God and time.

Bartricks

I am going to present two arguments for a divine conception of time. One of these arguments goes forwards - that is, it assumes God and shows how from this assumption, time must be something God created and then draws insights from this into the nature of time. The other goes in the other direction - that is, it starts by examining time, and concludes that time is divine.

First, the argument from God. God is all powerful by definition. From this we can conclude that God created time. Why? Because if time exists, then one is subject to it. And so if God did not create time, then God would be subject to something he did not create, which is incompatible with being omnipotent. So, given that God would be subject to time if time exists, something which would be incompatible with his omnipotence were he not to have himself created time, God created time.

But if God created time, then time was not needed for that initial act of creation. We can conclude, then, that there can be creation without time, for otherwise time itself could not have been created.

And as time involves an event changing in its temporal properties, we can conclude as well that change does not require time either. For how could God have changed an event's temporal properties if time needed already to be on the scene for him to do so?

If God created time - and he did, for he wouldn't be omnipotent otherwise - then neither causation or change essentially require time. It is the other way around: for time to exist, there needs to be causation and change, controlled by God. It is God, not time, that changes an event's temporal properties.

Now an argument in the other direction (though it does not lead to God per se, but to a person who could potentially be God). We are aware of time via our sensations. There is a sensation of pastness and of futurity. When we have that sensation of pastness about an event, we say we are 'remembering' that event (or if we are more careful, that we 'seem' to be remembering it). And when we have the sensation of futurity in respect of an event, we say that we are 'anticipating' it (or that we 'seem' to be anticipating it, if we are being careful). And when we have neither sensation in respect of an event, we say that we are experiencing it - that is, that it is present.

Of course, that one senses an event to be past does not entail that it is, and likewise for future and present. So those sensations - our sensations of pastness and futurity and the absence of those sensations which constitutes the appearance of presentness - are not constitutive of time itself. They are, rather, the means by which we are aware of time.

Nevertheless, in order to operate as the means by which we are aware of time, those sensations - and I will focus just on pastness for ease- would have to resemble the actual property of pastness in some or other respect. How else could the sensation of pastness give us any awareness of actual pastness?
So, though my sensation of pastness does not itself constitute the pastness of anything I am having it about, it nevertheless resembles the actual pastness of a thing.

A sensation resembles another sensation and nothing else. Smells are like smells; tastes are like tastes; sounds are like sounds, and so on. So, if my sensation of pastness resembles the actual pastness of a past event, then the actual pastness of a past event is also a sensation.

Sensations can exist in minds and nowhere else. Minds and minds alone have sensations. Thus, the actual pastness of an event exists as the sensation of a mind. It's just not my mind or yours. Indeed, as the pastness of an event seems radically external and unitary, then it is the sensation of one mind.

Time, then, exists as the sensations of a mind. And of course, that mind will be the mind of God if God exists (which he does).

James Riley

God is all powerful by definition. From this we can conclude that God created time. Why? Because if time exists, then one is subject to it. And so if God did not create time, then God would be subject to something he did not create, which is incompatible with being omnipotent. So, given that God would be subject to time if time exists, something which would be incompatible with his omnipotence were he not to have himself created time, God created time. — Bartricks

[[i]emphasis added[/i]]

Just because God created something that exists does not mean God is subject to it.

Anyway, I refer to God as All, or A, but I'm fine with using God. I think that God is capable of being a singularity and heat death at the same "time", and every place in between and then some. It's my understanding there is no time in a singularity. I would think there would be no time at heat death, either, especially if each particle could not influence any other particle, either with gravity or heat, then it might as well "pop" out of existence. Regardless, where God can be both, then God can be with time and without time and whatever else we can't comprehend.

Time is for those who are subject to it. Or Gods who want to be. Or Gods who simply want to watch.

Bartricks

↪James Riley

Just because God created something that exists does not mean God is subject to it. — James Riley

I didn't say it did. I am talking about time specifically. If God - hell, if I - create a chair, I am not thereby 'subject' to the chair. So chairs can exist without God having created them.

