Changeless God cannot create

[Bahman]

Philosophically you are wrong.

1. Correct, God does not change.
   2, Correct.
2. Correct only from a philosophical point of view.
3. Wrong, philosophically, creation does not have to have a beginning. Philosophically, # 2 is correct and #3 is wrong.Therefore your conclusion is incorrect.

Yes, but something which is eternal, universe for example, does not need God as creator to come to existence. My argument is an attempt to bring the attention of reader to an tension which is caused with two elements namely, 1) God is changeless hence creation has to be eternal, and 2) Creation by definition is something which comes to existence by an external agent hence it has a beginning and it is not eternal.

Further, something to change it must be composed of potentiality and existence. In God there is no potentiality, he is pure existence or pure act. So he cannot change.
5, #1 is correct and # 5 is wrong. The reason it is correct has nothing to do with creation. The reason it is correct is that in God there is no potentiality to change,he is pure act, so he cannot change. Since God cannot change, his knowledge, thought, will and acts are eternal and one with his Essence. His ad extra acts ( from our point of view ) are one and eternal with his Essence, he exists and acts in the eternal now. It is we who are changeable and mutable.

Hence, the conclusion is correct logically. Please read the previous comment.

 

[davidv]

All the problem arises from the fact when creation has a beginning. I cannot imagine a changeless God which can cause a change in existence. Could you?

It seems to me that your imagination is too confining.
I also would not trust your imagination in defining what is true.

The only way to avoid this tension is to claim that creation does not need any change in state of existence which is quite irrational in my opinion.

This not rational. Why does the subject (God) have to change in order for the object (creation) to change?

 

[Bahman]

It seems to me that your imagination is too confining.
I also would not trust your imagination in defining what is true.

So, could you please elaborate since you are not adding anything here? Moreover, I tried my best to simplify the problem the best I could and in fact the problem is very simple.

This not rational. Why does the subject (God) have to change in order for the object (creation) to change?

Because of a simple reason: There exists a discontinuity in existence of creation, which does not exist and then comes to existence by an external agent, God, which cannot be changeless because creation has to be eternal since God existence necessitates the existence of creation, yet God is eternal hence creation has to be eternal as well. Now we have two problems in our hand, 1) an eternal universe does not need any creator, 2) the tension between something which is eternal and has a beginning.

 

[davidv]

So, could you please elaborate since you are not adding anything here? Moreover, I tried my best to simplify the problem the best I could and in fact the problem is very simple.

Simplifying a falsehood doesn’t make it true. You have stated conclusions, which are contrary to Church teaching, and you have not shown a valid progression from axioms to premises to those conclusions. And in this particular case, a logical fallacy, incredulity (“cannot imagine”), was used to justify the conclusion.

Because of a simple reason: There exists a discontinuity in existence of creation, which does not exist and then comes to existence by an external agent, God, which cannot be changeless because creation has to be eternal since God existence necessitates the existence of creation, yet God is eternal hence creation has to be eternal as well. Now we have two problems in our hand, 1) an eternal universe does not need any creator, 2) the tension between something which is eternal and has a beginning.

This a mere repetition of your original claim. It has not be supported by a logical argument.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes, but something which is eternal, universe for example, does not need God as creator to come to existence. My argument is an attempt to bring the attention of reader to an tension which is caused with two elements namely, 1) God is changeless hence creation has to be eternal, and 2) Creation by definition is something which comes to existence by an external agent hence it has a beginning and it is not eternal.

Even if the universe were eternal, it would have to have a cause of its existence. Everything in the universe changes, there is a constant movement from the potential to the actual. Such a series cannot go on forever, there must be a First which is not caused and which has no beginning because it has no potential. It is theoretically possible for such a universe to be eternal, but it would have to have an uncaused eternal cause. In other words it would need an eternal creation. Even if it were eternal, it would need an explanation for its existence at each moment. Nothing in the universe can cause itself to exist, nor can it cause itself to continue to exist. It needs an uncaused cause, God, who can do this because he is eternal and uncaused. The universe does not have to exist. But it does exist. Therefore there must be a cause of its existence, and that cause cannot be itself, it must be another, God…

Hence, the conclusion is correct logically. Please read the previous comment.

