God Exists Outside Of Time?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

No problem. This does not address the question of God existing out of time. Since He does, this argument is axiomatic.

A couple of days ago a post mentioned that if God is energy He is light… Scripture tells us that “God is light and in him there is no darkness” QED.

Harri

However - language about God is analogical: not straightforwardly descriptive. What we know as light is like what God is, in some way; but it’s not the same what God is. No language can be. If God *were *light just as we understand it, He would be matter, not Spirit.​

Scripture contains many statements about God that are not true as they stand: He is not a rock, even though He is called one. He could not be, because He is also called king, shepherd, fire, shade, light, lion, warrior etc., - so trying to carry out a geological analysis of this Rock would be ridiculous He is called these, not because He is reducible to them, but because He is so much more than they. He is Ineffable - not able to be spoken of as He is.

 

[Harri_Laaksonen]

However - language about God is analogical: not straightforwardly descriptive. What we know as light is like what God is, in some way; but it’s not the same what God is. No language can be. If God *were *light just as we understand it, He would be matter, not Spirit.​

Scripture contains many statements about God that are not true as they stand: He is not a rock, even though He is called one. He could not be, because He is also called king, shepherd, fire, shade, light, lion, warrior etc., - so trying to carry out a geological analysis of this Rock would be ridiculous He is called these, not because He is reducible to them, but because He is so much more than they. He is Ineffable - not able to be spoken of as He is.

This statement is not analogical. Light is not material to any physicist. Light is a perception of a particular energy spectrum that sits between the infrared and the ultraviolet. We are sensitive to the wavelength of which we call light but do not sense radio waves or ultraviolet waves and those that are outside of those bands.
God exists outside of our perception.

We can make analogies of rocks, etc. but they are outside of energy spectra.

Thanks for the comment.

Harri

 

[Psychotheosophy]

i dont know if this counts but subjectively that Eternal Sacrifice, present in all times and places, …

I think I should make something explicit,

Earlier I wrote that a lack of happiness and perfect happiness could be perfectly united in Jesus.

This was wrong

As G of G later posted, “God lacks nothing”

my argument was false.

Please forgive me if I mislead anyone.

 

[bpbasilphx]

How can God exist outside of time?

**Time is a limitation, and God is infinite (without limitations).

Furthermore, neither the Catholic Church nor any of the pre-Reformation Eastern Churches is bound by Sola Scriptura. So your request for scripture is like asking someone to prove the Pythagorean Theorem, but limiting the answer to what can be said on the basis of a Beethoven symphony.**

 

[Henning]

How can God exist outside of time? What is the direct scriptural reference to support this position?

came across this verse:

Rev 10:6
“And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer”

‘time no longer’ with the Almighty still existing…?
How to understand this ‘time/kronos no longer’ ??

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think I should make something explicit,

Earlier I wrote that a lack of happiness and perfect happiness could be perfectly united in Jesus.

This was wrong

As G of G later posted, “God lacks nothing”

my argument was false.

Please forgive me if I mislead anyone.

im sorry, i wasn’t making a theological argument, i didnt mean to intrude, this conversation was over my head.

I was praising the utter Love, Mercy and Justice of our Master, the One who Suffered and Died that we may live,

 

[Psychotheosophy]

I think we are on the same page…

If
Perfect Happiness is God
The Way to God (or process to Perfect Happiness) is Jesus
And
A lack of human happiness is suffering

Then

Firstly,
Perfect Happiness cannot have a history of unhappiness
Therefore
People cannot become Perfect Happiness itself

The process of moving
from a lack of human happiness to perfect human happiness
is a process that includes
a lack of human happiness and perfect human happiness

Since the highest abstraction of this process
Is the same across and time and space
It is one, without division

Therefore
The highest abstraction of this process
Is revealed
as a lack of human happiness, Perfect Happiness, and humanity
In time and space
But is perfectly united
Outside time and space
(Like white light passing through a prism creating a rainbow)
(Like the rainbow after the great flood of Noah’s time)

I should elaborate…

The end
of the Way to Perfect Happiness
is Perfect Happiness

The end
of the union of a lack of happiness with Perfect Happiness
is Perfect Happiness

Now I think the argument stands.

