God doesn't exist in our space and time?

[laocmo]

It would seem logical that in order for things to be real and existing to us, they must exist in our space and time. Thus the mathematical 4-dimensioned space cube that mathematicians talk about only exists in their mind. But in our 3-dimensional reality it has no real existence. We can’t see it smell it, feel it, etc. It exists as a vague concept only in the mind. We are also told that God exists but in a dimension outside of our space and time. So why do we say He exists at all, to us in the here and now? If He is truly outside of our space and time, then He is no more real in the space time universe we are in than that 4-dimensional hyper cube. I suppose it’s another case of “God has His own rules” that we often fall back on when His actions and even concept of existence defies the logic that mathematics has to obey?

 

[GEddie]

It would seem logical that in order for things to be real and existing to us, they must exist in our space and time. Thus the mathematical 4-dimensioned space cube that mathematicians talk about only exists in their mind. But in our 3-dimensional reality it has no real existence. We can’t see it smell it, feel it, etc. It exists as a vague concept only in the mind. We are also told that God exists but in a dimension outside of our space and time. So why do we say He exists at all, to us in the here and now? If He is truly outside of our space and time, then He is no more real in the space time universe we are in than that 4-dimensional hyper cube. I suppose it’s another case of “God has His own rules” that we often fall back on when His actions and even concept of existence defies the logic that mathematics has to obey?

But the 4-cube or “tesseract” functions just fine in the laws of mathematics. Those don’t require that we be able to see, smell or touch (try smelling or touching the square root of 2!) but only that something follow the established rules of numbers and variables. And X[sup]4[/sup] works every bit as well as X[sup]3[/sup]!

And God is even more real than mathematics, because He can act within the known space and time.

ICXC NIKA

 

[catholictiger]

yes and no

1. he does exist inside our space and time because he exists everywhere, he exists in the computer I’m looking at the keyboard I’m typing on etc. This is the divine concept of omnipresence, or ubiquitous.
2. he doesn’t exist in our space and time because our space and time does not contain God. I do not remember the theological term that goes with this.

I hope this helps with your question.

 

[meltzerboy]

It would seem logical that in order for things to be real and existing to us, they must exist in our space and time. Thus the mathematical 4-dimensioned space cube that mathematicians talk about only exists in their mind. But in our 3-dimensional reality it has no real existence. We can’t see it smell it, feel it, etc. It exists as a vague concept only in the mind. We are also told that God exists but in a dimension outside of our space and time. So why do we say He exists at all, to us in the here and now? If He is truly outside of our space and time, then He is no more real in the space time universe we are in than that 4-dimensional hyper cube. I suppose it’s another case of “God has His own rules” that we often fall back on when His actions and even concept of existence defies the logic that mathematics has to obey?

G-d exists BEYOND the laws of space, time, and nature which govern the universe, all of which He created. However, He also acts and interacts WITHIN our universe and maintains, cares for, and loves us and all His creation. That is the Judeo-Christian belief.

 

[Gorgias]

It would seem logical that in order for things to be real and existing to us, they must exist in our space and time.

Not true. Have you ever been in love? If so, ‘where’ did that love exist?

Alternately, does the color ‘red’ exist? Is it real? After all, it isn’t “in our space and time” – it’s just a description of the way our eyes perceive a certain wavelength of light. (And, of course, to deer, it doesn’t ‘exist’ at all, since their eyes cannot perceive it.)

What about mathematical definitions and theorems? They describe things in our space, and they might be written down on media in our space… but they – themselves – don’t “exist in our space and time”, do they?

Your proposal is what ‘materialism’ asserts – that existence is only defined for things within the universe. It’s a nice assertion… but there’s no basis for it. Worse yet, it implies that existence itself proceeds from lack-of-existence, without anything to give rise to it!

We are also told that God exists but in a dimension outside of our space and time.

Can I quibble? It’s not that He exists ‘in a dimension’, it’s simply that His existence is not limited to the universe. (Which, if you think about it, isn’t a dodge – it makes sense: if we claim that God created everything “in our space time”, how could we say that his existence is purely contained by the thing He created?)

So why do we say He exists at all, to us in the here and now? If He is truly outside of our space and time, then He is no more real in the space time universe we are in than that 4-dimensional hyper cube.

No… since “does not exist within creation” does not imply “does not act within creation”. If the latter were true, then your assertion might have legs. But, as Christians, what we say is that God does act in creation, and therefore, even by your logic – since we can experience the things with which He has interacted in creation – we must conclude that He is ‘real’. (More to the fact, if we hold that He created the universe, then we are experiencing His effects in all we do, so we cannot hold to your assertion whatsoever!)