It is not logical. Even logically God is eternal and changeless and he has created a universe that depends on him for its existence. Philosophically, that universe would be eternally created. But Divine Revelation tells us that God created a contingent universe which had an actual beginning in time and was created out of nothing.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Simplifying a falsehood doesn’t make it true. You have stated conclusions, which are contrary to Church teaching, and you have not shown a valid progression from axioms to premises to those conclusions. And in this particular case, a logical fallacy, incredulity (“cannot imagine”), was used to justify the conclusion.

This a mere repetition of your original claim. It has not be supported by a logical argument.

What I did was in fact a logical argument. The universe is either eternal or not. It does not need a creator if it is eternal. You on the other hand cannot assign an transient universe beginning to an changeless God since it is contradictory. So how do you solve the problem?

 

[Bahman]

Even if the universe were eternal, it would have to have a cause of its existence. Everything in the universe changes, there is a constant movement from the potential to the actual. Such a series cannot go on forever, there must be a First which is not caused and which has no beginning because it has no potential. It is theoretically possible for such a universe to be eternal, but it would have to have an uncaused eternal cause. In other words it would need an eternal creation. Even if it were eternal, it would need an explanation for its existence at each moment. Nothing in the universe can cause itself to exist, nor can it cause itself to continue to exist. It needs an uncaused cause, God, who can do this because he is eternal and uncaused. The universe does not have to exist. But it does exist. Therefore there must be a cause of its existence, and that cause cannot be itself, it must be another, God…

It is not logical. Even logically God is eternal and changeless and he has created a universe that depends on him for its existence. Philosophically, that universe would be eternally created. But Divine Revelation tells us that God created a contingent universe which had an actual beginning in time and was created out of nothing.

Linus2nd

First, you didn’t resolve my problem and repeat what I have learn from you long time ago. Hence, I repeat the problem again: An eternal changeless God can only create an eternal universe, in another word something which does not have a beginning. Creation, in another hand is something which by definition has a beginning hence we are dealing with a tension which cannot be resolved unless we question changeability of God.

Second, any state of existence can cause another state in an eternal universe provided that there exists consciousness, hence what you call God, I call consciousness. Unfortunately you don’t like my opinion, calling it eastern.

 

[balto]

In Fact my problems is with theist God. My argument is very simple: Anything that has a beginning requires a change in what caused it. Anything that sustains a changeable thing requires changes as well.

No, deism would require that, not classical theism. What is essential to a cause is that it bring about some kind of effect. Whether the causal agent itself changes is accidental to the nature of a cause.

This is what you are thinking:

God → A → B → C → … ] universe

This is what I am arguing:

…------ God---------…
…|…|…|…|…
…v…v…v…v…
A → B → C → … ] universe

Going vertically is divine/primary causation and going horizontally in the universe is natural/secondary causation.

You are assuming that God is just one causal player among many, that essentially causes things to happen the way other natural causes cause things to occur, which is why you are saying that the universe must be eternal if God is eternal. Because under deism, God would have always been causing the start of the universe, so there would be no beginning.

I am not assuming that God is one causal player among many. The only reason why anything in the universe has any causal power at all is because God makes it real from eternity. He makes A really exist and really be an A that can naturally cause B, He makes B really exist and really be a B that is naturally caused by A and can naturally cause C, etc. This is what Aquinas means by “conjoining an act of existence with an essence.” There’s no change needed in God. Sure, from God’s point of view the universe has always existed since He has always been sustaining it in existence. But that in no way makes it necessary that the natural order extend backwards infinitely, as I have shown. It would be as if I was eternally sustaining the whole of a movie reel, yet for the characters in the movie the movie had a beginning in the movie’s timeline.

Bahman:

How theist God can sustain the creation without knowledge of the current time which is subject to change since creation changes. Hence a God who sustains creation has to change unless one argue that the creation as a whole is constant which resolves the issue of sustainability but the problem of beginning still stands.

