God in timelss state cannot know what is the current time

[Bahman]

So you are saying that the existence of God and creation came at the same time?

This is a little hard to verbalize it. The act of creation could only happen in timeless state of being which is eternal since creation is infinitely complex. This means that the act of creation and existence of God was eternal.

Are you saying that God only came into existence, came into being, at the moment of creation?

I didn’t say so. Please read previous answer to previous question.

If this is your view, then from what source did God come from if God was not in existence before his creation?

God in this view didn’t come from anywhere. The problem with timeless God is that we could not have two different states, first there is only God and then God and creation since that produce a sequence/time which is against timeless being as God cannot perform two actions since again one action follows another and that again produce a sequence.

The way you state this, gives notion that God and creation both had a starting point. That God in not timeless or eternal.

There is no starting point for the state God and creation together since the moment of creation and existence of God is eternal, once creation is performed it evolves accordingly. I leave this question for you that what happens for God in state of timeless once creation is performed.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman

This thread is exhausting. You refuse to engage our discussions and just keep repeating your “facts” about God.

You have no basis for the qualities you confine God to other than your opinion which is counter to the opinion of countless philosophers and theologians.

I recommend this thread be closed.

If you wish you can leave this thread with unsubscribing from it.

 

[Jon_S_1]

This is a little hard to verbalize it. The act of creation could only happen in timeless state of being which is eternal since creation is infinitely complex. This means that the act of creation and existence of God was eternal.

I didn’t say so. Please read previous answer to previous question.

God in this view didn’t come from anywhere. The problem with timeless God is that we could not have two different states, first there is only God and then God and creation since that produce a sequence/time which is against timeless being as God cannot perform two actions since again one action follows another and that again produce a sequence.

There is no starting point for the state God and creation together since the moment of creation and existence of God is eternal, once creation is performed it evolves accordingly. I leave this question for you that what happens for God in state of timeless once creation is performed.

Why do you attribute physical limitations to God?

The thing you are describing is not God as this god you describe is bound by his creation.

 

[Bahman]

Not so. Because your idea now requires a time before God and something else to create God. Which now violates the definition of God.

There is not such a thing, the act of creation and existence of God is eternal so there is no time before and after it.

God and creation does not violate the idea of the timeless state because there is no time. Time does not exist. God is Spirit and changeless, what God has created is not spirit, but matter and it is changable. So as matter is not the substance of God its existence does not change him who is Spirit.

There is no time but there is changes in creation. God in another hand doesn’t change so we have two entities, one changes and another doesn’t change. How you could fuse them together?

 

[Bahman]

Why do you attribute physical limitations to God?

The thing you are describing is not God as this god you describe is bound by his creation.

This God is not limited to creation but to its state of being which is timeless.

 

[Jon_S_1]

This God is not limited to creation but to its state of being which is timeless.

Which means he is not God

 

[Bahman]

Which means he is not God

Why so? No, that only means that God cannot do something which is logically impossible.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Why so? No, that only means that God cannot do something which is logically impossible.

God can do something logically impossible as our logic is bound by our limited physical understanding. Logic is bound by what is known.

God tells us his name is “I Am who I Am”.

God IS

Without God there is no logic there is nothing.

We also say God IS love, not God is loving, but God is Love itself. How is this measured?

St Augustine says-
“if you understand him, it would not be God”

 

[lakotak]

This God is not limited to creation but to its state of being which is timeless.

Then it seems that you have limited God by the fact that you view him as not having the ability to pass from timelessness into the time that he created. Any limitations that you place on God, in your view, you have limited him according to your own finite reasoning. To limit God in any way is to view him as not an all powerful supreme being. In this case what you are saying is God is trapped in a timeless state and does not have the attributes of Himself to transcend this state.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

There is not such a thing, the act of creation and existence of God is eternal so there is no time before and after it.

So you mean the universe is eternal and God was not created?

There is no time but there is changes in creation. God in another hand doesn’t change so we have two entities, one changes and another doesn’t change. How you could fuse them together?

They are already fused together. Matter, the entity that changes, cannot exist on its own, it needs to be brought into existence. So that everything about matter is intimately known by the one who creates matter. In fact, as matter couldn’t exist without this creator, matter itself on some level, on some fundamental level begins to appear not as just charges acting and interacting but on an even smaller and more fundamental level they meld into the desire of the creator.

 

[Bahman]

God can do something logically impossible as our logic is bound by our limited physical understanding. Logic is bound by what is known.

