God is timeless

[Ben Davis]

Apologies for the misuse of 'assume', I'll correct my statement: The problem is that the question, as valid as you consider it in theological terms, is predicated on the presupposition of god's existence.

[quote='Ben Davis' pid='555869' dateline='1386259451']
the OP presupposed God's existence in his question, I have no need to prove his existence to answer his question. if I ask "what color is big foot?" do you seriously think i'm looking for evidence of his existence?

Then I think you get my point: many rational atheists see no more value in the philosophical musings on the properties of a 'non-existent' deity than they do on bigfoot. It's like the question "What's the smell of blue?"; essentially nonsensical.

[Rational AKD]

I can't fathom why it is logically impossible to destroy a space-time container and not expect time (the one on that container) to go on flowing...

ouch... too many double and triple-negatives in there... let me try to rephrase that...

Why should we expect to observe the flow of time once the space-time container is destroyed? Why is it logical that time goes on flowing once it is destroyed?

what you said first and what you rephrased aren't the same. you first asked why should time cease if space-time is destroyed, then rephrased to why does time continue once it's destroyed. maybe you should clarify what you say before you say it so I can properly address it.

I wouldn't say it's ridiculous... It just doesn't make sense.
The act of creation would have to be done in the absence of space and time. So the creation cannot be before anything else... nor after... these qualities don't make sense.

I think you're a little confused here. the creation of time could be said to be before all events in time, it just could not be said the creation of time happened before time was created. later events can still occur after the first event, but no events could occur prior.

WUT?!

let my try and break it down in steps.
P1: a chandelier hung by the ceiling is that which the ceiling caused the chandelier to be hung.
P2: the ceiling could not have supported the chandelier before the chandelier was hung, but must have supported it at the exact moment it was hung.
C1: simultaneous causations are possible.
P3: time has a cause.
C2: the cause of time must have a simultaneous causational relationship with time.

this shows how it is possible for God to create time without the need for it in the first place.

You're careless in your language and it shows... "creating time before time"... what does that 'before' means?!

you do realize when I said "creating time before time" it was presented as a logical absurdity, not as a possible explanation right?

---

The scientific method creates an hypothesis based on the evidence for the subject at hand. You have presented nothing.

nor was that my goal. as I stated, i'm here to answer the OP's question, not to go off topic.

Then I think you get my point: many rational atheists see no more value in the philosophical musings on the properties of a 'non-existent' deity than they do on bigfoot. It's like the question "What's the smell of blue?"; essentially nonsensical.

well sorry I can't answer one atheist's question well appeasing the numerous questions of other atheists simultaneously... except I honestly don't care. if they don't accept that presumption, fine. the answer isn't for them it's for the OP, so they can amuse themselves elsewhere.

[FreeTony]

The problem is most people get their view on time/space from watching sci-fi films. Dimensions don't work like in films where monsters come along from "another dimension".

I'm fairly certain, as has already been said, that no one understands time well enough to actually state something is timeless.

On the WLC thing I actually googled what he had to say on these matters. As has been pointed out philosophising on this kind of stuff is pretty pointless.
Philosophy wouldn't have been able to show General relativity is "correct" for example, which has greatly advanced our understanding of both time and space. I'm not saying philosophy is useless, as it can be used as a tool in order to come up with a hypothesis, but then it can't progress further than that without actually testing the hypothesis.

What observations would one expect from the A theory of time, and how would the differ from the B theory of time? If we can't even get past this stage, it is pointless going further. Until scientists find the answers to these questions then then the answer is "we don't know", and you shouldn't start making up statements like "timeless"

I do find it really concerning that Theists can't just say "we don't really know about that aspect of God" which would at least be truthful. If I don't know something hopefully i will admit that fact, not just make something up because it sounds good.

[Godscreated]

God's eternal what use does an eternal being have for time.

GC

He still crafted time, though, and made design choices that, if time were made solely for mankind, he wouldn't need to make. Incidentally, do you have any biblical reference for your claim there?

I believe when scripture is read we see that time came into being at the moment of creation, before that moment I believe that only eternity existed.
The biblical reference would be the many times God says He is the Eternal One, saying He is from everlasting to everlasting. If you can wrap your mind around eternity then I think you are doing better than all others.

GC

---

God's eternal what use does an eternal being have for time.

That has absolutely nothing to with the question I asked.

Would you like to try again?

What you are speaking of is either such minute amount it makes no difference in a life time. The rest are theories that are not proven.

GC

[Rational AKD]

The problem is most people get their view on time/space from watching sci-fi films. Dimensions don't work like in films where monsters come along from "another dimension".

I'm fairly certain, as has already been said, that no one understands time well enough to actually state something is timeless.

On the WLC thing I actually googled what he had to say on these matters. As has been pointed out philosophising on this kind of stuff is pretty pointless.
Philosophy wouldn't have been able to show General relativity is "correct" for example, which has greatly advanced our understanding of both time and space. I'm not saying philosophy is useless, as it can be used as a tool in order to come up with a hypothesis, but then it can't progress further than that without actually testing the hypothesis.

