God with reguards to time?

[straightedge]

Where does God stand in relationship to time? Is God within time, Temporal, or outside of time?

[AtheistArchon]

- A good question, since this impacts his own free will when combined with omniscience.

- My psychic prediction: *mmmmmmmmmmm*... "All of the above". :wink:

[Hitch]

Time is part of creation and therefore subject to the Creator.

God is able and proven willing to step into time; Christ aged as a man, and out again, Christ was Resurrected. So the time-mater universe is not closed. God can and does, on occasion, introduce new energy. The dimentions are the Lord's and fullness thereof.

Take care

Hitch

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I recognize that treating time as a kind of spacial coordinate is popular among relativity theoreticians trying to understand objects like black holes and the formation of our universe. However, what they might imagine about time is not necessarily true. Experiments need to be performed and observations of the near environments of black holes need to be made in order to test the ideas.

Until these scientific tests are performed, I will feel justified in treating time as something that is altered by relativistic effects, yes, but things like reverse causality (a future event affecting the past) and time travel do not occur.

I see time as necessarily associated with concepts like "before" and "after" and "change." If these kinds of temporal concepts are meaningless to God then perhaps time does not exist for God.

However, if God responds then I think time must apply to God. If God causes change to occur, such as a thought or a child or a planet or a universe to exist that didn't before, then I think time exists for God.

I suspect that philosophical theologians have arbitrarily tried to put God outside of time because they thought this would make it easier for them to deflect arguments from skeptics. I don't think the writers of the Bible imagined God was outside of time in this way.

John Powell.

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 12:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49055#post49055)
AtheistArchon:

- A good question, since this impacts his own free will when combined with omniscience.

- My psychic prediction: *mmmmmmmmmmm*... "All of the above". :wink:

I agree with you, AA. For instance, I've long wondered (since I was at least 14) how exactly an omniscient being who knows all that was and ever will be could ever maintain a train of thought or make a decision. Logically such a being could not "think" in the traditional sense that we understand "thinking" and "choosing", but would just BE. Hence, at the age of 14 or so I began investigating very Eastern religions which was my first step towards full blown atheism.

[AtheistArchon]

- Actually, now that I think about it, I think a theist MUST say that god exists outside of "our" time. After all, in order for god to me omniscient, he must be able to know all events past, present, and future (everything), including the beginning and ending of the universe.

- But time is a product of the universe. Ergo, if god existed "before" the universe, then he necessarily exists in a different time frame (if we stack time to look like parallel lines travelling in opposite directions). Exactly how god interjects himself into our own frame is probably something nobody will ever be able to explain, if indeed it's even logically possible.

- This has, in my opinion, tremendous ramifications for the argument(s) beind the great free will debate. For example, if god is omniscient as I've described, then god knew everything about our universe before it was created ("before" meaning in his own time frame). If (and that's a pivotal "if") god himself has free will, then we have to assume that god could have chosen not to create the universe as we see it today; he could have made apples blue, for instance. But he didn't. What does that tell us about what we see in our own universe? I think it means that god, being omnipotent, saw and approved of everything that happen(s/ed), because if he did NOT, it would not have come to pass.

- In other words, there were literally countless universes possible to god. If we assume he has the free will to create whatever he desires, and is omnipotent enough to actually do it, then there should be nothing in his creation that god did not intend.

- This implies perfect knowledge of not only OUR universe, but all POSSIBLE universes. It was possible that god could have chosen to create a universe where I made the decision to choose boxers over briefs, but he did not do so. Had he wanted an alternate outcome, he could have made it so.

- As far as I can tell, the only way to get out of this problem is to assume that god purposefully ignored human choices when he was "deciding" to create the universe. But this implies that he is able to force himself to not know something about the universe, ergo he is not omniscient.

- Summation: Omniscience alone may not force a lack of free will, but omniscience combined with the fact that you (an omniscient being) actually created the universe and all things in it dictates a lack of free will.

[Butters]

My problem with this is that the definition of "exist" is to occupy time and space. If God exist's "outside of time"(whatever that means) then he does not exist!

