Maybe God is Time

[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 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.

 

[Resha Caner]

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"?

I did say that. The "in time" phrase came when I was trying to clarify something ... possible uses of the word "eternal" I believe. I probably never should have used that phrase.

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.

God is subject to nothing. If he were subject to something, that thing would be a Form above God. God would have had no choice but to accept it. The Form then becomes the god. So, God is not subject to love. He is not subject to time. Those things manifest because of God, and are therefore subject to God. Love is subject to God. Time is subject to God.

Also, it's still not clear what it means to say God is 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?

Yes. He acts.

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.

I was asking a question, not making a statement. I do not accept the idea of timelessness. For my position it makes sense to speak of what came before creation because God existed before creation, and, hence, time existed before creation. There is an infinite past.

Do you believe in the Trinity? Do you think God is eternal, thus rendering each person of the Trinity as eternal?

Yes, and yes. But "eternal" as everlasting, not as timeless.

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.

But the man was alive, and hence parts of him were active. Cutting this short, did God think before he created? I simply cannot imagine any way in which something could be absolutely static and be alive. To me, that static state is the definition of absolute death.

So, IMO, your view implies that God did not live until he created.

God is timeless without the universe. If we deny that statement, more theological misunderstandings arise.

Such as?

 

[bricklayer]

Time is the progressive sequential increments of the matter-space continuum.
God is not.

 

[Resha Caner]

Time is the progressive sequential increments of the matter-space continuum.

That's how physical beings measure time. Is a thing the same as it's measure? IMO, no.

 

[TravisD]

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.

I'll admit I don't have any "logic" to back up my beliefs in a higher power. But because I believe a higher power exists, I can use logic to determine which doctrine I choose to believe in. Because I believe in the Christian Bible, I have to use logic to decipher it....

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.

I was not referring to Christianity in that statement. I was referring to the fact that the vast majority of the worlds population has some sort of religion and faith based beliefs. There are 100s of millions of Christians that share my core beliefs.

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.

It doesn't, but whether the beliefs are Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Taoist, etc... they are based on faith only justified by the individual who holds the beliefs.

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

I am unjustified in your opinion. I do not feel unjustified and neither to the billions of faithful people around the world.

Please demonstrate he said that.

Matthew 5:44, But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

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.

For everything apart from God I agree with this statement. However, believing in God requires tossing logic and a need for evidence to the side. It requires bold faith, and once we believe... we see. In fact... this is biblical.

2 Corinthians 5:6-8 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7(For we walk by faith, not by sight 8We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

John 20:28-29 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Then what is faith?

A wholehearted belief in something without evidence or proof to back it up. You said it is without reason. I don't know any faith without reason. I have reasons and justifications for all of my faith.

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

Faith is justification for my beliefs. I am not "copping-out" of anything.

 

[TScott]

Time may simply be a dimension, probably a forth dimension.

 

[elopez]

Resha,

Is acting the sole aspect of time?

There are many arguments against an infinite past. When it comes down to it, an infinite regress of events is impossible. If the past is infinite, then there wouldn't be enough time for the present to occur. Do you believe the present exists? Do you understand why this is yet again dependant on our view of time?

Moreover, time is a demension of duration with symmetry to the universe, so if one is infinite so must be the other. If time is infinite, the universe is infinite. If the universe is infinite, it cannot be created, just like you said of time. This is why I'd rather say time was created as a consequence of the first creative act.

The eternal nature of God implies timelessness, though. As God is eternal He has no origin of existence, and so is uncaused. A beginning is correlated to time, so if there is no beginning, it could have only been possible in a timeless state.

Even saying time existed eternally with God, since you're saying time had no beginning which is more than just infinite, why didn't creation happen sooner?

My point with the man and chair is that an eternal being can exist changelessly and freely decide to do something.

God didn't need to think as He already knew everything. It is an eternal knowledge of all creation. To you perhaps being static equates to death, but without showing it so, it will only remain sensible to you.

