The Timelessness of God

[Clete]

You really believe that something that God declares will happen doesn't?

I believe what the bible teaches me, RD. My allegiance lies with God's word, not my pet doctrines or some preconceived idea of who or what God is supposed to be.

There are several examples in the bible where God said that one thing would happen and it didn't. He said, for example, that He would "without fail" drive out all of Israel's enemies. Didn't happen. Jesus told His followers that some of them would not die before He returned. Didn't happen. And those are not the only two. There are lots of them.

I would say that the ones that you guys are talking about are conditional.

Nice caveat, seeing as how all prophecy concerning human beings is conditional. (Jeremiah 18)

Further, even if God never ever made a prophecy that didn't come true, that would not prove that He is timeless. Timeless existence is irrational. The truth is not irrational (i.e. self-contradictory), DB! If you could somehow prove that the God of the bible had to be timeless, all you'll have accomplished was to prove the bible false.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

[/COLOR]


I agree.

And it also seems to contradict what they are claiming in the first place.
If all of creation is constrained by time, ..... then there is no way there could be a future yet because all that was created HAS TO go in sequence.
In other words the future has not happened EVER in any way shape or form in the created universe because the created universe is restricted by time to and MUST go in sequence.
And that means that what we will do in the future has NEVER taken place.

That is a really nice point. If God can go to the future then the created order must already be there and is therefore not "constrained" as they suggest. Brilliant.

There's no telling the sort of pretzel one will find yourself twisted into when you accept the irrational as true.

 

[Right Divider]

I believe what the bible teaches me, RD. My allegiance lies with God's word, not my pet doctrines or some preconceived idea of who or what God is supposed to be.

Thanks for your attempted put-down brother Clete. I could say exactly the same thing.

There are several examples in the bible where God said that one thing would happen and it didn't. He said, for example, that He would "without fail" drive out all of Israel's enemies. Didn't happen. Jesus told His followers that some of them would not die before He returned. Didn't happen. And those are not the only two. There are lots of them.

Wow. So you trust a "God" that does not tell the truth. Strange indeed.

Nice caveat, seeing as how all prophecy concerning human beings is conditional. (Jeremiah 18)

Further, even if God never ever made a prophecy that didn't come true, that would not prove that He is timeless.

No, it would make him a liar and God does NOT lie. God cannot lie.

Timeless existence is irrational.

According to you and a few others. I disagree and apparently you think that this makes me some sort of irrational heretic.

The truth is not irrational (i.e. self-contradictory), DB! If you could somehow prove that the God of the bible had to be timeless, all you'll have accomplished was to prove the bible false.

You guys are funny with your "has to be" stuff. God does not have to be anything. God is.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Resting in the God that cannot lie,
RD

 

[Right Divider]

RD's logic:

God created man in His image
God Incarnated in the flesh as a Man
God is not manlike

Your idea of logic is illogical.

You cannot understand God's nature, that is clear.

 

[Right Divider]

I know that Q does not equal P and 2+2=4 :idunno:

Why don't you simply answer the question?

God created something out of nothing.

There is nothing illogical about that.

 

[Crucible]

I agree.

And it also seems to contradict what they are claiming in the first place.
If all of creation is constrained by time, ..... then there is no way there could be a future yet because all that was created HAS TO go in sequence.
In other words the future has not happened EVER in any way shape or form in the created universe because the created universe is restricted by time to and MUST go in sequence.
And that means that what we will do in the future has NEVER taken place.

If anything above or beyond time exists, than everything within time has already happened. Your sequence idea only makes sense if there is no higher existence.
That's just how physics work- you need an extra dimension, to support existing beyond the universe, and that dimension would make time obsolete to the observer.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Greetings Clete,

Earlier I said:

In fact, we cannot have a definite knowledge of very specific things which will happen in the future, such as knowing who will believe the gospel and who will not. ​

This is your answer:

This is an unsubstantiated claim. You have made no attempt to establish this claim. Even if it is true (which it may well be), the fact that we cannot says nothing about what God can or cannot do.

If my idea is in error then tell me when some man or woman knew who in the future would believe and be saved. As far as we know, a person might not even be alive tomorrow so no one on the earth can know whether or not that person will believe in the future.

Further, what you'll never be able to establish is that God's knowledge or lack thereof has anything to do with existing outside of time.

Then please tell me how this happened unless the LORD exists outside of time?:

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).​

Notice that the LORD ordained or appoined them to eternal life before they believed. Therefore, the LORD had to foreknow who would believe.

Let us look at this verse:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love" (Eph.1:4).​

How could the LORD have chosen some to be saved before the foundation of the world unless He had a foreknowledge of exactly who would believe?

Thanks!

 

[quip]

God created something out of nothing.

There is nothing illogical about that.

Well, at the very least it's not very sound logic....given that we've no idea how to create something out of nothing.

Can you at least admit to that?

 

[Right Divider]

Well, at the very least it's not very sound logic....given that we've no idea how to create something out of nothing.

Can you at least admit to that?

No.

Once again.... this is quip logic:

• I., quip, cannot understand it.
• Therefore, it must not be true.

That's fallacious reasoning.

 

[quip]

I have reread your post several times now and am shocked at how honest it is! I'm not easy to shock.

I hope to have more opportunity to discuss and debate with you.


<(I)>

To be honest -- again -- most of my interactions on here end up being snarky, "one-up" bickering.

It's refreshing as well to find someone who actually wants to debate instead of soap-boxing and posturing.

Send me a PM if you feel like debating a subject.

 

[quip]

No.

Once again.... this is quip logic:

• I., quip, cannot understand it.
• Therefore, it must not be true.

That's fallacious reasoning.

No, you're committing a personal, ad hom attack.

The logic goes as:

1. Mankind had no experiential (natural) reference on how "something can be made from nothing".

2. Therefore, "something made from nothing" is beyond natural human comprehension (incoherent).

3. if "something made from nothing" is beyond natural human comprehension (incoherent) then it transitions to a supernatural assertion assuming a supernatural source (God).

4. Supernatural assertions are dubious -- at best.

5. Therefore, "God creating something from nothing" is an incoherent, dubious, supernatural assertion.

 

[Right Divider]

No, you're committing an ad hom attack.

You don't even know what an "ad hon" attach is.

I'm NOT attacking you, but your FALSE reasoning.

So instead of using sound logic, you use MULTIPLE fallacious arguments.

The logic goes as:

1. Mankind had no experiential (natural) reference on how "something can be made from nothing".

So only things that mankind has a way to prove experimentally are true?

You're a materialist. No wonder you reject God.

2. Therefore, "something made from nothing" is beyond natural human comprehension (incoherent).

So you're a naturalist. No wonder you reject God.

3. if "something made from nothing" is beyond natural human comprehension (incoherent)than it remains a supernatural assertion regarding supernatural beings/actions (God).

So God communicating Himself through His Christ and His Word is "beyond natural human comprehension".

So you're a naturalist. No wonder you reject God.

4. Supernatural assertions are dubious -- at best.

Based on what? Your superior knowledge?

A materialist cannot find a materialist explanation..... ahhhh.. to bad.

5. Therefore, "God creating something from nothing" is an incoherent, dubious, supernatural assertion.

Says quip.

Once again.... this is quip logic:

• I, quip, cannot understand it.
• Therefore, it must not be true.

 

[quip]

:doh:

Okay first question: Do you understand how to make something from nothing?

If not, we're both unable to comprehend the incomprehensible. (otherwise it's comprehensible. :idea: )

 

[Right Divider]

:doh:

Okay first question: Do you understand how to make something from nothing?

Why must you or I know how to do it to make it possible for God?

If not, we're both unable to comprehend the incomprehensible. (otherwise it's comprehensible. :idea: )

Apparently, according to your logic, the Almighty Creator can only do things that you understand.

Fallacious logic dude.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

The Timelessness of God

No, you're committing a personal, ad hom attack.

The logic goes as:

1. Mankind had no experiential (natural) reference on how "something can be made from nothing".

In your opinion, how did this cosmic roller coaster start?

2. Therefore, "something made from nothing" is beyond natural human comprehension (incoherent).

Can we see "sub atomic particles" with our naked eye?

3. if "something made from nothing" is beyond natural human comprehension (incoherent) then it transitions to a supernatural assertion assuming a supernatural source (God).

God or Big Bang... Primal Matter has origin. Your take on the matter?

4. Supernatural assertions are dubious -- at best.

Supernatural refers to many things. You are employing the "god of the gaps" counter argument.