[mattbballman19]

A view of the relationship of God to time that I've read, with which I am in apparent agreement, is the view that God was timeless before the creation of the univese (time/space/matter/energy etc . . .) and temporal after the universe was created.

Christian philosopher William Lane Craig suggests that, "Perhaps we could say that God sans the universe existed in a topologically amorphous time in which temporally ordered intervals could not be distinguished."

Since the above is the same as the state of affairs involving timelessness, then the idea advocating God's timelessness sans creation, and His temporality since creation is therefore substantiated.

What reasons to have to beleive this is true? This is an extremely deep subject, so space precludes a flawlessly complex treatise explicating the ins and outs of every conceivable possible objection. So, forgive my brevity.

God seems to change as far as His changing relationships to a changing world. This seems to effect the nature of God's omniscience. If God is changing in accordance with His relationships to this changing and temporal world, then it would seem that the tensed facts that God knew at a particular time were in constant flux. He would not have a fixed perspective on whether the the facts that his thoughts cooresponded to were tenseless (i.e. ignorance of the facts being future, past, or present.)

Craig puts the argument as follows:
1. A temporal world exists.
2. God is omniscient.
3.If a temporal world exists, then if God is omniscient, God knows tensed facts.
4.If God is timeless, He does not know tensed facts.
5.Therefore, God is not timeless.

Is there a way out? Maybe. The relationship that God has to world and the relationship of His omniscience to the relationship that God has with the world are based on different things (the latter to the "objective reality of temporal becoming" and to the former on "tensed facts") If it can be proven that these two foundations are non-existent, then you, what epistempologists like to call, undercutt the objection. Or you say that the proponents of the two foundations haven't proven what their advocating to be true. The proponent of timelessness can escapte the delimma of choosing these unwanted pair of foundations for the position of time which involves the tenseless/static theory of time.

But these have had their fair share of objections also. I would seem to favor the dynamic theory of time over the tenseless/static theory of time. This theory of time gives the relationship that God has to time the name of omnitemporality. This does not entail that God has existed in an infinite amount of time in the past (philosophical problems with the idea of the existence of an actual infinite, and further problems with the assumption that it does exist and somehow completing an impossible super-task of traversing the actual infinite though successive addition), since it's possible that time had a beginning.

The question that is next raised is why it is that God didn't create the world sooner. But since 'sooner' is meaningless sans the creation of time, it is therefore a meaningless question.

Here is the argument as summarized by Craig, (letting t represent any time prior to creation and n some finite interval of time):

1. If the past is infinite, then at t God delayed creating until t + n.
2.If at t God delayed creating until t + n, then He must have had a good reason for doing so.
3.If the past is infinite, God cannot have had a good reason for delaying at t creating until t + n..
4.Therefore, if the past is infinite, God must have had a good reason for delaying at t and God cannot have had a good reason for delaying at t.
5.Therefore, the past is not infinite.

The weird situation is the counter-intuitive idea (at least in the realm of the world-view of Christianity specifically) is that God exists in time.

Here is the solution to the problem given my Craig:

If time began to exist--say, for simplicity's sake, at the Big Bang--, then in some difficult to articulate sense God must exist beyond the Big Bang, alone without the universe. He must be changeless in such a state; otherwise time would exist. And yet this state, strictly speaking, cannot exist before the Big Bang in a temporal sense, since time had a beginning. God must be causally, but not temporally, prior to the Big Bang. With the creation of the universe, time began, and God entered into time at the moment of creation in virtue of His real relations with the created order. It follows that God must therefore be timeless without the universe and temporal with the universe.

From this is seems that there are time units that have made up God's time-related life: the timeless and the temporal. It must clear that the state of affairs involving God's existence sans creation had nothing to do with anything related to measurements in the context of time, since time had not existed yet. Craig says, One must maintain that "prior " to creation there literally are no intervals of time at all. There would be no earlier and later, no enduring through successive intervals and, hence, no waiting, no temporal becoming. This state would pass away, not successively, but as a whole, at the moment of creation, when time begins.

You could say the above is, for all technical purposes, timelessness. So the picture of God sort of existing by Himself in some infinite state of time is false. So it seems that the best explanation for God's relationship to time is that He was timeless sans creation, and temporal since creation.

matt

[Butters]

Hello Matt,
Can you explain this for me?


