Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is God timeless or in time?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 11:22:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 11:13:09 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Idk.

That's a first, usually when it comes to theism you have firm positions.
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 11:25:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'd think timeless.

I've heard some arguments about God entering into the context of time after he created it but I'm not sure.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 11:37:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 11:25:48 PM, Intrepid wrote:
I'd think timeless.

I've heard some arguments about God entering into the context of time after he created it but I'm not sure.

Well I think the view you mentioned is more right than not.... If God = timeless without the time, and is still timeless with the creation of time completed, then a logical contradiction arises. You see, change can only occur if there is time for the change to occur. No time? No change. However, if God is timeless, he would have to change from "existing without a universe" to "existing with a universe". However, since change can only happen in time, in order for God to create the universe, he would have to be in time right now.

I think this is the main reason for the view that God enters time along with the creation of it. If God is timeless without ever entering time, then we would have to say a change occurred to a timeless being; which is absurd.

I believe God is timeless, but that is only because I don't believe time exists at all. However, if we go with the traditional view that time began to exist 13.7 billion years ago created by God, then I would have to say God must exist in time.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 11:42:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Basically, if you hold that God created time in the past, and is timeless, then God would change from "not creating the first moment of time" to "creating the first moment of time" as while being timeless and changeless... That is clearly impossible.
Nebelous
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 12:15:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What if God is time? He is in time and time in him, but time cannot change itself. You would need something besides time to change him, which is illogical because only time can produce change. If he is time then he would have to be in time as well, because he is apart or is time itself.

I tried but that's a tough question. Let me know if it's too vague.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 4:28:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Both. God is timeless since he has no beginning or end, he always existed. God is in time since all things that start or end do so in him, since he timeless. It's kind of like how your parents existed before you (in another timeline) but (may) still exist with you after your death (the see your timeline through).
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 8:45:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 11:06:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In your view...
Timeless, like all the classics.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 10:18:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 11:37:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 11:25:48 PM, Intrepid wrote:
I'd think timeless.

I've heard some arguments about God entering into the context of time after he created it but I'm not sure.

Well I think the view you mentioned is more right than not.... If God = timeless without the time, and is still timeless with the creation of time completed, then a logical contradiction arises. You see, change can only occur if there is time for the change to occur. No time? No change. However, if God is timeless, he would have to change from "existing without a universe" to "existing with a universe". However, since change can only happen in time, in order for God to create the universe, he would have to be in time right now.


No... There's a relationship like that between us and God, but not the other way around. For us, there's a relationship between now and the present, but with God all is "present." So there isn't a change from God "existing without the universe" to "existing with the universe."

I think this is the main reason for the view that God enters time along with the creation of it. If God is timeless without ever entering time, then we would have to say a change occurred to a timeless being; which is absurd.

I believe God is timeless, but that is only because I don't believe time exists at all. However, if we go with the traditional view that time began to exist 13.7 billion years ago created by God, then I would have to say God must exist in time.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 10:21:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 11:06:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In your view...

Timeless.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 10:28:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 11:42:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Basically, if you hold that God created time in the past, and is timeless, then God would change from "not creating the first moment of time" to "creating the first moment of time" as while being timeless and changeless... That is clearly impossible.

God didn't "create time in the past" since that implies that creation is a sort of change.

"For all motion or change is the "act of that which exists potentially, as such." But in the action which is creation, nothing potential pre-exists to receive the action, as we have just shown. Therefore, creation is not a motion or a change...

For creation is not a change, but the very dependency of the created act of being upon the principle from which it is produced. And thus, creation is a kind of relation; so that nothing prevents its being in the creature as its subject.

Nevertheless, creation appears to be a kind of change from the point of view of our way of understanding only, namely, in that our intellect grasps one and the same thing as not existing before and as existing afterwards."

http://dhspriory.org...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 12:01:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 10:18:39 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/10/2014 11:37:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 11:25:48 PM, Intrepid wrote:
I'd think timeless.

I've heard some arguments about God entering into the context of time after he created it but I'm not sure.

Well I think the view you mentioned is more right than not.... If God = timeless without the time, and is still timeless with the creation of time completed, then a logical contradiction arises. You see, change can only occur if there is time for the change to occur. No time? No change. However, if God is timeless, he would have to change from "existing without a universe" to "existing with a universe". However, since change can only happen in time, in order for God to create the universe, he would have to be in time right now.


No... There's a relationship like that between us and God, but not the other way around. For us, there's a relationship between now and the present, but with God all is "present." So there isn't a change from God "existing without the universe" to "existing with the universe."

Yes there is. God exists timelessly sans creation (without the universe or time in existence). Therefore, if he creates a universe, a change occurs. God goes from "not creating", to "creating". That change requires time.