His actions and even concept of existence defies the logic that mathematics has to obey?

Mathematics “has to obey logic” because it came into existence with the universe (so to speak). Since God pre-exists the universe, He is not bound to its ‘logic’…

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

In addition to the above replies you might consider that what we are able to see in our universe represents only about 5% of its total mass. The rest is dark energy and dark matter.

 

[hazcompat]

In Him we live and move and have our being.

Peace

 

[Micosil]

God made spacetime.

 

[John_Martin]

Since God is not material, space (location) is not a category explaining his being, and also, since he does not change, time is not a category explaining his being (since time is an observation of before, now, and after).

Dimension is also not something that can contain God, since such a dimension would be enclosing God, and therefore be greater than God, which is impossible. So, God is not in another dimension other than what we materially experience, nor enclosed in these four dimensions we experience.

“Outside time” is something we often experience, when we are enjoying something we have desired, when we are in the state of “delight”. When desiring something, then acquiring it, then consuming it, during the act of consuming, there is delight, where time does not exist to our senses. You can read about this from Thomas Aquinas here: ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FS_Q31_A2.html - quite “delightful” when you work through the implications of it; for example, Jesus at the last supper, is in a timelessness of delight, since he “desired with exceeding desire to eat this Passover with you”, and his desire was in a time of satisfaction, where he was operating in “delight” as he took the bread, broke, spoke, gave, and the same with the cup. It is a moment when we are together with God in his Timeless Knowing in Delight, if we too desire the sacrament with exceeding desire.

 

[mikekle]

Isnt this exactly what we are waiting for in the second coming…the time when God will live among us, on the new earth?

 

[Gorgias]

Isnt this exactly what we are waiting for in the second coming…the time when God will live among us, on the new earth?

I would say that it’s exactly the opposite: in the eschaton, we’ll live with God, in heaven (described as the ‘new Jerusalem’ or the ‘new heavens and new earth’)…!

 

[mikekle]

I would say that it’s exactly the opposite: in the eschaton, we’ll live with God, in heaven (described as the ‘new Jerusalem’ or the ‘new heavens and new earth’)…!

but what about the ‘new earth’, he said there would be no sea or large bodies of water, also said people would not ‘reminisce’ about the old earth (the earth we are living on now). He went on to say the new Jerusalem would be a 1400 mile cube, taking the literal location of the old city.

He went into pretty great detail about how the new earth would be during this time, but I think you are right too, we will live with him in heaven, AFTER he lives with us on the new earth for 100 yrs I believe it is.

 

[yppop]

The dogma of the Catholic Church states:

God is everywhere present in created space.

Omnipresence means everywhere.

There is a very interesting "physical) way of explaining omnipresence, but I’m too tired tonight.

Yppop

 

[Gorgias]

but what about the ‘new earth’, he said there would be no sea or large bodies of water, also said people would not ‘reminisce’ about the old earth (the earth we are living on now). He went on to say the new Jerusalem would be a 1400 mile cube, taking the literal location of the old city.

He went into pretty great detail about how the new earth would be during this time, but I think you are right too, we will live with him in heaven, AFTER he lives with us on the new earth for 100 yrs I believe it is.

The genre of the Book of Revelation is ‘apocalyptic literature’. It is not prophecy (in the strictest sense of the word), but contains elements of a highly symbolic nature. As such, it would be poor interpretative form to presume that he’s speaking literally in all things.

In this case, the significance of the description of the city as a ‘cube’ lies in something that John’s contemporaries knew about that really was a cube: the holy of holies in the temple. In other words, John is asserting that in the eschaton, we will all be in God’s presence, always. There will be no outer courts, limiting our access to him (by nationality or gender); there will be no barriers past which we cannot go; and we will not be denied the opportunity to be in God’s presence.

If you want to learn about a Catholic interpretation of Revelation, I’d recommend Michael Barber’s book, “Coming Soon” – it’s easy to read, and does a good job of describing Revelation from a Catholic perspective.

 

[TimothyH]

We can’t see it smell it, feel it, etc. It exists as a vague concept only in the mind.

God walked around Palestine two thousand years ago in the person of Jesus Christ. .

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life – (1 John 1:1)

God nursed at Mary’s breast and Mary changed his diaper. St. John lay his head on God’s bosom at the last supper.

-Tim-

 

[laocmo]

Re: God doesn’t exist in our space and time ??