"A view of the relationship of God to time that I've read, with which I am in apparent agreement, is the view that God was timeless before the creation of the univese (time/space/matter/energy etc . . .) and temporal after the universe was created."


And how about this?

"Christian philosopher William Lane Craig suggests that, "Perhaps we could say that God sans the universe existed in a topologically amorphous time in which temporally ordered intervals could not be distinguished."

And,
"You could say the above is, for all technical purposes, timelessness. So the picture of God sort of existing by Himself in some infinite state of time is false. So it seems that the best explanation for God's relationship to time is that He was timeless sans creation, and temporal since creation."

I'm not quite sure what this means. To exist means to occupy space and time, no time, no existance.

[mattbballman19]

Butters,

The view is something like this: Prior to the space-time universe, God existed. But if God existed prior to time then he cannot be a part of time. Hence, God is timeless. Some argue that God may participate in a sort of proto-time prior to the universe, but Craig disagrees. He believes that God can exist in a state of tranquility that is undisturbed by anything until he actually creates the universe. Also, it is important to mention, that the existence of time requires the succession of events. If only God exists and is left alone to his simultaneous thoughts, there is no opportunity to conceive of time. But if God creates something that did not exist then there is a definite succession of events ensuing. Therefore, God then enters into time at the moment of creation.

I hope this helps.

matt

[Butters]

Thanks Matt, but I believe I am as confused as ever. How could God exist before time, when the definition of exist is to occupy space and time. What is Proto time? How long did God exist in his State of Tranquillity before he created the universe? If God was in a state of Tranquillity, what disturbed him enough to create the universe? Where did God exist before he created space?

all very confusing. . .

[bobazilla]

Who is to say this is the only creation? If god is as powerful as some suppose, why not more that one? In that case he would need never be in a timeless state. Either that or the inexplicable creation of the universe created God.

Bobazilla

[mattbballman19]

Butters,

I can understand the confusion. But, philosophically, the error lies in this misguided definition that "to exist" entails a temporal existence. And this is just false. Think of the Platonic Forms that supposedly served as the archetypes for every particular thing in this universe. Moreover, numbers exist in some way but they do not occupy any spatial or temporal areas. God could exist on the boundary of space-time (much like drawing a circle in the sand and putting a marble on the edge of the circle). In this case, God does not exist "before" the boundary or "after" it, He just exists outside of it or on the arc of the universe's boundary.

matt

[Butters]

Matt,

"I can understand the confusion. But, philosophically, the error lies in this misguided definition that "to exist" entails a temporal existence. And this is just false."

I don't think you have made a case for this.


"Think of the Platonic Forms that supposedly served as the archetypes for every particular thing in this universe."

They don't exist.

"Moreover, numbers exist in some way but they do not occupy any spatial or temporal areas."

Numbers do not exist outside the mind of man. and even there they do occupy space and time.

"God could exist on the boundary of space-time (much like drawing a circle in the sand and putting a marble on the edge of the circle). In this case, God does not exist "before" the boundary or "after" it, He just exists outside of it or on the arc of the universe's boundary."

This rasies more questions than it answers. But the most obvious is "aren't you just substituting "outside" for "after"?

Thanks

[mattbballman19]

Butters,

(i) It is not incumbent upon me to explain why temporality is not a necessary attribute of existence. Since you are the one suggesting that the two are necessarily linked, I am within my epistemic rights to inquire a reason. As of now, I see no reason to think that time is necessarily linked to existence even if being in time is a sufficient condition for existing.

(ii) Regarding numbers, they do exist in the minds of people. However, there are too many to be grounded in the mind of people (not to mention the entirety of abstract objects and ideas). They may be grounded in the mind of God. The point being is that such do not possess temporal qualities yet they do exist (e.g., the number 1 does not exist temporally prior to the number 2).

(iii) If the universe is envisioned as a sphere, then to be outside of it is not to be either before or after it. One just sits on the boundary or somewhere outside of it. This setup need only be possible to show that timelessness is a possible state to be in.

matt

[garthoverman]

04-09-2003 @ 09:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60570#post60570)
mattbballman19:
The view is something like this: Prior to the space-time universe, God existed. But if God existed prior to time then he cannot be a part of time.

