"What did God do before he created the universe?"

[WJL]

“What did God do with his time before he created the universe?”

That was a question I was asked recently.

I responded to this person that because God is eternal (timeless) and created time, itself, He always existed and has no beginning and no end, thus the question was flawed.

The person who asked the above question, also asked after my response:

“If God always existed then he must have occupied both time and space. All things must have a logical start and finish and by merely stating that he was a continuum creates more questions than answers.”

I’m relatively new to apologetics so, I was wondering if anyone could offer some ideas of how to respond to the objection mentioned above?

Thanks.

 

[James_S_Saint]

In case you are not aware, this very issue is currently being discussed on two other threads, “Time - for an IQ test” and “Does time have a beginning”.

My short answer is that there was no “before the universe”. The Scriptures are not talking about a historical event, but rather saying that God is the Cause of the universe existing. Thus because the cause of the universe existing is eternal, the universe that God causes must also be eternal. But that argument might be too unCatholic it seems. I wasn’t aware of the Catholic ban on understanding time and the cosmos when I started the thread.

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

“What did God do with his time before he created the universe?”

That was a question I was asked recently.

I responded to this person that because God is eternal (timeless) and created time, itself, He always existed and has no beginning and no end, thus the question was flawed.

The person who asked the above question, also asked after my response:

“If God always existed then he must have occupied both time and space. All things must have a logical start and finish and by merely stating that he was a continuum creates more questions than answers.”

I’m relatively new to apologetics so, I was wondering if anyone could offer some ideas of how to respond to the objection mentioned above?
The other person’s statement:
“If God always existed then he must have occupied both time and space. All things must have a logical start and finish and by merely stating that he was a continuum creates more questions than answers.” appears flawed. If God is the creator of space and time and everything that exists ‘outside’ of God, bringing into existence that which had no existence, then there would be no space to take up before it was created, only God. This may be hard to imagine,butassume there is 'space’and God is in that space, Taking up space. Then God is not infinite, there would be something other than God, space.
What would God be “doing”? Because God is infinite spirit, perfectly simple, with one, infinite, always in the present tense thought: He would be “doing” everything Heis"doing" now, all at the same once. We see it in a sequencial way, time passes, one event then another. To God, Hedoes everything He does at once, always. Heis now judgingeveryone at the last judgement and creating Adam and Eve, and talking to Moses. He is that far above us.
Some people, might not want a God that is so infinitely above us, but,wouldn’t it take such an infinite God to love us inspite of our sins and to be able to bring about His Kingdom where He is all in all, everything to everyone, all without violating anyone’s free will, all by Grace, gift of Jesus on the Cross?

Thanks.

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

In case you are not aware, this very issue is currently being discussed on two other threads, “Time - for an IQ test” and “Does time have a beginning”.

My short answer is that there was no “before the universe”. The Scriptures are not talking about a historical event, but rather saying that God is the Cause of the universe existing. Thus because the cause of the universe existing is eternal, the universe that God causes must also be eternal. But that argument might be too unCatholic it seems. I wasn’t aware of the Catholic ban on understanding time and the cosmos when I started the thread.

I am not sure if an ‘eternal’ universe can, (you say must?) follow from God, being eternal and changeless, with one single, infinite, always in the present tense, thought. That we can not understand how God could ‘begin’ to create the universe without a change in His thought (therefore a time dependence that is not allowed) may be similar to our trying to understand how God, outside of time, is always doing, in the present tense, everything He does, but we see ‘time’. God ‘sees’ one act of revealing, redeeming, loving, forgiving, all at once without denying or violating our free will. Also, since to say that creation is eternal would seem to say it was not created, and therefore God did not create it, and therefore God is not the Creator and would be a liar. I think it more believable that God is outside of time, doing all He does, all at once, and one of those things is create the universe and time.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

“What did God do with his time before he created the universe?”

Gardening. To pass the time.

 

[surritter]

God exists outside of time, so the question is a non sequitur.

We obviously can’t understand the concept of “outside of time,” so it’s perfectly normal to ask the question, though.

 

[mike52ad]

He chilled…

 

[James_S_Saint]

We obviously can’t understand the concept of “outside of time,” so it’s perfectly normal to ask the question, though.

Some people can’t anyway.

Why say something if it has no understandable meaning? :ehh:

 

[surritter]

Some people can’t anyway.

Why say something if it has no understandable meaning? :ehh:

I don’t get this comment… The OP asked a question and I simply pointed out that we can’t understand the concept of “outside of time.” We are limited to human thinking – at least while on this earth. It’s the same as asking what heaven is like; we have no knowledge, nor even the capacity to imagine what heaven is like.