I don’t know what knowledge has to do with it. God is eternally present to the entire universe and has known all contingent facts about it from eternity. He’s not riding on our timeline and learning things as the universe unfolds.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

First, you didn’t resolve my problem and repeat what I have learn from you long time ago.

What was that?

Hence, I repeat the problem again: An eternal changeless God can only create an eternal universe, in another word something which does not have a beginning

Where is the logic in that? An all powerful, eternal God can do just as he pleases. He can create an eternally existing universe, in which case he has been creating for all of eternity. In this case the universe would be co-eternal with God. Or he can create a universe which has an actual beginning.

Creation, in another hand ( on the other hand ) is something which by definition has a beginning

Not, so as I just explained. We are not using the dictionary definition. To create means to make from nothing, from no prior existing matter. It does not necessarilly mean to have bave a actual beginning.

hence we are dealing with a tension which cannot be resolved unless we question changeability of God.

That does not follow at all. First of all, we already know from philosophy and from Divine Revelation that God is not changeable. We have to proceed from there. And I showed you how it is done.

1. Philosophically we can only posit an eternal universe. In which case God is eternally creating, The universe would then be co-eternal with God.
2. But by Divine Revelation we know that God created a universe that had an actual beginning.
3. Therefore the eternity of God has nothing to do with the question of whether the universe is eternal or had an absolute beginning. The questions are unrelated!!.

Second, any state of existence can cause another state in an eternal universe provided that there exists consciousness,

That is not true. Two dogs cannot make a man. Yes, it takes a Being with an intellect to create something, either eternally or with a beginning. But that would not be your pantheistic god whom you identify with the universe itself. And it is not Plato’s World Soul either, and it is not Aristotl’s aloof and self-absorbed God either. It is the Transcendent, eternal God of Christianity.

hence what you call God, I call consciousness. Unfortunately you don’t like my opinion, calling it eastern.

You are shooting craps here, you are all over the map. This makes no sense. You cannot logically defend the irrational. God is not consciousness. If you are going to speak to Christians and Jews, but especially to Catholics, you have to use our understanding of who and what God is. If you are going to slip in " consciousness " and call that god, you must first explain to us what the nature of this god is and to tell us where you got such an idea. And you have to explain what the nature of this god is and you have to defend these propositions. You can’t just shout it out. And yes, I do call it an Eastern ideology, one which makes absolutely no sense because I have yet to meet anyone who can explain exactly what they mean. Everyone who tries is all over the map.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No, deism would require that, not classical theism. What is essential to a cause is that it bring about some kind of effect. Whether the causal agent itself changes is accidental to the nature of a cause.

This is what you are thinking:

God → A → B → C → … ] universe

This is what I am arguing:

…------ God---------…
…|…|…|…|…
…v…v…v…v…
A → B → C → … ] universe

Going vertically is divine/primary causation and going horizontally in the universe is natural/secondary causation.

You are assuming that God is just one causal player among many, that essentially causes things to happen the way other natural causes cause things to occur, which is why you are saying that the universe must be eternal if God is eternal. Because under deism, God would have always been causing the start of the universe, so there would be no beginning.

I am not assuming that God is one causal player among many. The only reason why anything in the universe has any causal power at all is because God makes it real from eternity. He makes A really exist and really be an A that can naturally cause B, He makes B really exist and really be a B that is naturally caused by A and can naturally cause C, etc. This is what Aquinas means by “conjoining an act of existence with an essence.” There’s no change needed in God. Sure, from God’s point of view the universe has always existed since He has always been sustaining it in existence. But that in no way makes it necessary that the natural order extend backwards infinitely, as I have shown. It would be as if I was eternally sustaining the whole of a movie reel, yet for the characters in the movie the movie had a beginning in the movie’s timeline.

I don’t know what knowledge has to do with it. God is eternally present to the entire universe and has known all contingent facts about it from eternity. He’s not riding on our timeline and learning things as the universe unfolds.

Very good.
Linus2nd

 

[davidv]

What I did was in fact a logical argument. The universe is either eternal or not.

True

It does not need a creator if it is eternal.

Please show that this is true.

You on the other hand cannot assign an transient universe beginning to an changeless God since it is contradictory. So how do you solve the problem?

