Something an atheist said which made me think

[someperson555]

i enjoy debating with atheists on forums and youtube. and most of the time i find them easy to handle. but, every now and then i do encounter a challenge. last weekend was one of those times. i was wondering what you guys on here would have said to him.

so i used the cosmological argument as i always do in those debates, but he said that the reason the cosmological argument fails is because if God is outside of time or (timeless) then how could he have made the decision to create the universe, since a decision takes time. i found myself in a tough spot.
so im just wondering, what should have i responded? this has actually been nagging me for this past week , because he did have a point, how can God make decisions, if he is outside of time? how can he make decisions to act?

 

[Gorgias]

he said that the reason the cosmological argument fails is because if God is outside of time or (timeless) then how could he have made the decision to create the universe, since a decision takes time. i found myself in a tough spot.
so im just wondering, what should have i responded? this has actually been nagging me for this past week , because he did have a point, how can God make decisions, if he is outside of time? how can he make decisions to act?

Hmm… you made the argument that a series of contingent beings requires a first cause, and his reply was “that fails, since a decision to create requires time”…? That’s seems like a bit of non sequitur, no?

In any case, the reason that his argument fails is that it places the necessary cause (i.e., the first cause, or uncaused cause, or God) inside of the context of a contingent framework (i.e., time) in an attempt to describe the creation of contingent beings (i.e., the chain of contingent beings, or creation, or ‘us’). God doesn’t exist inside of time – in fact, it makes no sense to place the notion of time as something that God is subject to: time only exists within the framework of creation. If God creates all of creation, then He creates time, too!

So, for God, existence is one big ‘Now’. In the context of that Now, He creates all of creation. That doesn’t mean that there is any decision process going on; God simply IS, and simply creates. From within the framework of His creation, we are the ones who perceive time, and therefore, our limited experiences entices us to think that God exists within a similar framework in His context.

(After all, if God existed within something like ‘time’, then that would imply that God Himself was created, by some being that created that framework. In other words, that would imply that God was some contingent being, a creation of some other ‘uncaused cause’. Your friend’s ‘solution’ doesn’t solve anything – it just pushes the regress back one step. )

 

[zro_x]

imagine a movie reel. To the perspective of the characters in the movie, time flows along at a normal rate. However, you, the person projecting the film, can take out the movie reel and see all moments of the movie at once. This is my understanding of how God views our time. God watches and/or experiences all moments in history at once, from the big bang to Jesus’s second coming, and each moment lasts forever to God. So, from God’s perspective, the universe has always existed and will always continue to exist. the creation of the universe is not something God did in the distant past, but rather is an everlasting action that is indistinguishable from his act of sustaining the universe.

hope that helps.

 

[someperson555]

Hmm… you made the argument that a series of contingent beings requires a first cause, and his reply was “that fails, since a decision to create requires time”…? That’s seems like a bit of non sequitur, no?

In any case, the reason that his argument fails is that it places the necessary cause (i.e., the first cause, or uncaused cause, or God) inside of the context of a contingent framework (i.e., time) in an attempt to describe the creation of contingent beings (i.e., the chain of contingent beings, or creation, or ‘us’). God doesn’t exist inside of time – in fact, it makes no sense to place the notion of time as something that God is subject to: time only exists within the framework of creation. If God creates all of creation, then He creates time, too!

So, for God, existence is one big ‘Now’. In the context of that Now, He creates all of creation. That doesn’t mean that there is any decision process going on; God simply IS, and simply creates. From within the framework of His creation, we are the ones who perceive time, and therefore, our limited experiences entices us to think that God exists within a similar framework in His context.

(After all, if God existed within something like ‘time’, then that would imply that God Himself was created, by some being that created that framework. In other words, that would imply that God was some contingent being, a creation of some other ‘uncaused cause’. Your friend’s ‘solution’ doesn’t solve anything – it just pushes the regress back one step. )

thank you, if only i could have said it as eloquently as you!

 

[DrTaffy]

imagine a movie reel. To the perspective of the characters in the movie, time flows along at a normal rate. However, you, the person projecting the film, can take out the movie reel and see all moments of the movie at once. This is my understanding of how God views our time.