God is eternal. He existed prior to the existence of the universe, hence He created the universe. If God created the universe, the universe is finite. Being that time is related to the universe, time too is finite. If God is infinitely temporal in the past, there would be some type of existence to the universe, since the universe is temporal as well. A temporal past might even invoke ideas of pre existent matter for God to create with, opposing the truthful thought of creation ex nihilo.

 

[bricklayer]

Time cannot be infinitely regressive; if it were, the present could not occur.

 

[Resha Caner]

Let me repeat, my original statement began with "maybe." Anyone who claims to definitely know the nature of God beyond what is revealed in scripture is deceived or lying in some way. I don't see anywhere that God's relationship to time is explicitly revealed. Even so, my purpose is to show that a consistent logical framework exists where God's complete, perfect knowledge allows free will. I don't think answering this question is necessary for faith, so I don't feel compelled to change the minds of other Christians in this matter.

People will think what people will think. What I have proposed is no more subject to the types of issues you have raised than any other answer to this question. It simply does not follow that my idea excludes God's eternal nature, his creative acts, or that such creation was ex nihilo. You appear to continually return to an idea that time is somehow an aspect of the universe and therefore it diminishes God to say he is time. While that may be your view of it, it is not mine. So, if you want to understand my view, you must put that idea aside.

Is acting the sole aspect of time?

Now we get down to it. One problem with philosophy is that it can't be rigorously expressed in the same way math can. As such, people will forever debate philosophical questions as they play with meaning. The beginning of any good thought system is a tautology. It allows one to use the rules of logic to build upon an idea.

So, as I am thinking of it, yes, action is the only aspect of time. With that said, if you can think of others, I'd like to entertain their possibility.

When it comes down to it, an infinite regress of events is impossible.

Technically, I haven't said anything about an infinite regress yet. I said the past was infinite, meaning an infinite series of actions. Regardless, an infinite regress is only impossible for a finite being, and God is not finite. That was the point in bringing up Zeno's Paradoxes. in fact, it is a major theme of Hofstader's book (Godel, Escher, and Bach), that the infinite regress is the key to our consciousness - though he never ties that to God.

Do you believe the present exists? Do you understand why this is yet again dependant on our view of time?

One's view of time doesn't mean anything. Things are what they are. The goal is to learn truth. With that said, no, I don't really think of a "present" to exist. Again, speaking of Zeno's Paradoxes, I agree with the idea that time is not made up of instants. It is continuous. That is, however, distinct from our use of metric time which measures specific states of the physical. Those states do exist.

Moreover, time is a demension of duration with symmetry to the universe, so if one is infinite so must be the other. If time is infinite, the universe is infinite. If the universe is infinite, it cannot be created, just like you said of time. This is why I'd rather say time was created as a consequence of the first creative act.

Again, this is part of your view, but not mine. Don't conflate the two.

To you perhaps being static equates to death, but without showing it so, it will only remain sensible to you.

Then what does it mean to be alive? Define it for me without using any words indicating action. Explain how one would distinguish inanimate life from a rock.

... why didn't creation happen sooner?

Yes, Leibniz's question ... and a misunderstanding of what infinity is. This question was answered by Leftow by using the example of a Gaussian distribution. God created when he did because his joy was highest at that moment. A Gaussian distribution has an infinite tail, and so it cannot be truncated, or the maximum is not reached. This is likewise a problem that has been solved in affine geometry. Nominalists cannot accept the idea of an arbitrary origin for space. As such, affine geometry places the origin at infinity and then mathematically describes how specific coordinates can be obtained.

 

[The Engineer]

Time cannot be infinitely regressive; if it were, the present could not occur.

That's not much of a problem. We could still arrive in the present with an infinite amount of finitely long steps.

 

[elopez]

Let me repeat, my original statement began with "maybe." Anyone who claims to definitely know the nature of God beyond what is revealed in scripture is deceived or lying in some way. I don't see anywhere that God's relationship to time is explicitly revealed. Even so, my purpose is to show that a consistent logical framework exists where God's complete, perfect knowledge allows free will. I don't think answering this question is necessary for faith, so I don't feel compelled to change the minds of other Christians in this matter.