Thus because the cause of the universe existing is eternal, the universe that God causes must also be eternal.

I don’t know about this one, James. Why must an item exist from the same moment that its creator exists?

I haven’t read the other thread, but I don’t think it makes sense to say that the universe has been around forever. Science has evidence that the universe is expanding, and the evidence implies that this expansion started at a point in time (what we call the Big Bang, which was actually the theory of a priest). This of course has not been proven, but since the universe is a physical thing, I don’t see a problem with saying that it had a chronological starting time.

Maybe it’s best to say that since the universe represents all things physical, and since the universe probably had a finite start, then time only began at that moment when the universe began.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I don’t get this comment… The OP asked a question and I simply pointed out that we can’t understand the concept of “outside of time.” We are limited to human thinking – at least while on this earth. It’s the same as asking what heaven is like; we have no knowledge, nor even the capacity to imagine what heaven is like.

The proposition that Heaven is a good place is far different than saying that Heaven is “East of Nowhere”.

Being “outside of time” merely means that something is independent of time and exists with or without time being present. The phrase has a simple enough meaning.

I don’t know about this one, James. Why must an item exist from the same moment that its creator exists?

Because its “Creator” is not merely its creator, but its Cause - the “First Cause”. An event cannot occur until it is caused, but in the presence of its cause, the event necessarily comes to be. That is what “cause” means. If something is waiting before it will cause an event, then that something alone cannot be the cause, but rather the cause is that something plus the right time and situation. But since we are talking about the very advent of time, how can God be waiting and waiting for what to transpire? What could God possibly be waiting for? Void of time, nothing can change. Time IS change.

I haven’t read the other thread, but I don’t think it makes sense to say that the universe has been around forever. Science has evidence that the universe is expanding, and the evidence implies that this expansion started at a point in time (what we call the Big Bang, which was actually the theory of a priest). This of course has not been proven, but since the universe is a physical thing, I don’t see a problem with saying that it had a chronological starting time.

Maybe it’s best to say that since the universe represents all things physical, and since the universe probably had a finite start, then time only began at that moment when the universe began.

Perhaps you should read the other thread (if you can skip over the distractions).

If you see a pendulum swinging down, do you assume that it was created and began at the top position? The entropy of the universe merely says that the universe had become too gathered and is now in the process of dispersing. It will gather again after it reaches a low point, just as the pendulum will rise again.

 

[Edwardjohn]

In case you are not aware, this very issue is currently being discussed on two other threads, “Time - for an IQ test” and “Does time have a beginning”.

My short answer is that there was no “before the universe”. The Scriptures are not talking about a historical event, but rather saying that God is the Cause of the universe existing. Thus because the cause of the universe existing is eternal, the universe that God causes must also be eternal. But that argument might be too unCatholic it seems. I wasn’t aware of the Catholic ban on understanding time and the cosmos when I started the thread.

No institution, nothing, can ban “understanding.” God gave us a mind, we reason with it, and on occasion, the Holy Spirit enlightens it.

 

[James_S_Saint]

No institution, nothing, can ban “understanding.” God gave us a mind, we reason with it, and on occasion, the Holy Spirit enlightens it.

Well I have now been shown dogma and catechism doctrine that says that if anyone proclaims certain questionable understandings, they are to be excommunicated. I realize that excommunication doesn’t come that easy, but the threat is there and thus merely discussing the possibility of God, the cosmos, or time being anything other than dogma, just to clarify and solidify the dogma, opens the door to potential and perhaps accidental belief in what has been declared heresy. That means that any catholic engaged in open discussion on any of those 3 topics is risking excommunication because they might accidentally come to believe something that is in conflict with Church doctrine.

Unfortunately I happen to know with extreme clarity that at least one of those understandings is mis-spoken in the dogma and to me is paramount to saying that the Church insists that 2+2=3 regardless of all other conjectures to the contrary. Whether I am right or not, merely the discussion of it might lead to a personal apostate of an individual from the CC. To truly understand something one must discuss what that something is as well as postulate what it isn’t. Clarity can only come from contrast. The alternative is to not discuss any of those topics, and probably others, and let all Catholics merely do as told and avoid attempting to understand or engage in discussion.

 

[surritter]

Because its “Creator” is not merely its creator, but its Cause - the “First Cause”. An event cannot occur until it is caused, but in the presence of its cause, the event necessarily comes to be. That is what “cause” means.