That implies two timelike dimensions. The recorded one in the reel and the physical one you experience. It also implies a deterministic universe.

The point raised by the OP is perfectly valid (if not obviously related to the cosmological argument as normally stated): either God exists within a timelike dimension (albeit not necessarily the same as our ‘time’) or he cannot ‘act’ (or indeed ‘think’) in the way we normally mean that. Which doesn’t rule out him having qualities that appear to us as ‘acting’ or ‘thinking’.

Or just discard “God exists outside of Time” as impressive sounding nonsense. Is it actually Catholic teaching?

 

[someperson555]

imagine a movie reel. To the perspective of the characters in the movie, time flows along at a normal rate. However, you, the person projecting the film, can take out the movie reel and see all moments of the movie at once. This is my understanding of how God views our time. God watches and/or experiences all moments in history at once, from the big bang to Jesus’s second coming, and each moment lasts forever to God. So, from God’s perspective, the universe has always existed and will always continue to exist. the creation of the universe is not something God did in the distant past, but rather is an everlasting action that is indistinguishable from his act of sustaining the universe.

hope that helps.

wow, that is deep. i like your comparison of God’s perception of time to our perception of a movie reel.

 

[someperson555]

That implies two timelike dimensions. The recorded one in the reel and the physical one you experience. It also implies a deterministic universe.

The point raised by the OP is perfectly valid (if not obviously related to the cosmological argument as normally stated): either God exists within a timelike dimension (albeit not necessarily the same as our ‘time’) or he cannot ‘act’ (or indeed ‘think’) in the way we normally mean that. Which doesn’t rule out him having qualities that appear to us as ‘acting’ or ‘thinking’.

Or just discard “God exists outside of Time” as impressive sounding nonsense. Is it actually Catholic teaching?

i have to admit, you do raise a good point. wow, i actually said that to an atheist

 

[zro_x]

That implies two timelike dimensions. The recorded one in the reel and the physical one you experience. It also implies a deterministic universe.

The point raised by the OP is perfectly valid (if not obviously related to the cosmological argument as normally stated): either God exists within a timelike dimension (albeit not necessarily the same as our ‘time’) or he cannot ‘act’ (or indeed ‘think’) in the way we normally mean that. Which doesn’t rule out him having qualities that appear to us as ‘acting’ or ‘thinking’.

Or just discard “God exists outside of Time” as impressive sounding nonsense. Is it actually Catholic teaching?

Right. God does exist in a timelike dimension, but the difference is that in his timelike dimension, there are no changes. Every decision God makes, he has always made. From his perspective, he has always been talking to Moses in the burning bush, always been casting Adam and Eve from the garden of eden, and always sending the flood of noah’s arc, while simulataneously watching every event in human history. Acknowledging that God exists in a higher timelike dimension preserves his immutability. Every moment in Our time is Now, to God, forever. At least, that’s my understanding.

I don’t see how it implies a deterministic universe.

Another quick point: I know that many theologians have advanced this idea, but I don’t know if it is Catholic teaching, infallible or not.

 

[dshix]

imagine a movie reel. To the perspective of the characters in the movie, time flows along at a normal rate. However, you, the person projecting the film, can take out the movie reel and see all moments of the movie at once. This is my understanding of how God views our time. God watches and/or experiences all moments in history at once, from the big bang to Jesus’s second coming, and each moment lasts forever to God. So, from God’s perspective, the universe has always existed and will always continue to exist. the creation of the universe is not something God did in the distant past, but rather is an everlasting action that is indistinguishable from his act of sustaining the universe.

hope that helps.

That’s a great analogy, I never thought of that.

 

[theistgal]

As a former atheist, I can tell you that atheists make some pretty good arguments, but the best way to deal with them from my perspective is NOT to try and argue back on the same terms. It just won’t work, as far as convincing them that your argument is better than theirs. The only thing that convinces an atheist there is a God, is God Himself. (And He does do this, a lot more often than you might think.)

