Is heaven outside of time?

[lee_merrill]

Um, Mr. Adrift, isn't God actually infinite? Infinite in wisdom, for instance.

But I like the Titus 1:2 verse, it seems to say "before times of the ages." Or "ages of time."

Then we can consider such verses as these:

Ps. 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

2 Pt. 3:8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

How can both be true? Yet they are, and this is possible if God is outside of time, for then God need not experience all time every moment at a constant rate.

And once you have foreknowledge, and omniscience, you have "eternal now." So I don't think the philosophers are even required here to make the case in this area. If God knows all the future in every detail, how is that different than actually being there? And similarly, if God knows every detail about the past, doesn't that make "virtual reality" essentially the same as actual reality?

And also, time is like another dimension, in space even, the scientists tell us, and God is omnipresent!

Blessings,
Lee

[Adrift]

Um, Mr. Adrift, isn't God actually infinite? Infinite in wisdom, for instance.

Dr. Craig answers this a couple times on his Reasonable Faith website.

Dr. William Lane Craig

The key...is to understand that the mathematical notion of an actual infinite is a quantitative concept. It concerns a collection of definite and discrete elements that are members of the collection. But when theologians speak of the infinity of God, they are not using the word in a mathematical sense to refer to an aggregate of an infinite number of elements. God's infinity is, as it were, qualitative, not quantitative. It means that God is metaphysically necessary, morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and so on.

© source where applicable

(emphasis mine)

I think I agree with everything else you have to say in your post.

[lee_merrill]

So let's quibble about actual infinites! Assuming we have um, time.

Dr. William Lane Craig, via Mr. Adrift

God's infinity is, as it were, qualitative, not quantitative. It means that God is metaphysically necessary, morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and so on.

© source where applicable

Yes, but God knows every wise action in every situation, and every wise saying that could be said in any situation! I'm thinking there is no limit to the number of these, and they are actual scenarios, actual actions, and actual sayings.

Blessings,
Lee

[Adrift]

So let's quibble about actual infinites! Assuming we have um, time.

Dr. William Lane Craig, via Mr. Adrift

God's infinity is, as it were, qualitative, not quantitative. It means that God is metaphysically necessary, morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and so on.

© source where applicable

Yes, but God knows every wise action in every situation, and every wise saying that could be said in any situation! I'm thinking there is no limit to the number of these, and they are actual scenarios, actual actions, and actual sayings.

Blessings,
Lee

I take it you didn't actually click on the link.

Dr. Craig continues...

Dr. William Lane Craig

Really "infinity" is just a sort of umbrella term used to cover all of God's superlative attributes. If you abstract away all of those attributes, there really isn't any distinct attribute called "infinity" left over. But none of those attributes need involve an infinite number of things. To take your example, Alan, omniscience need not entail knowing an infinite number of, say, propositions, much less having an infinite number of thoughts; nor need we think of omnipotence as entailing the ability to do an infinite number of actions.1 When we define omniscience as knowledge of only and all true propositions, we are expressing the extent of God's knowledge, not its mode. The mode of God's knowledge has traditionally been taken to be non-propositional in nature. God has a single undivided intuition of reality, which we finite knowers break up into individual bits of information called propositions. Thus, the number of propositions is at best potentially infinite. Similarly, omnipotence is not defined in terms of quanta of power possessed by God or number of actions God can perform but in terms of His ability to actualize states of affairs. As such it involves no commitment to an actual infinity of things. Therefore, there's no reason to think that God is susceptible to the sort of quantitative analysis imagined by the objection.

Thus, denying that God is actually infinite in the quantitative sense in no way implies that God is finite. This inference does not follow, since the quantitative sense of infinity may be simply inapplicable to God.

© source where applicable

[lee_merrill]

I take it you didn't actually click on the link.

You took correctly! But I have read an article where Craig stated his argument. But as far as his points here:

"the mathematical notion of an actual infinite is a quantitative concept. It concerns a collection of definite and discrete elements."

Well, sometimes, yes, but the real line or the complex plane are examples where there are no discrete elements. I think part of Craig's arguments fail through a misunderstanding of mathematics.

"omniscience need not entail knowing an infinite number of, say, propositions"

Well, I think it does! If there is a proposition that God does not really know, then I'm not prepared to call this compatible with omniscience. Does God not know all the future thoughts of all men? Surely this is an actual infinity. Does God not know when each thought or mention of his name will occur in time? This would be another example of such.

"God has a single undivided intuition of reality, which we finite knowers break up into individual bits of information called propositions."

Well yes, but he could tell us when each mention of his name will occur, without computing or looking it up. I begin to despair of the use of language if we are told God knows my name, but only in a modal sense. In some mode of undivided intuition. But he knows it! In the plain meaning of the word, otherwise God should have used other language.

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. Part of Craig's argument elsewhere on this topic depends on his analysis of Hilbert's Hotel, which he says descends into absurdity, whereas it only descends into paradox. So this would not be reason to reject an actual infinity. Infinities are counter-intuitive, and everyone's head spins inside them. Including Hilbert's. Including mine.