If there is a disagreement
I would like to hear it.
Dialogue is better than monologue.

 

[eddydenton]

Time is nothing more than the instruments we use to measure it with. There is only space. And even that is not necessarily true. Perhaps there are only minds. Then again I have no ultimate perception of any other mind except through the senses. So perhaps there is only my mind. I love solipsism…

 

[Psychotheosophy]

Time is nothing more than the instruments we use to measure it with. There is only space. And even that is not necessarily true. Perhaps there are only minds. Then again I have no ultimate perception of any other mind except through the senses. So perhaps there is only my mind. I love solipsism…

Hello,
This is your mind talking
I don’t remember posting this,
Do you?

 

[Deacon_Joseph]

We can agree that past time HAS happened. It occurred. So past time has been achieved. Infinity is unachievable by by definition. To achieve the unachievable is a contradiction and therefore impossible. So past time being infinite is impossible. So its oppisite must be true in ALL possible universes, times and places. Because of this, there must be a ‘creation event’ because past time must be finite. A creator that is not subject to time is needed. He has to create finite past time. This would show that you have a beginning of time, with a creator which is not in time.

God transcends time because He created time. Time and space are creations of God that began at the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang there was timelessness.

 

[joseph_virgen]

you need look no further than the very beginning of the Bible. it states: In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.

this illuminating phrase: In the beginning; presupposes an existence out of time.

it does, however, take some thought to fully comprehend it.

 

[eddydenton]

you need look no further than the very beginning of the Bible. it states: In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.

this illuminating phrase: In the beginning; presupposes an existence out of time.

it does, however, take some thought to fully comprehend it.

Remember however that these words are not written or dictated by God. They are a human interpretation of creation. It is imprudent to take this as proof of anything.

 

[Quizling]

If God cannot change then how come that he was able to become Jesus? Isn’t that a change?

If God cannot change then why are we still not bound to the rules & laws of Leviticus as well as the Old Testament?

If God cannot change why then did he promise us not to destroy the earth with a flood again? On this he even gave us a rainbow as a symbol of His word.

If God cannot change then how is Omnipotent? If He cannot change then He ahs limitations, and therefore cannot be omnipotent since being omnipotent means that absolutely nothing is impossible.

I think the problem here is the use of the word “cannot”. The Scripture does not say that God cannot change. He does, however, say “I am the Lord, I change not” (Malachi 3:5), and it was written of Him that “there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:17). Nothing is impossible with God. But which would be a greater demonstration of His power; to change, or to remain the same?

 

[Harri_Laaksonen]

But which would be a greater demonstration of His power; to change, or to remain the same?

Very point.

However we need to consider that it is we that change, not God. As we change our perception changes. It is like we are moving around inside of a large house. It does not change, but as we alter our angles, climb stairs, etc. our perception of the place changes without the place itself changing.

Since this thread is about God existing outside of time the question of change is moot. We exist in time and space and thus observe changes within ourselves and outside of us which occur as a function of time. Since God exists outside of time He can not be subject to time functions.

This does not imply that God can not change should He choose to, but any changes will be outside of time and we could not observe it directly.

In Christ,

Harri

 

[Quizling]

No problem. This does not address the question of God existing out of time. Since He does, this argument is axiomatic.

A couple of days ago a post mentioned that if God is energy He is light… Scripture tells us that “God is light and in him there is no darkness” QED.

Harri

Scripture also states that the eyes of God go to and fro throughout the earth, that His arm is not too short to save, His ear is not too dull to hear, and that we rest in the shadow of his wing. No one, though, insists that God has physical eyes, arms, ears, or wings. Why, then, should we insist that He be a particular wavelength of energy?

 

[Harri_Laaksonen]

Scripture also states that the eyes of God go to and fro throughout the earth, that His arm is not too short to save, His ear is not too dull to hear, and that we rest in the shadow of his wing. No one, though, insists that God has physical eyes, arms, ears, or wings. Why, then, should we insist that He be a particular wavelength of energy?

Ah, don’t we love analogies? When trying to picture attributes without analogues we find our self lost. Much more so in the OT where Hebrew is kind of at a loss for abstract language but full of concrete nouns and action verbs. We humans are not only limited in our faculties of understand but even more in the structure of the language we use to describe the infinite.