 

[PaulinePresbytr]

i enjoy debating with atheists on forums and youtube. and most of the time i find them easy to handle. but, every now and then i do encounter a challenge. last weekend was one of those times. i was wondering what you guys on here would have said to him.

so i used the cosmological argument as i always do in those debates, but he said that the reason the cosmological argument fails is because if God is outside of time or (timeless) then how could he have made the decision to create the universe, since a decision takes time. i found myself in a tough spot.
so im just wondering, what should have i responded? this has actually been nagging me for this past week , because he did have a point, how can God make decisions, if he is outside of time? how can he make decisions to act?

Time doesn’t exist, per se, but it is a representation of change. Because the creator is perfect he cannot change, thus change can only exist when creation exists, and time can only begin after creation is made

 

[tonyrey]

The flaw in his argument is his anthropomorphic interpretation of the word “decision”. It is mistake to think any human description of divine activity is literally true. None of our references to God can do justice to His infinite power, wisdom, love and - above all - perfection. We do not doubt the reality of truth, freedom or justice even though they are not restricted by time or space. So why should the Creator be an exception?

 

[Gorgias]

The point raised by the OP is perfectly valid (if not obviously related to the cosmological argument as normally stated): either God exists within a timelike dimension (albeit not necessarily the same as our ‘time’) or he cannot ‘act’ (or indeed ‘think’) in the way we normally mean that.

And, of course, that’s correct! The whole “man in the clouds” nonsense leads to an improper sense of God as some sort of human with supernatural powers; in fact, the notion of ‘God’ requires his existence to be different than ours. Aquinas talks about the ways that God has knowledge (ST I.14), especially in articles 5 through 7. God’s knowledge is not discursive, of course. Likewise, God’s actions are ‘actions’ in the way that we think of them; in ST I.19.4, Aquinas asserts that God acts in intellect and will.

So yes, you’re right – God “cannot ‘act’ or ‘think’ in the way we normally mean that”; that is, God does not act or think as humans do. This does not, of course, mean that God does not know or cause…

Or just discard “God exists outside of Time” as impressive sounding nonsense. Is it actually Catholic teaching?

I’m not seeing this as following from your discussion. Maybe that’s because I’m agreeing with your premises (God isn’t within Time; God doesn’t ‘think’ or ‘act’), but since I have a solution for your ‘appearance of thought and action’ suggestion, I also still hold that ‘God exists outside of Time’. The Church would teach not only that God exists outside of Time, but also, that He can cause acts within time: being outside of Time does not limit God in his ability to interact with His creation.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Hmm… you made the argument that a series of contingent beings requires a first cause, and his reply was “that fails, since a decision to create requires time”…? That’s seems like a bit of non sequitur, no?

In any case, the reason that his argument fails is that it places the necessary cause (i.e., the first cause, or uncaused cause, or God) inside of the context of a contingent framework (i.e., time) in an attempt to describe the creation of contingent beings (i.e., the chain of contingent beings, or creation, or ‘us’). God doesn’t exist inside of time – in fact, it makes no sense to place the notion of time as something that God is subject to: time only exists within the framework of creation. If God creates all of creation, then He creates time, too!

So, for God, existence is one big ‘Now’. In the context of that Now, He creates all of creation. That doesn’t mean that there is any decision process going on; God simply IS, and simply creates. From within the framework of His creation, we are the ones who perceive time, and therefore, our limited experiences entices us to think that God exists within a similar framework in His context.

(After all, if God existed within something like ‘time’, then that would imply that God Himself was created, by some being that created that framework. In other words, that would imply that God was some contingent being, a creation of some other ‘uncaused cause’. Your friend’s ‘solution’ doesn’t solve anything – it just pushes the regress back one step. )

Awesome answer!

 

[tonyrey]

Time doesn’t exist, per se, but it is a representation of change. Because the creator is perfect he cannot change, thus change can only exist when creation exists, and time can only begin after creation is made

St Paul made that point to the people in Athens: " In Him we live, move and have our being"…

 

[tonyrey]

As a former atheist, I can tell you that atheists make some pretty good arguments, but the best way to deal with them from my perspective is NOT to try and argue back on the same terms. It just won’t work, as far as convincing them that your argument is better than theirs. The only thing that convinces an atheist there is a God, is God Himself. (And He does do this, a lot more often than you might think.)

