A paradox about timeless God who sustains creation

[Bahman]

Timeless God was invented to allow foreknowledge. God is however claimed to sustain creation in his eternal now. Lets consider all state of creation as a series snapshot only one of them is actual in the moment so called now. This however requires the knowledge of current time which is changing hence the act of sustaining creation is impossible by a timeless God.

Your thought.

 

[davidv]

Timeless God was invented to allow foreknowledge.

Who invented this god? When did they invent it? Do they have a patent?

God is however claimed to sustain creation in his eternal now. Lets consider all state of creation as a series snapshot only one of them is actual in the moment so called now.

Why is this a reasonable consideration?

]This however requires the knowledge of current time which is changing hence the act of sustaining creation is impossible by a timeless God.

Why?

Your thought.

Why do you create such obvious straw men of God?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Timeless God was invented to allow foreknowledge.

He was there of Himself!

God is however claimed to sustain creation in his eternal now. Lets consider all state of creation as a series snapshot only one of them is actual in the moment so called now. This however requires the knowledge of current time which is changing hence the act of sustaining creation is impossible by a timeless God.

Your thought.

Our knowledge as humans of limited capacity occurs within the dimension of time.

However, God is able to know both inside and outside that time, both at the same “Time”!

Hoping that helps!

 

[frangiuliano115]

Timeless God was invented to allow foreknowledge. God is however claimed to sustain creation in his eternal now. Lets consider all state of creation as a series snapshot only one of them is actual in the moment so called now. This however requires the knowledge of current time which is changing hence the act of sustaining creation is impossible by a timeless God.

Your thought.

Hey,

The God who invented time could do whatever He wants to with it!

And, I truly doubt we could understand it.

Your inductive reasoning leaves much to be desired at this precise moment in time.

Fran

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Bahaman, of all of your posts…

Stop… seriously, just stop. These are getting more and more illogical with each passing day.

You haven’t even tried to form a coherent position with this one… your opening statement alone is simply asserted, with no supporting evidence, logical rational, or even existing notion from which it is derived… It’s just a BS statement you pulled out of your hat…

You cannot develop a whole new philosophical theorem overnight. You cannot disprove multiple-thousand years of philosophical, historical, and theological study and reflection with some crackpot notion you cooked up in half a minute.

As I have told you countless times, instead of trying to refute things you, clearly, do not understand; why don’t you spend some of the time you’re wasting here (because, since you never listen to us anyways, this is ultimately a waste of time for you and for us) actually doing philosophy readings and study. St. Thomas Aquinas has already given more than adequate answer to most of the… “points”… you repeated try to make. There have been plenty of books that bring Aquinas’s readings into the realm of everyone who doesn’t have degrees in philosophy and theology (i.e. pretty much everyone…), and you would benefit immeasurably if you would recognize that maybe you just don’t know enough yet to be forming deep, philosophical positions on the nature and reality of God.

I’m not trying to be mean, but seriously, you make one of these a day; sometimes I’ve seen two or three. This is not how you learn things and this is not how you develop as a person; this is how you waste time and, frankly, make yourself look childish and immature. I really want you to be a good debater, but you’re constantly moving in the wrong direction… You need to truly study, and recognize that many, many people have already addressed your “theories” far more eloquently than you or I could ever hope to.

 

[meltzerboy]

Timeless God was invented to allow foreknowledge. God is however claimed to sustain creation in his eternal now. Lets consider all state of creation as a series snapshot only one of them is actual in the moment so called now. This however requires the knowledge of current time which is changing hence the act of sustaining creation is impossible by a timeless God.

Your thought.

Human logic is finite and flawed. Or, as Shakespeare said, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

 

[Bahman]

Who invented this god? When did they invent it? Do they have a patent?

This is invention Aquinas and other philosopher.

Why is this a reasonable consideration?

Do you have a better understanding? That is the best imagination one can find. It is about the fact that God is in his eternal now watching all state creation at once, so called eternal now.

Why?

Among many snapshots which is all stat of creation only one represent the current time. God however sustain creation in the moment so called now meaning that he should know what snapshot represent now. Now however is subjected to change which means that a changeable knowledge about current time is needed otherwise God couldn’t sustain creation. We however know that knowledge of God is changeless and in another hand it has to changeable to allow changeable creation which is paradoxical.

Why do you create such obvious straw men of God?

Which is not.

 

[Bahman]

He was there of Himself!

Our knowledge as humans of limited capacity occurs within the dimension of time.

However, God is able to know both inside and outside that time, both at the same “Time”!

Hoping that helps!

Yes and that is what is the problem: How God could know the states creation at now and be timeless/changeless since time changes and the knowledge related to it which is contrary to idea of changeless God.

 

[Bahman]

Bahaman, of all of your posts…

Stop… seriously, just stop. These are getting more and more illogical with each passing day.

You haven’t even tried to form a coherent position with this one… your opening statement alone is simply asserted, with no supporting evidence, logical rational, or even existing notion from which it is derived… It’s just a BS statement you pulled out of your hat…

You cannot develop a whole new philosophical theorem overnight. You cannot disprove multiple-thousand years of philosophical, historical, and theological study and reflection with some crackpot notion you cooked up in half a minute.