I have no particular wavelength in mind but the concept of pure energy apart from matter. We can play with the idea of “gravity waves” and need to find the Higgs boson to discover why stuff has mass in the first place.

Energy can take many forms as we know and most of the time we are not creating any new energy only transferring it from one mode to another and wasting most of it at that, at least in terms of “useful” work. The exception in energy creation is in nuclear reactions where lost mass is released as energy. We are not creating any new mass however, that seems to be in the “hands” of God.

Creativity, the image of God?

Harri

 

[Deacon_Joseph]

Scripture also states that the eyes of God go to and fro throughout the earth, that His arm is not too short to save, His ear is not too dull to hear, and that we rest in the shadow of his wing. No one, though, insists that God has physical eyes, arms, ears, or wings. Why, then, should we insist that He be a particular wavelength of energy?

God is not a particular wavelength of energy. He is compatible with that wavelength of energy, all energy and everything that is in this universe, and any other universe that might exist. God has no boundaries. In order to create the universe, the Creator must transend time and space. He created time and space.

The fact that it is said somewhere that His arm saves, ears hear, etc., are metaphors designed to give people comfort. The quote you showed is meant to put a face on God, so people can relate to God. God has no boundaries, extrinsic or intrinsic; and the average lay person cannot grasp that concept.

 

[jkiernan56]

If God cannot change then how is Omnipotent? If He cannot change then He ahs limitations, and therefore cannot be omnipotent since being omnipotent means that absolutely nothing is impossible.

If your antecedent/presupposition in logic is NOT TRUE, then what follows and hangs on your presuppostion is NOT TRUE. In other words “garbage in equals garbage out.” It simply is NOT TRUE to say that being omnipotent means “absolutely nothing is impossible.” That presupposition is absolutely FALSE.

Omnipotence DOES NOT mean “nothing is impossible.” Otherwise this position ends up being like a dog trying to chase its tail … it will never catch it. God can do ONLY what is in His nature. A rock can ONLY do simply what a rock can do - exist. A bird can do ONLY what is in its nature. A bird can fly because it is in its nature. A human being can ONLY do what is it his/her nature. The same applies to God. God can ONLY do what is in His nature. And what is in God’s nature? Volumes and volumes have been written about this and this is not the place to describe. To understand what is in God’s nature is to understand what is the meaning of Omnipotence. Again to put it another way, understanding what Omnipotence is presupposes you understand the nature of God. There are things that God CANNOT do because they are contrary to His nature. But just because something is contrary to God’s nature, does NOT mean that God is NOT omnipotent. For example, God cannot will that God no longer exist. It is NOT in God’s nature. Scripture also clearly teaches that God is Holy and CANNOT do evil. It is contrary to His nature. While God does allows evil (because of free will) and punishes evil, God does not commit and cannot do evil.

 

[jkiernan56]

I just realized in my previous posting that I mentioned what Omnipotence IS NOT, but I never expressed what IT IS.

The Catholic Encyclopedia online has a very good explanation.

“Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. These last words of the definition do not imply any imperfection, since a power that extends to every possibility must be perfect. The universality of the object of the Divine power is not merely relative but absolute, so that the true nature of omnipotence is not clearly expressed by saying that God can do all things that are possible to Him; it requires the further statement that all things are possible to God. The intrinsically impossible is the self-contradictory, and its mutually exclusive elements could result only in nothingness. “Hence,” says Thomas (Summa I, Q. xxv, a. 3), “it is more exact to say that the intrinsically impossible is incapable of production, than to say that God cannot produce it.” To include the contradictory within the range of omnipotence, as does the Calvinist Vorstius, is to acknowledge the absurd as an object of the Divine intellect, and nothingness as an object of the Divine will and power. " God can do all things the accomplishment of which is a manifestation of power,” says Hugh of St. Victor, “and He is almighty because He cannot be powerless” (De sacram., I, ii, 22).

catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=8724

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I agree, the Sacrifice is an event that exists of the High Heavens (Transcendent world) and it is omnipresent.

What is the theological basis for this ? People say this, but it seems to be no more than an idea that is “going the rounds”, like the idea that the Holy Spirit chooses the Pope. ​