God walked around Palestine two thousand years ago in the person of Jesus Christ. God nursed at Mary’s breast and Mary changed his diaper. St. John lay his head on God’s bosom at the last supper.-Tim-

You have been told this many times. You have come to believe it. Yet you have absolutely no certain proof that any of this “Jesus was God” thing is anything but pure fantasy and wishful thinking. If it’s true then God did indeed interact with us. But how do you know it’s true. Only because others have told you it is, with others having told them it is true, for centuries, and centuries…

 

[John_Martin]

Re: God doesn’t exist in our space and time ??

You have been told this many times. You have come to believe it. Yet you have absolutely no certain proof that any of this “Jesus was God” thing is anything but pure fantasy and wishful thinking. If it’s true then God did indeed interact with us. But how do you know it’s true. Only because others have told you it is, with others having told them it is true, for centuries, and centuries…

That is correct; we believe those who have come to us with this official news of God establishing his Kingdom, originating with John when he anointed Jesus as King, and with Jesus when he sent his followers to proclaim the Kingdom and to grant us inclusion as citizens in a new birth. If you don’t believe the messengers, you do not believe the one sending the messengers, nor His Father.

We Catholics are especially grounded in this, that we believe the one proclaiming to us (it is called Apostolic Succession - you write as if this were somehow an improper way of knowing the will of a King and the knowledge of a King - but official promulgation via official messenger is the only way of knowing the will of a King - did you think you would find it in a college textbook somewhere as “scientific discovery”?)

 

[Gorgias]

You have been told this many times. You have come to believe it. Yet you have absolutely no certain proof that any of this “Jesus was God” thing is anything but pure fantasy and wishful thinking. If it’s true then God did indeed interact with us. But how do you know it’s true. Only because others have told you it is, with others having told them it is true, for centuries, and centuries…

You misunderstand the notion of a ‘standard of proof’, then. Sadly, that’s pretty common these days.

With the existence of sensitive scientific instrumentation which has the ability to peer into deep space and into the atom itself, we mistakenly believe that empirical evidence is the only kind of evidence that’s acceptable.

With the existence of ubiquitous internet coverage and a plethora of photo- and video-recording devices, we mistakenly believe that recorded images are the only means by which to establish that events have taken place.

However, this set of mistaken assumptions leads to chaos. Throughout history, neither instrumentation nor on-the-scene video has been available. Do we then claim that, since we have no video of Julius Caesar, this means that his existence and his deeds are merely “pure fantasy and wishful thinking”? Of course not! Since we do not have empirical evidence of the existence of the majority of the human race since the first humans walked the earth, would we conclude that they never existed? No – we’d be laughed away as simpletons if we did!

Rather, we realize that different standards of evidence enable us to draw reasonable conclusions: Julius Caesar really did walk this earth, even if we only know it’s true because “others have told us it’s true… and others told them… and so on and so on.” The existence of eyewitness testimony (and the absence of credible contradicting testimony) suffices.

Similarly, the eyewitness testimony of the Church – as evidenced by its unbroken existence, and by the testimony written down in the New Testament – is sufficient evidence to allow us to reasonably conclude not only that Jesus walked this earth as a man, but that the claim that “Jesus is God” is likewise true.

 

[laocmo]

Throughout history, neither instrumentation nor on-the-scene video has been available. Do we then claim that, since we have no video of Julius Caesar, this means that his existence and his deeds are merely “pure fantasy and wishful thinking”? Of course not!
…Julius Caesar really did walk this earth, even if we only know it’s true because “others have told us it’s true… and others told them… and so on and so on.” The existence of eyewitness testimony (and the absence of credible contradicting testimony) suffices…the eyewitness testimony of the Church – as evidenced by its unbroken existence, and by the testimony written down in the New Testament – is sufficient evidence to allow us to reasonably conclude not only that Jesus walked this earth as a man…

No objection here. There is evidence that Jesus existed and walked this earth, just as did Caesar. You say, …“but that the claim that “Jesus is God” is likewise true…” Disagree here, there is no evidence that he was God. You can’t rely on a few reports of magic tricks as evidence. Indian fakirs have been doing similar magic for a thousand years. There is some evidence that Jesus learned his magic in India and Tibet during his lost years.

 

[davidv]

No objection here. There is evidence that Jesus existed and walked this earth, just as did Caesar. You say, …“but that the claim that “Jesus is God” is likewise true…” Disagree here, there is no evidence that he was God. You can’t rely on a few reports of magic tricks as evidence. Indian fakirs have been doing similar magic for a thousand years. There is some evidence that Jesus learned his magic in India and Tibet during his lost years.

False - there is evidence that Jesus is God. You have simply rejected it.
Jesus’ works are not magic tricks.
What evidence is there the Jesus was ever in India?

Are you making this up as you go, or are you regurgitating this garbage from some anti-Christian source? Care to name it?