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]

They don't coexist in the same realm. Both realms may coexist in that they both are in existence but that doesn't necessarily mean they have to have an effect or interact with each other if they're each confined to their own realm. Being in another realm can simply implies that not all of reality and existence is of or in the physical Universe. There are other places or domains of existence, just as the spiritiual realm is to the physical realm, and neither need to work the exact same way as they clearly don't by definition.

Such a definition of "realms" is only coherent if the B-theory of time is correct. B-theory teaches there is in fact no such thing as time, and that the appearance of a temporal order to the world is a mere appearance. The past, present, and future are all equally real - without actual distinction.

The A-theory of time, which is the conventional view, is that time is real. There are metaphysical differences between the past, present and future. The passage of time is a progression. The future becomes the present, the present becomes the past. The future is mutable, and not completely predictable.

If A-theory is correct (as I believe) then time is real, and it is impossible for a timeless realm to exist simultaneously with a temporal realm. It's impossible to get "outside of time." William Lane Craig is an A-theorist. His metaphysical hypothesis is that God existed in a timeless state prior to the creation of the physical universe (there was no passage of time), but when he created space-time - he became temporal because there's no way around it. Time passes, God interacts with the physical universe (including its temporal creation, the execution of miracles within it, and the extraction of souls from it when they die).

I'm not sure if you're saying that it's impossible to get outside of time under 'A theory' because spacetime is all that exists or if it's because God wouldn't be able to act in a timeless realm. I'll try to address both.

I'll address the part of your response that I put in bold font. First question, why is it impossible to get outside of time? Can it be proven that space/time/matter all that exists absolutely everywhere and even if not that it wouldn't leave the door open to an 'immaterial' realm?

If you're saying that going outside of time is impossible because God would not be able to act in that state, the for now I agree. I believe He can still have some awareness there at least, even if it takes experiencing or seeing everything there is to see simultaneously which I think is compatible with omniscience.

Also, I don't completely agree with Dr. Craig if he's saying that God would fit under A-theory. According to the Bible, God would fit under B-theory because the past, present, and future are all equal to Him, He's not bound to them to pass through each as a progression like we are. Craig does at least believe that a timeless state did exists at one point though but these verses below still indicate that God would fit B-theory:

2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. (Also Psalm 90:4).

B-theory is consistent with the view that all of spacetime is a self-contained 4-dimensional entity. Unlike A-theory, this is consistent with the notion of "other realms" outside of this entity. However, B-theory is inconsistent with the notion of free will - because free will requires the future to be contingent and mutable. Free will implies that we choose our future, but if time is an illusion, as B-theory suggests, the course of history is laid out like a movie. Everything is pre-destined.

Do you truly accept a B-Theory of time?

I'm more for A-theory with some moderation. I'd like to say I would find some line in between. When I discuss free-will though I do find myself falling into B-theory, in that there are others who are me in just in a different moment in time but they're all choosing according to what they wanted which in effect is what I wanted at that given time point. In order for me to change that would be like making me do different than what I wanted to do. If free-will requires that than it is illogical, I'd like to think that requirement is not really necessary.

[fredonly]

They don't coexist in the same realm. Both realms may coexist in that they both are in existence but that doesn't necessarily mean they have to have an effect or interact with each other if they're each confined to their own realm. Being in another realm can simply implies that not all of reality and existence is of or in the physical Universe. There are other places or domains of existence, just as the spiritiual realm is to the physical realm, and neither need to work the exact same way as they clearly don't by definition.

Such a definition of "realms" is only coherent if the B-theory of time is correct. B-theory teaches there is in fact no such thing as time, and that the appearance of a temporal order to the world is a mere appearance. The past, present, and future are all equally real - without actual distinction.

The A-theory of time, which is the conventional view, is that time is real. There are metaphysical differences between the past, present and future. The passage of time is a progression. The future becomes the present, the present becomes the past. The future is mutable, and not completely predictable.

If A-theory is correct (as I believe) then time is real, and it is impossible for a timeless realm to exist simultaneously with a temporal realm. It's impossible to get "outside of time." William Lane Craig is an A-theorist. His metaphysical hypothesis is that God existed in a timeless state prior to the creation of the physical universe (there was no passage of time), but when he created space-time - he became temporal because there's no way around it. Time passes, God interacts with the physical universe (including its temporal creation, the execution of miracles within it, and the extraction of souls from it when they die).

I'm not sure if you're saying that it's impossible to get outside of time under 'A theory' because spacetime is all that exists or if it's because God wouldn't be able to act in a timeless realm. I'll try to address both.