There is no problem to solve except the bad logic that you have employed.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So you mean that God embedded us in a universe which is logical yet himself being illogical?

Moreover, I don’t agree that revelation is a trump especially if there is no way to justify it, even worst if it is irrational. Belief is simply an state of mind and could be wrong.

Well Bahman if you can’t follow a logical argument there just isn’t any use talking to you. Thought I would give you one last chance. I guess sooner or later you will get tired of the little game you are playing.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

No, deism would require that, not classical theism. What is essential to a cause is that it bring about some kind of effect. Whether the causal agent itself changes is accidental to the nature of a cause.

This is what you are thinking:

God → A → B → C → … ] universe

This is what I am arguing:

…------ God---------…
…|…|…|…|…
…v…v…v…v…
A → B → C → … ] universe

Going vertically is divine/primary causation and going horizontally in the universe is natural/secondary causation.

You are assuming that God is just one causal player among many, that essentially causes things to happen the way other natural causes cause things to occur, which is why you are saying that the universe must be eternal if God is eternal. Because under deism, God would have always been causing the start of the universe, so there would be no beginning.

I am not assuming that God is one causal player among many. The only reason why anything in the universe has any causal power at all is because God makes it real from eternity. He makes A really exist and really be an A that can naturally cause B, He makes B really exist and really be a B that is naturally caused by A and can naturally cause C, etc. This is what Aquinas means by “conjoining an act of existence with an essence.” There’s no change needed in God. Sure, from God’s point of view the universe has always existed since He has always been sustaining it in existence. But that in no way makes it necessary that the natural order extend backwards infinitely, as I have shown. It would be as if I was eternally sustaining the whole of a movie reel, yet for the characters in the movie the movie had a beginning in the movie’s timeline.

First, what exist does not need a sustainer such as God if there exist consciousness. I can argue that the existence and can exist if minimally consciousness exist. This I already discuss in other threads. To elaborate, consider a system in a given state of S. S can cause another state, S’, yet both state cannot coexist hence S must be annihilated before S’ is created which is problematic unless the knowledge of state S does exist in consciousness.

Moreover, I have a problem with your second diagram.Consider the universe to be in state of A. The knowledge of this state should exist otherwise it cannot be created. A moment later the state of B exist hence this knowledge also must exist. Any intervention from God however needs the knowledge of current time which theist God does not have since it is changeless and time is changing. In simple word, the knowledge of states of universe is not enough to resolve all problem since God also needs to know what is the current time.

I don’t know what knowledge has to do with it. God is eternally present to the entire universe and has known all contingent facts about it from eternity. He’s not riding on our timeline and learning things as the universe unfolds.

Please read the second paragraph of the last statement.

 

[Bahman]

What was that?

A changeless God cannot create and sustain creation for a simple reason since the act of creation and sustaining needs change in God for a simple reason: Any change caused by God in existence, not only needs the knowledge of the state of existence which should be created but also the the knowledge of the moment that a command should be executed. This in simple word subject God existence to time. Lets assume each state of existence as a frame and whole creation as a movie. God not only needs to know each frame but also should execute a command for each frame at the very specific moment the later subjects God in time.

Where is the logic in that? An all powerful, eternal God can do just as he pleases. He can create an eternally existing universe, in which case he has been creating for all of eternity. In this case the universe would be co-eternal with God. Or he can create a universe which has an actual beginning.

A theist God as you define cannot do what it please since it is changeless. God in this picture has to do what it should be done. A pure being doesn’t have any potential hence it doesn’t have free will since you need potentiality for making a decision. It is changeless in simple word and decision requires changeability and uncertainty in the moment of decision. A theist God is changeless and certain hence it cannot do what it please.

Moreover, changeless God as an infinity cannot create infinity but any temporal thing.

Not, so as I just explained. We are not using the dictionary definition. To create means to make from nothing, from no prior existing matter. It does not necessarilly mean to have bave a actual beginning.

Theist God cannot create any eternal thing but temporal since an eternal thing is infinite since the knowledge of creation exhaust God’s mind.

