Before God??

[James_S_Saint]

All of these arguments concerning the existence of God (pro and con) seem non-sensible to me personally, but a thought occurred to me concerning those who believe that God created the universe at the Big Bang.

The question might arise, “How long did God ponder before he decided to create time?”

The answer would have to be “zero time” because there could be no time before that point.

So if God took zero time to decide to create time and the universe, then whenever the universe was created had to be the very moment that God came into existence as well because he would instantly (in 0 time) decide to create time and the universe.

But then if God is eternal (always existing regardless of time), then how was there no universe yet still God, who takes zero time to make his decision, but had not yet decided to create time?

The resolve to this is Hebrew friendly, but I can see that it is preferred to argue, so I won’t spoil the fun.

 

[liquidpele]

All of these arguments concerning the existence of God (pro and con) seem non-sensible to me personally, but a thought occurred to me concerning those who believe that God created the universe at the Big Bang.

The question might arise, “How long did God ponder before he decided to create time?”

The answer would have to be “zero time” because there could be no time before that point.

So if God took zero time to decide to create time and the universe, then whenever the universe was created had to be the very moment that God came into existence as well because he would instantly (in 0 time) decide to create time and the universe.

But then if God is eternal (always existing regardless of time), then how was there no universe yet still God, who takes zero time to make his decision, but had not yet decided to create time?

The resolve to this is Hebrew friendly, but I can see that it is preferred to argue, so I won’t spoil the fun.

Seeing as time is simply our interpretation of change and distance, if anything existed that changes then the concept of “time” passes. So then ask yourself how God even made the decision to create the universe with no “time”, as the decision requires change.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Seeing as time is simply our interpretation of change and distance, if anything existed that changes then the concept of “time” passes. So then ask yourself how God even made the decision to create the universe with no “time”, as the decision requires change.

Personally, I agree with that. Yet all they say about God is still true anyway. The perplexity is in the question of how can both be true?

 

[His_little1]

Actually, who said that time wasn’t always there along with God? Who says that there weren’t other creations before the one we enjoy today? Maybe God, being bored or dissatisfied with His latest creation thought, “what if I give choice? What if I create 3 dimensional existance moving in a single direction along the 4th dimension and prevent the movement from being relocated along that 4th dimension? Hey, that might be interesting! And what if this time, I actually participate. Hmm…”

 

[Betterave]

The question might arise, “How long did God ponder before he decided to create time?”

The answer would have to be “zero time” because there could be no time before that point.

Alternately the answer would be the prior question: “Did God ponder before he decided to create time?” (And the question prior to that: “Did God decide to create time?”)

 

[MindOverMatter]

The answers has been given in many threads.

 

[James_S_Saint]

The answers has been given in many threads.

No. I had read those threads. This question hasn’t been addressed.

 

[liquidpele]

Personally, I agree with that. Yet all they say about God is still true anyway. The perplexity is in the question of how can both be true?

Alas, now we are venturing into pure speculation. Of course, that can be fun, but don’t make the mistake of taking such speculations as truth, even if they are proposed as such.

 

[o_mlly]

All of these arguments concerning the existence of God (pro and con) seem non-sensible to me personally, but a thought occurred to me concerning those who believe that God created the universe at the Big Bang.

The question might arise, “How long did God ponder before he decided to create time?”

The answer would have to be “zero time” because there could be no time before that point.

So if God took zero time to decide to create time and the universe, then whenever the universe was created had to be the very moment that God came into existence as well because he would instantly (in 0 time) decide to create time and the universe.

But then if God is eternal (always existing regardless of time), then how was there no universe yet still God, who takes zero time to make his decision, but had not yet decided to create time?

The resolve to this is Hebrew friendly, but I can see that it is preferred to argue, so I won’t spoil the fun.

The only proper way to refer to God’s ordinary action is in the present participle – being, loving, creating, redeeming, and sanctifying. In extraordinary events, God enters time for specific purposes. God does as He pleases.

