God and Time, closing words of William Lane Craig

[dwmoeller1]

There is also this paradox:

If the series of past events is infinite, then an infinite numbers of events must elapse before the present moment could arrive.
But it is impossible for an infinite number of events to elapse.
Therefore, if the series of past events is infinite, the present moment could not arrive.
But the present moment has arrived.
Therefore the series of past events could not be infinite.
Thus God could not exist in respect to infinite time, nor could He perceive in terms of a succession of events.
Therefore God is either not eternal, or else exists outside of time (at at least did not before time began).

 

[quantumfaith]

This reveals the essential difficulty with the whole discussion. God's eternal existence is ineffable. We are time-bound and *cannot* conceive of anything that isn't time-bound. So, we both end up having to resort to what are ultimately nonsensical statements to support our position.

A classic example, is "Craig proposes for a timeless God prior to creation". "Prior to creation" is ultimately nonsensical - since time did not exist before creation, the statement "prior to creation" has no real meaning. "Prior" has no meaning outside of time, thus nothing can be "prior" to creation. Our mind, of course, rebel at such a statement even though it is perfectly true and accurate. We simply can't conceive of anything not having something "prior" to it.

So, while its obvious what one means by "God prior to creation", strictly speaking is a nonsensical statement. "Prior to creation" is as absurd as a corner of a circle or the 4th side of a triangle.

So mathematics is non-sensical when it proposes to deal with infinite limits, limits at infinity, infinitely dimensional vector spaces etc.. ??? Just because something seems (and be so) out of in intellectual capacity does not mean we should necessarily refrain from attempting to "make sense" out of it. If it were not for centuries of mathematicians attempting to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, many discoveries in mathematics would have taken longer and perhaps never have happened.

 

[quantumfaith]

There is also this paradox:

If the series of past events is infinite, then an infinite numbers of events must elapse before the present moment could arrive.
But it is impossible for an infinite number of events to elapse.
Therefore, if the series of past events is infinite, the present moment could not arrive.
But the present moment has arrived.
Therefore the series of past events could not be infinite.
Thus God could not exist in respect to infinite time, nor could He perceive in terms of a succession of events.
Therefore God is either not eternal, or else exists outside of time (at at least did not before time began).

This is precisely what Dr. Craig addresses that "tensed" time is finite from the point of creation. He logically established that it essentially a contradiction to assume time has been infinite.

 

[dwmoeller1]

This is precisely what Dr. Craig addresses that "tensed" time is finite from the point of creation. He logically established that it essentially a contradiction to assume time has been infinite.

Yes. In that I agree with him. That paradox is for those who hold that God is (and always has been) within time.

 

[ktn4eg]

I do recall Billy Graham using the expression "from the beginning of eternity."

I wonder how many years ago that took place? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[dwmoeller1]

So mathematics is non-sensical when it proposes to deal with infinite limits, limits at infinity, infinitely dimensional vector spaces etc.. ???

In what ways do these involved absurdities? Particularly of the type I point out.

A better example are the ones I give - that of using words to say things that are logical absurdities, ie. a 4 sided triangle.

Just because something seems (and be so) out of in intellectual capacity does not mean we should necessarily refrain from attempting to "make sense" out of it. If it were not for centuries of mathematicians attempting to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, many discoveries in mathematics would have taken longer and perhaps never have happened.

You are confusing what is hard to make sense of and what is logically absurd. A for sided triangle is not simply hard to make sense of, it is a logical absurdity. Something "prior" to time is not just hard to make sense of, it is a logical absurdity - there can be no prior or before a point where there is no time.

God having no beginning is hard to understand. God creating a stone which He cannot lift is a logical absurdity. God is hard to understand. A God that both exists and does not exist at the same time in the same way is a logical absurdity.

 

[quantumfaith]

In what ways do these involved absurdities? Particularly of the type I point out.

A better example are the ones I give - that of using words to say things that are logical absurdities, ie. a 4 sided triangle.



You are confusing what is hard to make sense of and what is logically absurd. A for sided triangle is not simply hard to make sense of, it is a logical absurdity. Something "prior" to time is not just hard to make sense of, it is a logical absurdity - there can be no prior or before a point where there is no time.

God having no beginning is hard to understand. God creating a stone which He cannot lift is a logical absurdity. God is hard to understand. A God that both exists and does not exist at the same time in the same way is a logical absurdity.

In essence, mathematics is much like language in that it is simply the manipulation of symbols based on rules, axioms and assumptions. Perhaps I misunderstood your point.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Perhaps I misunderstood your point.

My point is that the whole subject is ineffable (incapable of being expressed in words). Any language we use to describe some of they key concepts will not only fall short of complete explanation, but will necessarily involve making what are ultimately absurd statements. This fact needs to be recognized up front.

So, its not just that "before" creation is hard to understand, even saying the phrase "before creation" is akin to talking about a 4 sided triangle. When we say "before" creation, the phrase assumes that there was time before time existed. Or language simply cannot be used to express non-temporal concepts. Its not just hard to think about, its impossible to accurately talk about. Thus we have to allow for this in any conversation about this topic.