There is no "prior to the space-time universe" since the very relation implied in "prior" is reliant upon time. "Before time" is as meaningless as "North of the North Pole."

Personally, I think that all these arguments about God, the "beginning of the universe," and time are exercises in futility since I hold that time is merely an aspect of our observations (or even an aspect of our interpretations of our observations) -- which is not to be confused with an aspect of reality itself. IOW, time is really an illusion.

Yours,
Garth

[Butters]

"(i) It is not incumbent upon me to explain why temporality is not a necessary attribute of existence. Since you are the one suggesting that the two are necessarily linked, I am within my epistemic rights to inquire a reason. As of now, I see no reason to think that time is necessarily linked to existence even if being in time is a sufficient condition for existing."

It is not incumbent on you, it's just that I suspect that you are just rattling off a bunch of words with no real meaning.

"(ii) Regarding numbers, they do exist in the minds of people. However, there are too many to be grounded in the mind of people (not to mention the entirety of abstract objects and ideas). They may be grounded in the mind of God. The point being is that such do not possess temporal qualities yet they do exist (e.g., the number 1 does not exist temporally prior to the number 2)."

To many? How do you conclude that? All abstract objects and ideas are creations of the mind of man, they do not "exist" Does God only "exist" in the mind of man? If this is what you're saying, then you will get no argument from me.

This is my problem, I hear all kinds of things like "before time", "outside of time" that seem to simply explain God, but do these words have any real meaning? I doubt it. If you don't feel like explaining it, no one is forcing you to.

[mattbballman19]

garthoverman

There's nothing wrong with an alternative understanding of time as in the sort you propose. That's fine. But I just want to explain that when a philosopher says "prior to the big bang" one does not mean "temporally prior" but "logically prior." For example, the number one is logically prior to the number two, but it is estranged if not false to think that the number one is temporally prior to the number two for they exist simultaneously (timelessly?) in a conceptual number line. If time is purely phenomenological as you suggest, then it might be factually false that Lincoln was assassinated sometime after his birth. Instead, you would have to say that the two events might be simultaneous or in a reversed temporal order blurred only by our illusion that Lincoln's birth occurred before his assassination. Theorists of the sort of time I propose would take the phenomenological approach you advance as evidence for their view, not evidence of illusion - that remains to be seen (forgive the pun).

matt

[mattbballman19]

Butters

mattIt is not incumbent on you, it's just that I suspect that you are just rattling off a bunch of words with no real meaning.

-- Of course I must press for an example.


To many? How do you conclude that? All abstract objects and ideas are creations of the mind of man, they do not "exist" Does God only "exist" in the mind of man? If this is what you're saying, then you will get no argument from me.

-- The argument is properly represented by no less a philosopher of theism than Alvin Plantinga:

"It seems plausible to think of numbers as dependent upon or
even constituted by intellectual activity. But there are too many
of them to arise as a result of human intellectual activity. We
should therefore think of them as... the concepts of an unlimited
mind: a divine mind" (Alvin Plantinga, "Two Dozen (or so) Theistic
Arguments," lecture presented at the 33rd Annual Philosophy
Conference, Wheaton College, October 23-25, 1986).

The truth about Plantinga's claim is that there are too many for them to be human creations. So, that has to be ruled out. Whether or not that entails a divine mind is up for grabs.


This is my problem, I hear all kinds of things like "before time", "outside of time" that seem to simply explain God, but do these words have any real meaning? I doubt it. If you don't feel like explaining it, no one is forcing you to.

--Sure. Draw a circle on a piece of paper. Label the circle "space-time." Now draw a dot on the outside of the circle. That dot exists "outside" of the "space-time" circle. There's nothing noncognitive about that even if such a view turns out to be false (note: only meaningful statements can be false).

matt

[Butters]

"It seems plausible to think of numbers as dependent upon or
even constituted by intellectual activity. But there are too many
of them to arise as a result of human intellectual activity. We
should therefore think of them as... the concepts of an unlimited
mind: a divine mind" (Alvin Plantinga, "Two Dozen (or so) Theistic
Arguments," lecture presented at the 33rd Annual Philosophy
Conference, Wheaton College, October 23-25, 1986).

