A timeless being cannot create

[Deesse23]

Congratulations for trying to define your god into existence again. What a novel idea.  If thats the best argument you have, well

I addressed the definition of time, not God, in my comment; but I suppose its all the same if you take issue with definitions across the board.

You defined time so you have no problems with the original objection. Your word games are utterly unimpressive. Got nothing better, like the authenticity of gospels?

[John 6IX Breezy]

I addressed the definition of time, not God, in my comment; but I suppose its all the same if you take issue with definitions across the board.

You defined time so you have no problems with the original objection. Your word games are utterly unimpressive. Got nothing better, like the authenticity of gospels?

I presented a view of time that many psychologists find useful. And yes, you are correct that it begins to make the original objection void.

[Aegon]

Ah, yes. All those experts on who and what God is have told us (or their holy books have told us) that God cannot possibly be a temporal thing. He is above and beyond temporality, they say, in much the same way that he is above and beyond physicality. No self-respecting God would dirty himself by association with material objects. No self-respecting God would associate himself with any given moment of time, such as the present... or a specific movement of the past or future.

Somehow God is immune to physics but still has the ego to throw temper tantrums and get offended. A being that literally transcends space-time is also super sensitive? Acts remarkably like an insecure human?... wonder why?

[Belacqua]

Somehow God is immune to physics but still has the ego to throw temper tantrums and get offended. A being that literally transcends space-time is also super sensitive? Acts remarkably like an insecure human?... wonder why?

It looks that way because you're conflating two very different views of God. To be fair, there are no doubt Christians who do the same thing, in a careless way.

But the God of the theologians is timeless and impassible, so he has no change and no emotions. The God of the literalists is the one who acts super-sensitively. 

It would be helpful if all the Christians were talking about the same thing, but it's a big group of people, and pretty much a dozen different religions loosely grouped under the same title. We have to be clear who we're talking about.

[mcc1789]

I think the incoherence depends on one's definition of time, as well as the relationship between said God and the qualities of time. Since I'm not a physicist, I'm unfamiliar with any of their research and theories for time. I view time as a primarily subjective experience of change; if change didn't occur out in the world we wouldn't perceive time out in the world. The best way I've seen it put is that events are perceived but time is not (Gibson, 1975). In short, events are the primary reality and time is an abstraction. So treating events as occurring "in" time, or treating time as a space needing to be filled, is backwards reasoning psychologically speaking.

When you say God is unaffected by temporal changes, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. I take it to mean that God does not experience sequential changes in himself the way a withering flower might, but can he still have the "psychological" experience of time as he observes the withering flower and the universe in motion.

References: Gibson, J. J. (1975). Events are perceivable but time is not. In J. T. Fraser, & N. Lawrence, The study of time II (pp. 295-301). New York: Springer-Verlag.

This post addressed Christians who view God as outside time in the sense that past, present and future are the same for him (C. S. Lewis, Boethius etc.). I don't claim this addresses (or could address) all views on the matter. Since you don't appear to hold their view, it doesn't apply.

[John 6IX Breezy]

This post addressed Christians who view God as outside time in the sense that past, present and future are the same for him (C. S. Lewis, Boethius etc.). I don't claim this addresses (or could address) all views on the matter. Since you don't appear to hold their view, it doesn't apply.

That makes sense. Do you by any chance have examples of their arguments? I haven't heard of Boethius, but I do enjoy C.S. Lewis' writings and tend to agree with them; I don't remember what he has said about time.

[mcc1789]

This post addressed Christians who view God as outside time in the sense that past, present and future are the same for him (C. S. Lewis, Boethius etc.). I don't claim this addresses (or could address) all views on the matter. Since you don't appear to hold their view, it doesn't apply.

That makes sense. Do you by any chance have examples of their arguments? I haven't heard of Boethius, but I do enjoy C.S. Lewis' writings and tend to agree with them; I don't remember what he has said about time.

I found them in the article here: https://www.iep.utm.edu/foreknow/ You might find that interesting regardless. I believe the Lewis quote was from Mere Christianity, but I'm not sure. It was aimed to show how God's foreknowledge is compatible with free will, but this led me to another idea which became the OP.

[GrandizerII]

That makes sense. Do you by any chance have examples of their arguments? I haven't heard of Boethius, but I do enjoy C.S. Lewis' writings and tend to agree with them; I don't remember what he has said about time.

I found them in the article here: https://www.iep.utm.edu/foreknow/ You might find that interesting regardless. I believe the Lewis quote was from Mere Christianity, but I'm not sure. It was aimed to show how God's foreknowledge is compatible with free will, but this led me to another idea which became the OP.

I skimmed through it all a short while ago. Interesting article. Since I have all the time in the world now, what with not on any project at work lately, I'm going to now read this very thoroughly and see if I have something to object to their eventual solution.

[mcc1789]

I found them in the article here: https://www.iep.utm.edu/foreknow/ You might find that interesting regardless. I believe the Lewis quote was from Mere Christianity, but I'm not sure. It was aimed to show how God's foreknowledge is compatible with free will, but this led me to another idea which became the OP.

I skimmed through it all a short while ago. Interesting article. Since I have all the time in the world now, what with not on any project at work lately, I'm going to now read this very thoroughly and see if I have something to object to their eventual solution.

I can probably summarize it if you want.

[Deesse23]

I presented a view of time that many psychologists find useful.

Psychologists? Are they now in the business of determining what reality is?

And yes, you are correct that it begins to make the original objection void.

Thanks for the confirmation. *Begins*? In what sense of time?