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

[mgb]

Someone said 'Time is a moving image of eternity' It seems that we get a pedestrian experience of eternity in time. The present moment in time is just where light rays happen to converge; we are at that point. If, like God, we are everywhere at once time does not exist in this pedestrian way. It exists as eternal time. That is all there really is.

[fredonly]

Someone said 'Time is a moving image of eternity' It seems that we get a pedestrian experience of eternity in time. The present moment in time is just where light rays happen to converge; we are at that point. If, like God, we are everywhere at once time does not exist in this pedestrian way. It exists as eternal time. That is all there really is.

You are arguing for a B-theory of time. How do you know it's true? Read the posts of ScotS (defending B-theory) and me (defending A-theory).

[ScotS]

How many actual futures are there with A theory?

Unless you believe the "many worlds" theory, only one future will occur with A theory as well (or more specifically, only one possible future will become the present/past I suppose).

There are ZERO actual futures in A-theory, there are only potential futures, and an infinite number of these. That's the key difference. In A-theory the future is not actual. In B-theory, the future is actual.

(or more specifically, only one possible future will become the present/past I suppose)

Right - one of the infinite number of futures becomes actual - but only as it becomes the present. The passage of time is a perpetual becoming.

Suppose that tomorrow, a friend of yours knocks on your door. He is excited because he has just invented time travel; he traveled from Saturday Dec 4 back to Tuesday Nov 30. You mention to him this debate you and I are having. He replies, "what an amazing coincidence...you and I were together the entire hour, 12-1, on Dec 1. I know for a fact that you did not eat pizza."

Wednesday, Dec 1 roles around. As expected, your friend (the present incarnation) shows up. But since you want to demonstrate your free choice, you insist that the 2 of you go and eat pizza. You will not be able to! Your actual future, previously revealed to you, is fixed (in B-theory) and so it is unavoidable. Something will thwart you, an accident, an emergency,...something is destined to prevent you from eating the pizza no matter what you do.

I agree with you that in this example if my friend has genuine knowledge (which he does in this example) that I will not eat pizza, then I won't. It is still a contingent truth that I do not eat pizza and is still possible that I could have, but didn't for some reason.

On the other hand, instead of trying to force pizza down your throat let's say you simply follow your urges, it is clear that your urge will be to not eat pizza. It will feel like a choice, but it will have been pre-determined. Your urge will be the unavoidable urge to follow your destiny. All choices will seem real, but the outcome of each choice is already laid out. Destiny forces each choice.

(Thanks - I had a great Thanksgiving. I hope you did as well.)

I believe you have it backwards. My action is what forces destiny, not the other way around. My friend has knowledge that I do not eat pizza only because I don't eat pizza. Maybe I don't want pizza or maybe all the pizza places are closed. It doesn't really matter why. (I did not have pizza on the 1st, btw. A rock fell out of the sky and crushed the pizza parlor!! )

Here is your example, formalized in a logical argument:
P: ScotS eats pizza, etc...
fKP: ScotS's time-travelling friend knows P

1. fKP → □P (If ScotS's friend knows that ScotS will eat pizza, the ScotS must eat pizza.)
2. fKP (ScotS's friend knows ScotS eats the pizza.)
∴ □P (Therefore ScotS must eat the pizza.)

Does this capture your argument correctly?

[fredonly]

How many actual futures are there with A theory?

Unless you believe the "many worlds" theory, only one future will occur with A theory as well (or more specifically, only one possible future will become the present/past I suppose).

There are ZERO actual futures in A-theory, there are only potential futures, and an infinite number of these. That's the key difference. In A-theory the future is not actual. In B-theory, the future is actual.

(or more specifically, only one possible future will become the present/past I suppose)

Right - one of the infinite number of futures becomes actual - but only as it becomes the present. The passage of time is a perpetual becoming.

Suppose that tomorrow, a friend of yours knocks on your door. He is excited because he has just invented time travel; he traveled from Saturday Dec 4 back to Tuesday Nov 30. You mention to him this debate you and I are having. He replies, "what an amazing coincidence...you and I were together the entire hour, 12-1, on Dec 1. I know for a fact that you did not eat pizza."

Wednesday, Dec 1 roles around. As expected, your friend (the present incarnation) shows up. But since you want to demonstrate your free choice, you insist that the 2 of you go and eat pizza. You will not be able to! Your actual future, previously revealed to you, is fixed (in B-theory) and so it is unavoidable. Something will thwart you, an accident, an emergency,...something is destined to prevent you from eating the pizza no matter what you do.

I agree with you that in this example if my friend has genuine knowledge (which he does in this example) that I will not eat pizza, then I won't. It is still a contingent truth that I do not eat pizza and is still possible that I could have, but didn't for some reason.

Dec 1 is now in the past, and we now know you did not eat pizza. Is this a contingent truth? Of course not! It happened that way, and it cannot be changed. In B-theory, the future is exactly the same as the past: immutable.

On the other hand, instead of trying to force pizza down your throat let's say you simply follow your urges, it is clear that your urge will be to not eat pizza. It will feel like a choice, but it will have been pre-determined. Your urge will be the unavoidable urge to follow your destiny. All choices will seem real, but the outcome of each choice is already laid out. Destiny forces each choice.

I believe you have it backwards. My action is what forces destiny, not the other way around.

The passage of time is illusory in B-theory, and so is the idea that you are really making free choices. This is exactly the same as determinism. If the universe is 100% deterministic, then there can be no free will - it just SEEMS like free choices. Each apparent choice is made for reasons that made the choice inevitable.

Here is your example, formalized in a logical argument:
P: ScotS eats pizza, etc...
fKP: ScotS's time-travelling friend knows P

1. fKP → □P (If ScotS's friend knows that ScotS will eat pizza, the ScotS must eat pizza.)
2. fKP (ScotS's friend knows ScotS eats the pizza.)
∴ □P (Therefore ScotS must eat the pizza.)

Does this capture your argument correctly?

I think so.