The truth about Plantinga's claim is that there are too many for them to be human creations. So, that has to be ruled out. Whether or not that entails a divine mind is up for grabs."


Maybe I'm just dense, but I can see no logic or reason in this claim, How many numbers are "to many" and why. How few numbers would be "just enough"?


This is my problem, I hear all kinds of things like "before time", "outside of time" that seem to simply explain God, but do these words have any real meaning? I doubt it. If you don't feel like explaining it, no one is forcing you to.

--Sure. Draw a circle on a piece of paper. Label the circle "space-time." Now draw a dot on the outside of the circle. That dot exists "outside" of the "space-time" circle. There's nothing noncognitive about that even if such a view turns out to be false (note: only meaningful statements can be false).

Cute. What is inside the circle, space-time, what is outside, space-time, labeling them does'nt do anything. This is however. a good analogy for what apologists do, make a label that sounds reasonable, but isn't.

In the absence of space-time, how does God exist?

[garthoverman]

04-19-2003 @ 05:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=73215#post73215)
mattbballman19:

I just want to explain that when a philosopher says "prior to the big bang" one does not mean "temporally prior" but "logically prior."
"Logically prior" still presupposes a temporal relation. Its built in to the word "prior."

For example, the number one is logically prior to the number two, but it is estranged if not false to think that the number one is temporally prior to the number two for they exist simultaneously (timelessly?) in a conceptual number line.
The number 1 is NOT "logically prior" to the number 2 unless you first presuppose that you are regarding them consecutively and sequentially which thereby presupposes temporality.

If time is purely phenomenological as you suggest, then it might be factually false that Lincoln was assassinated sometime after his birth.
No it just means that "after his birth" is a relative measurement.

Yours,
Garth

[Nowhere357]

03-31-2003 @ 03:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48962#post48962)
straightedge:

Where does God stand in relationship to time? Is God within time, Temporal, or outside of time?

The concept of "space/time" has been very useful in physics. I think however that time is actually NOT a dimension. Space exists, and matter/energy exists. What we call "time" is the fact that things CHANGE.

Without change, time has no meaning. Time is not a force; time is not a river; time is not a dimension;time itself HAS NO EXISTENCE.

What DOES exist is patterns and relationships of matter/ energy within space. IMHO.

[mattbballman19]

garthoverman and butters

i) You are apparently unaware of the distinction between being temporally prior and logically prior. Now, you don't like the number example and that's okay -- not everone does due to its controversial status in the philosophy of mathematics. But other illustrations may be useful. For example, an eternal cause can, from eternity, be causing something else (like a bowling ball causing a depression in a pillow). In this case the cause is simultaneous with the event, but the cause is logically prior to the effect.

(ii) Any "relative" measurement of time requires that there is no privileged frame of reference. So, for someone travelling beyond the speed of light, it is just as valid for him to say "the assassination occurred before his birth" since that is his frame of reference. And that's just it, the birth of Lincoln being prior to his assassination is not factually true unless you share the frame of reference with some who does think it. But that doesn't make it true, it makes it phenomenologically apparent. You ultimately have to say that it depends on your perspective.

matt

[garthoverman]

Today @ 03:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81511#post81511)
mattbballman19:

i) You are apparently unaware of the distinction between being temporally prior and logically prior.
That's probably because the distinction you wish to draw is invalid.

Now, you don't like the number example and that's okay -- not everone does due to its controversial status in the philosophy of mathematics.
What controversy?

For example, an eternal cause can, from eternity, be causing something else (like a bowling ball causing a depression in a pillow). In this case the cause is simultaneous with the event, but the cause is logically prior to the effect.
Regardless, there can be no "logically prior" to the Big Bang - as you put it. Where our obseravations commence also commences the notion of linear causation. To speak of linearity "before" that instant is meaningless. What's more, modern physics regularly contends with reverse causation where effects are prior to their causes, so it seems that your notion of "logically prior" is not necessarily instantiated in reality.

