God and Time

[NoisForm]

Some of the more interesting debates in my opinion center around the various attributes assigned to god (I am thinking specifically of the Judeo-Christian concept of god), these attributes presumably being deduced from what is contained in the Christian Bible.

As a proposed solution to some philosophical problem or another, I've heard it said that this god is 'timeless'. For the moment, I'll put aside that this term has no meaning for me. Suffice to say that those who use the term seem to mean outside of, unaffected by or beyond time.

My question is, is there any biblical support for this notion? I am at a loss to find any. I find some support for an eternal entity, and that is rather scant - only a couple of passages. Regardless, this is quite different form 'timeless'. Any specific reference to timelessness, beyond time, unaffected by time, etc., seem to be conspicuously absent from the text.

1 - Are there any references to this sort of a timeless deity in the Christian Bible?

2 - If not, is the use of such a term/concept justifiable when describing the god of the Bible?

3 - 'extra credit' - If you are one that uses such a term to describe god, can you assign any coherent meaning to the term? (preferably, something other than negation)



-for reference, the couple of passages I find that relate to an 'eternal' god, along with the meanings of the words used;

Deu 33:27 (NIV) The eternal God [is thy] refuge...

eternal from 'qedem';
1) east, antiquity, front, that which is before, aforetime
a) front, from the front or east, in front, mount of the East
b) ancient time, aforetime, ancient, from of old, earliest time
c) anciently, of old (adverb)
d) beginning
e) east

Psalm 90:2 (NIV) 2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

everlasting from '`owlam';
1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world
a) ancient time, long time (of past)
b) (of future)
1) for ever, always
2) continuous existence, perpetual
3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity

[Angel]

If there is a real realm of existence outside of time, then God would be there. BUT He would also be in time and everywhere else as well via 'omnipresence'. I'm not fully convinced or don't know enough to draw a conclusion on if God is outside of time or only in time or if He exists in BOTH realms in some way, shape, or form.

[fredonly]

If God exists now, or ever existed in a timeless state then he couldn't have done time-based things while in that state. He couldn't have done a sequence of things, one followed by another - such as decide to create the universe, and then to actually create it. It's not sufficient to say God can do anything - he can't create logical contradictions such as a round square or a married bachelor; God can't extend himself north of the north pole. I think the only definition of a "timeless state" is of a frozen moment in time. If God is in that state now, then he is external to the universe, not an actor in it, and certainly not changing, making decisions, answering prayers. That notion contradicts Christian beliefs about God - so God must be in time, and acting temporally.

William Lane Craig argues that God was timeless until he created the universe (and time with it), and simultaneously he became a temporal actor. See posts #2 and #5 in this thread.

[Angel]

If God exists now, or ever existed in a timeless state then he couldn't have done time-based things while in that state. He couldn't have done a sequence of things, one followed by another - such as decide to create the universe, and then to actually create it. It's not sufficient to say God can do anything - he can't create logical contradictions such as a round square or a married bachelor; God can't extend himself north of the north pole. I think the only definition of a "timeless state" is of a frozen moment in time. If God is in that state now, then he is external to the universe, not an actor in it, and certainly not changing, making decisions, answering prayers. That notion contradicts Christian beliefs about God - so God must be in time, and acting temporally.

William Lane Craig argues that God was timeless until he created the universe (and time with it), and simultaneously he became a temporal actor. See posts #2 and #5 in this thread.

Craig's argument is conjecture to me. No one may know for sure. But if both a realm of timelessness and of time exist, then it would not be a impossible for God to be in both. By the definition of omnipresence He would have to be. He would be experiencing different things from different perspectives or states. When God appeared on Earth in human form, I doubt that was meant to imply that He was only aware of his human body and the location of that human body. He was in some non-physical form elsewhere or at least aware of all other places.


Now if we're speaking about at the point of creation, then I can agree, although if some scientists beginning positing that there was a point before time, and yet the Universe still came to be from whatever causes, then why can't God cause things before that same point of time?

[fredonly]

If God exists now, or ever existed in a timeless state then he couldn't have done time-based things while in that state. He couldn't have done a sequence of things, one followed by another - such as decide to create the universe, and then to actually create it. It's not sufficient to say God can do anything - he can't create logical contradictions such as a round square or a married bachelor; God can't extend himself north of the north pole. I think the only definition of a "timeless state" is of a frozen moment in time. If God is in that state now, then he is external to the universe, not an actor in it, and certainly not changing, making decisions, answering prayers. That notion contradicts Christian beliefs about God - so God must be in time, and acting temporally.