But time is different. If time exists, then we are all subject to it, God included. And that would mean that for time's existence to be compatible with God's omnipotence, God would have to have created it. For then though God would be subject to it, this would be no more than for God to be subject to an aspect of his own will, which is in no conceivable way a constraint on one's power.

James Riley

Just because God created something that exists does not mean God is subject to it. — James Riley

I didn't say it did. — Bartricks

Yes you did. And you did it again when you said:

If time exists, then we are all subject to it, God included. — Bartricks

I'm merely saying God is not subject to time unless God wants to be. If God was subject to it, that would violate your initial proposition that I agree with:

God is all powerful by definition. — Bartricks

God doesn't even have to be subject to Gods will. God is All. All, by definition, accounts for the absence of itself. If it did not, then it would not be All.

Bartricks

↪James Riley

Yes you did. And you did it again when you said:

If time exists, then we are all subject to it, God included.
— Bartricks — James Riley

No I didn't and no I didn't. I didn't say that if one creates anything one is then subject to it. I said that if one creates time then one is subject to it (and, indeed, if one has not). And then I said it again.

There are some things that, if they exist, an omnipotent person would have created else not qualify as omnipotent. And there are a whole load of things that are not like that. Indeed, there are some things that

James Riley

I didn't say that if one creates anything one is then subject to it. I said that if one creates time then one is subject to it. And then I said it again. — Bartricks

Yes you did and yes you did. Whereas I did NOT say "anything." You imputed that to me. You and I were both talking about time. So forget "anything" and focus on what you said about time. You said what I said you said. Now if you want to move past that, we can continue. Otherwise, we aren't going anywhere.

There are some things that, if they exist, an omnipotent person would have created else not qualify as omnipotent. And there are a whole load of things that are not like that. — Bartricks

I have no disagreement with that. But we are NOT talking about any of those things. We are talking about time. You believe that, having created it, God is subject to it. I disagree. God is not subject to it. If God were subject to time, God would not be God.

Bartricks

↪James Riley

No, you said this:

Just because God created something that exists does not mean God is subject to it. — James Riley

See? You said 'something' not 'time'. So you - you - imputed to me the absurd view that if one has created something, one is subject to it, a view found nowhere in anything I have written.

I said that if one has created time then one is subject to it (and if one has not one is subject to it). If time exists, God would be subject to it. Ok? Time. Not 'something'. Time specifically. Not only time - there are other things like that too, such as the edicts of Reason. But time is what we're talking about here, and time is something that God would be subject to if God and time exist.

James Riley

See? You said 'something' not 'time'. — Bartricks

What is the subject of this thread? Time? DOH! That is the "something" we are talking about. I did not say "anything". I said "something" in the context of what we are talking about.

So you - you - imputed to me the absurd view that if one has created something, one is subject to it, a view found nowhere in anything I have written. — Bartricks

I don't need to impute an absurd view to you. You have embraced it outright. You have carved time out as something special, something different from everything else. I just pointed out that you are wrong, that's all.

I said that if one has created time then one is subject to it (and if one has not one is subject to it). — Bartricks

Yes, you did. I never said you didn't. I just said you were wrong.

If time exists, God would be subject to it. Ok? — Bartricks

No, not okay. It's God, after all. God isn't subject to time.