I'll address the part of your response that I put in bold font. First question, why is it impossible to get outside of time? Can it be proven that space/time/matter all that exists absolutely everywhere and even if not that it wouldn't leave the door open to an 'immaterial' realm?

You’re giving an argument from ignorance, demanding I disprove your premise rather than providing support for it (ANYTHING is possible, and it's irrational to believe anything simply because it has not been disproven). To have a plausible argument that it is possible to get outside time, you’ll need to give me a definition of time that would allow it. B-theory allows it, but it comes with some baggage – such as predestination and lack of free will. You’re trying to argue that A-theory allows all of time to be (so to speak) put in a box and viewed from outside of it. With A-theory this is not possible, because the future is not real – it has not happened yet. It can’t be packaged up.

If you're saying that going outside of time is impossible because God would not be able to act in that state, the for now I agree. I believe He can still have some awareness there at least, even if it takes experiencing or seeing everything there is to see simultaneously which I think is compatible with omniscience

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that it’s impossible to be an “outside of time� in A-theory, because the past is gone and the future isn’t real – tomorrow only becomes real when we’re in it. Boxing up all of time is only possible if past, present, and future are equally real. A-theory denies this.

Also, I don't completely agree with Dr. Craig if he's saying that God would fit under A-theory. According to the Bible, God would fit under B-theory because the past, present, and future are all equal to Him, He's not bound to them to pass through each as a progression like we are. Craig does at least believe that a timeless state did exists at one point though but these verses below still indicate that God would fit B-theory:

2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. (Also Psalm 90:4).

This passage sounds like time dilation, not B-theory. However, if you think B-theory is more consistent with the Bible – that’s fine, but you need to confront the implications of B-theory. I mentioned the problem with free-will and pre-destination. B-theory breaks down the wall between actual and potential infinite: in A-theory, the future is a potential infinite. The future stretches on indefinitely, but taking it one day at a time, we will never reach an infinite number of days. In B-theory, the future is actual (as is the past) – so this actual infinity is somehow contained. IMO, this is the strongest argument against B-theory.

B-theory is consistent with the view that all of spacetime is a self-contained 4-dimensional entity. Unlike A-theory, this is consistent with the notion of "other realms" outside of this entity. However, B-theory is inconsistent with the notion of free will - because free will requires the future to be contingent and mutable. Free will implies that we choose our future, but if time is an illusion, as B-theory suggests, the course of history is laid out like a movie. Everything is pre-destined.
Do you truly accept a B-Theory of time?

I'm more for A-theory with some moderation. I'd like to say I would find some line in between. When I discuss free-will though I do find myself falling into B-theory, in that there are others who are me in just in a different moment in time but they're all choosing according to what they wanted which in effect is what I wanted at that given time point. In order for me to change that would be like making me do different than what I wanted to do. If free-will requires that than it is illogical, I'd like to think that requirement is not really necessary.

What part of A-theory do you accept? You seem to be thoroughly in the B-theory camp.

[horiturk]

when God created this universe he created space and time,hence finite matter ages,decays and changes into different forms...but never disappears. these are fundamental laws that God instituted

[horiturk]

when God created this universe he created space and time,hence finite matter ages,decays and changes into different forms...but never disappears. these are fundamental laws that God instituted. as evident from scripture,spirit matter does not decay or die,and we don't know how or if spirits experience time in the same way.God is eternal and therefore above space and time as its creator,spirit beings are created so they are not eternal.....but seem to be ageless in the physical sense.

[Cathar1950]

This looks like a good place.
I just wanted to run this by you guys for fn.\

I am going to try an exercise in compromise an imagination with the minimal amount of doctrine and dogma and present the possibility of a somewhat different type of God borrowing from various ideas I have run across and possible misunderstood.
.
I am going to imagine a God hat is he ground of all being and becoming.
I want to avoid dualism and the problem of having two Gods or something irrational.
Lets say there is a God and God creates the Universe then God and he Universe would be greater then just God unless God is intimately related to the universe such as being the ground of all being and becoming and God always surpassing God in becoming enriching the experience of God. The universe is evolving or unfolding with emergent properties which enrich and add to the experiences of God.\
God has a sympathetic relationship with the universe and not only enjoys it but suffers with it. Anything can be seen as an emanation of God.
God has all the power because there is nothing separate from God and love is sympathy.
God is in the making and extends our reach and what it means to be human. Maybe once God was as dumb as a rock but God is a lot smarted and can still be surprised by creation.
[/u]

[fredonly]

when God created this universe he created space and time,hence finite matter ages,decays and changes into different forms...but never disappears. these are fundamental laws that God instituted.