William Lane Craig argues that God was timeless until he created the universe (and time with it), and simultaneously he became a temporal actor. See posts #2 and #5 in this thread.

Craig's argument is conjecture to me. No one may know for sure.

Some things can be known with near certainty - and one such thing is that God cannot violate the laws of logic; he cannot create a contradiction. Craig's conjecture is based on deduction, which uses logic -- implicitly assuming, of course, that logic applies to all of reality (if it doesn't, then all theologians and religious philosophers are completely wasting their time, as are any of us who try to understand anything about God and creation).

Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument hinges on the assumption that the universe began to exist at some time. The basis for this is that the alternative, that the universe has an infinite history, is logically impossible because an infinite history would require traversing an infinite amount of past time - which is logically impossible (as I've defended several times, see: here)

But if the infinite regression argument works for the universe, it also works for God - and Craig knows this. Had God existed during an infinite past, He never would have reached the day on which he created the universe - that would require an infinite tranversal.

If God is the first cause, and creator of the universe, he had to exist "prior to" the creation of the universe. Craig says this "prior to" is not temporal, but is the logical antecedent. But once time existed, it is logically impossible for God to exist out of time. This is tied in to Craig's concept that there is no simultaneously existing space-time continuum, with God outside of it but looking from his realm into it. Craig believes only "now" exists, the past is gone, and the future is just a potential. God exists temporally, and he exists NOW, because NOW is the only thing that exists. Yesterday doesn't exist. Tomorrow doesn't exist. As time proceeds, God will continue to exist. Looking back, God existed for all time - which is finite. There was never a time he didn't exist.

But if both a realm of timelessness and of time exist, then it would not be a impossible for God to be in both.

How can timelessness coexist with time? They seem mutually exclusive - unless you refer to a "freezing of time" something like General Realtivity, where a person accelerating toward the speed of light will experience time slower and slower. Time will nearly freeze as the speed of light is approached. The equation indicates it is impossible to actually reach the speed of light and actually freeze time, but at least this provides a context for understanding a type of timelessness - the individual is stuck in a frozen moment, while around him the rest of the universe proceeds into the potentially infinite future. This doesn't seem like a worthwhile place for God to occupy.

This is why I like Craig - he doesn't resort to a magical mystery land where up is green and circles have corners.

By the definition of omnipresence He would have to be. He would be experiencing different things from different perspectives or states. When God appeared on Earth in human form, I doubt that was meant to imply that He was only aware of his human body and the location of that human body. He was in some non-physical form elsewhere or at least aware of all other places.

He would "have to be" only if timelessness and temporality coexist - which seems to be a logical impossibility. If you want to believe this "just cuz" - go ahead, but doesn't it really make more sense to want to understand your God a bit better, by trying to decipher some things - as Craig has?

[Angel]

If God exists now, or ever existed in a timeless state then he couldn't have done time-based things while in that state. He couldn't have done a sequence of things, one followed by another - such as decide to create the universe, and then to actually create it. It's not sufficient to say God can do anything - he can't create logical contradictions such as a round square or a married bachelor; God can't extend himself north of the north pole. I think the only definition of a "timeless state" is of a frozen moment in time. If God is in that state now, then he is external to the universe, not an actor in it, and certainly not changing, making decisions, answering prayers. That notion contradicts Christian beliefs about God - so God must be in time, and acting temporally.

William Lane Craig argues that God was timeless until he created the universe (and time with it), and simultaneously he became a temporal actor. See posts #2 and #5 in this thread.

Craig's argument is conjecture to me. No one may know for sure.

Some things can be known with near certainty - and one such thing is that God cannot violate the laws of logic; he cannot create a contradiction. Craig's conjecture is based on deduction, which uses logic -- implicitly assuming, of course, that logic applies to all of reality (if it doesn't, then all theologians and religious philosophers are completely wasting their time, as are any of us who try to understand anything about God and creation).

Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument hinges on the assumption that the universe began to exist at some time. The basis for this is that the alternative, that the universe has an infinite history, is logically impossible because an infinite history would require traversing an infinite amount of past time - which is logically impossible (as I've defended several times, see: here)

But if the infinite regression argument works for the universe, it also works for God - and Craig knows this. Had God existed during an infinite past, He never would have reached the day on which he created the universe - that would require an infinite tranversal.