But time is what we're talking about here, — Bartricks

Glad we got that cleared up.

time is something that God would be subject to if God and time exist. — Bartricks

No. If God were to be subject to time (or something or anything else; but forget that, because it apparently distracts you) simply because God created it, then God would not be God. Which, of course, in my A = A and A = -A analysis is true, but we aren't talking about that. We are talking about:

God is all powerful by definition. — Bartricks

GraveItty

No, not okay. It's God, after all. God isn't subject to time. — James Riley

Indeed! God doesn't need time to create the universe, even if it is a temporal infinite one, as I think. This is the problem of modern physical attempts to explain the origin of the singularity. What happened before the emergence of our universe from a singularity? How could it have occurred if no time was available yet? Analogies are put forward to circumvent this paradox, like comparing the problem with the North Pole. That it doesn't make sense. Well, it doesn't, but in the case of the big-bang it does. Hawking used complex time to address this question, thereby effectively introducing a second time to place the creation of our time in. But how comes this second time into being? The situation can be solved more easily by taking into account an existence of time before the big bang. But then still the problem remains from where that eternal time comes. God's did the job, though cannot understand that process in spatiotemporal processes.
I like your style of writing and responding!

Varde

The experience of 'time sleuth'; time seems to go fast or slow; supports your idea that time is a mental sensation.

Particles taken away and given back. Universal mass might grow or shrink; for a second we may be longer or more further away, this illusion is available.

Time sleuth occurrences seem to mimic this procedure.

Bartricks

↪James Riley

So you meant 'time' and elected to use the word 'something'to express that? A word that doesn't mean 'time'and is considerably longer. Clever.

Good job too in addressing nothing argued in the OP. God is timeless. Ok,if you say so. That's how philosophy works. You say something and it's true. No need for arguments.

khaled

↪Bartricks

That's how philosophy works. You say something and it's true. No need for arguments. — Bartricks

But time is different. If time exists, then we are all subject to it, God included. — Bartricks

That’s what you seem to think yes.

GraveItty

So you meant 'time' and elected to use the word 'something'to express that? A word that doesn't mean 'time'and is considerably longer. Clever.

Good job too in addressing nothing argued in the OP. God is timeless. Ok,if you say so. That's how philosophy works. You say something and it's true. No need for arguments. — Bartricks

You merely try to capture other POV by means of your old trick. Making these conform to yours and then calling them a self proclaimed invention of the basic stuff that reigns your own POV.

Hermeticus

That’s what you seem to think yes. — khaled

Amen.

@Bartricks
It's clear to me that you derive your ideas from the abrahamic concept of god. That is:
1. There is one God.
2. God is all powerful.
3. God is an entity, a person that can be subject to something.
4. God makes decisions.

I strongly disagree with any of those ideas. That's your premise though, I'll accept it as a hypothetical.

What doesn't hold up to your model of God is the idea that it would have to be subject to time.
An omnipotent being, as far as omnipotency goes, could simply chose whether it would want to be a subject of time or not.

Your entire argument fails on the assumption you decided to pick as your premise.

Bartricks

↪Hermeticus

What you say is clearly false. Of course God can choose whether to be subject to time or not. That's the point! How, though? Well, time would have to be God's creation. If time is God's creation,then he is choosing to be subject to it. So you seem to have missed the point somewhat.

Bartricks

↪khaled

Yeah, good job just ignoring the actual case I made.
So, if time exists, you think Godwould not be subject to it? Explain. Explain how God can exist, yet not in the present, past or future. I am all ears. Take me to school dadio

Apollodorus

But if God created time, then time was not needed for that initial act of creation. We can conclude, then, that there can be creation without time, for otherwise time itself could not have been created. — Bartricks

Good point.

But I think the crucial question is who it is that experiences time.

God's experience of time may be (totally) different from human experience of it.

Bartricks

↪Apollodorus

I think it could be different to a degree, but not totally different. The reason being that it is by means of our experiences of time - our temporal sensations - that we are aware of time. Yet for those sensations to give us an awareness of time, they would surely have to resemble it? The image on a canvas created by a portrait painter needs to resemble, at least to some degree, the image that staring at the sitter itself would create in us if it is to qualify as a portrait 'of' the person in question. If there was no resemblance whatever between the canvas image and the visual image created by staring at the sitter - if, that is, the 'portrait' was wholly abstract - then it could not be said to give us any insight into what the sitter looks like. Likewise for our temporal sensations. If they resemble in no way time itself, then they would merely be being caused by time, but would not be giving us any perceptual awareness of it. As such, time itself is therefore made of temporal sensations - temporal sensations that resemble, to some degree, our own, but are resident in (and so experienced by) God's mind, rather than our own. And that means that though there can be a difference between God's temporalsensations and our own, the difference cannot be too radical else our sensations of time would not be 'of' time at all.