That does not follow at all. First of all, we already know from philosophy and from Divine Revelation that God is not changeable. We have to proceed from there. And I showed you how it is done.

1. Philosophically we can only posit an eternal universe. In which case God is eternally creating, The universe would then be co-eternal with God.
2. But by Divine Revelation we know that God created a universe that had an actual beginning.
3. Therefore the eternity of God has nothing to do with the question of whether the universe is eternal or had an absolute beginning. The questions are unrelated!!.

It does follow. Any temporal thing has a beginning. The beginning has to happen at a certain point in which the former to this point is nonexistence and the later is existence. Theist God must act at the specific point in eternal now, yet there exist other point all of them are in eternal now which is the problem. That is one way of looking at the problem.

The other way to look at the problem is as following: an eternal God has a knowledge which is infinite. Lets consider them as a series of points in which one of them is related to creation. This means that creation has not a chance to come to existence unless the acts related to all these point is executed simultaneously. This means that future is as real as past from God perspective, in simple word they all exist. We however trapped in now hence the question is that if all the other points do exist then how we only experience now. This means that there exist a constraint on all temporal beings which is imposed by God so we can only experience now which means that God has to act on time. This is contrary to the former assumption that God exist in eternal now and act simultaneously. So you cannot resolve the problem unless you argue that there exist two Gods.

That is not true. Two dogs cannot make a man. Yes, it takes a Being with an intellect to create something, either eternally or with a beginning. But that would not be your pantheistic god whom you identify with the universe itself. And it is not Plato’s World Soul either, and it is not Aristotl’s aloof and self-absorbed God either. It is the Transcendent, eternal God of Christianity.

That is true. This was subject of another thread which unfortunately was deleted but I can repeat the argument again. A system being in state of S can cause another state of S’, yet two state cannot coexist which means that S must be annihilated before S’ which is problematic unless the knowledge of state of S exist in consciousness.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A changeless God cannot create and sustain creation for a simple reason since the act of creation and sustaining needs change in God for a simple reason: Any change caused by God in existence, not only needs the knowledge of the state of existence which should be created but also the the knowledge of the moment that a command should be executed. This in simple word subject God existence to time. Lets assume each state of existence as a frame and whole creation as a movie. God not only needs to know each frame but also should execute a command for each frame at the very specific moment the later subjects God in time.

A theist God as you define cannot do what it please since it is changeless. God in this picture has to do what it should be done. A pure being doesn’t have any potential hence it doesn’t have free will since you need potentiality for making a decision. It is changeless in simple word and decision requires changeability and uncertainty in the moment of decision. A theist God is changeless and certain hence it cannot do what it please.

Moreover, changeless God as an infinity cannot create infinity but any temporal thing.

Theist God cannot create any eternal thing but temporal since an eternal thing is infinite since the knowledge of creation exhaust God’s mind.

It does follow. Any temporal thing has a beginning. The beginning has to happen at a certain point in which the former to this point is nonexistence and the later is existence. Theist God must act at the specific point in eternal now, yet there exist other point all of them are in eternal now which is the problem. That is one way of looking at the problem.

The other way to look at the problem is as following: an eternal God has a knowledge which is infinite. Lets consider them as a series of points in which one of them is related to creation. This means that creation has not a chance to come to existence unless the acts related to all these point is executed simultaneously. This means that future is as real as past from God perspective, in simple word they all exist. We however trapped in now hence the question is that if all the other points do exist then how we only experience now. This means that there exist a constraint on all temporal beings which is imposed by God so we can only experience now which means that God has to act on time. This is contrary to the former assumption that God exist in eternal now and act simultaneously. So you cannot resolve the problem unless you argue that there exist two Gods.

That is true. This was subject of another thread which unfortunately was deleted but I can repeat the argument again. A system being in state of S can cause another state of S’, yet two state cannot coexist which means that S must be annihilated before S’ which is problematic unless the knowledge of state of S exist in consciousness.

Well Bahman, as long as you are riding this horse no one will be able to help you anything. And if it is merely propaganda you are peddling, we are having none of it, why should we trade Truth for vain imaginings? So long.

