to agree with those who reject the idea. It is incoherent no matter how hard people try.

The eternalist solution requires separating concepts like action from that of time, and I've never seen it successfully done. And to me it seems all the effort stems from a fear that saying God is omnitemporal somehow diminishes him. It doesn't. In the same way it doesn't diminish God to say he possesses knowledge just because we also possess knowledge. His position is omniscient and ours is not (though I actually prefer to say he has perfect, complete knowledge to avoid the baggage of the word "omniscient").

We will see if such a conclusion is unneccesary or not. No, I am not using temporal in opposition to eternal, as that would essentially describe the nature of the Son as God on earth and so temporal yet eternal.

So all omnitemporal means is God is eternal yet 'in time'? Again that would denote Christ, so can we say Christ is omnitemporal? I don't see how that means time was not created.

Like I said earlier this all depends on your view of time. Do you think time is an objective feature of the natural world and universe, or is it an illusion? Does only the present exist?

The universe doesn't exist simply because God does, rather the universe exists because God created it. Love is not created because it is an attribute of God, unlike the universe which God is distinct from. Would you say God is distinct from the universe?

Also, it seems as if you mean time is an attribute of God. That would make time eternal, would it not? If time is eternal what does that say about the beginning of the universe according to your theory? Is there no beginning to the universe.

The lack of language is irrelavant. What remains is the fact of the matter, and that is God is timeless without the universe. If that is not coherent enough, I would begin to doubt it is not from the lack of language.

If we associate change with time, then we have action in order for change. If we can use omnitemporal to describe the Son, as eternal yet in time, then I'm fine with it. Beyond that, it would again beg the question of Gods ontological existence to say he is 'in time.'

 

[Resha Caner]

So all omnitemporal means is God is eternal yet 'in time'?

Yes, that's how I mean it ... though I put "in time" in quotes for a reason. I don't mean to imply that God is subject to time. That's why my original phrase was "God is time".

Again that would denote Christ ...

An idea of yours that has merit, but not one I've completely bought into. The Trinity existed before creation - Christ existed before creation. From your view, then, Christ & the Spirit also had this "timeless" existence. Therefore, you must still explain how any action occured apart from time & change.

Like I said earlier this all depends on your view of time. Do you think time is an objective feature of the natural world and universe, or is it an illusion? Does only the present exist?

Again, an unnecessary dichotomy. As is your insistence that time either be created or an attribute of God. In Genesis 3:8 when God walked in the garden, was that an attribute of God or something created by God? Well, neither. It was an action of God.

Time is God's action. So ...

Would you say God is distinct from the universe?

Yes.

Is there no beginning to the universe.

It had a beginning.

The lack of language is irrelavant.

It is not. At the very least it means your idea is one you cannot communicate. Therefore, you shouldn't expect me to grasp it. If you want to end this with, "We don't know," I would be satisfied with that.

 

[elopez]

So to say God is time is not to say God is subject to time? Why not just say "God is time" rather than "God is in time"? If you're comparing love to time to show how both are attributed to God, and God is subject to love, which is to say He displays love, I don't understand how this wouldn't mean God is subject to time. Also, it's still not clear what it means to say God is in time. What does it mean? Yes God is love but then God would actually display aspects of love, like forgiveness. So does God displays aspects of time? It's not clear.

If you had't noticed, you're using the same language I am to describe the Trinity that you say is incorrect or what have you. Christ existed before creation, but there is no 'before' creation as there is no time. And yes, the Son and Spirit also existed timelessely as the Father did. All three co - existed eternally, which again strictly implies timelessness. Do you believe in the Trinity? Do you think God is eternal, thus rendering each person of the Trinity as eternal?

Imagine, and keep in mind this is hypothetical, that a man was sitting in a chair for eternity. He never began to sit on the chair, but now imagine he sat up. That is how I see it with God's first creative act that caused the existence of the universe. More in depthly, I believe the Son is responsible for creation hence he was temproal in order to do so. The Son and Father are co - atemporal without the universe, but once the universe began to exist, the Son became temporal to create, yet the Father remained atemporal. That is how there is action apart from time and change.

In the garden did God actually have a physical body to walk with, or is this a simple metaphor for God being present in some sense? As for the nature and ontology of time, I was actually asking you those questions, not saying that it has to be one or the other.

Like I was getting at, there is no issue with the communication but only the part of grasping what is being said. God is timeless without the universe. If we deny that statement, more theological misunderstandings arise.