The nature of eternity and time ?

[JimL]

According modern concepts of time, any point designated as T=0 is an arbitrary point in any possible time frame. I believe movement, action or motion only represent benchmarks how we view and interpret time, and not interdependent with time itself. Yes, these thing can be used to measure time

I agree, the fact that time for the universe began at its birth, approximately 14 billion years ago, is no different than saying that time began for me at birth. But those are, as you say, arbitrary markers of particular points in time that we would call time=0 for those particular events. But without the existence of time, those particular events could not take place because change can not take place in an immutable and timeless eternity. Therefore time itself, unless someone can show an alternative solution, must be infinite.

[seer]

Well, what you said seer is that you don't necessarily believe in a timeless eternity, which being that it was in answer to my post describing what I thought to be the impossibility of time coming into existence at some finite point within eternity, I took it to mean that you believed as I do that time is infinite. But seeing as there was a miscommunication there, and that apparently you don't believe that time is infinite, then maybe you could share your thought as to how time or anything else for that matter comes into being at some point within an immutable, timeless, unchanging eternal entity?

Jim, I believe in a time-less being. Time-less - without time. Time does not exist with out physical events - no physical events, no time. So time is created when God creates the universe. And when we (or at least I) say that God is immutable or unchanging I am speaking of His moral character, not necessarily His acts. After all as a Christian I believe in the incarnation - where Spirit/God took on human flesh.

[JimL]

Jim, I believe in a time-less being. Time-less - without time. Time does not exist with out physical events - no physical events, no time. So time is created when God creates the universe. And when we (or at least I) say that God is immutable or unchanging I am speaking of His moral character, not necessarily His acts. After all as a Christian I believe in the incarnation - where Spirit/God took on human flesh.

But you are being contradictory when you say on the one hand that without time there can be no physical acts, while at the same time attributing the physical act of creation to a timeless being, or God. That is the whole point of this discussion, if physical events can not take place without time, then explain how you logically conclude that an eternal, timeless God acts to create a universe of time?

[seer]

But you are being contradictory when you say on the one hand that without time there can be no physical acts, while at the same time attributing the physical act of creation to a timeless being, or God. That is the whole point of this discussion, if physical events can not take place without time, then explain how you logically conclude that an eternal, timeless God acts to create a universe of time?

Jim, I don't think that is what I said. Time does not exist until there is a succession of physical events. Why does that conclusion prevent a timeless being from creating? Besides time is not a "thing" it does not really exist, it is simply an abstract way of measuring successive events.

[JimL]

Jim, I don't think that is what I said. Time does not exist until there is a succession of physical events. Why does that conclusion prevent a timeless being from creating? Besides time is not a "thing" it does not really exist, it is simply an abstract way of measuring successive events.

Okay, I understand what you are saying, but you are not basing what you believe to be the case on any kind of logic. The reason that your conclusion does not make sense is because creation is an action, an event, and as you yourself understand, actions can only take place in connection with time. If on the other hand, there is no such thing as time then the universe can not be said to have a beginning in time or exist in time, and therefore must itself be of an eternal nature. If there is no distinction between eternity and time, if there is no such thing as time, then all existing things participate in eternity and are inseparable from it.

[shunyadragon]

Jim, I believe in a time-less being. Time-less - without time. Time does not exist with out physical events - no physical events, no time. So time is created when God creates the universe. And when we (or at least I) say that God is immutable or unchanging I am speaking of His moral character, not necessarily His acts. After all as a Christian I believe in the incarnation - where Spirit/God took on human flesh.

This is a particular theistic concept of time. There is no evidence of an interdependence between time and events. The only thing that may be concluded is that we experience physical events in relative space/time of our universe, and in this context time is not necessarily constant. This would be difficult to justify for Quantum Time.

Another problem with this is the Bible. I believe the context of creation in Genesis includes the existence of time before creation with the existence of angels at least.