People will think what people will think. What I have proposed is no more subject to the types of issues you have raised than any other answer to this question. It simply does not follow that my idea excludes God's eternal nature, his creative acts, or that such creation was ex nihilo. You appear to continually return to an idea that time is somehow an aspect of the universe and therefore it diminishes God to say he is time. While that may be your view of it, it is not mine. So, if you want to understand my view, you must put that idea aside.



Now we get down to it. One problem with philosophy is that it can't be rigorously expressed in the same way math can. As such, people will forever debate philosophical questions as they play with meaning. The beginning of any good thought system is a tautology. It allows one to use the rules of logic to build upon an idea.

So, as I am thinking of it, yes, action is the only aspect of time. With that said, if you can think of others, I'd like to entertain their possibility.



Technically, I haven't said anything about an infinite regress yet. I said the past was infinite, meaning an infinite series of actions. Regardless, an infinite regress is only impossible for a finite being, and God is not finite. That was the point in bringing up Zeno's Paradoxes. in fact, it is a major theme of Hofstader's book (Godel, Escher, and Bach), that the infinite regress is the key to our consciousness - though he never ties that to God.



One's view of time doesn't mean anything. Things are what they are. The goal is to learn truth. With that said, no, I don't really think of a "present" to exist. Again, speaking of Zeno's Paradoxes, I agree with the idea that time is not made up of instants. It is continuous. That is, however, distinct from our use of metric time which measures specific states of the physical. Those states do exist.



Again, this is part of your view, but not mine. Don't conflate the two.



Then what does it mean to be alive? Define it for me without using any words indicating action. Explain how one would distinguish inanimate life from a rock.



Yes, Leibniz's question ... and a misunderstanding of what infinity is. This question was answered by Leftow by using the example of a Gaussian distribution. God created when he did because his joy was highest at that moment. A Gaussian distribution has an infinite tail, and so it cannot be truncated, or the maximum is not reached. This is likewise a problem that has been solved in affine geometry. Nominalists cannot accept the idea of an arbitrary origin for space. As such, affine geometry places the origin at infinity and then mathematically describes how specific coordinates can be obtained.

I'm not espousing that what I believe of God and time is something I know without a doubt. So while I'm not claiming that I know with certainity, I am strongly convinced. And while the relation of God and time is not explicitly expressed in Scripture, I believe what little Scripture does give us we can deduce to other beliefs such as when Genesis reveals a beginning, why not think time had a beginning, too? I know your intent is to come here and share your thoughts, and with that said I could understand why you're not here to change one's mind. That is hardly the point of a discussion anyway. I'm here to give you criticism. Not to change your mind, but to challenge your ideas.

I think there are other aspects of 'action' that could fall under what we consider aspects of time, like change. If God acts, and to clarify, is that to say he acts in time, does he experience change? If so, in what way?

Yes, you said an infinite past, which implies an infinite regress, which I believe to be impossible. It wouldn't make sense to assume it impossible only by a finite being, so could you elaborate more on that thought specifically? What I'm saying though is that it invokes only a beginning of sequence, not a beginning of the past.

I'm in disagreement. How one views time is most relevant when it comes to an issue like this becuase it affects how we view God and the rest of creation. Anyway, what physical states are you talking about within the metric system? Like seconds and kiloseconds?

I'm not conflating our two views but making an argument. As far as existence, mainly consciousness is needed. Awareness as well. Both of which a timeless God without the universe could have without any action.

I'm wondering, if time is infinite, could have it been God was at his highest moment of joy a trig some point prior to? I mean, wouldn't such an event occur infinite amount of times?

On last note, you seem to be talking about a matematical infinity, which I would agree is no problem, however, I thought you were talking about the philosophical infinity?

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm not espousing that what I believe of God and time is something I know without a doubt. So while I'm not claiming that I know with certainity, I am strongly convinced. And while the relation of God and time is not explicitly expressed in Scripture, I believe what little Scripture does give us we can deduce to other beliefs such as when Genesis reveals a beginning, why not think time had a beginning, too?

It's just good to have this out in front of us.

I know your intent is to come here and share your thoughts, and with that said I could understand why you're not here to change one's mind. That is hardly the point of a discussion anyway. I'm here to give you criticism. Not to change your mind, but to challenge your ideas.