[Adrift]

You took correctly! But I have read an article where Craig stated his argument. But as far as his points here:

"the mathematical notion of an actual infinite is a quantitative concept. It concerns a collection of definite and discrete elements."

Well, sometimes, yes, but the real line or the complex plane are examples where there are no discrete elements. I think part of Craig's arguments fail through a misunderstanding of mathematics.

Ok. I hate math myself, so I probably couldn't do justice defending this point.

"omniscience need not entail knowing an infinite number of, say, propositions"

Well, I think it does! If there is a proposition that God does not really know, then I'm not prepared to call this compatible with omniscience. Does God not know all the future thoughts of all men? Surely this is an actual infinity. Does God not know when each thought or mention of his name will occur in time? This would be another example of such.

Craig addresses this, and in fact, you quote it in the next sentence, so... I'm a little confused about what you're confused about.

"God has a single undivided intuition of reality, which we finite knowers break up into individual bits of information called propositions."

Well yes, but he could tell us when each mention of his name will occur, without computing or looking it up. I begin to despair of the use of language if we are told God knows my name, but only in a modal sense. In some mode of undivided intuition. But he knows it! In the plain meaning of the word, otherwise God should have used other language.

I... don't know if I follow, or what exactly the issue is. I'm sorry. Maybe I'm just not as educated in this area as you are and you're seeing an issue here that I don't.

P.S. Part of Craig's argument elsewhere on this topic depends on his analysis of Hilbert's Hotel, which he says descends into absurdity, whereas it only descends into paradox. So this would not be reason to reject an actual infinity. Infinities are counter-intuitive, and everyone's head spins inside them. Including Hilbert's. Including mine.

Yeah. I guess you could include me too. You know, if you really have some tough questions that you think Dr. Craig hasn't answered, he does take letters on his website. And of course, he's not the first one to reject the possibility of actual infinites. You'd probably have to take any argument on the finer points to a mathematician...

[lee_merrill]

I... don't know if I follow, or what exactly the issue is.

So just one question, if you could ask God how long it is on average between one person thinking twice of the number three, say, could he tell us? This average we may note, requires knowing an infinite number of actual thoughts of the number three, knowing all the thoughts of the number three, forever. He must know an actual infinity.

Blessings,
Lee

[Adrift]

I'm sorry. I still think I'm missing something. If you don't mind, I'm going to break down your sentences.

So just one question,

Ok.

if you could ask God

Ok...

how long it is on average between one person thinking twice of the number three

How long does it take a person thinking of the number 3..two times? On average.

say, could he tell us?

I don't see why not.

This average we may note, requires knowing an infinite number of actual thoughts of the number three,

Why? Have there been an infinite number of actual thoughts about the number three? I don't think there has been. In fact, I'm certain there hasn't been.

knowing all the thoughts of the number three, forever. He must know an actual infinity.

Only if the actual thoughts of the number of 3 goes back into the infinite past and the infinite future. But we know that humanity doesn't have an infinite past, and neither do the thoughts of humanity. If you want to say that from the point of the creation of humanity to the infinite future, Dr. Craig covers this by stating, "the number of propositions is at best potentially infinite." And of course there's a difference between a potential infinity and an actual infinity.

I feel like I'm missing something here, and I'm sorry if I have. I'm not an expert on this subject, so its very possible (likely even) that you've thought of something in this that I haven't, and don't have an answer for, but I'll try my best.

[Chappie]

Lee, pretty much I agree with what most everyone has concluded concerning God and time. With one exception: I believe that concluding God outside of time is a misnomer. Better stated (I believe) is that God experiences time, but is in no way hindered or constrained by time. I hold fast to this conclusion because I have seen many misconceptions and un-scriptural conclusion from using the phrase outside of time...

Concerning the creation of time, I believe that it is a work of God that he uses to make sense of not only his existence, but ours reality as well. I am not ready to argue that God did not create time, only that it did not happen in the Genesis account of creation: Rather God only used days, weeks, seasons, day and night to mark out the passage of time for his Genesis creation. IOW he used these things to manifest something that was already in existence when he created the heavens and the earth...

Many erroneously believe that man was created with a body; scripture does not bear that out. On the sixth day when God created man it was the soul or essence of man that was created. Because scripture bears out the premise that God "Made" our bodies from something previously created, that being earth. Then he gave us of his spirit to animate us and enable us to interact with our surroundings. So our bodies were "made" of something previously created, time is a manifestation of something that pre-existed the genesis account of creation. How far back it goes, I do not know. I use this example to illustrate that my conclusion does not violate a single premise of scripture, does not defy logic and is not a consequence of stupidity. How much {what shall we call it} um, time for lack of a better word existed between the creation of the angels and the creation of man?

Many will conclude that with God all things collapse one upon the other in God's existence; there is no passage of time, because God is outside of time. May I at this time add that without the passage of time relevant to God, foreknowledge is irrelevant and nonsensical. Ergo, any evaluation concerning time must encompass the entirety of scripture...