James Riley

So you meant 'time' and elected to use the word 'something'to express that? A word that doesn't mean 'time'and is considerably longer. Clever. — Bartricks

So, you don't know what you were talking about? Not too clever. Either that, or time is nothing. So you were talking about nothing? Why didn't you say so?

Good job too in addressing nothing argued in the OP. — Bartricks

Oops! You just stepped on your dick again. So you are saying that when I said something I was addressing nothing? Get your shit together, son. Time is either something or nothing. First your don't know what your talking about, then you claim I'm not talking about something, then you claim I"m talking about nothing. Which is it? I thought you were talking about time. Is time something, or nothing, or neither?

That's how philosophy works. You say something and it's true. No need for arguments. — Bartricks

Wait, now you say I said something? I thought you just said I said nothing? WTF? You need to go back to school. Only this time, pay attention.

GraveItty

don't know what you are on about. The only 'trick' I use is to combine ingenuity with ruthless reasoning. — Bartricks

I'm on to expose your view. It's a nice view, though I can easily show it to be wrong. From my POV, that is. To God, time can exist or not. I think it does, but it's a different, godly and holy kind of time. In that time, still ticking in the outerworldly, extra-spatiotemporal, eternal godly realm, he can can create a universe like we live in. Even, as I think, it is a spatiotemporally infinite one, with our universe being a finite intersection with it, having a total dimensionality of one less than the full 7-dimensional extent (that means six, in layman's terms).

SpaceDweller

But if God created time, then time was not needed for that initial act of creation. We can conclude, then, that there can be creation without time, for otherwise time itself could not have been created. — Bartricks

Whether God created time or not, from religious point of view is debatable, because "In the beginning God created..."
That in the beginning could mean the beginning of universe or it could mean the beginning of time.

Scriptures literary talk about first version, the beginning of universe (heavens and earth) rather than the beginning of time.

From scientific point of view we know the mechanics of universe involve time, ex. space time.

This gives us conclusion that the beginning of universe implicitly also means the beginning of time as we know it.

Logical question is, is there some other time in addition to time that we know?

Science has some theories such as multiverse, while from religious point of view, God is unfathomable because human wisdom can not reach the wisdom of God beyond what is revealed trough scriptures.

According to scriptures (ex. 2 Pt 3,8; Ps 90,4) we know God's time is different from our time therefore our version of time (space time) is useless to measure subjectivity of time and God.

But one is sure, God did create time that we know as human beings.

James Riley

What happened before the emergence of our universe from a singularity? — GraveItty

:100: Yeah, whenever someone says the universe is 14b years old, I immediately want to know what happened 1t years ago. Then they say there was no time so there could be no 1t years ago. To me, that means God is not separate from that which God created; rather, God is that which God created. God is creation. God is All. In order for All to be All it must account for (I hate the word "include") the absence of itself.

I'm no bible thumper but when it says something like "I am the alpha and the omega, I am the beginning and the end" it's not wrong.

GraveItty

What you say is clearly false. Of course God can choose whether to be subject to time or not. That's the point! How, though? Well, time would have to be God's creation. If time is God's creation,then he is choosing to be subject to it. So you seem to have missed the point somewhat. — Bartricks

Spacetime can be infinite. How the hell could he have created that at a moment in our time? Any moment in time has a predecessor. How could he have created spacetime if it had a definite beginning? In our time, that is. Conclusion:he experiences time too. A heavenly spacetime, of which the worldly spacetime is an expression, to make life possible. He is not subjected to it. How can you be subjected to spacetime?