I enjoy the challenge.

I think there are other aspects of 'action' that could fall under what we consider aspects of time, like change. If God acts, and to clarify, is that to say he acts in time, does he experience change? If so, in what way?

You'll have to explain how these are different aspects. I can see that for some actions the change might be considered a trivial, almost pedantic thing, and for others change is primary to the action. But, I think action and change are so intimately linked that it's not proper to say they are distinct aspects.

Yes, you said an infinite past, which implies an infinite regress, which I believe to be impossible. It wouldn't make sense to assume it impossible only by a finite being, so could you elaborate more on that thought specifically? What I'm saying though is that it invokes only a beginning of sequence, not a beginning of the past.

An infinite regress means one must know all past states in order to know the current state. For example, if the index of a series is 'i', the state 'i' can only be known if the state 'i-1' is known. Then to know 'i-1', one must know 'i-2', and so on. An infinite sequence is quite different. One can give an answer for state 'i' without knowing any other states.

Infinite regress example: x(i) = x(i-1) + 1
Infinite sequence example: x(i) = i

My statement related to the sequence, not the regress.

But once again, I never said time had a beginning - the universe, yes, but not time. The statement in Gen 1:1 is about the beginning of the universe, not the beginning of time. That is the whole purpose of saying time has an infinite past.

I'm in disagreement. How one views time is most relevant when it comes to an issue like this becuase it affects how we view God and the rest of creation. Anyway, what physical states are you talking about within the metric system? Like seconds and kiloseconds?

I don't mean "metric" as in SI units. Metric has a broader scientific meaning than that. A "metric" is a standard by which something is measured. The SI second is an example, but there are others: seasons, sun dials, water clocks, etc.

A "state" also has a specific scientific meaning - especially in control theory (which happens to be my current job as an engineer). It means that one knows the value of all variables defining a system's constituents. So, in this case, by "physical state", I mean the momentum, spin, charge, etc. of all particles making up some body at a specific instant in time.

I'm not conflating our two views but making an argument. As far as existence, mainly consciousness is needed. Awareness as well. Both of which a timeless God without the universe could have without any action.

How? Saying it does not establish it. Yes, a book is static and contains knowledge, but the book is dead and doesn't itself understand that knowledge. The knowledge must be interpreted to take on meaning, which is an action.

I'm wondering, if time is infinite, could have it been God was at his highest moment of joy a trig some point prior to? I mean, wouldn't such an event occur infinite amount of times?

It's possible, but not necessary. In Leftow's example of a Gaussian distribution, there is only one maximum. Augustine considered this issue: did God create more than once - more than one universe. His conclusion was no, but his reasoning wasn't convincing to me. Via my own journey I have since come to agree with him that there was only one creation.

On last note, you seem to be talking about a matematical infinity, which I would agree is no problem, however, I thought you were talking about the philosophical infinity?

Hmm. Yes, I tend to be mathematically minded. But you'll have to explain to me what a philosophical infinity is.

 

[elopez]

It's just good to have this out in front of us.



I enjoy the challenge.



You'll have to explain how these are different aspects. I can see that for some actions the change might be considered a trivial, almost pedantic thing, and for others change is primary to the action. But, I think action and change are so intimately linked that it's not proper to say they are distinct aspects.



An infinite regress means one must know all past states in order to know the current state. For example, if the index of a series is 'i', the state 'i' can only be known if the state 'i-1' is known. Then to know 'i-1', one must know 'i-2', and so on. An infinite sequence is quite different. One can give an answer for state 'i' without knowing any other states.

Infinite regress example: x(i) = x(i-1) + 1
Infinite sequence example: x(i) = i

My statement related to the sequence, not the regress.

But once again, I never said time had a beginning - the universe, yes, but not time. The statement in Gen 1:1 is about the beginning of the universe, not the beginning of time. That is the whole purpose of saying time has an infinite past.



I don't mean "metric" as in SI units. Metric has a broader scientific meaning than that. A "metric" is a standard by which something is measured. The SI second is an example, but there are others: seasons, sun dials, water clocks, etc.

