Can a timeless God exist?

[Cmass]

I am starting a thread based upon a comment I made in another:
Change and time go hand in hand.
Without time there is nothing. You cannot go from one event to another. That is why there is no God. (beyond the multitude of other reasons) If God is "timeless" then God is changeless. If God is changeless, then he cannot change anything.
Nothing to nothing from nothing.
Can a timeless God exist?

[bernee51]

it's kind of put some perspective to our idea of time. It suggests that we and everything in the world are four dimensional objects. With a beginning, a middle and an end, all pre written in the great book of existence. god must reside in the same place as this book.

I note it is your first post...welcome

I see it more like we are three dimensional objects existing in an infinite 'now'. The atoms that make us up are constant...only the shape they happen to make changes. Time is a perception of the mental sphere...it does not exist in the physical.

[4gold]

I am starting a thread based upon a comment I made in another:
Change and time go hand in hand.
Without time there is nothing. You cannot go from one event to another. That is why there is no God. (beyond the multitude of other reasons) If God is "timeless" then God is changeless. If God is changeless, then he cannot change anything.
Nothing to nothing from nothing.
Can a timeless God exist?

There are two distinct views on time, one is physical and the other is philosophical. Since you posted this in a science forum and not the philosophy forum, I'm going to assume you mean the physicist's view of time, that is, that time is associated with objects in motion relative to an inertial observer.

Therefore, any belief in a God that is eternal must mean that he existed before mass was created, since time is linked to mass in motion. If there was no mass, there could be no time.

[Cathar1950]

I am starting a thread based upon a comment I made in another:
Change and time go hand in hand.
Without time there is nothing. You cannot go from one event to another. That is why there is no God. (beyond the multitude of other reasons) If God is "timeless" then God is changeless. If God is changeless, then he cannot change anything.
Nothing to nothing from nothing.
Can a timeless God exist?

There are two distinct views on time, one is physical and the other is philosophical. Since you posted this in a science forum and not the philosophy forum, I'm going to assume you mean the physicist's view of time, that is, that time is associated with objects in motion relative to an inertial observer.

Therefore, any belief in a God that is eternal must mean that he existed before mass was created, since time is linked to mass in motion. If there was no mass, there could be no time.

But that definition does not address what we are looking at for an answer. What was God doing before time?
If God wasn't doing anything in what way do we say God "exists"?
Now we can play the old, "God is existence itself", but what does that mean?
Is it an attribute, proposition or a concept?
I still want a time machine.
If we all had time machines would that be the end of time and all we would have left was our personal experiences all messed up. With my view of time being experience from my viewpoint going back would entail an infinite number of universes but one just for me.
Whatever time I would be in or visit would all ways be my universe of experience.
We would or could be changing things all over space and time yet to do so would entail something that has happened to change, at least once. For me to go back to me being a child would mean I had to have been a child.
This sounds more crazy as I read it.

Where were we?

[4gold]

But that definition does not address what we are looking at for an answer. What was God doing before time?
If God wasn't doing anything in what way do we say God "exists"?
Now we can play the old, "God is existence itself", but what does that mean?
Is it an attribute, proposition or a concept?
I still want a time machine.
If we all had time machines would that be the end of time and all we would have left was our personal experiences all messed up. With my view of time being experience from my viewpoint going back would entail an infinite number of universes but one just for me.
Whatever time I would be in or visit would all ways be my universe of experience.
We would or could be changing things all over space and time yet to do so would entail something that has happened to change, at least once. For me to go back to me being a child would mean I had to have been a child.
This sounds more crazy as I read it.

Where were we?

Perhaps I missed the point of the post. If the question is whether something timeless can exist, the answer is that thing would have to have existed before matter was created and could not be made of matter itself. Once mass is in motion (all mass is in motion), time exists.

What was God doing before creation? St. Augustine once said, "Creating hell for those who ask such questions."

It seems to me most of your questions are more philosophical, rather than scientific. It is a noble search, to be sure, but I find myself holding back due to the forum we are in.