Bartricks

↪SpaceDweller

You seem to agree with my conclusion, but on - I would say - misguided grounds. I don't consider scripture to be evidence - or at least, I don't think one is being epistemically responsible in treating it as such until after one has demonstrated God's existence and furthermore found independent reason for thinking the bible provides a source of insight into what God has done or is doing.
And physics doesn't study time, but sensible events. Thinking physicists study time is akin to thinking clockmakers do as well.

Bartricks

↪James Riley

No, you said that creating something doesn't entail that one is subject to it. Which was a dumb thing to say as I had in no way implied otherwise. Then you said you were using the word 'something'to mean 'time'. Which is three times dumber, as a) 'something' doesn't mean 'time'; b) 'something' is a considerably longer word than 'time'; and c) then your claim would be false and flagrantly question begging. So, you have failed at this thread. Grade: D.
Note too that picking up a stick and repeatedly hitting yourself with it while shouting 'take that Bartricks!' does not amount to thrashing me.

TheMadFool

God and time, the connection between them hinges on God as, sometimes, within time (immortal) and then also, other times, outside of time (again immortal). Has there been any discussions on that front? Why do these two points of view not conflict with each other?

Changeless = Time doesn't exist.

SpaceDweller

↪Bartricks

There must be some definition of God and time, or background literature of either, how else do you define God and time then?

Or within what framework should one interpret your question regarding God and time?

Bartricks

↪SpaceDweller

'God' denotes a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
And time is made of the properties or relations of pastness, presentness and futurity.

SpaceDweller

'God' denotes a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
And time is made of the properties or relations of pastness, presentness and futurity. — Bartricks

God being omniscient is the opposite of us being limited in knowledge.
If we are limited in knowledge (compare to God's knowledge) we can conclude the knowledge of God is unlimited or infinite.
The opposite of infinite is finite, therefore saying God's knowledge is finite is contrary to it's omnipotent nature.
My point here is I see no problem with assigning infinite property to God compared to finite one. (God is not God if limited)

Same way, we can't say time is finite, because of the question "what was there before that time?"

God and time are therefore infinite in every aspect, however obvious is, while God is omnipotent this does not apply to time.

So yes God made time and is not subject to time.
We came to same conclusion without scriptures or scientific view of time.

Apollodorus

I think it could be different to a degree, but not totally different. The reason being that it is by means of our experiences of time - our temporal sensations - that we are aware of time. Yet for those sensations to give us an awareness of time, they would surely have to resemble it? The image on a canvas created by a portrait painter needs to resemble, at least to some degree, the image that staring at the sitter itself would create in us if it is to qualify as a portrait 'of' the person in question. — Bartricks

Time is the background or context in which human experience takes place. If God is eternal, then his experience cannot relate to time in the same way as human experience does.

However, if God is omnipotent, then I think he should be able to experience things both in and outside of time.

Bartricks

↪Apollodorus

But the argument I have given- the second one, also outlined in my reply - seems to demonstrate that time is made of the temporal sensations of God. So, time itself is made of some of God's experiences. Time is some sensational activity on God's part. Hence how it can be the case that he created it: he is the originator and controller of his own sensations.

One difference, then, between God's temporal experiences and ours, is that his constitute time, whereas ours are 'of' time. However, this difference, though great, would not amount to an experiential difference, but rather a difference in their metaphysical status. For an analogy, looking at a superb fake of the mona lisa and looking at the actual mona lisa may be experiential indistinct. However, there remains a significant difference - in one case I am looking at a Leonardo, in the other I am not.

I don't see how there can be a total difference experientially between God's temporal sensations and ours, for if there were such a radical difference, our sensations wouldn't be 'of' time at all,but something quite different.

I am not entirely sure what it means to say God is eternal. If it means that God exists for all time, then yes - for if time is made of God's sensations, then those sensations will depend on God to exist and thus God will exist for all time. In that sense, God is eternal and is eternal by don't of being time's creator and sustainer

God and time.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions