But what exactly is a timeless god, how could he do anything? — Devans99

Good question. He would at the very least have to change from not yet having created the universe to having created the universe, which implies that he is a god who changes; and since change requires time, a god who changes is not a timeless god. I infer that the notion of a timeless creator god is incoherent. However, a god who changes within his own time but sees all of our time at once is not incoherent. Having said which, I personally see no evidence for any kind of god.

Good question. He would at the very least have to change from not yet having created the universe to having created the universe, which implies that he is a god who changes; and since change requires time, a god who changes is not a timeless god. I infer that the notion of a timeless creator god is incoherent. However, a god who changes within his own time but sees all of our time at once is not incoherent. Having said which, I personally see no evidence for any kind of god. — Herg

This would all depend on how one defines "time".

I don’t think time and change are the same; I think time enables change. Maybe there is some other way to enable change too? Photons are ‘timeless’ particles but their position and wavelengths change. Maybe god has inbuilt time?

If time was a natural loop (rather than created by god), we could have god existing all the way around the loop. So he could design standard model at/near start of time, then set off the big bang, then the big crunch, then time loops. Not as satisfactory as god creating time though. How did a natural time come about for instance? Time seems to need creation.

‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ - something extraordinary must of happened. There should logically be nothing. Can’t get something from nothing so something must of always existed but what? Was it time that always existed or was there a state without time? Why did something always exist then? Somehow I cannot imagine the universe in all its magnificence always existing without any involvement from god.

This would all depend on how one defines "time". — Metaphysician Undercover

Why would it?

If time is defined in relation to physical change, then it is necessary for physical change to be occurring in order for time to be passing, hence a universe is required for time, and it makes no sense to talk about anything "before" the universe. If God creates this universe, God is outside of time, and timeless. This is not incoherent, it just requires referring to something other than "time" to account for God's actions, God being non-physical and time being constrained to physical existence.

But if time is defined in some other way, such that time can be passing without any physical change occurring, then there is no need for a physical universe for there to be time, and talk of a time before the universe would be coherent. This allows that God's actions occur in time, therefore God is not timeless in this conception, but God's actions are at a time when there is no physical existence

If time is defined in relation to physical change — Metaphysician Undercover

Speed of light speed limit law (speed = distance / TIME) applies to everything in the universe so I think we can define time as a fundamental part of the universe as in space time rather than change.

It appears time started at the big bang; the intense gravity would have cause time to come to an almost stop at the big bang. Certainly time cannot stretch back indefinitely from the Finitist Eternalist viewpoint - it must have had a start.

If time is defined in relation to physical change, then it is necessary for physical change to be occurring in order for time to be passing, hence a universe is required for time, and it makes no sense to talk about anything "before" the universe. If God creates this universe, God is outside of time, and timeless. This is not incoherent, it just requires referring to something other than "time" to account for God's actions, God being non-physical and time being constrained to physical existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your phrase 'something other than "time"' is empty of meaning, unless you can suggest some of the properties of this supposed 'something'.

In fact I did not use the word "physical" in my post, and I see no reason to define time in terms of the physical, unless we can say for sure that there is no non-physical form of existence, which I don't believe we can. Even the physicist John Wheeler didn't define time in terms of the physical; he defined it as "what prevents everything from happening at once", which I think is a very good definition.

But if time is defined in some other way, such that time can be passing without any physical change occurring, then there is no need for a physical universe for there to be time, and talk of a time before the universe would be coherent. This allows that God's actions occur in time, therefore God is not timeless in this conception, but God's actions are at a time when there is no physical existence — Metaphysician Undercover

Better.

There should logically be nothing. — Devans99

I don't think this is correct. If it were, the proposition "something came from nothing" should contain a logical error: but if so, what is the error?

To suppose that the fact that there is something rather than nothing requires explanation seems to me to be a mere assumption. Why can't the fact that there is something rather than nothing simply be a brute fact?

Somehow I cannot imagine the universe in all its magnificence always existing without any involvement from god. — Devans99

This is a statement about you, not about the universe (or indeed about god). Why should reality be constrained by the limits of your (or anyone's) imagination?


For myself, I do not regard a deity as any kind of explanation for the universe. To explain how the universe comes to exist, it is not enough to say who created it; one also needs to say how it was created. The situation is analogous to a murder; to convict someone of murder, you need to establish means, motive and opportunity. A deity no doubt had the motive, and may arguably have had the opportunity, but what was the means?

Why can't the fact that there is something rather than nothing simply be a brute fact? — Herg

Because 'Something' is so non-Occam's razor; the simplest model is 'Nothing' and with that model, nothing requires explanation. The fact that there is something defies logic and requires an explanation. The two I have I am not too happy with:
- Anthropic principle. There must be something else we would not be here
- God did it somehow
I'm not happy to leave it as a brute fact when its such a pivotal question.

A deity no doubt had the motive, and may arguably have had the opportunity, but what was the means? — Herg

I am a fan of the explanation that the universe is merely a giant game of Conway's Game of Life which God initiated through the big bang. The stars provide the energy for life and the planets provide the living surfaces. Hence just like in Conway's, God watches life evolve.