What observations would one expect from the A theory of time, and how would the differ from the B theory of time? If we can't even get past this stage, it is pointless going further. Until scientists find the answers to these questions then then the answer is "we don't know", and you shouldn't start making up statements like "timeless"

I do find it really concerning that Theists can't just say "we don't really know about that aspect of God" which would at least be truthful. If I don't know something hopefully i will admit that fact, not just make something up because it sounds good.

I think you missed the point of WLC's points. it wasn't to deduce a single answer, but explore a range of possibilities. what does it mean for God to be timeless? is this possible with A and or B theory of time? he answered the range of possibilities, gave what he thought was the most likely answer. you are correct in saying philosophy can't deduce certain observations we would expect from either theory of time, though if Einstein's theories of relativity are correct (which they most likely are) B theory of time seems to be the best theory of time. anyways, whether God is separate from time and time is merely a static object to him or he created time while also becoming dynamic in it remains unknown. the point is there are possible answers out there no matter what theory of time you subscribe to.

[FreeTony]

let my try and break it down in steps.
P1: a chandelier hung by the ceiling is that which the ceiling caused the chandelier to be hung.
P2: the ceiling could not have supported the chandelier before the chandelier was hung, but must have supported it at the exact moment it was hung.
C1: simultaneous causations are possible.
P3: time has a cause.
C2: the cause of time must have a simultaneous causational relationship with time.

this shows how it is possible for God to create time without the need for it in the first place.

How do you know time has a cause?

How can you use the word simultaneous, meaning at the same time, when time at that point time does not exist? (Even I am making assumptions about time here)

You go from possible to must with no explanation.

As my previous post, these discussions involving "before the big bang" become meaningless as we don't have the understanding to really make any statements at all. Again we need science.

---

I think you missed the point of WLC's points. it wasn't to deduce a single answer, but explore a range of possibilities. what does it mean for God to be timeless? is this possible with A and or B theory of time? he answered the range of possibilities, gave what he thought was the most likely answer. you are correct in saying philosophy can't deduce certain observations we would expect from either theory of time, though if Einstein's theories of relativity are correct (which they most likely are) B theory of time seems to be the best theory of time. anyways, whether God is separate from time and time is merely a static object to him or he created time while also becoming dynamic in it remains unknown. the point is there are possible answers out there no matter what theory of time you subscribe to.

I may have read something slightly different, but to be honest as soon as people talk about maybe's and untestable things then I switch off as I see it as pointless. Pontificating on something you can't physically demonstrate actually exists is a bit silly really.

Throughout the history of science when people have assumed things to be correct, many times they have been shown to be completely wrong. There could well be a C theory* of time that explains observations better than these two.

*These should all technically be hypotheses, otherwise you end up with "evolution is only a theory" nutters coming after you.

You do get points for at least trying to be rational, compared with some of your compatriots. Total respect to you if you can answer the question "How can I test whether something is timeless"

[Rational AKD]

How do you know time has a cause?

it's presupposed in order to explain pocaracas' objection that God can't cause time since that presupposes time without time.

How can you use the word simultaneous, meaning at the same time, when time at that point time does not exist? (Even I am making assumptions about time here)

in the sense i'm using it, simultaneous would mean without an interval of time between. if 2 events in time can occur without an interval of time between them, why is it inconceivable for them to happen without time?

You go from possible to must with no explanation.

if it is possible for simultaneous causations to occur, and time had a cause, those could only be the case if the cause of time had a simultaneous causation with time. the other option, that it was not simultaneous, is impossible.

As my previous post, these discussions involving "before the big bang" become meaningless as we don't have the understanding to really make any statements at all. Again we need science.

as I've said, possibilities can still be explored for multiple theories with philosophy.

[zenblaster]

"God is timeless" is something Christians spout all the time. Along with "God is both inside and outside time"

What does it even mean? Whenever I've asked for clarification none is given, they just expect you to accept this with no explanation. I'm coming at this with a background in physics.

Time is very difficult to understand and as far as I'm aware no one really does, though plenty of work is being done to establish it. It could well be that time is just an illusion.

I just don't understand what they can possibly mean. Anyone clear it up, or am I thinking about it in too much depth and it's just pseudo-scientific garbage with no meaning at all?

Time is not an illusion unless you believe we are living in a matrix.

Time is one of the five dimensions, along with x,y,z axis and space that define the foundation of all scientific evidence we know to be true.

All that we believe to be fact today could be become undone by future thought, but that is a story for another day.

[Bad Writer]

Uh oh. Someone on this thread pulled the WLC card. I was wondering what that rank odor was, and it certainly wasn't LastPoet's bowel movements.

[zenblaster]

To answer your question, religion has always projected itself as infallible to science. "we'll leave those answers to the scientific community". They learned their lesson in middle ages Europe.

Being "timeless" puts their object of affection outside the paradigm of modern thought.