So please keep your faith and don’t bother with logic. If you are interested in logic as Christian claims that “love and logical reasoning are two wings for reaching to God” then you have to depend on logic. Do you believe that God in state of timeless?

God tells us his name is “I Am who I Am”.

God cannot send revelation in creation since that is an act.

We also say God IS love, not God is loving, but God is Love itself. How is this measured?

What this has to do with idea of God in timeless state?

“if you understand him, it would not be God”

I would say that a God which we can not comprehend at all is not a God.

 

[Jon_S_1]

So please keep your faith and don’t bother with logic. If you are interested in logic as Christian claims that “love and logical reasoning are two wings for reaching to God” then you have to depend on logic. Do you believe that God in state of timeless?

God cannot send revelation in creation since that is an act.

What this has to do with idea of God in timeless state?

I would say that a God which we can not comprehend at all is not a God.

I did not say we cannot comprehend him at all. We can not fully understand him though. If we could we may very well be God.

Do you have all knowledge.

Do you understand all of physics and nature?

If not then why do you presume to know God’s limitations (which is a contradiction of itself)

 

[Dtmccameron]

A dead world is a world that minimally the concept “I am/exist” can not be experienced.

So less the planet Mars or the realm of Hades and more a state of non-existence?

There’s a wide gulf between a lack of experience and a lack of existence. You are, whether or not you think.

A thing is experienced when consciousness mind is exposed to a stimulus given by subconsciousness and that brings consciousness mind into state of alert/focus depending on nature of person and stimulus.

ahem

It’s almost as though you might say that God would have to observe (like, physically. With eyes and photoreceptors and the like) a thing in order to be aware of/experience it?

I hope I’ve misunderstood you. That’s silly.

This was Gods attribute at time of creation but not after that. This was subject of several discussion in several threads.

Uh huh. So this attribute: why did it go away? Are you certain that it did? Where are there indications/revelations that it has gone away?

Nothing.

You seem very sure about what it must be like, even for a mind completely unlike yours.

This should like to a state of mind that you just experience your being.

And you know this…how?

It can be say that God experiencing things is similar to how we experience things.

Could it? In the incarnation, absolutely; but it’s absurd to say that God only or must “experience” things as we finite creatures.

 

[Dtmccameron]

I mean any God can perform only one action which is creation and after that it is causally separated from creation since performing second action has conflict with state of timeless.

:whacky:

Why?

Please.

Because two actions one followed by another define a direction in occurrence of two events which is meaningless when God is in state of timeless since there is no before and after in this state.

Why do you…put God…in a linear time-stream?

This is total nonsense for three strong reasons:

1. The sole reality is that we are experiencing things at the moment so called now, past is dead and we have memory of it, future does not exist.

A succinct expression of being a part of, or inside of Time.

But don’t think that our experience, as finite creatures, is the only experience to be had.

1. Assuming that God has knowledge of past, now and future; this means that each state of creation is known by God as a frame…

Does it?

…but God has no knowledge which frame present the current moment (as it was discussed).

Discussed? Asserted. By you. Not proved. You said so. That’s all.

1. Regarding previous primes, God cannot perform any action on creation since states of creation is already known by God so any action changes what God knows which is anomaly.

:ehh: These limits you place on God…Who’s called, “Ever ancient, ever new”…They’re very strange.

Mayhaps He *knows *when He wants to act? Perhaps He knows all the outcomes there could ever be?

It is an anomaly since either God knowledge is perfect then its action cannot change it or God knowledge changes by action then God knowledge is not perfect.

Or His knowledge is so perfect that it accounts even for His actions? And all the actions of the free willed creatures?

 

[tonyrey]

Please read post #90 to see that God is causally separated from us so God is not immanent.

If God didn’t sustain us at every moment we wouldn’t exist!

Transcendent is a meaning less word since we are here for exactly opposite reason, namely to understand God and ourselves.

“understand” means comprehend, i.e.grasp completely. In other words we have a view of the whole picture, i.e. transcend - which is impossible if we are a part of the picture.

 

[JerryZ]

What is predicted in theory should match what is observed in experiment otherwise that theory is false.

??? Is my english that bad?

I will repeat the sentence:

The Theory predicts that a body traveling faster than a relatively motionless one will experience time slower. (So a person travelling at the close to the speed of light will age less than the people he left on earth)
This was CONFIRMED by experiments carried out both here on earth and in space.
This part of the theory of relativity has been confirmed experimentally.

