God and Time

Hi Axis Austin,

God is an idea, a concept, without subjects, like time itself he/she/it does not exist, so, god is entirely dependent upon me. I do not believe in the personification of that great mystery as a temperamental dictator--with a lot of rules and no mercy.

Just referring to the part about God being outside time:

One view could be that God is outside of time but can still interact with it. For example: God does not view time as linear but as one whole thing in entirety.

Some one once made the example that I can drive from one place to another and it takes time to drive there but can later look at my whole trip on a map.

Not only could you look over your trip on a map but you could point to specific parts, put little pins with notes on the map etc...

I think that is a simple way that it could be viewed that God exists outside of time yet still can interact with it.

What this brings me to next is does God 'interact' with all points of time on the map of time simultaneously as he doesn't have to 'wait' for them to happen. Once he has interacted what does he do next? Are there intervals between when he interacts. Would that be some sort of heavenly time?

Has anyone ever read "The End of Eternity" by Isaac Asimov? One of the greatest books ever written - it's in my top 10.

It changed my concept of time. I started searching for a way to formulate some of the ideas mathematically, and found it. I tried applying those ideas to mechanics, but so far people just call me nutty (which is true, but doesn't address the applicability of my idea). Recently, some cosmologists (Mars, Senovilla, and Vera) have done similar but different work that puts my little idea to shame.

On the philosophical side, I did think what this might mean for the relationship of God to the physical world, and it had some interesting consequences - ones that have a strong, elegant appeal for me.

Yes, I'm being very vague. Why? Because, to this point, what I have done is nothing but speculation. I'd like to solidify my ideas, but that could take decades (or eternity). Still, if anyone wants to speculate with me I'd be happy to elaborate further.

Resha Caner,

Please do so, it sounds intriguing!!

I am definitely interested.

Click here: I am familiar with that idea, though the map analogy is VERY helpful, so thanks. I am somewhat convinced, but have reservations. From the perspective of the people in the map (in time), the places where God pushes pins into the map (or does something in our temporal world), can be pointed to. We can say, he put a pin there, or he acted then. For example, he spoke with Moses in the burning bush at time x. Thus, it seems that wherever he interact with time, it can be ascribed as having temporality.

As for acting with the whole of time, I find that more convincing, but am unsure what it would look like. How does God acting throughout all time, or with the entire map, explain specific instances where he seemingly acts?

Resha Caner: I'm speculating on what I'm writing as well, so go right ahead.

Alright, let's see how far we get with this. I'll leave you to read Asimov on your own. Of course you can get a summary at wikipedia, but it doesn't do the book justice.

With respect to my ideas, I try to put them in 3 categories: religious, historical, and scientific. All 3 have philosophical aspects to them but serious historical and scientific journals frown on that. I should know. I've published maybe half a dozen scientific (or should I say engineering) papers, and each one grew more philosophical than its predecessor until my latest was rejected for being too philosophical. That has caused me to backtrack, and I'm currently negotiating with a journal on a paper where I've tried to "dumb it down" by stripping all the philosophical content.

I say that for two reasons. First, I realize I'm taking the risk of losing copyright on anything I say here. So, if you're inspired to do something with what I say, please have the courtesy to drag me along in the footnotes. I'm going ahead because I fear I may never be able to package this in a way that is acceptable to the professional journals. If nothing else, at least the idea will be out there for people to read.

Second, though this is the religion forum, I'll need to jump back and forth between those three prongs - religion, history, and science.

Let's start with the Eleatics - specifically, Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortise. Again, if you're not familiar, you can see this at wikipedia: Zeno's paradoxes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aristotle solved the paradox, and the solution is codified by Newtonian calculus. The key is noting that as Achilles covers smaller and smaller distances, he does it in smaller and smaller increments of "time". It was puzzling over this paradox that first gave me a concept of what time is. To that point, time had seemed metaphysical to me. It now seems a mere definition.

And, you can see the SI definition of time at BIPM - SI brochure (8th ed.)

Maybe that's enough for a start. After we chew on this for a bit, I can explain what I saw in the definition of time that was new (at least to me).

Did I overdo it? Should I just shoot straight for the bottom line? I'm reluctant to do that because then we'd spend page after page arguing over the misunderstandings of that bottom line. I'd prefer to start at the beginning and build an understanding, but I guess I can try to give the short and sweet summary.

Or, my next step was to point out what time is. It is completely based on making comparisons using differences. The official SI definition of time is based on the motion of cesium. So time is merely the selection of a base motion and the comparison of other motions to that base motion (via differences).

At it's root, all we're doing is observing motion.

No, please continue. I didn't respond because I have nothing to say, I'm just reading and learning. So go on. But do clarify your last post about time being the observation of motion. I think of time as change. Is this related?

I can't say for sure since you haven't elaborated, but I would suspect your idea of "change" and my idea of "motion" are nearly synonomous. Yours probably has a more metaphysical feel to it, whereas mine is strictly physical. So, I am arguing that time is only physical, and, more than that, it is merely a definition of a physical observation made by humans.