In this perspective, God has and will eternally exist, love, create, redeem and sanctify. Each person who comes into being evidences God’s ongoing spiritual creation. Each conversion of heart is God’s ongoing redemption and each successful life lived is God’s ongoing sanctification.

Each change in the status of the universe evidences God’s ongoing material creation. A dynamic material universe is no less eternal than a static one.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[Areopagite]

Seeing as time is simply our interpretation of change and distance, if anything existed that changes then the concept of “time” passes. So then ask yourself how God even made the decision to create the universe with no “time”, as the decision requires change.

I agree that time is the measure of change. Thus, since God undergoes no change, time does not apply to God.

It is natural to assume that God’s decision comes chronologically first, followed by his acting upon his decision, but everything that happens with God happens all at once. His decisions and his actions are not separated chronologically. You could say, they can be separated logically though.

But then if God is eternal (always existing regardless of time), then how was there no universe yet still God, who takes zero time to make his decision, but had not yet decided to create time?

The language here is ambiguous when you say “no universe yet.” When talking about “before” and “after” regarding time, you have to specify a point in time to make those relative terms meaningful, and it’s unclear if you are establishing one here in your question.

If the point in time that you are referring is the chronological beginning of the universe (the Big Bang perhaps), and you are asking “What was in time before that?” Then your answer is nothing.

Admittedly, I’m a bit unclear what the question is being asked. My apologies.

 

[liquidpele]

I agree that time is the measure of change. Thus, since God undergoes no change, time does not apply to God.

It is natural to assume that God’s decision comes chronologically first, followed by his acting upon his decision, but everything that happens with God happens all at once. His decisions and his actions are not separated chronologically. You could say, they can be separated logically though.

If God never changes, then he is wholly irrelevant. Change is required for free will.
An un-changing God is not only NOT what is described in scripture, but is essentially putting God in the same arena as gravity and other forces that just simply “are”.

 

[MindOverMatter]

No. I had read those threads. This question hasn’t been addressed.

Yes the questions have been addressed. Have a look.

 

[MindOverMatter]

If God never changes, then he is wholly irrelevant.

This is a value judgment, which is probably based on a misunderstanding. Can you please explain word for word what Areopagite is saying, so that i can know that you understand what is been said. It seems to me that you are just throwing words out there with out really considering the arguments of others.

 

[liquidpele]

This is a value judgment, which is probably based on a misunderstanding. Can you please explain word for word what Areopagite is saying, so that i can know that you understand what is been said. It seems to me that you are just throwing words out there with out really considering the arguments of others.

He said “Thus, since God undergoes no change, time does not apply to God.”

I don’t know how you can misunderstand such a clear sentence, unless he meant something different. If God doesn’t change, then God cannot effect the physical world because effects here are literally change. To effect something where time exists, you have to interface with it and thus at least part of God in some way must change in order to effect reality. If God doesn’t change, he can’t effect us in any way, and thus is irrelevant. Besides, you can’t just say “God is outside of time” anymore than you can say “God is infinitely green”, it’s just nonsense… not to mention God changes in scripture quite a bit. Jesus was divine right? He grew up from a boy right?

 

[MindOverMatter]

If God doesn’t change, then God cannot effect the physical world because effects here are literally change.

This is an assumption based on your failure to understand Gods nature and what it means for God to cause something. I suggest you go find that out; until then i am not going to debate you anymore. I’d rather that you had a full an honest understanding of God before debating people. It shows that you have a respect for the topic that you are debating. Its not surprising to me that your caricature straw-man of God is impotent.

However i would certainly agree that physical beings cannot change from a state of timelessness or none existence.

To effect something where time exists, you have to interface with it and thus at least part of God in some way must change in order to effect reality.

If God were as such that he had to change in order to move something, then you would be correct; but you assume from the outset that Gods existence is a state of neutrality from which he must act inorder to cause.

If God doesn’t change, he can’t effect us in any way,

Another assumption based on your understanding of physical events. I suggest you learn about Gods attributes. Read the summa theologica. In fact read all his works.

and thus is irrelevant.