From a scientific standpoint, no one could go back any further than 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang, even if time travel did exist. What happened before the Big Bang? No one knows, and even worse, it is physically impossible for us to know.

From a philosophic standpoint, your metaphysical questions about God prior to the Big Bang are intriguing. I read an interesting book on "Nothingness". Can Nothing exist? Can it even be conceived? Because once I conceive of nothing, it automatically becomes something. If God is neither energy nor mass (he cannot be either if he is timeless), then is God nothing (and therefore something)? Or is God something that is neither mass nor energy nor nothing? If so, then God is nothing we can conceive of, since there could be no ontology from which to form an answer.

[Cathar1950]

What was God doing before creation? St. Augustine once said, "Creating hell for those who ask such questions."

I read that before and I came to the conclusion he didn't know or have any idea.
True I was being more philosophical then scientific.
I was looking at time as experience.
I am aware of the meaningless of time before the big bang.
It does seem to put God in an awkward position.
It makes me wonder how God could act or respond.
It seems to me that for God to exist God must be in time and space.
Saying God is outside of time and space leaves me with nothing.
How does God even manage to be incarnate?
I likeWhitehead and Hartshone much better as they have God as an occasion and contigent. It make my non-dualism more comfortable.

[4gold]

What was God doing before creation? St. Augustine once said, "Creating hell for those who ask such questions."

I read that before and I came to the conclusion he didn't know or have any idea.
True I was being more philosophical then scientific.
I was looking at time as experience.
I am aware of the meaningless of time before the big bang.
It does seem to put God in an awkward position.
It makes me wonder how God could act or respond.
It seems to me that for God to exist God must be in time and space.
Saying God is outside of time and space leaves me with nothing.
How does God even manage to be incarnate?
I likeWhitehead and Hartshone much better as they have God as an occasion and contigent. It make my non-dualism more comfortable.

Hartshorne constructed the argument that the universe is infinite, therefore no first cause. Since we already know that our current universe is finite, this leaves us with the alternate theory of multiple universes, or multiverse.

As it is physically impossible to test the hypothesis of multiple universes, the multiverse theory can only be tackled philosophically or theologically, and never physically (much like God, which is the alternative theory to multiverses). Hartshorne argues that God and multiverse theory can co-exist, since God was created ex materia, and therefore God is not eternal.

When comparing the alternatives of multiverse theory to finite theory, I find the following problems with multiverse theory:

(1) Multiverses violate Occam's razor. Given all the assumptions that must be accepted in order to believe in multiverses, as opposed to the assumptions to believe in a finite universe, multiverse theory is clearly a more complex answer to the question.

(2) Multiverses fade into eternal regress. Conclusions and premises mutually condition and correct each other, so says the Rawlsian method, so that there are not infinite regressions of unprincipled actions.

[Goat]

What was God doing before creation? St. Augustine once said, "Creating hell for those who ask such questions."

I read that before and I came to the conclusion he didn't know or have any idea.
True I was being more philosophical then scientific.
I was looking at time as experience.
I am aware of the meaningless of time before the big bang.
It does seem to put God in an awkward position.
It makes me wonder how God could act or respond.
It seems to me that for God to exist God must be in time and space.
Saying God is outside of time and space leaves me with nothing.
How does God even manage to be incarnate?
I likeWhitehead and Hartshone much better as they have God as an occasion and contigent. It make my non-dualism more comfortable.

Hartshorne constructed the argument that the universe is infinite, therefore no first cause. Since we already know that our current universe is finite, this leaves us with the alternate theory of multiple universes, or multiverse.

As it is physically impossible to test the hypothesis of multiple universes, the multiverse theory can only be tackled philosophically or theologically, and never physically (much like God, which is the alternative theory to multiverses). Hartshorne argues that God and multiverse theory can co-exist, since God was created ex materia, and therefore God is not eternal.

