Lots of assumptions and presumptions. I count nine; how many do you count. Now what do you suppose a conclusion based on so many assumptions is worth?

God cannot decide — bahman

Either that or he does not exist. X-)

God transcends time; he merely created it. I don't see how that is indecisiveness.

We cannot possibly comprehend anything outside of the limitations of our own perception. If something were to be "outside" of time or the universe, we could not understand it or say anything about it whatsoever. This is not to say that it's not possible, only that trying to apply our own universal laws and constraints to it is nonsensical. To talk of an entity outside of time being unable to decide isn't logical because the concept of decision itself is a product of the universe we live in and how it operates. Even thinking of God having a mind doesn't make sense if He is outside of time. It seems to me, if you believe in a creator God who is separate from the universe, you cannot say a single thing about what He is like. If you want to be able to say anything about God, any of His characteristics, He must be part of our universe. But that would mean He did not create our universe. The only other option is something like Spinoza's God, which is the universe. Everything that exists, mind and matter, is an extension of God, a part of Him, like cells in a body. I recommend reading his Ethics if this sounds interesting to you, or at the very least finding a good summary of it online.

"God is in state of timeless where there is no before and after (this is true since time is part of creation)."
Does God not have a before and after? It seems to me he must have a sequence of events. On what basis would God be denied such a reality? Assuming God existed before creation, then time must have existed before creation. I would propose that time is the one understanding that he could not create, but rather ran concurrent throughout the eternity of his existence. For those who say he is all knowing, time is the one item beyond his all-powerfulness. The only power he could have over it is the power of suicide. He could permanently kill himself and thereby destroy that time which is limited to his existence. But any time existing beyond his existence (i.e. time he allowed beyond his existence) would be unaffected.

Lots of assumptions and presumptions. I count nine; how many do you count. Now what do you suppose a conclusion based on so many assumptions is worth? — tim wood

It doesn't matter how many assumption we have. Assumptions must however be coherent.

God transcends time; he merely created it. I don't see how that is indecisiveness. — Lone Wolf

You are either timeless or temporal. There is no other option. Timeless means that you are not subject to time. What do you mean with "God transcends time"?

Either that or he does not exist. X-) — Sir2u

Yeah. God as a person does not exist.

God is not restrained by time, nor is time necessary for His existence. Yes, I agree that one is either timeless or temporal. But saying that God must be both is like saying a potter must be a pot to create pots. It is absurd.

We cannot possibly comprehend anything outside of the limitations of our own perception. If something were to be "outside" of time or the universe, we could not understand it or say anything about it whatsoever. This is not to say that it's not possible, only that trying to apply our own universal laws and constraints to it is nonsensical. To talk of an entity outside of time being unable to decide isn't logical because the concept of decision itself is a product of the universe we live in and how it operates. Even thinking of God having a mind doesn't make sense if He is outside of time. It seems to me, if you believe in a creator God who is separate from the universe, you cannot say a single thing about what He is like. If you want to be able to say anything about God, any of His characteristics, He must be part of our universe. But that would mean He did not create our universe. The only other option is something like Spinoza's God, which is the universe. Everything that exists, mind and matter, is an extension of God, a part of Him, like cells in a body. I recommend reading his Ethics if this sounds interesting to you, or at the very least finding a good summary of it online. — JustSomeGuy

I think we can understand timeless.

"God is in state of timeless where there is no before and after (this is true since time is part of creation)."
Does God not have a before and after? It seems to me he must have a sequence of events. On what basis would God be denied such a reality? Assuming God existed before creation, then time must have existed before creation. I would propose that time is the one understanding that he could not create, but rather ran concurrent throughout the eternity of his existence. For those who say he is all knowing, time is the one item beyond his all-powerfulness. The only power he could have over it is the power of suicide. He could permanently kill himself and thereby destroy that time which is limited to his existence. But any time existing beyond his existence (i.e. time he allowed beyond his existence) would be unaffected. — curiosity in action

There cannot be any sequence in a timeless state since the state becomes ill-defined. In this case God is decided and undecided in a timeless point.

God is not restrained by time, nor is time necessary for His existence. Yes, I agree that one is either timeless or temporal, but that statement does not apply to God. It is like saying a potter must be a pot to create pots. It is absurd. — Lone Wolf

I don't understand you. Can we agree that God is timeless?

Can we agree that God is timeless? — bahman

Yes.

Yes. — Lone Wolf

Doesn't that mean that He could not do consecutive tasks, like decision and act?

“Transcends time” or “outside of spacetime” or some such does have implications.

• Suppose x is defined as not spatial, “outside of space”. Well, then obviously x is nowhere to be found. And x cannot have any extent, volume, area, length, or the likes, not even zero-dimensional (like a mathematical singularity).
• Suppose x is defined as atemporal, “outside of time”. Well, then there can be no time at which x exists. And there can be no duration involved, x cannot change, or be subject to causation, cannot interact, and would be inert.