You mentioned earlier that Craig also believes that God existed in a timeless state. That's different than what he holds for the Universe. The infinite regress argument would only apply to the Universe because of causation and time but it would not apply to God in the same way if He was in a timeless state. If 'time' did not always exist, then it is necessary that an uncaused something or someone existed and that that thing or being was timeless.

If God is the first cause, and creator of the universe, he had to exist "prior to" the creation of the universe. Craig says this "prior to" is not temporal, but is the logical antecedent. But once time existed, it is logically impossible for God to exist out of time. This is tied in to Craig's concept that there is no simultaneously existing space-time continuum, with God outside of it but looking from his realm into it.

So what happened to the timeless realm, did it just disappear?

Craig believes only "now" exists, the past is gone, and the future is just a potential. God exists temporally, and he exists NOW, because NOW is the only thing that exists. Yesterday doesn't exist. Tomorrow doesn't exist. As time proceeds, God will continue to exist. Looking back, God existed for all time - which is finite. There was never a time he didn't exist.

If this is Craig's view then he's going against his Christian beliefs. The Bible clearly says that 1 day to God is like 1,000 years. We can at least infer that God doesn't experience time the same we do, although that doesn't say much as far as if He's in or outside of time. If He is in time He's not bound to just our present.

But if both a realm of timelessness and of time exist, then it would not be a impossible for God to be in both.

How can timelessness coexist with time? They seem mutually exclusive - unless you refer to a "freezing of time" something like General Realtivity, where a person accelerating toward the speed of light will experience time slower and slower. Time will nearly freeze as the speed of light is approached. The equation indicates it is impossible to actually reach the speed of light and actually freeze time, but at least this provides a context for understanding a type of timelessness - the individual is stuck in a frozen moment, while around him the rest of the universe proceeds into the potentially infinite future. This doesn't seem like a worthwhile place for God to occupy.

Your explanation was not what I was thinking of. I was only speaking about being about being in 2 different places at the same time. This doesn't have to involve physical presence like the phenomena of bilocation or electrons but I believe God being aware of those 2 locations would constitute some presence in those places, in some way, shape, or form.

By the definition of omnipresence He would have to be. He would be experiencing different things from different perspectives or states. When God appeared on Earth in human form, I doubt that was meant to imply that He was only aware of his human body and the location of that human body. He was in some non-physical form elsewhere or at least aware of all other places.

He would "have to be" only if timelessness and temporality coexist - which seems to be a logical impossibility.

Only if they coexisted in the same location or realm, then that would be a logical impossibility. I never said they did.

[fredonly]

If God exists now, or ever existed in a timeless state then he couldn't have done time-based things while in that state. He couldn't have done a sequence of things, one followed by another - such as decide to create the universe, and then to actually create it. It's not sufficient to say God can do anything - he can't create logical contradictions such as a round square or a married bachelor; God can't extend himself north of the north pole. I think the only definition of a "timeless state" is of a frozen moment in time. If God is in that state now, then he is external to the universe, not an actor in it, and certainly not changing, making decisions, answering prayers. That notion contradicts Christian beliefs about God - so God must be in time, and acting temporally.

William Lane Craig argues that God was timeless until he created the universe (and time with it), and simultaneously he became a temporal actor. See posts #2 and #5 in this thread.

Craig's argument is conjecture to me. No one may know for sure.

Some things can be known with near certainty - and one such thing is that God cannot violate the laws of logic; he cannot create a contradiction. Craig's conjecture is based on deduction, which uses logic -- implicitly assuming, of course, that logic applies to all of reality (if it doesn't, then all theologians and religious philosophers are completely wasting their time, as are any of us who try to understand anything about God and creation).

Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument hinges on the assumption that the universe began to exist at some time. The basis for this is that the alternative, that the universe has an infinite history, is logically impossible because an infinite history would require traversing an infinite amount of past time - which is logically impossible (as I've defended several times, see: here)

But if the infinite regression argument works for the universe, it also works for God - and Craig knows this. Had God existed during an infinite past, He never would have reached the day on which he created the universe - that would require an infinite tranversal.

You mentioned earlier that Craig also believes that God existed in a timeless state. That's different than what he holds for the Universe. The infinite regress argument would only apply to the Universe because of causation and time but it would not apply to God in the same way if He was in a timeless state. If 'time' did not always exist, then it is necessary that an uncaused something or someone existed and that that thing or being was timeless.