When comparing the alternatives of multiverse theory to finite theory, I find the following problems with multiverse theory:

(1) Multiverses violate Occam's razor. Given all the assumptions that must be accepted in order to believe in multiverses, as opposed to the assumptions to believe in a finite universe, multiverse theory is clearly a more complex answer to the question.

(2) Multiverses fade into eternal regress. Conclusions and premises mutually condition and correct each other, so says the Rawlsian method, so that there are not infinite regressions of unprincipled actions.

Does it? Occams razor says that something is not more complicated than it needs to be. Is 'multiple universes' more complicated than it needs to be?

As for the 'infinite regressions', that seems to be a philsophical objection.

There are some intreging models of the cyclical universe that show the possiblity of both. Of course, it could just mean that the definition of the universe might need to change.

[4gold]

Does it? Occams razor says that something is not more complicated than it needs to be. Is 'multiple universes' more complicated than it needs to be?

Occam's Razor states that when one is choosing from a pool of reasonable, underdetermined answers, the simplest explanation is preferred. Or, as Einstein said, "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler."

Since the answer to question of whether the universe is finite or infinite is physically impossible to determine, it makes the question ripe for application of Occam.

As for the 'infinite regressions', that seems to be a philsophical objection.

There are some intreging models of the cyclical universe that show the possiblity of both. Of course, it could just mean that the definition of the universe might need to change.

I am assuming you are talking about something regarding String Theory, as most cyclical universe theories involve String Theory. My answer is the same toward String Theory as it is toward Multiverse Theory. String Theory is physically impossible to test, observe, or verify. It is possible that String Theory is the way that nature works, but it seems like a whole lot of work to explain why we see the universe the way we do, while the alternative theory will always be a finite universe where the four dimensions began at the Big Bang. And the simpler answer will always be the finite universe.

Would we even conceive of String Theory if an infinite amount of time wasn't needed to explain the way things are? I think String Theory is only being theorized in order to justify an infinite universe. If a finite universe didn't create such theological and philosophical problems, no one would ever consider String Theory, since it is a long answer to explain the reason we observe our universe the way we do.

[Goat]

Does it? Occams razor says that something is not more complicated than it needs to be. Is 'multiple universes' more complicated than it needs to be?

Occam's Razor states that when one is choosing from a pool of reasonable, underdetermined answers, the simplest explanation is preferred. Or, as Einstein said, "Theories should be as simple as possible, but no simpler."

Since the answer to question of whether the universe is finite or infinite is physically impossible to determine, it makes the question ripe for application of Occam.

As for the 'infinite regressions', that seems to be a philsophical objection.

There are some intreging models of the cyclical universe that show the possiblity of both. Of course, it could just mean that the definition of the universe might need to change.

I am assuming you are talking about something regarding String Theory, as most cyclical universe theories involve String Theory. My answer is the same toward String Theory as it is toward Multiverse Theory. String Theory is physically impossible to test, observe, or verify. It is possible that String Theory is the way that nature works, but it seems like a whole lot of work to explain why we see the universe the way we do, while the alternative theory will always be a finite universe where the four dimensions began at the Big Bang. And the simpler answer will always be the finite universe.

Would we even conceive of String Theory if an infinite amount of time wasn't needed to explain the way things are? I think String Theory is only being theorized in order to justify an infinite universe. If a finite universe didn't create such theological and philosophical problems, no one would ever consider String Theory, since it is a long answer to explain the reason we observe our universe the way we do.

No, not all of them do. The most recent one does not. This last one grew out of the 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' observations.

[4gold]

No, not all of them do. The most recent one does not. This last one grew out of the 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' observations.

Very interesting! Do you have a link so that I can do some research? I had not heard of that theory!

Suffice it to say, no matter where we go with this thread, the answer to the original question is, "No, a timeless God cannot exist in an infinite universe, but yes, a timeless God can exist in a finite universe."

So then the real question becomes: Is the universe infinite or finite? I had never heard of a testable theory of an infinite universe before, and I will be very interested in seeing the theory.