Therefore, those things that are truly metaphysical are outside time. God would be included in that.

Here is a teaser analogy to keep you interested as we slog through the mathematical part of this. Think of a ball rolling along the ground. When the elevation drops, the ball speeds up. When the elevation rises, the ball slows down. It's energy is changing as it rolls through its interaction with the ground. The ball experiences "time" because it experiences motion. The ground does not change, does not experience motion, and therefore does not experience "time". Yet the two still interact. The ball receives and releases energy because of it's interaction with an unchanging ground, yet "time" is merely a way to help describe the interaction. It needs no metaphysical existence.

Further, saying the ground does not change does not mean the ground is flat. It does not mean no interaction occurs.

I do not intend this analogy to be a full description of God. It's not. It is meant to address the arguments of those who say that because God does not change, he cannot interact with the physical world. He can't speak, because the words in his mouth at time A are different than time B, and that would require him to change. He can't be in New York today and Paris tomorrow because that would require him to move, and that is change.

No, God is infinite (which does not mean "God is all things"). Every word he has ever spoken and will ever speak is already in existence. Every place he has ever been and will ever be is already in existence. I could go on because this seems to refute free will. I do have an answer for that, but I'll stop with just this analogy.

My next step, regards the nature of the definition of time. The comparison we make is literally one of differences. Take velocity as an example, which is distance divided by time (v = x/t). In calculus this is written as differences (v = (x2-x1)/(t2-t1)). But we could define time-based quantities other ways. For example, we could define them as ratios: v = x2/x1 / t2/t1. More on that when you're ready.

God must exist beyond time.

1.) Suppose God is an omnipotent omniscient omnibenificient being acting outside of the Universe, as Christianity suggests. Since our concepts of time are bounded up with the Universe, and God exists and acts outside of it, then He would exist and act outside of our time. Therefore, our time has no meaning when pondering the existence of God.
2.) Suppose God is the Universe (as monisms seem to imply). Since the "stuff" of the Universe is something called "space-time", an agglomeration of space and time, God would necessarily be within this space-time, would be our conception of time, and since He is it, then He would be free to act without it (or to put it another way, time would be so pervasive to the actions of God that time has no clear and distinct meaning when applied to Him).

Therefore, however you may look at it, God exists beyond time.

Sure. I guess I'm going with #1, though I don't hold to all the "omni's" that people tack on to Christianity. Specifically, "omni-benevolence". Solace handled that well in another thread, but that term is often interpreted as "God should do what I want him to do". God is benevolent, but not in the way most people take that to mean.

Anyway, I think that's irrelevant to the point of God being outside time.

Sorry I didn't get back to the thread I started sooner, been busy.

I think your (Resha) idea of motion is the same as my idea of change. I use the example of a magical wall that is resistant to change. Because it doesn't change it doesn't experience time, in the same way that the ground in your example doesn't.

I have a question about your claim that anything metaphysical, including God, is outside of time. What if God changes? You seem to think, based on your arguments though you don't actually say this, that God doesn't change. Suppose he does. Would he experience time, if change/time are necessarily wrapped up?

If God does not change, you argue that he can still interact. I have a little trouble buying into/understanding this. Yes, if God were timeless he could still do one unchanging act and only through that can the universe exist, perhaps. But how can he do different acts: speaking to Moses in the burning bush and later speaking to his son Jesus? Is he doing both of these, and every number of acts, all together, and we simply feel the affects at different times?

While I think that's a workable theory, for me personally it doesn't adequately portray God's immanence to humanity. I feel that to be truly present, he needs to actually interact (at different times) with us, not just act.

As for the time issue, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. While I have a bit to discuss about God and time, I have little to discuss about time, but am deeply intrigued by it.

As a Christian, I take what God says about himself in the Bible as true. Therefore, based on Malachi 3:6, God does not change. I don't expect that to be a satisfying answer for everyone, but it suffices for me.

And, it leaves open how one defines "change". For example, when I walk from my house to the store to buy milk, I don't consider that I have changed. But, some do define that as change.

One thing that bothers me about my analogy is that it seems to make God a passive participant - as if he isn't even "alive", and I don't believe that to be the case. I have not yet found a way around that. But everything else is such an elegant fit that I'm not ready to give up yet. At the same time, I realize I could be completely wrong. Other than the decimation of my pretty little idea, that wouldn't really bother me because whether I'm right or wrong in this, as Browning said, "God's in his heaven; All's right with the world."

That's a long way of saying, "Yes." If God changed, he would experience time. But, IMO he doesn't change and, therefore, doesn't experience time. Whenever something "emanates" from God (not sure that's the right word) - when we see God's hand in motion in the world, it is what the Bible would call an "angel".



I think that's because you're not linking eternity and infinity yet - the idea that time can become space and vice-versa. I know the nature of time is your secondary interest, but I see the two as so intimately connected that they can't really be separated.