Now philosophy is or it should be based in reason and logic, it is no good that someone says, “I don’t like this ideas therefore I refuse to consider them”
So before someone claims that “time” is a figment of our colective immagination, I would like some pretty conclusive evidence to back it up.
Just saying “time does not exist” will not cut it.
Because if “causality rate” is affected by the speed of the subject we have a problem.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Obviously, since God created a universe subject to time, He understands time. But time itself is not a thing, being, substance, essence, or nature, it is a function of the created being. As they say, " it comes with the territory. " And since God created the " territory, " He knows " what comes with it, " he knows the conditions and the functions of the beings He created.

What I have said is verified in the Scriptures you reject.
It is also demonstrated as true by the Theological/Philosophical teaching of St. Thomas.
which you also reject.

Obviously, this is a continuation of your never ending objections to the Christian understanding of God. These indicate your devotion to one of the erroneous cosmologies which have arisen since around the 16th century. All of them are non-realist to a greater or lesser extent. Fr. William A. Wallace O.P., a noted Scientist, Philosopher, Theologian, has identified the principle ones as :

1. Empiriocriticism, as epitomised by Ernst Mach and Rihard Avenarius. Expressed the view that there is no profound truth beyond the empirical - beyond what can be sensed. An anti-metaphysical view, to say the least.
2. Critique of Science as held by Henri Poincare’ and Pierre Duhem which placed science in a merely conjectural mode and reserved to the Philosophy of ST. Thomas the status of intellectual certitude
3. Logical Positivism as held by Moritz Schlick, a successor of Mach, and generally those of the Vienna school, which existed in Germany and Austria following WW1, many of whom immigrated to the U.S. prior to WW2 and were primarily responsible for the spread of that gospel in the U.S.
4. Neoempiricism, epitomised by Ernest Nagel and founded by him to counter the " dogmatic " empiricist of the Vienna school.
5. Louvain School, founded to reconcile the philosophy of St. Thomas with modern science.
6. Some more recent extremist varient of 1,3, or 4 such as Eliminativism

• From From a Realist Point of View, 1983, pgs 4-21 - a very challenging read

I would place you in 1,3, 4 or 6.

Linus2nd

 

[Paddy_Walker]

??? Is my english that bad?

I will repeat the sentence:

The Theory predicts that a body traveling faster than a relatively motionless one will experience time slower. (So a person travelling at the close to the speed of light will age less than the people he left on earth)
This was CONFIRMED by experiments carried out both here on earth and in space.
This part of the theory of relativity has been confirmed experimentally.

Now philosophy is or it should be based in reason and logic, it is no good that someone says, “I don’t like this ideas therefore I refuse to consider them”
So before someone claims that “time” is a figment of our colective immagination, I would like some pretty conclusive evidence to back it up.
Just saying “time does not exist” will not cut it.
Because if “causality rate” is affected by the speed of the subject we have a problem.

I love your post Jerry. In fact, if it isn’t too weird to say, I’ve been thinking about it all day sortof, since I’ve had a moreorless free day off work.
Philosophy never sleeps, if they say it, perhaps its true.
If a body traveling close to the speed of light ages less, then that would be a problem. But is it actually true. I think, but I may be wrong, that atomic clocks run slower traveling at speed, but is an atomic clock the same as a person. And if a person measures time by a spring wound clock would that spring wound clock slow down at speeds close to the speed of light, and why would it and how would it, if it were so.

 

[vz71]

Performing two actions is logically impossible in state of timeless since two actions define a sequence/time in which one action follows another.

Just catching up, so forgive me if I repeat a post, but if two actions are impossible, then one is likewise so for the same reasons…time.

You say two actions define a time, but logically one need only a single action.
There is before and there is after. Time.

Your claim that God could only create and nothing more still has no logical basis.

 

[Bahman]

Then it seems that you have limited God by the fact that you view him as not having the ability to pass from timelessness into the time that he created. Any limitations that you place on God, in your view, you have limited him according to your own finite reasoning. To limit God in any way is to view him as not an all powerful supreme being. In this case what you are saying is God is trapped in a timeless state and does not have the attributes of Himself to transcend this state.

I didn’t limit God. This is essentially a limitation imposed to a God which is in state of timeless. To what concern logic, God logic is supreme to us but it cannot contradict our logic, otherwise our logic is fake. We need to use our logic to judge our own God otherwise our understanding of our God could be incomplete.