Hence, anything that partakes in the world, interacts, is active, cannot be “outside space/time”.
The closest that comes to mind would be something like “abstract objects” (assuming reification).

An object is abstract (if and) only if it is causally inefficacious. — Abstract Objects, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

In terms of causation, the 2^nd bullet above only goes as far as: atemporal implies cannot be an effect in part or whole.
Obviously there cannot be anything that “transcends existence”, and “transcends spacetime” seemingly converges on that.

I think we can understand timeless. — bahman

Why do you think this? Don't just make a claim, provide your reasoning.

I don't think it makes sense for us to be able to understand something that we have zero experience of. Our brains aren't capable of comprehending a lack of time, just like they aren't capable of understanding infinity.

Lots of assumptions and presumptions. I count nine; how many do you count. Now what do you suppose a conclusion based on so many assumptions is worth?
— tim wood

It doesn't matter how many assumption we have. Assumptions must however be coherent. — bahman

The question was, what do you suppose a conclusion based on a lot of assumptions is worth. I'll answer for you: it is worth what the assumptions are worth. If you have enough assumptions, and sometimes one is enough, then your conclusion has nothing to do with any reality, because it's not based in any reality. With assumption you create a model - but there's no way out of the model!

Could be that God shines his consciousness through all living things as experience filters so he can experience His world in an endless variety of ways. He, Himself, can't really act or prioritize because he's outside of time and loves everything.

Why do you think this? Don't just make a claim, provide your reasoning.

I don't think it makes sense for us to be able to understand something that we have zero experience of. Our brains aren't capable of comprehending a lack of time, just like they aren't capable of understanding infinity. — JustSomeGuy

Think of one instant. It is just a point. There is no before and after in it.

Think of one instant. It is just a point. There is no before and after in it. — bahman

The very definition of the term "instant" is "a precise moment of time". How is "a moment of time" the same as "no time"? It clearly isn't.

Agreed. Timelessness doesn't make sense. For something to happen, something has to undergo change during a progression of time. In fact, time would continue to exist even if absolutely no change was occurring. Time would exist even if nothing else existed.

In fact, time would continue to exist even if absolutely no change was occurring. — CasKev

This doesn't seem right to me. Time is really a measurement of change, isn't it? Without any change, time would essentially be standing still.

Time is really a measurement of change, isn't it? — JustSomeGuy

I think time can measure how long something stays the same too. Imagine the entire universe perished into nothingness, in some sort of reverse big bang. Then at some point, a new big bang occurred, out of which something emerged from nothingness. Surely, time could be said to be passing between those two events, even though nothing existed for a certain duration (i.e. non-changing nothingness existed for 2 years)?

I think time can measure how long something stays the same too. Imagine the entire universe perished into nothingness, in some sort of reverse big bang. Then at some point, a new big bang occurred, out of which something emerged from nothingness. Surely, time could be said to be passing between those two events, even though nothing existed for a certain duration (i.e. non-changing nothingness existed for 2 years)? — CasKev

I don't think it could. Time can only measure how long something stays the same if there are other things changing. Time is really relational.

But that would mean that nothingness could not have existed in between the two events, as the end of the reverse big bang would be instantly followed by the new big bang. Did we just prove that nothingness could never have existed??? (I think my brain is breaking... haha)

Exactly.

To be clear, though, I'm not trying to say that my assertions are objectively true, only that they are what I believe the case is. This issue isn't settled, as far as I am aware. I remember learning about it in college, so unless there has been a big breakthrough recently I'll assume what I learned it still true. You and I are essentially representing the two schools of thought on this, and there have been various arguments for each side throughout the centuries.
Here's a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry about it:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#RedPlaResTim

The relevant sections is "Reductionism and Platonism with Respect to Time"

Basically, if what I'm saying is the case, then this scenario you described where one universe died and another was born would have no time in between, they would be immediately successive events.

The reason I tend to believe the Reductionism argument (aside from the simple fact that it makes the most sense to me, logically) is because of what I know about Einstein's relativity and his joining of space and time into "spacetime". Space and time are a single "thing" essentially, inseparable and interdependent. But I definitely don't claim to be an expert, this is all just based on my own study and the things I learned in a few relativity and metaphysics classes back in college.

Interesting. To me, it would make way more sense for nothing to have ever existed. But here we are...

To me, it would make way more sense for nothing to have ever existed. But here we are — CasKev

I know what you mean. Trying to understand why there is anything rather than nothing is the ultimate mindfuck.

Here’s an application of relativity showing how time and space are connected, just in case you hadn’t come across this. I copied and pasted this from a website.

“Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion [2].

Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time.”

It doesn’t really make sense to me how time could exist if there’s no space since they are in a sense the same thing. But humans still have a long way to go to understanding the universe.

The very definition of the term "instant" is "a precise moment of time". How is "a moment of time" the same as "no time"? It clearly isn't. — JustSomeGuy

Some people call timeless state as eternal now. The present.