Most theologians adopt 1), and assert God is the sole exception to everything needing a cause. As a argument strategy -- this is flawed, as non-theists are free to propose exceptions to causation of their own -- the favorite is the Universe -- but a time-space probability field, or an Eternally Inflating state -- these have both been proposed as well. Stephen Hawking took this approach in A Brief History of Time -- where he proposed a single cycle universe was just a closed volume in space-time and did not need a causal explanation. In more recent writing, now that the openness of our universe has been fairly well settled and his "closed shape" assumption isn't true, he advocated that the small size of the initial Big Bang singularity mixes time and space per Heseinberg's Uncertaintly Principle -- and without a well defined "first time" -- the "prior" to that time need not be explained.

actually do not believe in the distinction between a priori and a posteriori. — Philosophim

That's quite problematic Philosophim. Are you saying that there is no difference between propositions that are tautologies and logical inference( the a priori vs. the a posteriori)?

I believe you're missing a previous point about analytics and the fact that philosophy lives in words. Embrace the notion that a priori logic is not designed to parse or explain the nature of our existence. It may describe it, but it doesn't explain it (the thing-in-itself). Instead, a posteriori empirical analysis is the so-called general rule of the day.

For example, going back to propositions that try to explain conscious existence, consider once again the illogical daydreaming while driving scenario. If one were to further advance a proposition that describes the victim who is subsequently in a coma alive but yet not alive, what would be the truth value to that proposition? Would there be multiple truth values?

A simple study of dialectic reasoning would suggest that living life is much more than a priori deductive reasoning. Generally, life is both/and, not either/or. A priori is either/or. And that is why it's not suitable to parse things that involve consciousness; sense experience. (Which is another reason why the only outcome to the a priori is logical impossibility.) That is just one reason you would be incorrect in suggesting there are no differences between the a priori and the a posteriori. There are many more examples....

Actually, this may be a good time to get on another thread as we had discussed. I have a thread on knowledge here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge So far it hasn't garnered much discussion beyond a few troll posts, but I know you'll take the conversation seriously. Here you'll get to see what I mean by stating the a priori and a posteriori distinction (depending on how they are defined) are false dichotomies. Its also the perfect place to discuss what is logical and illogical. I should have though about it sooner. =P See you there!

God is understood to be changeless, and therefore timeless, but God is also understood to be the creator of time.

If God creates the physical world along with time, then God experiences a change - from existing alone to existing along with time.

Can anyone explain how God is the creator of time and remains changeless? — Walter Pound

The concept of an all-powerful god leaves itself open to all manner of paradoxes.

"Can god create a physical place that god cannot enter?" will serve as an example.

Supreme beings are best left out of philosophical discussions where definitive conclusions -- that is, truth -- is sought.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

Say God is timeless, changeless, and the greatest being. When God created time, if he did depending on what scale of time you believe, he made a change. While he still experienced change around him, he himself did not change. One can be surrounded by the change they bring about it, without that single act of change causing change to them. Just as God can create time and subject us to it, he can remain outside of the restrictions of time. Say I invent or create a device that assists people with writing their address on an envelope. I have created a change, yet I remain the same intrinsically as I was before. I could have more money and the title of inventor, but I remain myself. Even using my own product would not fundamentally change me. Unless, one would argue that growing in mind and thought changes you, then by creating this invention, or learning any new piece of information would change me.

This is my original thought formation of my argument, however, premise 1 has a major issue because it does not contain any supporting evidence.

1. A being brings about change through some action. Said being is surrounded by that change, then said being can remain unchanged.
2. God a being, brought about time, a change in his surroundings.
3. Thus God can remain changeless even if bringing about change.

Here is my revised argument:
A being surrounded by change has the choice to change or remain unchanged.
God is surrounded by the changing of time, but chooses to remain unchanged.
God is not changed although he is surrounded by the changing of time.

God can remain unchanged because he is omnipotent.

I think you are gesturing at a seemingly obvious problem. If I am correct, your argument goes something like this:

1. If God is changeless, then He cannot create time.
2. Theists are committed to saying that God created everything at a given point, including time.
3. Therefore, God cannot be changeless.

Your justification for premise 1 seems to be that God cannot be changeless and also create time, as God 's experience will then change; He will have gone from being alone to existing alongside something else. I think this points to an ambiguity in the term "changeless." There are two ways that one can "not experience change:" either one does not experience any internal change, or one does not experience any external change. It is important to clarify that one can experience internal change without experiencing external change, and vice versa. For example, the temperature of my room can fluctuate by one degree, but my internal state (including things like beliefs, character traits, mental properties, etc.) can stay the same. Also, my internal state can change (maybe I change my belief about whether the cosmological argument is sound) while the temperature in my room stays the exact same. Thus, God's internal state can remain unchanged while the external world changes significantly. Theists are only committed to the view that God's internal state is without change (i.e., God always remains omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.). Because premise 1 relies on there not being a distinction between internal/external states, then I think we have significant reasons to reject premise 1.

I also think that we have significant reasons to reject premise 2. This argument is presenting a cosmological picture in which God existed from eternity and then at some point created time and space. I think this picture necessarily brings about some absurdities. First, the view entails that we have to say things such as "before time." For example, one can say "God existed before time." But it makes no sense to use temporal language, such as "before," to describe a period in which there is no time. Second, this view entails that there was a time before time began. Again, it seems absurd to speak of temporal measurements like times, periods, moments, ages, and eternity when there is no time at all. This leads me to conclude that the theists should affirm that time has always existed to avoid these absurdities. This also does not entail that there is something outside of God that exists necessarily and coeternally alongside Him; the theists can just say that God has always willed that time exists. For these reasons, I think we should reject premise 2.

First, the view entails that we have to say things such as "before time." For example, one can say "God existed before time." But it makes no sense to use temporal language, such as "before," to describe a period in which there is no time — Raymond Rider

Yes, I am agree with you in this point. But probably what theists tend to argue is that God is such omnipotent. Therefore, he is not affected about human basic rationalism. We can debate and argue about time because it is literally something affect us. But it is supposed that God is (at the same time) a "being/non being" or "he is/not everywhere", so he is not affected neither bothered for something as time.
We can say here then, that probably for God and theists some aspects as time is just worthless.

In response to Walter Pound:

“God is understood to be changeless, and therefore timeless, but God is also understood to be the creator of time.

If God creates the physical world along with time, then God experiences a change - from existing alone to existing along with time.

Can anyone explain how God is the creator of time and remains changeless?”

In this post, I will attempt to formulate a response to the question posed and explain how God can be changeless while still being the creator of time.

This question seems to take the form of two arguments. The first argument seems to go like this:

Change constitutes the passing of time. (Newtonian view)
If something does not change, it is timeless.
God does not change.
So, God is timeless.

The second part of the question seems to be an objection to premise three:

If the creator creates the physical world and time, the creator must experience a change–from existing alone to co-existing with time.
God is the creator of the physical world and time.
God does indeed change–from existing alone to co-existing with time.

I will start by deconstructing each of these arguments, to hopefully come to a conclusive answer to the question posed, by the end. First, I will object to the first premise of the objection made in argument two.

I create a sculpture.
I go from a state of existing alone, to a state of existing with this sculpture.
I have not changed.
Premise one of Mr. Pound’s objection fails simply because a change in the environment does not necessarily change the being involved. I think a modification to this premise would be something like this:

If the creator creates the physical world and time, the creator must enact some change.

Though I believe this modified premise is true, it would not lead to the conclusion that God does change. Overall, my objection to the objection is really just support for premise three of the original argument that God does not change.

There seems to be some misunderstanding in the statement, “God does not change”. Here are some references to the Bible that speak to this idea.

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/God-Is-Unchanging

The meaning of “God being unchanging” is testifying to God’s character being unchanging–not the conditions in which He lives. While God can create and change existing things, He himself does not ever change who He is. Take for instance:

James 1:17– “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.”

James seems to clearly indicate here that though God is unchanging, He still enacted some change by sending “good things” and “perfect gifts”. This makes sense, considering that giving a gift to someone does not necessarily mean that the giver changes in character. And to go back to the original wording of the argument, because God must go from existing without a perfect gift, to co-existing with a perfect gift, does not directly change God.

So, because God can change things without changing Himself, it is possible that God created both the physical world and time while still being changeless.

In response to Devans99:

“I think God is needed to explain the state of the universe but I have difficulties fitting him into any viable model of the universe. Would you have God sharing our time dimension or does he have his own time dimension? Or if you have God as timeless, how does he manage to change things (like creating universes)?”

In this post I will specifically focus on the last question. I believe in the form of an argument, the question would go something like this:

If things change, time must pass.
So, if someone changes things, they must do so while time passes.
If someone does things while time passes, they operate in time.
If someone operates in the dimension of time, they are not timeless.
God operates in time.
God is not timeless.

My objection would be against premise four:

Two dimensions are side to side and up and down.
Three dimensions are side to side, up and down, and forward and backward.
If a figure is three dimensional, it still has the ability to move in the dimensions of side to side and up and down.
A three dimensional figure can operate in two dimensions.
If a figure operates in two dimensions, it does not exclude the figure from being a figure of a higher dimension.
Thus, if God operates in the dimension of time, it does not exclude Him from being timeless.

The original question: “If God is timeless, how does He change things?”

When we say God is “timeless”, I believe we make the mistake of thinking this means God cannot change things while time passes, or that God is unable to move in the dimension of time. God being a higher dimensional being does not mean He cannot function in time, but instead, that there are more dimensions which He has the option to move through.

Some will argue that even if this is true mathematically, it is illogical to assume the same for the dimension of time.

In response, let us consider a hypothetical. Let us say that time froze. Everything in the universe stopped, pausing at point A and resuming at point B. For all we know, this could have happened five minutes ago. And let us say that time indeed froze–time did not exist between A and B. Would it be illogical to say that God did not freeze? If God created time and is timeless, it would be reasonable to say that God, indeed, can exist in this gap between A and B. But God is not moving through the dimension of time. Rather, He is operating in a higher dimension.

If this is the case, God can obviously exist without time. To create universes, God must have existed independent of time, in another, unknown dimension, by which humans cannot comprehend the laws of. The moment God creates the universe, time begins. But, God still has the option to move through time or independent of time.

I'm thinking we should rename this "The Theology Forum".