A "state" also has a specific scientific meaning - especially in control theory (which happens to be my current job as an engineer). It means that one knows the value of all variables defining a system's constituents. So, in this case, by "physical state", I mean the momentum, spin, charge, etc. of all particles making up some body at a specific instant in time.



How? Saying it does not establish it. Yes, a book is static and contains knowledge, but the book is dead and doesn't itself understand that knowledge. The knowledge must be interpreted to take on meaning, which is an action.



It's possible, but not necessary. In Leftow's example of a Gaussian distribution, there is only one maximum. Augustine considered this issue: did God create more than once - more than one universe. His conclusion was no, but his reasoning wasn't convincing to me. Via my own journey I have since come to agree with him that there was only one creation.



Hmm. Yes, I tend to be mathematically minded. But you'll have to explain to me what a philosophical infinity is.

Well I can act a certain one way and do only one thing without really changing, even it being a finite amount of time. What do we even mean by 'change'? There is an extrinsnic and intrinsnic change that could come about.

Either way an infinite past seems contradictory and really no helpful explanation at all. And I know you said time had no beginning but my objection for this hasn't been resolved. If the universe and time are basically one, and the universe had a beginning, so did time.

So would you say you think seasons are an objective aspect of time?

Think of a paralyzed man. He cannot move hence no action yet is conscious and aware. In a way God was 'frozen' in timemessely without the universe. With the universe and creation God becomes temporal as the Son and Holy Spirit. So again, I don't really disagree with the idea that God is in time, I just don't think that means He cannot be timeless or is time.

I think it's very possible, and even if it isn't necessary it still could have happened, and it near makes sense it did happen. I mean, an infinite past and only one creation of the universe? It seems highly unlikely. What is the reasining behind this? Seems like most who adhere to an infinite past would also adhere to a type of multiverse theory, which I'm sure is the point in some, not saying with you, but perhaps it's only because God is in the equation.

In philosophy 'infinity' has many different meanings. When relating to God usually it means an end in some respect, as existence. In another sense 'infinity' in philosophy means infinite dimensions. That differs from the mathematical sense of 'infinity' which you have been reffering to. You seem to be speaking of a philosophical 'infinity' but using a mathematics to show it, which just appears slightly odd.

 

[Resha Caner]

What do we even mean by 'change'? There is an extrinsnic and intrinsnic change that could come about.

I don't see how one would involve an action and the other does not. Change means to make something different than what it once was.

If the universe and time are basically one, and the universe had a beginning, so did time.

I'm saying they are not one. Unless you can show that it is necessary for them to be one, I don't see that this is relevant to my idea.

Amongst the references I could quote to support that time is not intrinsic to the physical are those physicists who claim time does not exist, but rather what we experience is spatial succession. Further, there is a study by some biologists on how various animals process "duration". Again, their conclusion is a type of spatial succession.

So would you say you think seasons are an objective aspect of time?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Seasons mark different positions of earth as we orbit the sun. They are marked by 4 discrete points: the vernal equinox, summer solstice, autumnal equinox, and winter solstice. As such, I wouldn't say the seasons are objective, but rather that they are subject to the earth's orbit.

Think of a paralyzed man. He cannot move hence no action yet is conscious and aware. In a way God was 'frozen' in timemessely without the universe. With the universe and creation God becomes temporal as the Son and Holy Spirit. So again, I don't really disagree with the idea that God is in time, I just don't think that means He cannot be timeless or is time.

Hmm. Thinking of God as paralyzed before creation isn't an image I like. But, again, you're using an image of external inactivity to convey an absence of time whilst in that same image their is internal activity. So, there is not a total absence of activity. It's just not externally obvious. Without time there would be a total absence of activity.

In philosophy 'infinity' has many different meanings. When relating to God usually it means an end in some respect, as existence.

Do you have a reference for this, because I wouldn't think the word "infinity" would ever be used to signify an end. In fact, it means quite the opposite - that there is no end.

In another sense 'infinity' in philosophy means infinite dimensions. That differs from the mathematical sense of 'infinity' which you have been reffering to. You seem to be speaking of a philosophical 'infinity' but using a mathematics to show it, which just appears slightly odd.