I think this is the main reason for the view that God enters time along with the creation of it. If God is timeless without ever entering time, then we would have to say a change occurred to a timeless being; which is absurd.

I believe God is timeless, but that is only because I don't believe time exists at all. However, if we go with the traditional view that time began to exist 13.7 billion years ago created by God, then I would have to say God must exist in time.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 12:04:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 10:28:20 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/10/2014 11:42:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Basically, if you hold that God created time in the past, and is timeless, then God would change from "not creating the first moment of time" to "creating the first moment of time" as while being timeless and changeless... That is clearly impossible.

God didn't "create time in the past" since that implies that creation is a sort of change.

According to the traditional view, God created time at t=0, which is the past.


"For all motion or change is the "act of that which exists potentially, as such." But in the action which is creation, nothing potential pre-exists to receive the action, as we have just shown. Therefore, creation is not a motion or a change...

Yes it is. God exists timelessly without the universe (not creating), then, he creates the universe. That is a change.


For creation is not a change, but the very dependency of the created act of being upon the principle from which it is produced. And thus, creation is a kind of relation; so that nothing prevents its being in the creature as its subject.

You confuse me.... I am not saying that the creation entails a change in something, because there is nothing there to change. I am saying God himself changes, from not creating, to creating.


Nevertheless, creation appears to be a kind of change from the point of view of our way of understanding only, namely, in that our intellect grasps one and the same thing as not existing before and as existing afterwards."

http://dhspriory.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 12:06:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 12:04:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/11/2014 10:28:20 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/10/2014 11:42:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Basically, if you hold that God created time in the past, and is timeless, then God would change from "not creating the first moment of time" to "creating the first moment of time" as while being timeless and changeless... That is clearly impossible.

God didn't "create time in the past" since that implies that creation is a sort of change.

According to the traditional view, God created time at t=0, which is the past.


"For all motion or change is the "act of that which exists potentially, as such." But in the action which is creation, nothing potential pre-exists to receive the action, as we have just shown. Therefore, creation is not a motion or a change...

Yes it is. God exists timelessly without the universe (not creating), then, he creates the universe. That is a change.


No... God exists simultaneously to the universe. It's just that the past is finite. God doesn't like set the fuze, and let it blow up... it's like he is outside of time, at every moment of the universe, and the amount of time is finite. That's all...


For creation is not a change, but the very dependency of the created act of being upon the principle from which it is produced. And thus, creation is a kind of relation; so that nothing prevents its being in the creature as its subject.

You confuse me.... I am not saying that the creation entails a change in something, because there is nothing there to change. I am saying God himself changes, from not creating, to creating.


That's the point. In God, there is only pure actuality. He's incapable of change. So since there's no potency to be raised to actuality, there can't be a change in God.


Nevertheless, creation appears to be a kind of change from the point of view of our way of understanding only, namely, in that our intellect grasps one and the same thing as not existing before and as existing afterwards."

http://dhspriory.org...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 12:07:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 10:21:06 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/10/2014 11:06:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In your view...

Timeless.

Basically, God exists in a timeless state of affairs sans time. Therefore, if time begins to exist, a change necessarily occurred in God. God goes from a state of affairs of not creating time, to a state of affairs of creating time.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 12:08:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 12:06:47 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/11/2014 12:04:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/11/2014 10:28:20 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/10/2014 11:42:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Basically, if you hold that God created time in the past, and is timeless, then God would change from "not creating the first moment of time" to "creating the first moment of time" as while being timeless and changeless... That is clearly impossible.

God didn't "create time in the past" since that implies that creation is a sort of change.

According to the traditional view, God created time at t=0, which is the past.


"For all motion or change is the "act of that which exists potentially, as such." But in the action which is creation, nothing potential pre-exists to receive the action, as we have just shown. Therefore, creation is not a motion or a change...

Yes it is. God exists timelessly without the universe (not creating), then, he creates the universe. That is a change.


No... God exists simultaneously to the universe. It's just that the past is finite. God doesn't like set the fuze, and let it blow up... it's like he is outside of time, at every moment of the universe, and the amount of time is finite. That's all...


For creation is not a change, but the very dependency of the created act of being upon the principle from which it is produced. And thus, creation is a kind of relation; so that nothing prevents its being in the creature as its subject.

You confuse me.... I am not saying that the creation entails a change in something, because there is nothing there to change. I am saying God himself changes, from not creating, to creating.


That's the point. In God, there is only pure actuality. He's incapable of change. So since there's no potency to be raised to actuality, there can't be a change in God.


Nevertheless, creation appears to be a kind of change from the point of view of our way of understanding only, namely, in that our intellect grasps one and the same thing as not existing before and as existing afterwards."

http://dhspriory.org...