As I have told you countless times, instead of trying to refute things you, clearly, do not understand; why don’t you spend some of the time you’re wasting here (because, since you never listen to us anyways, this is ultimately a waste of time for you and for us) actually doing philosophy readings and study. St. Thomas Aquinas has already given more than adequate answer to most of the… “points”… you repeated try to make. There have been plenty of books that bring Aquinas’s readings into the realm of everyone who doesn’t have degrees in philosophy and theology (i.e. pretty much everyone…), and you would benefit immeasurably if you would recognize that maybe you just don’t know enough yet to be forming deep, philosophical positions on the nature and reality of God.

I’m not trying to be mean, but seriously, you make one of these a day; sometimes I’ve seen two or three. This is not how you learn things and this is not how you develop as a person; this is how you waste time and, frankly, make yourself look childish and immature. I really want you to be a good debater, but you’re constantly moving in the wrong direction… You need to truly study, and recognize that many, many people have already addressed your “theories” far more eloquently than you or I could ever hope to.

Reading book at my stage is a waste of time. I already spent decent amount of time on philosophical topics.

By the way what is your objection related to this thread?

 

[Bahman]

Human logic is finite and flawed. Or, as Shakespeare said, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

I agree that human logic is finite but we can recognize the paradox within logic if we try hard which this shows the flaws of other people at lease.

 

[Bookcat]

Bahman - you have come here a number of times with this same kind of question.

The key to your difficulty is your not approaching God as the Church professes (as God has revealed!) -and as Catholic Philosophy discusses the nature of God.

Rather your thinking of God as if God were not God but – as a creature.

If someone wishes to learn to drive a car one has to accept that his bicycle is not a car and start looking into cars. If he keeps trying to think of his car as if it was a bicycle he is going to drive himself crazy trying to find the peddles. Trying to make them go round and round.

Until they see that they are approaching a car as if it was a bicycle - they will not quite understand how their approach is off and why they have not been able to understand this aspect of a car. They will continue to ask how to make the peddles go round and round.

From that analogy - your approaching God as if God were a creature not God. As if God were part of creation as if God were part of time. Your not approaching God as God has been revealed - not approaching God as the Church Teaches and Catholic Philosophy discusses.

(I do not plan to continue in the thread…but I do hope you can can eventually can see what I mean here).

 

[Bahman]

Bahman - you have come here a number of times with this same kind of question.

The key to your difficulty is your not approaching God as the Church professes (as God has revealed!) -and as Catholic Philosophy discusses the nature of God.

Rather your thinking of God as if God were not God but – as a creature.

If someone wishes to learn to drive a car one has to accept that his bicycle is not a car and start looking into cars. If he keeps trying to think of his car as if it was a bicycle he is going to drive himself crazy trying to find the peddles. Trying to make them go round and round.

Until they see that they are approaching a car as if it was a bicycle - they will not quite understand how their approach is off and why they have not been able to understand this aspect of a car. They will continue to ask how to make the peddles go round and round.

From that analogy - your approaching God as if God were a creature not God. As if God were part of creation as if God were part of time. Your not approaching God as God has been revealed - not approaching God as the Church Teaches and Catholic Philosophy discusses.

(I do not plan to continue in the thread…but I do hope you can can eventually can see what I mean here).

What do said makes no sense which explain you didn’t even spent time to understand my argument truly.

 

[fisherman_carl]

God is the unmoved mover. There has to be such a being in order for change to exist. Because all change is a matter of something going from potential to actual. For example, a ball bounces because it has potential energy that is released in the form of actual energy. Or water has the potential to turn to ice and when the temperature reaches below zero that potential is made actual or is actualized. But in each of these cases of change something outside the object must act on it in order for a potential to be made actual. The water must be exposed to below zero temperatures. The ball must be dropped from a height or thrown.

Thus, the cause of the water freezing is an external cause. If we trace these chain of causes back in hierarchical series of causes we find that we must eventually come back to a first cause. And this cause must be pure actuality. It must be able to actualize every potentiality that exists without itself having any potentiality that requires an outside cause to actualize. Because if it has any potentiality then it can not be our first cause. Thus it must be fully actual. Or require no outside causes for any part of its essence. Otherwise we have the problem of requiring an infinite series of causes. However, an infinite series of causes is impossible in a hierarchical chain. Thus, there must be a first cause. And it must changeless. It is able to cause the sequence of changes in the hierarchical chain of causes without requiring a cause itself

 

[Bahman]

God is the unmoved mover. There has to be such a being in order for change to exist. Because all change is a matter of something going from potential to actual. For example, a ball bounces because it has potential energy that is released in the form of actual energy. Or water has the potential to turn to ice and when the temperature reaches below zero that potential is made actual or is actualized. But in each of these cases of change something outside the object must act on it in order for a potential to be made actual. The water must be exposed to below zero temperatures. The ball must be dropped from a height or thrown.