As you previously stated; with God, a day is as a thousand years, this concept makes no sense to me if God is outside of time, rather than the absolute master of time.

[Adrift]

There still seems to be some confusion about some of the views being proposed here. The traditional view about God creating the universe outside of time doesn't hold that God remains outside of time. Rather (as Dr. Craig puts it), "God is timeless without the universe and temporal with the universe".

Dr. Craig

The reason I hold God to be timeless without the universe is that I think that an infinite regress of events is impossible, and, according to a relational theory of time, in the absence of any events time would not exist. The reason I hold God to be temporal since the beginning of the universe is that the creation of the universe brings God into a new relation, namely, co-existing with the universe, and such an extrinsic change alone (not to mention God’s exercise of causal power) is sufficient for a temporal relation.

And, of course, it goes without saying that God (a) and God (b) are not two Gods, but one entity described in two states.

© source where applicable

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/...rticle&id=5673

[lee_merrill]

Why? Have there been an infinite number of actual thoughts about the number three?

Yes, but presumably there will be, and knowing when they occur would be knowledge of an actual infinity, which indeed is composed of actual events.

Blessings,
Lee

[Adrift]

Yes, but presumably there will be, and knowing when they occur would be knowledge of an actual infinity, which indeed is composed of actual events.

Blessings,
Lee

Ah, I think I better understand where you're coming from now, and I have to admit I don't know if I can offer a succinct answer to this, though Dr. Craig does cover just this question here. And to be honest, his answer is a bit over my head.

[rhutchin]

Dr. Craig answers this a couple times on his Reasonable Faith website.

Dr. William Lane Craig

The key...is to understand that the mathematical notion of an actual infinite is a quantitative concept. It concerns a collection of definite and discrete elements that are members of the collection. But when theologians speak of the infinity of God, they are not using the word in a mathematical sense to refer to an aggregate of an infinite number of elements. God's infinity is, as it were, qualitative, not quantitative. It means that God is metaphysically necessary, morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and so on.

© source where applicable

(emphasis mine)

I think I agree with everything else you have to say in your post.

On time, Craig says this--

"Before I consider your several questions, allow me to state succinctly my understanding of God’s relationship to time. I argue that God, existing changelessly alone without the universe, is timeless. Time comes into existence at creation and so has a beginning and is finite in the past. God, in virtue of His real relation to the temporal world, becomes temporal at the moment of creation. So God exists timelessly without creation and temporally since the moment of creation.

1) If I am right, then there is no moment prior to creation. Rather time begins at creation. This is the classical Christian view, as defended, for example, by Augustine. On this view, it is logically incoherent to ask, “What was God doing prior to creation?” because “prior to creation” implies a moment before creation, which the view denies. So the question is asking, “What happened at a moment of time before the first moment of time?”, which makes no sense. It’s like asking, “What is the name of that bachelor’s wife?”

Now some theists have disagreed with the classical view. Isaac Newton, the founder of modern physics, for example, believed that time is infinite in the past and never had a beginning. For Newton absolute time just is God’s duration. Because God has always existed, time goes back and back and never had a beginning. So on Newton’s view, it makes perfect sense to ask, “What was God doing prior to creation?” In fact, the philosopher G. W. Leibniz, who held to the Augustinian view, tormented Newton’s follower Samuel Clarke in their celebrated correspondence with the question, “Why (on Newton’s view) didn’t God create the world sooner?” This question is very difficult to answer from a Newtonian point of view (see my discussion in Time and Eternity [Crossway, 2001]).

Whichever view you take, I think you can see that there’s a huge difference between holding that God exists timelessly without creation and holding that He has endured through an infinite past time prior to the moment of creation. For a lively and interesting discussion of the alternatives see the book God and Time (Inter-Varsity, 2001), featuring an exchange between me, Alan Padgett, Nicholas Wolterstorff, and Paul Helm on such questions."

This is question 24 at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/...rticle&id=5839

[lee_merrill]

Ah, I think I better understand where you're coming from now, and I have to admit I don't know if I can offer a succinct answer to this, though Dr. Craig does cover just this question here. And to be honest, his answer is a bit over my head.

Well, I don't understand his answer either! So maybe let's leave it at that.

“Why (on Newton’s view) didn’t God create the world sooner?”

A very good question!

Blessings,
Lee

[Rdr. Arsenios]

It just occurred to me that whereas life eternal will be found in heaven, and heaven will be eternal, it will be so radically OTHER than what we now know in this fallen creation in which we walk that it will not be recognizable in our terms... As Paul said, he saw things of which it is not lawful to speak... Yet still, since time is a part of God's creation, it will be a dimension of heaven too, yet so will God HimSelf be a part of us therein, and we will have BOTH the time that is within creation and the timelessness that is God's...

So how do you put together a sense of time that is utterly foreign to us to the point that Paul cannot speak lawfully of it, and unity with God in His timelessness?

I have no answers... Only great expectations!

Arsenios