5. Therefore, "God creating something from nothing" is an incoherent, dubious, supernatural assertion.

Here, you assert "God", then suggest that God being origin of Primal matter is claiming something from nothing.

God (Your words in this statement)

Creating (Your words in this statement)

Did you not say something from something, though asserting an argument that you just contradicted?

 

[quip]

Why must you or I know how to do it to make it possible for God?

Because there's no mundane reference for any such possibilities. I could easily substitute 'God' with 'pink unicorns' to show the absurdity of the assertion.

Second question: is the statement "'Pink Unicorns' can make something from nothing" an absurd statement?

Apparently, according to your logic, the Almighty Creator can only do things that you understand.

Fallacious logic dude.

No, according to my logic...such a being can't exist.

 

[quip]

In your opinion, how did this cosmic roller coaster start?

Why assume it started at all?

Can we see "sub atomic particles" with our naked eye?

They can be measured and manipulated.

God or Big Bang... Primal Matter has origin. Your take on the matter?

Possible false dichotomy.

Supernatural refers to many things. You are employing the "god of the gaps" counter argument.

Yes, I am.

Here, you assert "God", then suggest that God being origin of Primal matter is claiming something from nothing.

God (Your words in this statement)

Creating (Your words in this statement)

Did you not say something from something, though asserting an argument that you just contradicted?

This argument infers a supernatural source/premise a.k.a. God. :idunno: How am I to reference "Godly acts" without giving Him a by-line? It doesn't follow.

 

[Right Divider]

Because there's no mundane reference for any such possibilities.

What in the world is a "mundane reference"?

I could easily substitute 'God' with 'pink unicorns' to show the absurdity of the assertion.

Go ahead and try.

Second question: is the statement "Pink Unicorns" can make something from nothing" an absurd statement?

:french:

No, according to my logic...such a being can't exist.

You seem to think that your knowledge is what determines if something is possible or not.

Your knowledge is not the standard of determining what is possible.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, you're committing a personal, ad hom attack.

The logic goes as:

1. Mankind had no experiential (natural) reference on how "something can be made from nothing".

2. Therefore, "something made from nothing" is beyond natural human comprehension (incoherent).

3. if "something made from nothing" is beyond natural human comprehension (incoherent) then it transitions to a supernatural assertion assuming a supernatural source (God).

4. Supernatural assertions are dubious -- at best.

5. Therefore, "God creating something from nothing" is an incoherent, dubious, supernatural assertion.

:doh:

Okay first question: Do you understand how to make something from nothing?

If not, we're both unable to comprehend the incomprehensible. (otherwise it's comprehensible. :idea: )

Because there's no mundane reference for any such possibilities. I could easily substitute 'God' with 'pink unicorns' to show the absurdity of the assertion.

Second question: is the statement "Pink Unicorns" can make something from nothing" an absurd statement?




No, according to my logic...such a being can't exist.

There are only three (and I will challenge you to come up with a fourth) potential origins for the universe.
Either it:
A. Created itself out of nothing
B. Always existed
C. Was brought into existence by something outside of this universe, a "supernatural creator"

It cannot be A, for a rock cannot create itself out of nothing, nor can it be B, for a fire cannot burn forever. You may recognize those reasons as alternate ways to state the first two laws of thermodynamics, which are neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed, only changed from one to the other, and entropy in a closed system always increases.

Theory A violates the first law, because it states that the universe came into existence on it's own (energy/matter created), and Theory B violates the second law, because it states that the universe has been "burning" forever, but it's not cold and dead, as it should be due to the second law stating that entropy always increases (fire burning forever).

The only remaining possibility is that the universe was created by a "supernatural creator", something outside this universe.

If you think that it's not one of these three, please provide an alternate theory that does not incorporate these.



Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Why assume it started at all?





They can be measured and manipulated.





Possible false dichotomy.





Yes, I am.



This argument infers a supernatural source/premise a.k.a. God. :idunno: How am I to reference "Godly acts" without giving Him a by-line? It doesn't follow.

I have a proposal for you. Because this OP isn't about "If" God... would you be willing to pick a side of if God is Timeless or not?

Is this sheer insanity to ask?

I will make a presumption. You believe in a universal energy that all things derive from and ultimately return to and further more, you see the universe and this energy as "one".

Am I totally off?