I don't see how this differs from the mathematical idea. "Dimension" is a mathematical concept, and one can certainly have an infinite number of them. No matter what the entity, math allows for an infinite extent of that entity in all its attributes. I wonder if, rather than a "philosophical" infinity, you're speaking of what I would call a "nominalistic" infinity. Nominalism is an attempt to explain the world without using numbers, but it still has a means for expressing ideas like infinity.

 

[elopez]

I know you're saying the universe and time are not one. I'm simply making an argument that they are. Events before creation would have no observational consequences, so to posit any would seem unecessary. With that being said, its reasonable to think time began when the universe did. Not only that, but according to space-time cosmology space and time are combined into one continuum. That means time is a function of space, so for there to be time there must be space.

I'm asking if seasons exist independently of one's mind. If they are in fact part of reality. Is the earth's orbit not objective? Wouldn't that makes seasons so?

I think to truly be timeless one must be changeless. Even if there is internal action, which is not to say God is thinking as again everything would have been thought of as there is no beginning to any such internal activity, God does not change. I also think the idea of having no origin completely defies any notion of time.

That was simply a typo. I meant to say without end.

Since I am not as versed in matematics as I am in philosphy, I can only say what I know through others. According to Reviel Netz who is a historian of pre modern mathematics at Stanford, "the defining property of infinity today is that a sets cardinality is equal to the cardinality of some real subset of that set." He goes on to say of the philosphical notion of infinity that it is "the sense that infinity's hugeness being beyond reach endows it with certain paradoxical properities."

 

[Resha Caner]

I know you're saying the universe and time are not one. I'm simply making an argument that they are.

I suppose that what constitutes a convincing argument is different for each person. That was my interest in the formal debate between you and Rogue. I was trying to discern why it was that you each found your own position (though very different from the other) to be convincing. I never did manage to put my finger on it. Any ideas?

I tried to express why your arguments aren't convincing to me, but I get the impression you found that a bit insulting. I will say this: in drilling down I think the root of it might lie in defining what it means for something to be "physical."

 

[elopez]

I suppose that what constitutes a convincing argument is different for each person. That was my interest in the formal debate between you and Rogue. I was trying to discern why it was that you each found your own position (though very different from the other) to be convincing. I never did manage to put my finger on it. Any ideas?

I tried to express why your arguments aren't convincing to me, but I get the impression you found that a bit insulting. I will say this: in drilling down I think the root of it might lie in defining what it means for something to be "physical."

I think it's perhaps the same issue between you and I. We view the universe and time differently, and those are two very contentious ideas, which like I said before, shape how we view God and creation. More than anything the huge issue between rogue and I was the question, "Is there an origin to the universe?" I said yes, he said no, which lead us on two clashing theologies.

The issue between us is a little different as we both agree there was a beginning to the universe. We happen to differ on our respects of time. More specifically whether or not space and time are related. And I don't get insulted by what others say of my beliefs, maybe when they tend to be out right rude, but I like you, and enjoy our discussions.

 

[Gottservant]

Time cannot be infinitely regressive; if it were, the present could not occur.

I found this quote, thanks to the Engineer quoting it and it makes the most sense to me...

this to me speaks of the necessity of God as both a metaphor for Time and a moral in Time as well...

...as in, it disciplines us to think of God as controlling Time, whether in or out of it, by moral or metaphor...

Actually I had never thought of these as His tools which is a great point...

 

[Gottservant]

Could I just add for the sake of airing my thoughts that I think time is an abundance of the ability to make reference?

Since God has the greatest ability to make reference, it makes sense to think of him as a metaphor for the abundance of the ability to make reference...

in this sense, that even calling Him that, He is still able to refer to more, which therefore gives time, give or take His determination to make you aware of it...

If God were not the abundance of the ability to make reference, how would you have the Time to call him a metaphor???

 

[LantanaAnna]

Bible plainly states that God has a body, so hes not time. We are in his image.

You know now that you mention it, I'm not sure time exists outside of this temporal dimension we live in.