Your straw-man God is irrelevant. You haven’t yet addressed the God of metaphysics as presented by Aquinas.

it’s just nonsense…

Based on what exactly?

not to mention God changes in scripture quite a bit.

Thats a problem for scripture and interpretation. You assume that the scripture is the only religious document or religious communication that informs are understanding of God; there is a holy tradition as well. Perhaps you should ask first why God is described as changing in scripture. Get to the bottom of that first. Then once you understand what it means for God to be a timeless cause; then you might realize that God wills all events from all eternity, and that the revelations of love and salvation are already contained in God, and become actual necessarily at particular events in times and places according to that nature of love. This does not necessarily mean that God is changing. There might be other means through which God acts that does not require God to change; like changing images or sensations that are analogous of Gods eternal will. But i am not going to waste my time explaining it to somebody who does not really want to know.

Jesus was divine right? He grew up from a boy right?

You do not understand what Jesus is, and that is because you have not truly bothered to find out. If you want to know you will find out for your self. Buy some books that specialize on the subject, i am not going to explain it to you. Take that as you will.

 

[liquidpele]

This is an assumption based on your failure to understand Gods nature and what it means for God to cause something. I suggest you go find that out; until then i am not going to debate you anymore. I’d rather that you had a full an honest understanding of God before debating people. It shows that you have a respect for the topic that you are debating. Its not surprising to me that your caricature straw-man of God is impotent.

Which God? Seriously, you seem to think everyone sees God as having the same attributes. Perhaps I’m just not understanding how *you *see God.

If God were as such that he had to change in order to move something, then you would be correct; but you assume from the outset that Gods existence is a state of neutrality from which he must act inorder to cause

Okay, so explain how God would move an atom without having to do something that physicall effects the atom.

Your straw-man God is irrelevant. You haven’t yet addressed the God of metaphysics as presented by Aquinas.

That was not a straw man, it was an assertion. Do you disagree that if something never ever effects us in any way then it would be irrelevant to us?

Based on what exactly?

Based on the fact that it’s completely outside human understanding. It’s like saying “alaklsjflksafjlkadfjlkfjla”… I can’t understand that, it has no meaning to me.

Thats a problem for scripture and interpretation. You assume that the scripture is the only religious document or religious communication that informs are understanding of God; there is a holy tradition as well. Perhaps you should ask first why God is described as changing in scripture. Get to the bottom of that first. Then once you understand what it means for God to be a timeless cause; then you might realize that God wills all events from all eternity, and that the revelations of love and salvation are already contained in God, and become actual necessarily at particular events in times and places according to that nature of love. This does not necessarily mean that God is changing. There might be other means through which God acts that does not require God to change; like changing images or sensations that are analogous of Gods eternal will. But i am not going to waste my time explaining it to somebody who does not really want to know.

You can interpret many things in there differently, sure. The vast number of differing Christian groups is evidence of this. So, how do you guys decide what is literal and what is not in the bible? I’m pretty sure that Jesus dying is literal, being one of the foundations of the faith. Dying requires change, at least of some form or another. It doesn’t mean his will changes, it means something changed - which is time.

You do not understand what Jesus is, and that is because you have not truly bothered to find out. If you want to know you will find out for your self. Buy some books that specialize on the subject, i am not going to explain it to you. Take that as you will.

You seem to be taking this personally… I’m not asserting that God isn’t real here, I try not to do that (it being a Catholic forum and all), I’m asserting that the notion of God being “outside of time” is both illogical and not in conjunction with other Christian beliefs. If you think I’m wrong, stick around, but claiming “I just don’t get it” and leaving isn’t going to help your position.

 

[James_S_Saint]

If God never changes, then he is wholly irrelevant. Change is required for free will.
An un-changing God is not only NOT what is described in scripture, but is essentially putting God in the same arena as gravity and other forces that just simply “are”.

And this is an issue because…?

God is not “in the same arena”. God IS the arena, the arena that contains the entire universe.

Okay, so explain how God would move an atom without having to do something that physicall effects the atom.