(ii) Any "relative" measurement of time requires that there is no privileged frame of reference. So, for someone travelling beyond the speed of light, it is just as valid for him to say "the assassination occurred before his birth" since that is his frame of reference. And that's just it, the birth of Lincoln being prior to his assassination is not factually true unless you share the frame of reference with some who does think it. But that doesn't make it true, it makes it phenomenologically apparent. You ultimately have to say that it depends on your perspective.
Correct, however that does not render it "factually false" that Lincoln's birth happened before his assassination since "before his assassination" presupposes a common frame of reference and disregards relativistic efffects. It just means that "before his birth" only has meaning when the common frame of reference is presupposed. Lorenz transformations can account for time dilations that may appear in references frames moving non-uniformly, and the proper way to speak about the seperation of the birth-event and assassination-event are in terms of a space-time interval that ignores notions of "before" and "after."

Yours,
Garth

[mattbballman19]

garth,

"Regardless, there can be no "logically prior" to the Big Bang - as you put it. Where our obseravations commence also commences the notion of linear causation."

This is just circular reasoning. Your conclusion on the matter cannot be its own reason for being true. I do acknowledge that typically temporal relations enter into the frey when considering causal factors, but it is a far cry from being a necessary ingredient for a causal relation.

It's funny you would cite Hendrick Lorentz because his solution is that there is a privileged frame of reference! And those Lorentzian transformations are intended to guide our measurements so that they are not dependent on the self-same inertial frame of reference. That's the mathematical staple of the Special Theory of Relativity. So Lorentz is advocating an objective time (that Lorentz says is based on the "world spirit"), so that Lincoln was actually assassinated after his birth when measured with respect to the privileged frame -- something consistent with the view that God enters into time at the creation event.

matt

[Will_C_Drotar]

Muaahahahah!

I found you atheistarchon!

You thought I'd never find you! I'm totally Jk. Nice seeing a familiar name here! Whattup? I remember last debate was fun, but just for kicks I might start another one in the science area, if there is one. TTYL Jesus loves you!

[garthoverman]

Yesterday @ 12:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83556#post83556)
mattbballman19:

garth,

This is just circular reasoning.

No, its not.

Your conclusion on the matter cannot be its own reason for being true.
I merely stated what our observations tell us (and what they DON'T tell us), to wit, the notion of linear causation is not applicable "before" the Big Bang. The idea of "prior to the Big Bang" is as meaningful as "north of the north pole."

I do acknowledge that typically temporal relations enter into the frey when considering causal factors, but it is a far cry from being a necessary ingredient for a causal relation.
Causes don't necesserily preceed their effects. "Prior" implies a temporal relation, regardless of the fact that you want to make a special exception for "logically prior." Can you provide me a counter-example where "logically prior" does NOT require a temporal relation?

It's funny you would cite Hendrick Lorentz because his solution is that there is a privileged frame of reference! And those Lorentzian transformations are intended to guide our measurements so that they are not dependent on the self-same inertial frame of reference. That's the mathematical staple of the Special Theory of Relativity. So Lorentz is advocating an objective time (that Lorentz says is based on the "world spirit"), so that Lincoln was actually assassinated after his birth when measured with respect to the privileged frame -- something consistent with the view that God enters into time at the creation event.
What creation event? Where is it observed? Do you realize that in order to be "consistent with the view that God enters time at the creation event" there must exist an observable creation event with which the view might be consistent? Where is it? What evidence of it do you have?

BTW - Lorentz transformations do not require that a privileged frame of reference exists in reality. That idea went out the window with the luminiferous aether. You should get your physics lessons from physicists and not William L. Craig.

Yours,
Garth

[greyphilosophy]

After reading the previous posts I would like to jump in with my thoughts:

I would challenge the idea that "existance" requires a temporal state. If something can exist without physical form then there is no way to measure it in "space-time". This does not mean it does not exist, any more than if I close my eyes the world goes dark. It seems like you are trying to apply physics which applies to us to God, and because God doesn't fit the mold you claim that God does not exist.

I would like to introduce a brief summary of the Kalam Cosmological argument at this time:

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause
2. Actual infinites do not exist
3. Time itself cannot be infinite (going backwards)
4. Time at one point began to exist
5. Time had a cause

So, What caused time?