[seer]

Okay, I understand what you are saying, but you are not basing what you believe to be the case on any kind of logic. The reason that your conclusion does not make sense is because creation is an action, an event, and as you yourself understand, actions can only take place in connection with time. If on the other hand, there is no such thing as time then the universe can not be said to have a beginning in time or exist in time, and therefore must itself be of an eternal nature. If there is no distinction between eternity and time, if there is no such thing as time, then all existing things participate in eternity and are inseparable from it.

What? I said time does not exist until you have physical events. No physical events no time. I really don't see a problem here. The universe comes into being, we mark with an abstract idea called time. Before that there was no such idea of time.

[JimL]

What? I said time does not exist until you have physical events. No physical events no time. I really don't see a problem here. The universe comes into being, we mark with an abstract idea called time. Before that there was no such idea of time.

Before the universe came into being time did not exist "for the universe" in the same sense that, before you came into being, time did not exist for you. But if, as you say, time is not real, that it had no beginning, then all events, the origins of all things, must needs take place within eternity. Either an eternal entity created time, real time, the beginning of a new existence, external to itself, or new beginnings take place within eternity itself, which would mean that all new beginnings partake of eternity itself. If time is not real, if it is merely an abstract idea by which we mark the beginnings of new events with, then within what are the beginning of those events actually taking place, if not within eternity itself? If time does not exist then we, the universe, are inseparable from eternity.

[apostoli]

Why would you assume that God is active (in the sense of motion) in eternity past - before He created?

Have you not read that God is unchangable?

[seer]

Have you not read that God is unchangeable?

In what sense is He unchangeable? Certainty God changed for the Incarnation - Spirit took on human flesh.

[seer]

Before the universe came into being time did not exist "for the universe" in the same sense that, before you came into being, time did not exist for you. But if, as you say, time is not real, that it had no beginning, then all events, the origins of all things, must needs take place within eternity. Either an eternal entity created time, real time, the beginning of a new existence, external to itself, or new beginnings take place within eternity itself, which would mean that all new beginnings partake of eternity itself. If time is not real, if it is merely an abstract idea by which we mark the beginnings of new events with, then within what are the beginning of those events actually taking place, if not within eternity itself? If time does not exist then we, the universe, are inseparable from eternity.

See Jim these are just words - I don't think eternity is a thing, and more than I think time is a thing. So there is no "in" time or "in" eternity.

[apostoli]

The problem that I see with this idea is that if a God exists outside of time, himself being timeless, and immutable then it is illogical to say that time or anything else came into existence as a result of creation by an immutable, indivisible and timeless entity or in other words by an eternal creator. Our particular universe came into existence 14 billion years ago. How does that happen, how can an act of creation take place within an immutable and timeless or in other words an eternal entity?

To answer you I will need to appeal to philosophy. For something to be immutable it must not be subject or susceptible to change or variation in quality. Aristotle would define this as immutable in ousia of focus (the essentiality of the thing that is in focus), as evidenced by the physis in focus (essentiality evidenced through activity in focus). Indivisability refers to the singularity of genus, not the distinct individuals that participate in the genus, each having the same ousia. Timeless simply refers to that which is not limited by time. Time is relative to the observer, God exist both in and outside of time, in time as he is presumed to be active with his creation, and outside of time as he is not limited by it.

The only answer that I can see is if time and motion are co-eternal attributes of eternity itself. Perhaps you see an alternative solution?

Indeed. Time & motion are "accidents", not essential to the definition of a thing eg: light, but consequential on the existence of the thing in focus.

[apostoli]

In what sense is He unchangeable? Certainty God changed for the Incarnation - Spirit took on human flesh.

Did his ousia change? You are talking about outward forms (Plato) rather than essentialities (Aristotle).

[shunyadragon]

See Jim these are just words - I don't think eternity is a thing, and more than I think time is a thing. So there is no "in" time or "in" eternity.

Neither time nor eternity are things.

[seer]

Did his ousia change? You are talking about outward forms (Plato) rather than essentialities (Aristotle).

Yes, but a change is a change. His moral character did not change though.