I have this queasy feeling that someone has either thought of my idea before and established or refuted it. If so, it's probably buried in a paper by one of Hawking's grad students in a dusty library that I'll never find, and if I did, that I wouldn't understand. But, so far no one has told me that, so I plod on.

I did have one person say that the Buckingham Pi Theorem refuted my idea, but that is not the case. Buckingham ? theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He showed that my idea is not consistent with linear space-time. Buckingham Pi maintains that a system must be self-consistent, not that it must be consistent with all possible systems. My system is just as self-consistent as linear space-time.

I was aware of Malachi 3:6 and it is indeed a strong verse to try to argue against. Perhaps it is literal in the sense it seems to be. However, I've seen intelligent people argue against it, so I'm not sure it alone answers the question. There are many examples of God appearing to change in the Bible. But we don't need to get into this...

I must admit that I don't understand the notion of space-time, so feel free to explain. Beside that, I don't understand how space is related to God & change. Please explain.

Finally, you say that you feel your example portrays God to be passive. I can relate. As I tried to articulate in the last post, I feel that God acting timelessly portrays him to be too impassive.

I will look at the wikipedia article and try to make sense of it.

Nor does anyone. That is why physicists begin to wax philosophical when the subject comes up. It's something that really bothers the great physicists (Newton, Einstein, Hawking).

Newton took great pains to let everyone know that he had described gravity but not explained it. He was criticized in his day for creating this silly idea that force allows one body to affect another across a vacuum. Some invoked ether theories to try rescuing the idea of force. Over time, the debate slipped into the background because science seemed such an amazing success.

Then Einstein came along and dug it all up again. His idea is just as "ethereral" because he makes space a "thing", not a "void". Space can bend in Einstein's universe, and time becomes a dimension. Einstein was never satisfied with relativity, and hated how it was hijacked for quantum physics. He worked until his death looking for an alternative. What had happened was that Einstein converted from a positivist philosophy of science (he greatly admired Mach) to a more realist philosophy. That meant he argued with Bohr, who was an instrumentalist. Bohr's position (called the "Copenhagen interpretation") is that all the philosophical musing was pointless. Relativity and quantum physics was right because the math matched the phenomenon. It didn't matter if the math revealed something "real". All that mattered was that it was "instrumental" to a proper prediction of the phenomena.

Then Hawking asked if time were more than just a dimension. Is it possible that at the "beginning" of time, space made a transition from 4 physical dimensions to 3 physical and 1 time? The guys I mentioned earlier are basically saying, yes, that is a possibiity.

IMO, it still makes time too metaphysical - a thing apart from the physical. As long as people look at it that way, they'll never resolve time with physics.

At the same time, I don't expect to perfect my idea either. All I hope to do is improve it. So, you ask how all this relates to God and change.

It relates through the single biggest flaw in my idea. Another problem that parallels questions of time is the idea of "something from nothing". How did God give the universe a beginning? It wasn't, and then it was. If there was nothing, where did the something come from? I have a friend who is much stronger in Hebrew than I, and he interprets the first verses of Genesis to mean the universe was literally created from "nothing" - an absolute nothing. Space was not here. Time was not here. Even nothing was not here. Maybe he's right.

But my idea is different from that. My idea is that the universe came from God, not from nothing. I'm not speaking of pantheism or panentheism. I maintain that the universe, at this "time" is wholly separate from God. It's similar to a woman giving birth. The "material" of which the baby is made comes from the mother, but after the birth, the baby is no longer part of the mother. So, I'm saying God gave birth to the universe rather than creating from nothing. And, in so doing, his infinity became our eternity.

Yet, what happens when one subtracts x from infinity? Nothing. Infinity is still infinity - unchanged.

I'd be curious to hear where you think God changed in the Bible. We don't have to discuss that if you don't want to, but I can think of an obvious example people usually cite from the OT. Then, of course, there is Jesus, who obviously experienced time because he was physical.

(Sorry for the long expose'. But, it seemed a little history was in order to set the stage.)

Resha, you say that God doesn't change and therefore doesn't experience time. Yet you also say that, in the way you understand "change", you haven't changed when you go to the store to buy milk. Then why couldn't it be the same way with God? God could go to the store and buy milk, like you, and NOT change, but in so doing experience time. Given your understanding of "change", someone's NOT changing wouldn't necessarily imply that they don't experience time. Or did I misunderstand you?

Sleepy,

I meant that "change" can be understood in several different ways. And, while we might be able to agree on a definition (though that would be a miracle), that definition doesn't necessarily agree with the intent of Malachi.

But I will also admit to being somewhat inconsistent. The matter is not completely settled in my own mind. I could take a hard line on one side or the other, but in all cases it produces an unsatisfactory result. Taking a hard line in regard to the infinite is never a wise thing to do. That answer is itself a bit vapid.

I guess I'm saying I have some ideas I really like and don't want to give up - yet at the same time I am aware of their weaknesses.

God is omnipresent. He doesnt view time as we do. He sees ALL at once.
He has interacted with people before but does not anymore.
The Great Yahwey is omnipresent.