Oh no not another free will thread.

[Mystic]

I'm not suggesting that it was created at the same time.

I think it's a paradox on many levels.

1. From free-will perspective, it's problematic. I will not restate the argument for that, you've heard it enough. 

2. From the perspective that our past selves would be alive, and future, so why are we in the present now perspective, also is paradoxical.

3. From the paradox in terms...

4. Time can't be eternal without start, has been proven on many philosophical levels, unlimited time spanning back is impossible, and so for the same reason, beginning in time and spanning forever to the endless future is impossible. Both are impossible to exist... mathematically, logically.

[Catholic_Lady]

I'm not suggesting that it was created at the same time.

If the future has not already been created, in what sense does it exist? I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

In the sense that it will come, unless time ceases.

[Edwardo Piet]

I see it as God being able to see past present and future simultaneously and all at once, because He is outside of time. While we can only see the present because we are bound by time. Think of it as God having the ability to see a cube at an angle, seeing 3 faces of it at a glance (3 squares, if you will.) Let's say we are on one of those squares. All we can see is the square we are currently on. The "present" square.

If the past, present, and future can be seen simultaneously by God, then the past, present, and future simultaneously exist, by necessity.  Presentism is the idea that only the present moment exists.  If presentism is true, then God cannot see the past nor the future as neither of those exists.  You can't see something which doesn't exist.  You can predict the future, but that's not knowledge.  What you are implicitly describing is the B theory of time in which the future in some sense necessarily already exists.  Under the B theory of time, free will becomes incoherent as the choices have already essentially been made already at the inception of existence.

I absolutely subscribe to presentism. The way I see it... saying all times exist at the same time is just saying all times are present, which makes no sense as the past and future are by definition not present.

[Mystic]

That was 3^ paradox in terms.

[Edwardo Piet]

Unless I'm missing something here, I dont see how it makes much sense to say the past and present dont exist?

To me it's all that makes sense. The past existed, the future will exist... the present exists.

To exist is to be present, as opposed to absent. The past is absent because it used to exist but no longer does, the future will exist but by definition doesn't exist yet. The future will become the present, and the past was present. Only the present is present.

We imagine what we think the future will be, and we remember what used to exist, but all our throughts about the past and the future are happening in the present. It's the only theory of time that makes any sense to me. The idea of the past or future existing now just sounds completely contradictory to me.

---

The restriction is there for us, but not for God. That's what I meant.

Then we are under illusion only. The past exists as much as today and the future exists just as much. All time moments as if always there and forever will be.

God is eternal, he doesn't begin doesn't end. But time begins, it didn't always do so. And today ceases in every moment. God is constantly creating, the new creation is constantly being created, and he is not creating the past and the future at the same time.

If it did, it doesn't even make sense to say we only experience time today, because our past self is alive per this, and so is the future...so where we at? It's paradoxical even on that level.

Replace "God" with "the totality of all existence" and I'm with you.

I don't believe in a supreme mind. I believe in an eternal unbeginning and unending reality. Where forms change, but nothing ultimately is absolutely created or destroyed.

The creation you speak of, I think of as using the stuff that was already there and making it into something else.

Can't make something from nothing.

The bolded part I disagree with because to me it only makes sense to say that we experience time now. Not even today, today happens over time. We experience time now. We experienced time before, and we will experience time later.

---

It's impossible to create past, present, and future at the same time, if it was possible, then all he would create was eternal existence without a start, and we would all be his equals, because he doesn't have equals not because he would not want to if he could, but because it's impossible and his greatness encompasses all life to the extent that nothing could have been with him and nothing can be with him, he is beyond all places, time is destroyed before reaching him, and attributes go astray regarding him.

I don't like the God part. But I like your line of thinking about time.

The idea of all times existing equally at the same time, is just nonsense to me.

---

If the future has not already been created, in what sense does it exist?

No sense of course There's only a sense in which it will

[Mystic]

What Hammy is describing is a contradiction in terms. It makes no sense explaining that a rectangle can be a triangle by the terms, but it makes sense that rectangle can be a square and a square is necessarily a rectangle by terms.

Confusion is never easy to get out of.

To explain the time shift thing I explain... what would it mean to go back in time?

It would mean you are no longer in the present but back to a past, and then living in the present time but things went back to that. What is impossible is that you are in the present and you are in the past, because there is no way to keep track of who you are.

God can try to put "real you" in this moment and another "moment", but not without us being in actually two moments, that are different. We either one person or not. We either experiencing present or we not.

Like I said, it's hard to get out of confusion. I had to become a Deist to see that this was irrational to believe and let go of the daunting horrifying condemnation of saying God doesn't know the future (since from my perspective, it doesn't exist yet and is impossible to know unless he forces all actions and forbids himself from doing decisions in real time).

[Edwardo Piet]

Time can't be eternal without start, has been proven on many philosophical levels

We disagree there. To say that there was a time before time began doesn't make sense, because the whole concept of "before" Is temporal.

There was no time before time, obviously. What would it mean for time itself to begin if there were no beginnings before time existed?

---

If the future has not already been created, in what sense does it exist?  I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

In the sense that it will come, unless time ceases.

Right. The future will come, it will exist, but it doesn't exist yet. That's presentism and that's what I subscribe to.

[Catholic_Lady]

Right, so what I've been saying is to try to imagine an all powerful eternal being, creator of the universe and creator of time itself. It would seem such a being wouldnt be bound by time and therefore wouldnt be stuck in the present like we are, but rather, would transcend time. It's impossible to truly wrap your head around it because we exist within time and can't even imagine anything different. But that's where this is coming from. I think there's a lot of inability here to think outside the box, or think about hypotheticals and so this conversation will go nowhere.

[Mystic]

It would mean time began from something timeless Hammy.

The first moment in time still needs to come to be.

[Edwardo Piet]

What is impossible is that you are in the present and you are in the past, because there is no way to keep track of who you are.

God can try to put "real you" in this moment and another "moment", but not without us being in actually two moments, that are different. We either one person or not. We either experiencing present or we not.

Correct.

---

Right, so what I've been saying is to try to imagine an all powerful eternal being, creator of the universe and creator of time itself. It would seem such a being wouldnt be bound by time and therefore wouldnt be stuck in the present like we are, but rather, would transcend time.

But if God is in all things then surely time is part of him... so he doesn't need to transcend it? Time 'beginning' is just God's first actions ever taken.