So you deny this timeless state of affairs sans time?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 12:11:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Either way, this just leads to another problem. God creates t1 and THEN creates t2, and THEN creates t3 as time move along, but that presupposes God is in time himself.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 12:12:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If God causes all the states timelessly, then everything should be happening all at once, simultaneously. The very fact that time moves and flows shows that this isn't the case.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 12:16:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I believe God is timeless, but that's only because I believe time doesn't exist at all. If time exists, then William Lane Craig's view makes the most sense; God is in time.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 1:09:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 12:16:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I believe God is timeless, but that's only because I believe time doesn't exist at all. If time exists, then William Lane Craig's view makes the most sense; God is in time.
But if it didn't exist then clocks could not measure it...yet they do.

Perhaps you could define it so that we may know whether it exists or not...
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 1:13:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 1:09:53 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/11/2014 12:16:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I believe God is timeless, but that's only because I believe time doesn't exist at all. If time exists, then William Lane Craig's view makes the most sense; God is in time.
But if it didn't exist then clocks could not measure it...yet they do.

That's like saying your eyes couldn't see the movement in this picture [http://www.moillusions.com...] if it wasn't weren't there...yet they do.

The thing is, the movement in that picture is an illusion. Similarly, I think time and the flow of time is an illusion.


Perhaps you could define it so that we may know whether it exists or not...
TheOncomingStorm
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 1:20:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 1:09:53 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/11/2014 12:16:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I believe God is timeless, but that's only because I believe time doesn't exist at all. If time exists, then William Lane Craig's view makes the most sense; God is in time.
But if it didn't exist then clocks could not measure it...yet they do.

Perhaps you could define it so that we may know whether it exists or not...

Now, I don't know where RT stands, but my argument is such:

Time is a measurement. Just as any measurement, it only exists because humans perceive it to exist. That doesn't mean it "exists" as a tangible object, but it exists as a human perception. Like saying a meter exists because a meter stick can measure it. If a meter wasn't perceived to begin with, it wouldn't exist. So it's based on human perception. It's the same thing with time.

Now, time is an incredibly helpful measurement for practical purposes, but it doesn't "exist."
Official "Director of Weather and Hyperbole in the Maximum Degree of Mice and Men" of the FREEDO bureaucracy.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 2:53:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 1:20:35 PM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
At 4/11/2014 1:09:53 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/11/2014 12:16:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I believe God is timeless, but that's only because I believe time doesn't exist at all. If time exists, then William Lane Craig's view makes the most sense; God is in time.
But if it didn't exist then clocks could not measure it...yet they do.

Perhaps you could define it so that we may know whether it exists or not...

Now, I don't know where RT stands, but my argument is such:

Time is a measurement. Just as any measurement, it only exists because humans perceive it to exist. That doesn't mean it "exists" as a tangible object, but it exists as a human perception. Like saying a meter exists because a meter stick can measure it. If a meter wasn't perceived to begin with, it wouldn't exist. So it's based on human perception. It's the same thing with time.

Now, time is an incredibly helpful measurement for practical purposes, but it doesn't "exist."

I agree with most of what you said. We talk about time for practical purposes because it certainly seems as if time exists, but ontologically, it doesn't play a part of fundamental reality.
TheOncomingStorm
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 3:27:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 2:53:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/11/2014 1:20:35 PM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
At 4/11/2014 1:09:53 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 4/11/2014 12:16:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I believe God is timeless, but that's only because I believe time doesn't exist at all. If time exists, then William Lane Craig's view makes the most sense; God is in time.
But if it didn't exist then clocks could not measure it...yet they do.

Perhaps you could define it so that we may know whether it exists or not...

Now, I don't know where RT stands, but my argument is such:

Time is a measurement. Just as any measurement, it only exists because humans perceive it to exist. That doesn't mean it "exists" as a tangible object, but it exists as a human perception. Like saying a meter exists because a meter stick can measure it. If a meter wasn't perceived to begin with, it wouldn't exist. So it's based on human perception. It's the same thing with time.

Now, time is an incredibly helpful measurement for practical purposes, but it doesn't "exist."

I agree with most of what you said. We talk about time for practical purposes because it certainly seems as if time exists, but ontologically, it doesn't play a part of fundamental reality.

I went for a simpler approach since I'm not as well versed in ontology as I'd need to be to answer the question to its fullest.
Official "Director of Weather and Hyperbole in the Maximum Degree of Mice and Men" of the FREEDO bureaucracy.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 3:40:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 12:11:24 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Either way, this just leads to another problem. God creates t1 and THEN creates t2, and THEN creates t3 as time move along, but that presupposes God is in time himself.

It doesn't have to be a problem. I have argued that God can both be in time and outside of it.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.