Huh? “In the presence of its cause, the event necessarily comes to be.” There is no “presence” – that’s the point. To be present, something must exist. I think your statement is putting the cart before the horse.

If something is waiting before it will cause an event, then that something alone cannot be the cause, but rather the cause is that something plus the right time and situation. But since we are talking about the very advent of time, how can God be waiting and waiting for what to transpire?

That’s exactly why it’s said that God exists OUTSIDE of time. There is no “waiting” for God. Think of this similar analogy: God exists on His own, outside of people. So the discussion of God being physically present among people was illogical – read the Old Testament. But God then chose to become a human being, and God as man made sense by His deeming it so.

Thus with time – God has always existed outside of time. Yet he chose to CREATE time as a parameter of the physical world. So before time as we know it, there was still God, but we have no way to comprehend it, just as the Jews had no way of comprehending how God could take on flesh.

If you see a pendulum swinging down, do you assume that it was created and began at the top position? The entropy of the universe merely says that the universe had become too gathered and is now in the process of dispersing. It will gather again after it reaches a low point, just as the pendulum will rise again.

OK – that makes sense. We can’t say that the universe’s expansion is from a once-for-all Big Bang. Although I might add that entropy/chaos doesn’t seem to have an opposite: what is the condition called when the universe gets too big and reverses back on itself? What is the “low point” that you speak of? I’m not saying it can’t happen, but I know of no scientific principle where things that are scattered suddenly get drawn together outside of an external influence. That’s why a single Big Bang seems logical, but I won’t discount your good point about this.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Huh? “In the presence of its cause, the event necessarily comes to be.” There is no “presence” – that’s the point. To be present, something must exist. I think your statement is putting the cart before the horse.

We are talking about God. Are you proposing that God didn’t exist until the Big Bang?

 

[Big_Ro]

I think it’s great everyone is having such a deep and thoughtful discussion on the subject. I just thought the question was hilarious!! I’m not sure why.

 

[surritter]

We are talking about God. Are you proposing that God didn’t exist until the Big Bang?

No – that’s exactly what you were proposing, in different words. Your earlier post:

“Because the cause of the universe existing is eternal, the universe that God causes must also be eternal.”

Think about that carefully. That implies that either the universe has always existed (and thus time has always existed, making the OP’s question a non-issue), or that God only existed once the universe was created. Neither of those make sense.

I am saying that God existed (exists, or whatever tense you want to use) outside of time so the OP’s question is a non-issue. But that’s quite different than linking God’s existence with the existence of the physical universe.

 

[James_S_Saint]

No – that’s exactly what you were proposing, in different words. Your earlier post:

“Because the cause of the universe existing is eternal, the universe that God causes must also be eternal.”

Think about that carefully. That implies that either the universe has always existed (and thus time has always existed, making the OP’s question a non-issue), or that God only existed once the universe was created. Neither of those make sense.

I am saying that God existed (exists, or whatever tense you want to use) outside of time so the OP’s question is a non-issue. But that’s quite different than linking God’s existence with the existence of the physical universe.

On the contrary. That is NOT what is implied by what I said. Please think again about what I said.

“Because the cause of the universe existing is eternal.…”, that “cause” being God - First Cause, “..the universe that God causes must also be eternal.”.

You are presuming that time only relates to the physical universe. Time relates to ANY change whatsoever. Time is a concept that means “relative change” - of ANYTHING relative to ANYTHING else. Physical universe or not, if anything changes at all, time exists. That means that God, the cause of time, could not already be within time just as the phrase, “outside of time” indicates. But it also means that God, who is also said to never change, cannot change nor can anything else without that change being the advent of time. That means that God, the FIRST Cause, caused something, which means that something changed. at that point, time exists. So nothing at all can change before time itself exists. But if nothing at all is changing, then what could God possibly be waiting for, since nothing at all would ever be any different until after God caused it to be different?

 

[twinc]

Douglas_Kraeger:
past,present and future are as now to God - picture God looking down on the world and He sees a man just setting out on his journey[in a boat]and He sees one who set out yesterday and one who set out the day before.He sees them all in the present or now - twinc

 

[WJL]

While looking for an answer for the questions I first mentioned on Google, I came across this website: usbible.com/Creation/Before_Creation.htm

The website is evidently atheistic. It makes a couple of arguments attempting to undermine the Bible and the Christian view of this issue:

From the perspective of current knowledge, the first two verses tell us nothing about the cosmology of the universe except the beliefs of a culture that existed over 2,000 years ago. Theological explanations are worthless because questions about the origins of existence are unanswerable.