That's pretty much correct, although your statement, "If 'time' did not always exist..." doesn't make literal sense, because "always" implies "all time". Craig writes,

"At the beginning of time no past tense statements could be made, since there was no past...to say there was a time when the universe did not exist does not imply there was such a time, but only that we can mentally conceive of such a time. To say there is no time before the first event is like saying there is no temperature -273 C.[i.e. absolute zero] Both express limits beyond which only the mind can travel. "

If God is the first cause, and creator of the universe, he had to exist "prior to" the creation of the universe. Craig says this "prior to" is not temporal, but is the logical antecedent. But once time existed, it is logically impossible for God to exist out of time. This is tied in to Craig's concept that there is no simultaneously existing space-time continuum, with God outside of it but looking from his realm into it.

So what happened to the timeless realm, did it just disappear?

In another article, Craig writes:
"What must be done is to dissolve the linear geometrical structure of pre-creation time. One must maintain that "prior " to creation there literally are no intervals of time at all. There would be no earlier and later, no enduring through successive intervals and, hence, no waiting, no temporal becoming. This state would pass away, not successively, but as a whole, at the moment of creation, when time begins."

Craig believes only "now" exists, the past is gone, and the future is just a potential. God exists temporally, and he exists NOW, because NOW is the only thing that exists. Yesterday doesn't exist. Tomorrow doesn't exist. As time proceeds, God will continue to exist. Looking back, God existed for all time - which is finite. There was never a time he didn't exist.

If this is Craig's view then he's going against his Christian beliefs. The Bible clearly says that 1 day to God is like 1,000 years. We can at least infer that God doesn't experience time the same we do, although that doesn't say much as far as if He's in or outside of time. If He is in time He's not bound to just our present.

This isn't inconsistent - the description of "1 day to God is like 1,000 years" is a valid description of God in his temporal state; it doesn't apply to his prior, timeless state.

But if both a realm of timelessness and of time exist, then it would not be a impossible for God to be in both.

How can timelessness coexist with time? They seem mutually exclusive - unless you refer to a "freezing of time" something like General Realtivity, where a person accelerating toward the speed of light will experience time slower and slower. Time will nearly freeze as the speed of light is approached. The equation indicates it is impossible to actually reach the speed of light and actually freeze time, but at least this provides a context for understanding a type of timelessness - the individual is stuck in a frozen moment, while around him the rest of the universe proceeds into the potentially infinite future. This doesn't seem like a worthwhile place for God to occupy.

Your explanation was not what I was thinking of. I was only speaking about being about being in 2 different places at the same time. This doesn't have to involve physical presence like the phenomena of bilocation or electrons but I believe God being aware of those 2 locations would constitute some presence in those places, in some way, shape, or form.

But aren't you still implying that there is some sort of timelessness that is coexisting with time? Whether or not this is logically possible depends on the nature of time. Philosophers have posed 2 such theories:

A-Theory: The present represents the edge of becoming, and future events do not merely not yet exist, rather they do not exist at all.

B-Theory: temporal becoming is mind-dependent and purely subjective. Time neither flows nor do things come to be except in the sense that we at one moment are conscious of them after not having been conscious of them at an earlier moment. Things simultaneous with different moments on the time-line are equally existent and are tenselessly related to each other by the relations of earlier than, simultaneous with, and later than, to which past, present, and future can be reduced. Anything that from our perspective has, does, or will exist in the universe in fact simply exists (tenselessly).

A separate "timeless realm" is consistent only with the B-theory of time. In that case, God could be said to exist in this realm. However, Craig argues that the B-theory of time is inconsistent with creatio ex nihilo:

"On the B-theory creatio ex nihilo is reduced to the ontological dependence of the creation upon God and the space-time continuum's having a front edge. But the creation as a whole is co-eternal with God in the sense that it exists as tenselessly as He. There is no state of affairs in the actual world which consists of God existing alone without creation."

By the definition of omnipresence He would have to be. He would be experiencing different things from different perspectives or states. When God appeared on Earth in human form, I doubt that was meant to imply that He was only aware of his human body and the location of that human body. He was in some non-physical form elsewhere or at least aware of all other places.

He would "have to be" only if timelessness and temporality coexist - which seems to be a logical impossibility.

Only if they coexisted in the same location or realm, then that would be a logical impossibility. I never said they did.