Linus2nd

 

[balto]

First, what exist does not need a sustainer such as God if there exist consciousness. I can argue that the existence and can exist if minimally consciousness exist. This I already discuss in other threads. To elaborate, consider a system in a given state of S. S can cause another state, S’, yet both state cannot coexist hence S must be annihilated before S’ is created which is problematic unless the knowledge of state S does exist in consciousness.

I remember that thread from this past summer, but I don’t know what it has to do with the topic of this thread. It is interesting though because, as I believe I said on the other thread, your talk of S’ needing to exist somehow in the state of S is basically a recapitulation of the Aristotelian notion of potentiality and final causality. Without potentiality, the entire universe is only actual which would require a continual process of creation/destruction if change really happens, since old actuality has to be erased and new actuality has to be created. Bringing back potentiality into the natural world makes change possible without creation/destruction, but then the nature of S is such that it inherently points towards or is directed at S’ due to its potential for becoming S’. You call it “consciousness” and I call it “final causality.” Consciousness is only one specific type of final causality that manifests in sentient and rational beings.

This still requires a sustainer God since S is contingent and could have been otherwise, so it still needs something to actualize its potential for existence, namely God needs to conjoin its essence with an act of existence so you still have to assume the classical theistic framework.

Moreover, I have a problem with your second diagram.Consider the universe to be in state of A. The knowledge of this state should exist otherwise it cannot be created. A moment later the state of B exist hence this knowledge also must exist. Any intervention from God however needs the knowledge of current time which theist God does not have since it is changeless and time is changing. In simple word, the knowledge of states of universe is not enough to resolve all problem since God also needs to know what is the current time.

Please read the second paragraph of the last statement.

The entire course of the universe is the “current time” for God. He is eternally present to all times and hence knows all times eternally and unchangingly. If you are insistent that God experience time like humans do, then you are assuming deistic, sempiternal premises that the classical theist explicitly rejects.

 

[Bahman]

Well Bahman, as long as you are riding this horse no one will be able to help you anything. And if it is merely propaganda you are peddling, we are having none of it, why should we trade Truth for vain imaginings? So long.

Linus2nd

Come on man. You cannot give up that simply and I won’t let you go. Truth is something which can explain subject matter well hence you can answer my objections no matter how much I persist if you have the truth otherwise something is missing the thing that you call it truth.

 

[Bahman]

I remember that thread from this past summer, but I don’t know what it has to do with the topic of this thread. It is interesting though because, as I believe I said on the other thread, your talk of S’ needing to exist somehow in the state of S is basically a recapitulation of the Aristotelian notion of potentiality and final causality. Without potentiality, the entire universe is only actual which would require a continual process of creation/destruction if change really happens, since old actuality has to be erased and new actuality has to be created. Bringing back potentiality into the natural world makes change possible without creation/destruction, but then the nature of S is such that it inherently points towards or is directed at S’ due to its potential for becoming S’. You call it “consciousness” and I call it “final causality.” Consciousness is only one specific type of final causality that manifests in sentient and rational beings.

We are having a good progress. But consciousness is to me primary as it is defined as the ability to experience and affect/create other states. It is so primary that I could not imagine something simpler than that. Can you imagine another thing such as consciousness which is so fundamental at the same time simple? I would be glad to hear that. Needless to say that I agree with what you said in bold since I believe that I could be cognitively close to other beings, their attributes, the way that they see the world, etc. Lets call them gods.

The entire course of the universe is the “current time” for God. He is eternally present to all times and hence knows all times eternally and unchangingly. If you are insistent that God experience time like humans do, then you are assuming deistic, sempiternal premises that the classical theist explicitly rejects.

My question is how theist God could know the current time knowing the fact it is in timeless state. This is crucial since otherwise God could not sustain the creation.

Moreover I have two other objections to theist God and I would be glad to hear your solution to it.