Gen. 1:1-the beginning began when God created the heavens and the earth.*

[1-5] In the beginning [6] God created the heavens and the earth. (Gen 1:1)

1. For there to be a beginning, there has to be an end of something else. “Beginning” is a relative term; it is meaningless by itself. Dark is dark, relative to light. Yes is yes, relative to no. “On” has no meaning without “off”. You can begin with nothing, but you need a time and a place to begin; that time and place is the end of something else. You can rationalize God always existed, but that explanation is inferior to saying the universe always existed. The idea that a being existed before existence, leads to the conclusion that such a being didn’t exist. Mathematically: 1 x 0 = 0. Existence cannot exist in nonexistence. Theologians have no respect for language.

1. What about supernatural existence? “Supernatural” does not mean superior to natural; it means not natural. By definition, whatever is not natural does not exist; only nothing can exist in nothing. A supernatural being can only exist mentally; you see it in your mind’s eye, but it is not really there. Words can be strung together to say anything, but if they don’t have a physical reference, they have no connection to reality. They mean only what the believer wants them to mean. This is what especially defines faith.

1. The universe can be equated to a system with no comprehensible boundaries and filled with an infinite supply of energy. Without energy, there can be no universe, and thus, no existence. By arguing that god created the universe before physical existence, we are back to the same false conclusion that energy can come from nothing.

1. Space is another form of existence. If there was ever a time of preexistence, then this being did not occupy space. If it did not occupy space, it did not exist. Even time cannot exist in nonexistence. As of yet, there is no rational explanation for existence. At best, the Bible tells us what is not known.

1. The Bible has plenty of word confusions. In the passage below, if God dwells in heaven, then where did he dwell before he created heaven? The passage implies he needs a physical dwelling place.

30And hearken thou to the supplication of thy servant and of thy people Israel, when they pray toward this place; yea, hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place; and when thou hearest, forgive. (1 Kings 8:30)

1. The word “God” is not singular in the original Hebrew version. It translates to Elohim, a plural term which reveals the polytheistic beliefs of the Hebrews. Elohim dominates the Old Testament; it is used 2346 times for God with a capital “G”. By comparison, the single form for God is Yahweh; it is used 305 times. Verse 1 should read, “the gods created the heavens and the earth”.

2And Joshua said to all the people,"Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Your fathers lived of old beyond the Euphrates, Terah, the father of Abraham and of Nahor; and they served other gods. (Joshua 24:2)

Continued below…

 

[WJL]

Continued from above…

Gen. 1:2- before the beginning there was just a watery chaos and God’s spirit.

[1] The earth was without form and void, and [2] darkness was upon the [3] face of the deep; and the [4] Spirit of God was moving over the face of the [5] waters. (Gen 1:2)

1. An “earth without form and void” is biblespeak for saying earth did not exist in the beginning. “Without form” in Hebrew is tohu, meaning, empty, worthless, nothing, confusion. “Void” comes from bohu, meaning empty or void. So far, it is in agreement with science.

1. “Darkness” needs open space to exist.

1. “Face of the deep”, could be chunks of frozen ice. In the cold of outer space, water can be found as frozen ice particles. Comets are a good example.

1. “Spirit” translates from Hebrew, to rauch, which also means wind or breath. The “Spirit of God” is nothing but wind or air moving across the face of the waters. The gases that comprise air come to us from the process of atomic fusion-stars.

1. “Waters”, suggest a long time of existence. Water comes from the gases Hydrogen and Oxygen. To get water, it has to go through a process of atomic fusion and subsequent cooling. This can only happen after stars form and cool off. To have water, you need the right amount of heat to keep it between freezing and boiling. Heat comes from stars. If there are stars, then the universe exists at the time of creation. This is obviously nonsensical.

1. Though the presence of water implies a currently existing universe, some theologians took it to mean a previously existing universe. This causes a theological problem, because it would mean that there was death in a prior universe before the Original Sin of Adam and Eve-it’s formally called the Gap Theory or the ruin-reconstruction version of the Gap Theory.

Looking for a semantic loophole, the solution was to rationalize verse 2 as part of the first day of creation. Rather than admit a conflict, they adjusted their interpretation to fit their preconception.

…

1. Contradiction: Despite the materials mentioned in verse two, two passages in the New Testament say there were no materials.

17as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”-in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. (Rom. 4:17)

3By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear. (Heb. 11:3)

For Catholic and other Christian posters here, how would you respond to the objections quoted in this and the above post?