So you're saying they CAN co-exist if they are in a different "location or realm?" As I said above, this requires a B-theory of time, which is inconsistent with creatio ex nihilo. He also relates a completely secular argument in support of the A-theory of time:

"It can be plausibly argued, I think, that the A-theory of time is both philosophically and theologically superior to the B-theory. Philosophically, one should agree with D. H. Mellor that "Tense is so striking an aspect of reality that only the most compelling argument justifies denying it: namely that the tensed view of time is self-contradictory and so cannot be true" and then proceed to show that in fact all such attempts to elicit a contradiction, such as McTaggart's, fail, leaving us secure in our naturally intuitive A-theoretic understanding. No B-theorist, on the other hand, has successfully answered, in my estimation, the charge that his theory is incoherent because the mind-dependence of physical becoming requires a real becoming in the subjective contents of consciousness. In favor of the A-theory, one might argue that it gives the most adequate analysis of personal identity and that the tensed-ness of our language and experience is uneliminable." -- http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... ltime.html

[ScotS]

I am rather surprised to find that Craig is such a big proponent of A-theory time. IMO A time is completely inconsistent with omniscience; i.e. how can one know something that does not exist?

[fredonly]

I am rather surprised to find that Craig is such a big proponent of A-theory time. IMO A time is completely inconsistent with omniscience; i.e. how can one know something that does not exist?

Here's one brief answer that Craig has to this:

The property of omniscience is the property of knowing that p, for any true proposition p, and not believing not-p, or, in other words, the property of knowing only and all true propositions.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=8209

Elsewhere, Craig seems to reject the notion that God has foreknowledge of what will occur, instead he has "middle-knowledge" - he knows what the outcome will be of any contingent act. Foreknowledge would make God an "accessory before the fact" for any evil that is ever done.
See: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=5958

My interpretation is: Consistent with this middle-knowledge, God knows what the outcome will be of anything that He plans to do These provide a type of foreknowledge, but not perfect knowledge of what will BE - because the future is yet to unfold - they aren't yet truths. This makes free will possible; perfect, timeless foreknowledge would not.

My interpretation may not be exactly what Craig thinks; I'd have to read more. One thing I can tell you: nearly every question I've had about Craig's metaphysics, I've been able to find his answer to by searching his website. If nothing else, the guy has certainly thought things through pretty thoroughly.

[ScotS]

How can timelessness coexist with time? They seem mutually exclusive - unless you refer to a "freezing of time" something like General Realtivity, where a person accelerating toward the speed of light will experience time slower and slower. Time will nearly freeze as the speed of light is approached. The equation indicates it is impossible to actually reach the speed of light and actually freeze time, but at least this provides a context for understanding a type of timelessness - the individual is stuck in a frozen moment, while around him the rest of the universe proceeds into the potentially infinite future. This doesn't seem like a worthwhile place for God to occupy.

This is why I like Craig - he doesn't resort to a magical mystery land where up is green and circles have corners.

(Responses are based on my limited and fallible knowledge of the subject matter.)

I think the above description is might be closer to the truth than you realize. My understanding is that only matter is affected by time. Energy is not. Consider a photon of light leaving a distant galaxy several billion years ago. It crosses the vastness of ever-expanding space and finally reaches your eye. From your perspective it took billions of years for that photon to reach your retina. But what about from the perspective of the photon? Zero time has passed for it, yet it has experienced its origin, its demise, and all events in between. All time, within its range of experience, would not be frozen but rather simultaneous.

Incidentally, this is part of the reason I think A-theory time is wrong. Relativity seems to indicate that the "present" is dependent upon the observer (see simultaneity), which to me seems inconsistent with A theory.

The property of omniscience is the property of knowing that p, for any true proposition p, and not [strike]believing[/strike] knowing not-p, or, in other words, the property of knowing only and all true propositions.

Ok, I have no problem with this definition with the correction I made above, since believing p to be true does not actually require p to be true.

Elsewhere, Craig seems to reject the notion that God has foreknowledge of what will occur, instead he has "middle-knowledge" - he knows what the outcome will be of any contingent act.

My interpretation is: Consistent with this middle-knowledge, God knows what the outcome will be of anything that He plans to do These provide a type of foreknowledge, but not perfect knowledge of what will BE - because the future is yet to unfold - they aren't yet truths.

It seems to me that "middle-knowledge" is not really knowledge at all. It's just a well-justified belief. This argument reduces God to being a really good fortune-teller.

This makes free will possible; perfect, timeless foreknowledge would not.

How does foreknowledge prevent free will?

[Goat]

f. This argument reduces God to being a really good fortune-teller.

This makes free will possible; perfect, timeless foreknowledge would not.

How does foreknowledge prevent free will?

Because the 'choice' is already predetermined, even before it has to be made. The fact you have a choice to make and will make it in a specific manner is known even 'before you were born'. It is all pre-determined.