Your phrase 'something other than "time"' is empty of meaning, unless you can suggest some of the properties of this supposed 'something'. — Herg

I do not agree with this. To say "X is something other than Y" is not to say something devoid of meaning, as it distinguishes X from Y. I agree that it says very little about what X is, but it may be considered as a start, and therefore not devoid of meaning. Are familiar with the process of elimination?

In fact I did not use the word "physical" in my post, and I see no reason to define time in terms of the physical, unless we can say for sure that there is no non-physical form of existence, which I don't believe we can. Even the physicist John Wheeler didn't define time in terms of the physical; he defined it as "what prevents everything from happening at once", which I think is a very good definition. — Herg

Yes, this supports the point I was trying to make: "this would all depend on how one defines time". You asked me "why would it?", but I see you already have an understanding of why it would. Say time is as you suggest "what prevents everything from happening at once". If this is the case, then a timeless god is not incoherent as you claimed. The timeless god would be the one which makes everything happen at once. And this is not incoherent at all, as we know from the special theory of relativity that simultaneity is frame of reference dependent.

Why can't the fact that there is something rather than nothing simply be a brute fact?
— Herg

Because 'Something' is so non-Occam's razor; the simplest model is 'Nothing' and with that model, nothing requires explanation. — Devans99

I don't think Occam's razor applies here, because it only applies where you are seeking an explanation for how things are, and that is not the case here.

A deity no doubt had the motive, and may arguably have had the opportunity, but what was the means?
— Herg

I am a fan of the explanation that the universe is merely a giant game of Conway's Game of Life which God initiated through the big bang. The stars provide the energy for life and the planets provide the living surfaces. — Devans99

This sounds tongue in cheek, but in case it isn't, I will point out that the stars and planets weren't available for God to use as a means when initiating the Big Bang.

More to the point, what was the raw material God used to make the Big Bang, how could an immaterial being manipulate the raw material, and where did the material come from in the first place? Or is he supposed to have simply willed the universe into existence? (A neat trick if you can do it.)

Your phrase 'something other than "time"' is empty of meaning, unless you can suggest some of the properties of this supposed 'something'.
— Herg

I do not agree with this. To say "X is something other than Y" is not to say something devoid of meaning, as it distinguishes X from Y. I agree that it says very little about what X is, but it may be considered as a start, and therefore not devoid of meaning. — Metaphysician Undercover

The problem is that if all you can say about X is that it is not Y, you are attributing only a negative property to X, and nothing real can have only negative properties.

If eternalism is true, then the argument from motion won't work, but perhaps the theist will try to use the argument from contingency and argue that the universe is still contingent, nonetheless.

More to the point, what was the raw material God used to make the Big Bang, how could an immaterial being manipulate the raw material, and where did the material come from in the first place? — Herg

I'm a materialist so I'm expecting any God to be material.

Where did the matter come from:

1. In the beginning, there was God and some stuff and he made the universe from stuff
2. In the beginning, there was just God and he made the universe from himself
3. In the beginning, there was just God and he used creation ex nihilo to create the universe
4. In the beginning, there some stuff and the stuff made God (Boltzmann Brain)

I don't really buy 4 because we've established time has a start so there is no infinity of time to magic up a Boltzmann Brain. Number 3 is just magic IMO. Number 2 is Occam's Razor.

The problem is that if all you can say about X is that it is not Y, you are attributing only a negative property to X, and nothing real can have only negative properties. — Herg

It's not the case that the thing has only negative properties, it is the case that the things property's are unknown. The thing has been identified, as outside of time, non-temporal so it is a real thing, having been identified, there is no issue there. Therefore the real issue is to establish method a toward understanding this thing, a process whereby we can come to say something about this real thing which has been identified.

What I tried to allude to, is that if we consider that the reason why we cannot say anything about this thing, is that we have misidentified it, as "non-temporal", then this gives us an avenue of approach. It has been designated as "non-temporal" because of a faulty definition of time. So "non-temporal" is a misnomer for this thing. the misnomer has come about from a misunderstanding of time. which dictates that anything temporal is necessarily physical, and this excludes the non-physical from the temporal. From this misconception of "time", the non-physical is necessarily non-temporal as well. So when we switch to the other understanding of time which I offered, this allows that the non-physical has real, actual, and active, existence within time. Now the thing is identified as "non-physical", and we have an avenue toward understanding because we can assign the positive attribute, of "temporal".

If time did not have a start then an actual infinity of time has passed so far which is impossible. So it seems time has a start. Something must of caused time to start. The end of time is the only thing that can cause the start of time (Big Crunch->Big Bang).

So the universe is a beautiful eternal circle and it seem it needs no input from God except that it all looks so designed. So that leads us back to timeless change. It's like Sherlock Holmes said 'Once you eliminate the probable, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth'; timeless change is improbable but seems to be required?

Hello, I am a college student currently taking a course on Plato and Aristotle. I understand how Aristotle came to the conclusion of the unmoved mover, but I don't understand how it isn't a contradiction of the very theory that necessitates it.