God is that which causes the atom to be an atom in the first place. God is that which causes the loose electron to become attached to the atom. And God is that which causes the attached electron to leave the atom. Eventually God is that which utterly destroys the atom.

That which cannot change is what creates and limits that which can change.

God placed every tree exactly where you find it. God placed every leaf and every blade of grass exactly where they are. God brought you into this world. And it is God that will take you out of it.

“Love God” is advice. You are free to hate God if you wish. But in either case, God is God and what you do with that will determine your fate. Ignore that which you cannot change if you like, but don’t expect your frustration to be of God’s concern. Even gravity has no respect for willful ignorance of the law.

You seem to be taking this personally… I’m not asserting that God isn’t real here, …

MoM only sees people arguing with people. He does not see ideas conflicting with ideas. The result is a “me vs him” and a “we vs them” mental framework. This is what propels people into ad hom. attitudes and provides the mass for passionate wars.

But before you complain (if you are tempted), have you done anything to change that fact? You could only change it by doing what actually works to change it. But that is what attention to God is really about. God IS “how things really work” as well as “how they really are”, “what you really can or cannot do about it”, and “what is *really *going to happen when you try”.

 

[Areopagite]

If God never changes, then he is wholly irrelevant. Change is required for free will.
An un-changing God is not only NOT what is described in scripture, but is essentially putting God in the same arena as gravity and other forces that just simply “are”.

Lot of assertions here. First of all, why are gravity and other forces irrelevant? Irrelevant to what? Gravity is sure relevant to keep in my mind, especially near harrowing precipices. So even if God is in the arena of gravity, why exactly does not make Him irrelevant?

Also, all of God’s actions are, in a sense, one act that happens all at once, but of course its effects are many and diversified in the created realm. Thus, it appears that in the interventions as depicted in Scripture God changes, but really He only acted one time, and His many effects happened in successive and calculated order, giving the appearance of change and whatnot.

If God exists, and if He is in fact omnipotent and omniscient, then there is no reason why He wouldn’t be able to do this. There would be no reason to change anything He does because He can do everything perfectly right the first time. And even with that, I’m still not quite sure why one would then conclude He’s irrelevant. Irrelevant in what way? I don’t get it.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Lot of assertions here. First of all, why are gravity and other forces irrelevant? Irrelevant to what? Gravity is sure relevant to keep in my mind, especially near harrowing precipices. So even if God is in the arena of gravity, why exactly does not make Him irrelevant?

Also, all of God’s actions are, in a sense, one act that happens all at once, but of course its effects are many and diversified in the created realm. Thus, it appears that in the interventions as depicted in Scripture God changes, but really He only acted one time, and His many effects happened in successive and calculated order, giving the appearance of change and whatnot.

If God exists, and if He is in fact omnipotent and omniscient, then there is no reason why He wouldn’t be able to do this. There would be no reason to change anything He does because He can do everything perfectly right the first time. And even with that, I’m still not quite sure why one would then conclude He’s irrelevant. Irrelevant in what way? I don’t get it.

Good arguement.

 

[a_priori]

All of these arguments concerning the existence of God (pro and con) seem non-sensible to me personally, but a thought occurred to me concerning those who believe that God created the universe at the Big Bang.

The question might arise, “How long did God ponder before he decided to create time?”

The answer would have to be “zero time” because there could be no time before that point.

So if God took zero time to decide to create time and the universe, then whenever the universe was created had to be the very moment that God came into existence as well because he would instantly (in 0 time) decide to create time and the universe.

But then if God is eternal (always existing regardless of time), then how was there no universe yet still God, who takes zero time to make his decision, but had not yet decided to create time?

The resolve to this is Hebrew friendly, but I can see that it is preferred to argue, so I won’t spoil the fun.

We are trapped in the spacetime “fishbowl” so we demand explanations involving to/from and before/after. Outside of time and space these categories are irrelevant. To insist on a logic borne of the “fishbowl” is to imply that the argument is dead before it began.

Using human language words that are necessarily anchored in spacetime to ascribe anything to God is, quite simply, asking too much of them.