~Grey

[garthoverman]

Today @ 06:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85382#post85382)
greyphilosophy:

After reading the previous posts I would like to jump in with my thoughts:

I would challenge the idea that "existance" requires a temporal state.
Feel free to challenge it, but don't expect me to defend it since it is not my argument.

It seems like you are trying to apply physics which applies to us to God, and because God doesn't fit the mold you claim that God does not exist.
No, I'm basically saying that Frist Cause arguments like the one you present below are fallacious.

I would like to introduce a brief summary of the Kalam Cosmological argument at this time:

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause
2. Actual infinites do not exist
In the context of topological space and set theory, they sure do exist.


3. Time itself cannot be infinite (going backwards)
4. Time at one point began to exist
5. Time had a cause

So, What caused time?
Easy: our ability to observe it.

Yours,
Garth

[Blake Reas]

I have not really dealved into the subject very deeply since I like Biblical Theology but I have two books on my shelf that are supposed to be pretty good about arguing for a "Divine Time" that is seperate from ours. One is by William Lane Craig Time and Eternity this was endorsed by Quentin Smith who has been Craig's sparing partner as of late. The second book is by John Fienberg it is a book that deals with the Doctrine of God and he devotes lik 60 pages to the subject. The book is a monster (around 800 pgs. I think) the title is No One Like Him it also argues for a temporal God. As I understand it Paul Helm supposedely makes good argument for a Timeless creator and Richard Swinburn makes good ones for a temporal deity. These are just some authors and books I hope to read one of these days.

God Bless,
Blake

[greyphilosophy]

Today @ 10:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85394#post85394)
garthoverman:


No, I'm basically saying that Frist Cause arguments like the one you present below are fallacious.



Why? Or is the reason why from your statement earlier:

Today @ 09:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=85280#post85280)
garthoverman:


What creation event? Where is it observed? Do you realize that in order to be "consistent with the view that God enters time at the creation event" there must exist an observable creation event with which the view might be consistent? Where is it? What evidence of it do you have?



The simple answer is that God observed the creation event, which took place at the beginning of time (when and where the first motion occured.)

As far as evidence goes, I don't think you would accept the testimony of millions of people who have seen miracles, or the written testimonies of people who witnessed Jesus Christ on earth after being crucified, or the testimony of the prophets before Christ, all of whom would say that God exists. So not using testimony I am left with philosophical arguments based upon what we have observed in the physical world. Arguments have been provided, yet they don't seem to suffice for you. Since you don't believe in a creation event, it follows that you do not believe in creation. If the universe was not created then it must have always existed. So the universe having always existed has existed for an infinite amount of time before now? Why hasn't all the energy been converted to heat, or the universe collapsed into a singularity? Why is it the rate of expansion of the universe increaseing?

I think what we have reached is where faith comes in, where you believe not because you can prove something entirely, but because it is the most plausible explanation available. Because the universe either had a beginning or it did not, if I can show the idea of the universe not having had a beginning to be less plausible then I am supporting the belief that it did have a beginning.

~Grey

[mattbballman19]

garth,

Whoah! You need to get a few things straight here.

(i) To say that causal priority means temporal priority (or entails it) is begging the question -- pure and simple. This is circular reasoning.

(ii) I have given you two examples of logical priority that do not entail temporal priority already so your query for more is just to overlook these.

(iii) I didn't bring up Lorentz, you did. And you noted that Lorentz transformations account for time dilations between frames of reference (correctly, I might add). My point was, just as Lorentz himself acknowledged a privileged frame of reference shows that real time is not incompatible with the relative measurements of time. So these false remarks about where I get my physics lessons is not a good approach for you (I have a degree in science) just like assailing you for where you get your philosophy lessons vis-a-vis logical priority would not be a good approach for me.

Think about it!

matt

[Ethos]

Well, it is said in the bible.. A thousand years a day to god, and a day a thousand years... If that brings any clarification, hahaha. That is one of the things I love most about the bible. So many subtleties...

[greyphilosophy]

I would like to make a correction to my summary of the Kalam Cosmological argument. It's not that actual infinites do not exist, but rather that it is impossible to transverse an infinite.

~Grey