I have no problem with this, so far.

as evident from scripture,spirit matter does not decay or die,and we don't know how or if spirits experience time in the same way.God is eternal and therefore above space and time as its creator,spirit beings are created so they are not eternal.....but seem to be ageless in the physical sense.

"eternal" and "above space and time" are incoherent concepts unless you get explicit.

Does "eternal" mean he existed in an infinitely long temporal past? If yes, then you have destroyed the Kalam Cosmological Argument - which relies on the argument that the past cannot be infinite - not even God's past. Any infinite past results with an impossible infinite regress.

What does it mean for God to be "above space and time?" How can someone "above space and time" and interact with it (listening to prayers; performing miracles; etc)? If he's above it, but can interact with it, does that mean that the future actually exists - that it is just as real as the present? Does the future proceed infinitely? If past, present, and future are equally real then an infinite future constitutes an actual existing infinity. An actual, existing infinity appears to be an impossibility because it creates contradictions (read about Hilbert's Hotel).

[fredonly]

This looks like a good place.
I just wanted to run this by you guys for fn.\

...
I am going to imagine a God hat is he ground of all being and becoming.

What is the size and color of this hat?

God is in the making and extends our reach and what it means to be human. Maybe once God was as dumb as a rock but God is a lot smarted and can still be surprised by creation.

I think your question(s) belong in the Philosophy subforum. I don't see how you can reconcile your premise with this forum's rule that the Bible is considered authoritative. I don't think a previous state of God as "dumb as a rock" is consistent with the Bible.

[Cathar1950]

This looks like a good place.
I just wanted to run this by you guys for fn.\

...
I am going to imagine a God hat is he ground of all being and becoming.

What is the size and color of this hat?

God is in the making and extends our reach and what it means to be human. Maybe once God was as dumb as a rock but God is a lot smarted and can still be surprised by creation.

I think your question(s) belong in the Philosophy subforum. I don't see how you can reconcile your premise with this forum's rule that the Bible is considered authoritative. I don't think a previous state of God as "dumb as a rock" is consistent with the Bible.

His hat would be big enough for his head and fit its purpose, the color would be according to his mood of course.
I Apologize I thought this was the philosophy section.
tHANK you all.

[ScotS]

Hi Fredonly and welcome back. I found our conversation to be quite enlightening before on this subject matter.

B-theory is consistent with the view that all of spacetime is a self-contained 4-dimensional entity. Unlike A-theory, this is consistent with the notion of "other realms" outside of this entity. However, B-theory is inconsistent with the notion of free will - because free will requires the future to be contingent and mutable. Free will implies that we choose our future, but if time is an illusion, as B-theory suggests, the course of history is laid out like a movie. Everything is pre-destined.

You might recall earlier in the thread when I stated that I thought Craig was taking a rather circuitous route in trying to reconcile God and time and omniscience, etc. I believe it is because of the bolded statement above. My problem with Craig's whole line of reasoning is that he is under the mistaken notion that freewill and an immutable timeline (and therefore omniscience) are incompatible and so he has to go all over the place (A-theory, "middle knowledge", etc).

I assert that there is no reason that freewill and immutable time can't be compatible, as long as you are using a reasonable definition for freewill.

[fredonly]

Hi Fredonly and welcome back. I found our conversation to be quite enlightening before on this subject matter.

B-theory is consistent with the view that all of spacetime is a self-contained 4-dimensional entity. Unlike A-theory, this is consistent with the notion of "other realms" outside of this entity. However, B-theory is inconsistent with the notion of free will - because free will requires the future to be contingent and mutable. Free will implies that we choose our future, but if time is an illusion, as B-theory suggests, the course of history is laid out like a movie. Everything is pre-destined.

You might recall earlier in the thread when I stated that I thought Craig was taking a rather circuitous route in trying to reconcile God and time and omniscience, etc. I believe it is because of the bolded statement above. My problem with Craig's whole line of reasoning is that he is under the mistaken notion that freewill and an immutable timeline (and therefore omniscience) are incompatible and so he has to go all over the place (A-theory, "middle knowledge", etc).

I don't see anything circular about Craig's world-view, but I do see that the elements of his world view trace a twisted path - maybe this is what you mean. e.g. I think one main reason he rejects B-theory is because the Kalam argument doesn't work with it. I honestly don't know if Craig sees a problem with free-will in B-theory; that's just something I concluded.

I assert that there is no reason that freewill and immutable time can't be compatible, as long as you are using a reasonable definition for freewill.

OK, you'll have to define it for me then. Here's the problem I see: in B-theory, the path of my life is fully laid out; the "choices" I appear to make will lead me down this path - I can't alter the path since it's laid down.

Give me your definition of free-will that works with B-theory,