Apologists for the Catholic faith have existed since the time of the Apostolic Church, notably St Justin Martyr:

In your hearts honour Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.

1 Peter 3:15
.

 

[DrTaffy]

I don’t see how it implies a deterministic universe.

Sorry - to be clearer the movie reel analogy implies a deterministic universe. However many times I watch the Twilight films they will always end the same way - there is no way for one of the characters to make a different decision (such as dumping the whiny glittery vampire for the werewolf with actual life skills and better abs). It is therefore deterministic. And so so wrong.

The idea that God has in some way already decided how to react to anything I may do can be seen as implying determinism (e.g. if he knows what he is going to reply to me in a conversation, does that mean that I have no choice about what I am going to ask him?), but doesn’t have to do so. i.e. If God knows all the possible decisions I may make, he could have a response ready for each possibility - like those books where you guide the protagonist’s story by turning to paragraph X if you choose one option or paragraph Y if you choose the other. The book you buy is written and immutable, but you choose the story you actually read from it.

 

[brumano]

i enjoy debating with atheists on forums and youtube. and most of the time i find them easy to handle. but, every now and then i do encounter a challenge. last weekend was one of those times. i was wondering what you guys on here would have said to him.

so i used the cosmological argument as i always do in those debates, but he said that the reason the cosmological argument fails is because if God is outside of time or (timeless) then how could he have made the decision to create the universe, since a decision takes time. i found myself in a tough spot.
so im just wondering, what should have i responded? this has actually been nagging me for this past week , because he did have a point, how can God make decisions, if he is outside of time? how can he make decisions to act?

God is not so much outside of time as He is above it, or beyond it. Time is also created, and ordered in His creation from within Himself; this proves all the more minutely that He does certainly have a will and makes decisions not irrespective of time but in the perfecting of it. I guess your friends might argue if that’s true, that God’s being has time then God would Himself be subject to time and limited by it, but it is easy to prove that the opposite is factually the case; if your friends existed in or because of time only then they would continue for as long as time continued, independent of any other force; they would be timeless. God is eternal which is not only never ending, it is all of time itself.

 

[Gorgias]

Sorry - to be clearer the movie reel analogy implies a deterministic universe. However many times I watch the Twilight films they will always end the same way - there is no way for one of the characters to make a different decision (such as dumping the whiny glittery vampire for the werewolf with actual life skills and better abs). It is therefore deterministic. And so so wrong.

No… ‘knowledge’ does not necessarily imply ‘determinism’. God foreknows but does not direct the actions of humans.

The notion of “no matter how many times I watch the film” doesn’t fit well into this construction, any way. Time isn’t a series of dice rolls which may be repeated: things happen – and, to the best of our knowledge, only once – and therefore, to a being outside of time, definite knowledge of acts happening inside of the space/time construct does not imply determinism of these actions.

The idea that God has in some way already decided how to react to anything I may do can be seen as implying determinism (e.g. if he knows what he is going to reply to me in a conversation, does that mean that I have no choice about what I am going to ask him?)

No… just that he knows the content of the choice you’ll make. If I know that my best friend only likes chocolate ice cream, but I stock chocolate, vanilla, and pistachio in my freezer, have I already made the choice for him when I ask, “why don’t you go grab some ice cream from the freezer?”…? Of course not.

, but doesn’t have to do so. i.e. If God knows all the possible decisions I may make, he could have a response ready for each possibility - like those books where you guide the protagonist’s story by turning to paragraph X if you choose one option or paragraph Y if you choose the other. The book you buy is written and immutable, but you choose the story you actually read from it.

No, this doesn’t seem quite right, either. It’s not that God knows the options but not the choices: that kind of ‘God’ would not be omniscient (even though this kind of ‘God’ might make us feel more comfortable with the notion of ‘free will’, if we’re overly anxious about determinism)…

 

[theistgal]

Apologists for the Catholic faith have existed since the time of the Apostolic Church, notably St Justin Martyr:

1 Peter 3:15
.

True, but unfortunately, very few apologists today are of that calibre.