Thus, the cause of the water freezing is an external cause. If we trace these chain of causes back in hierarchical series of causes we find that we must eventually come back to a first cause. And this cause must be pure actuality. It must be able to actualize every potentiality that exists without itself having any potentiality that requires an outside cause to actualize. Because if it has any potentiality then it can not be our first cause. Thus it must be fully actual. Or require no outside causes for any part of its essence. Otherwise we have the problem of requiring an infinite series of causes. However, an infinite series of causes is impossible in a hierarchical chain. Thus, there must be a first cause. And it must changeless. It is able to cause the sequence of changes in the hierarchical chain of causes without requiring a cause itself

I don’t understand how first cause is related to topic of this thread! The core idea as it was explain in OP was that a changeless God does not know the current time, now, hence he could not sustain creation. Could you please read the OP more carefully?

 

[fisherman_carl]

I don’t understand how first cause is related to topic of this thread! The core idea as it was explain in OP was that a changeless God does not know the current time, now, hence he could not sustain creation. Could you please read the OP more carefully?

How could a timeless God cause creation? Here is one possible answer. To us the present moment appears as now. However, that is a limitation compared to an eternal timeless being. Because an eternal being sees all of past, present and future at once. For us the past is unchanging, but the future is still not yet. For God, the future is as unchanging as the past since he can see what will happen. Thus, he sustains existence, past, present and future all at once. And thus, he is still unchanging.

 

[Bookcat]

What do said makes no sense which explain you didn’t even spent time to understand my argument truly.

Didn’t spend time?

Much time indeed.

Yes I have many times - go read your own threads on the subject …I responded at length - put much time in there…much much time…

Yes it makes no sense to you – for your trying to view God as if God were not God but a creature in time.

Until you set that* false premise* aside you will not make any progress in towards the reality of God. And continue to end in false conclusions.

You have to have the will to do this – and then instead look at what the Church actually Teaches which comes from the Revelation of God and at how Catholic Philosophers discuss the nature of God. Seek to understand what we actually profess about God.

God bless!

(not being outside of time myself…my time is limited so I do not plan to go post more - please though take what I have noted to heart)

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… knowledge of God is changeless and in another hand it has to changeable to allow changeable creation which is paradoxical. …

Is that a complaint?!

 

[Beryllos]

Timeless God was invented to allow foreknowledge. God is however claimed to sustain creation in his eternal now. Lets consider all state of creation as a series snapshot only one of them is actual in the moment so called now. This however requires the knowledge of current time which is changing hence the act of sustaining creation is impossible by a timeless God.

Your thought.

It’s déjà vu all over again!

Bahman, Oct 12, 2013: God in timelss state cannot know what is the current time

Bahman, Oct 26, 2013: The act creation is logically impossible

Bahman, Aug 10, 2014: Perfect being cannot create anything

Bahman, Nov 18, 2014: Changeless God cannot create

Bahman, Jan 20, 2015: Dilemma of time bound and timeless

Bahman, Feb 15, 2015: Dilemma of timeless God and ephemeral creation

Bahman, Mar 20, 2015: Timeless God cannot know the current time hence cannot sustain the creation

Bahman, Apr 15, 2015: Objective time cannot exist

Bahman, Apr 15, 2015: Time is subjective hence God cannot live outside of time

 

[meltzerboy]

It’s déjà vu all over again!

Bahman, Oct 12, 2013: God in timelss state cannot know what is the current time

Bahman, Oct 26, 2013: The act creation is logically impossible

Bahman, Aug 10, 2014: Perfect being cannot create anything

Bahman, Nov 18, 2014: Changeless God cannot create

Bahman, Jan 20, 2015: Dilemma of time bound and timeless

Bahman, Feb 15, 2015: Dilemma of timeless God and ephemeral creation

Bahman, Mar 20, 2015: Timeless God cannot know the current time hence cannot sustain the creation

Bahman, Apr 15, 2015: Objective time cannot exist

Bahman, Apr 15, 2015: Time is subjective hence God cannot live outside of time

Yes, there have been a lot of similar threads in the past. However, all of them are timeless.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Timeless God was invented to allow foreknowledge. God is however claimed to sustain creation in his eternal now. Lets consider all state of creation as a series snapshot only one of them is actual in the moment so called now. This however requires the knowledge of current time which is changing hence the act of sustaining creation is impossible by a timeless God.

Your thought.

Hi Bahman, in response to your points:

(1) A timeless God need not be one’s recourse to justify divine foreknowledge. You could argue that God exists at all points in time equally, that God was timeless before creation and then tensed (in time) after creation, or that God is able to foresee the future. Rather, God is understood in the Christian tradition as timeless because “time” is seen as created whereas God is not.

(2) As for time as a series where only the “now” is actualised, I think this is true phenomenologically. It is true for us who are living in time that “now” is the only reality, but time is also relative so it is a bit more complex than this.

(3) I’m not sure what you mean by your conclusion. Can you please rephrase it?