1. Any temporal thing has a beginning. The beginning has to happen at a certain point in which the former to this point is nonexistence and the later is existence. Theist God must act at the specific point in eternal now, yet there exist other point all of them are in eternal now which is the problem. That is one way of looking at the problem.
2. An eternal God has a knowledge which is infinite. Lets consider them as a series of points in which one of them is related to creation. This means that creation has not a chance to come to existence unless the acts related to all these point is executed simultaneously. This means that future is as real as past from God perspective, in simple word they all exist. We however trapped in now hence the question is that if all the other points do exist then how we only experience now. This means that there exist a constraint on all temporal beings which is imposed by God so we can only experience now which means that God has to act on time. This is contrary to the former assumption that God exist in eternal now and act simultaneously. So you cannot resolve the problem unless you argue that there exist two Gods.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Come on man. You cannot give up that simply and I won’t let you go. Truth is something which can explain subject matter well hence you can answer my objections no matter how much I persist if you have the truth otherwise something is missing the thing that you call it truth.

Sorry, I have given you all I can give. If you are honestly seeking Truth, you will find it. If not, you will not find it.

Good Luck
Linus2nd

 

[Kurisu35712]

My question is how theist God could know the current time knowing the fact it is in timeless state. This is crucial since otherwise God could not sustain the creation.

Moreover I have two other objections to theist God and I would be glad to hear your solution to it.

1. Any temporal thing has a beginning. The beginning has to happen at a certain point in which the former to this point is nonexistence and the later is existence. Theist God must act at the specific point in eternal now, yet there exist other point all of them are in eternal now which is the problem. That is one way of looking at the problem.
2. An eternal God has a knowledge which is infinite. Lets consider them as a series of points in which one of them is related to creation. This means that creation has not a chance to come to existence unless the acts related to all these point is executed simultaneously. This means that future is as real as past from God perspective, in simple word they all exist. We however trapped in now hence the question is that if all the other points do exist then how we only experience now. This means that there exist a constraint on all temporal beings which is imposed by God so we can only experience now which means that God has to act on time. This is contrary to the former assumption that God exist in eternal now and act simultaneously. So you cannot resolve the problem unless you argue that there exist two Gods.

I’m not exactly sure that I understood any of this at all. It’s a bit convoluted. But I’ll try to respond.

From point 2. I get from this that you are arguing that, logically, if God is able to perceive all points in time simultaneously, from His perspective, they all exist, yes? However, as we are bound to a specific time, the current one, at least from our own perspective, God does act on and in specific points in time. You then claim that this fact contradicts the assertion that God exists eternally and acts on and in all things simultaneously, as there are obviously specific points that we perceive God’s acting on creation, is that correct?

If I misinterpreted any of that, I apologize. My response to that though, is that God does not act on time while being subject to it. God exists not just outside of time, but above time. Likewise, I think there’s some confusion as to what is meant when God is said to be unchanging. This does not mean that God exists in a static state of no motion, no action, no etc. It means that God’s nature is constant and consistent with itself. He is Love, and will not later be something else. God is, and God is perfect. This does not mean God cannot act on His creation, and it certainly doesn’t render Him immobile or something.

God exists outside of time, which means that God does not grow or develop or learn more. He knows everything, is everything, and is perfect. He is not changed by the progression of time. This does not mean that he is unable to act. God does not exist in some kind of metaphysical “eternal now.” He does not exist in anything. Everything else exists in Him. Time is part of His creation. Time is subject to His will, not to mention everything else in the universe. God does not have to exist inside of time to be able to affect it. Time exists within God’s eternal being. God knows everything not because every moment is simultaneously occurring to Him, but because He has created and willed every moment in existence to exist in the first place. I feel as if you’re looking at it as though God is sitting in a room like in the Matrix, looking at every moment in time simultaneously. That is not so. That is how humans conceptualize existing outside of time, because we cannot comprehend what that would be like. But God does not simply experience every instance at the same time. God is the reason those instances are able to occur at all. He knows all because he already knew it before time even existed.

Truly it is impossible for us to even analogize, because existence within time is all we know. But God knew everything before He created the universe. And I think part of our problem with this lies in the fact that our only descriptions for what happened “before” creation rely on temporal terms and ideas in order to even talk about them in the first place. To God, words like now and before and later are not applicable. He does not act now. He acts. He is. Time is dependent on God, not the other way around.