Really, I figured this would be a pretty basic point and easily agreed to. Maybe you thought I was saying that the fact of "prior to creation" was an absurdity or impossibility? Not at all...I am merely point out that the the phrase used to describe this concept involves a logical absurdity. Hence, we need to be careful. Even though we may say "prior to creation" to describe a concept, we need to be careful in thinking about it in those terms - after all, there is no "prior to" creation...we simply have no better way to describe the concept.

 

[asmcreations]

In 2 Pet 3:8, The bible give us an idea of God's time scale, which is very far from from our dimension. "2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." . And in revelation, He declares He even the 1st and the last means He is the time Himself which make Him influence time, not He is influence by time.

 

[dwmoeller1]

The bidirectional nature of that verse is a very strong argument for God not being bound by time. If the point were only that God perceives time differently and that long time periods don't seem so long to Him (He having existed for an infinite amount of time already), then "a thousand years is as a day" would have made the point. But Peter sees fit to include the fact that "a day is as a thousand years".

So, the conclusion one draws from this verse would not seem to be that time passes at a different rate for God, or that God perceives time differently. Instead, the most reasonable conclusion would seem to be that God is bounded by time - short and long periods of time are all the same to Him because He sits outside of time.

 

[quantumfaith]

My point is that the whole subject is ineffable (incapable of being expressed in words). Any language we use to describe some of they key concepts will not only fall short of complete explanation, but will necessarily involve making what are ultimately absurd statements. This fact needs to be recognized up front.

So, its not just that "before" creation is hard to understand, even saying the phrase "before creation" is akin to talking about a 4 sided triangle. When we say "before" creation, the phrase assumes that there was time before time existed. Or language simply cannot be used to express non-temporal concepts. Its not just hard to think about, its impossible to accurately talk about. Thus we have to allow for this in any conversation about this topic.

Really, I figured this would be a pretty basic point and easily agreed to. Maybe you thought I was saying that the fact of "prior to creation" was an absurdity or impossibility? Not at all...I am merely point out that the the phrase used to describe this concept involves a logical absurdity. Hence, we need to be careful. Even though we may say "prior to creation" to describe a concept, we need to be careful in thinking about it in those terms - after all, there is no "prior to" creation...we simply have no better way to describe the concept.

I and I think Dr. Craig, would be in agreement, and for that matter, so is a good deal of modern scientific community, that being, that "we"cannot penetrate beyond the "universal singularity" of creation. From that point it becomes utterly and completely a philosophical and speculative proposition. Which I think is the point of Dr. Craig in referring to it as being a "timeless" existence of God.

For my own edification, "WHY" do you think God "created" in the first place? I certainly hope that you do find that intellectually or spiritually "offensive".

 

[dwmoeller1]

For my own edification, "WHY" do you think God "created" in the first place? I certainly hope that you do find that intellectually or spiritually "offensive".

Because it was in accord with His nature.

 

[dwmoeller1]

So I am curious. What are the reasons given for God being temporal after creation exists?

 

[lastday]

Lastday

dwmoeller1,
I find your two most recent questions to be most interesting:

One:
For my own edification, "WHY" do you think God "created" in the first place?
I certainly hope that you do find that intellectually or spiritually "offensive".
Two:
What are the reasons given for God being temporal after creation exists?

The first points to God's plans before the very "foundation of the world".
The 2nd concerns our capacity to express a relation of time to eternity.
We grasp the answers to the first; but may never comprehend the 2nd.

That fact reveals the inability of our finite minds to even approach that of
our Creator's thoughts. The recognition of His glory has and always will express itself, time-wise, by praising Him who always "was, is and shall forever exist". But I would like an explanation for using the word "offensive" regarding your discussion of "why God created us" to begin with. Then I will respond.
Mel

 

[dwmoeller1]

But I would like an explanation for using the word "offensive" regarding your discussion of "why God created us" to begin with. Then I will respond.
Mel

That was quantumfaith's statement/question, not mine.

 

[quantumfaith]

dwmoeller1,
I find your two most recent questions to be most interesting:

The first points to God's plans before the very "foundation of the world".
The 2nd concerns our capacity to express a relation of time to eternity.
We grasp the answers to the first; but may never comprehend the 2nd.

That fact reveals the inability of our finite minds to even approach that of
our Creator's thoughts. The recognition of His glory has and always will express itself, time-wise, by praising Him who always "was, is and shall forever exist". But I would like an explanation for using the word "offensive" regarding your discussion of "why God created us" to begin with. Then I will respond.
Mel

Did not know quite which word to use, simply thought that you might find the idea of "speculation" on God's purposes as being a waste of time and effort.

 

[lastday]

Lastday

quantumfaith,
You wrote:

One:
For my own edification, "WHY" do you think God "created" in the first place?
I certainly hope that you do find that intellectually or spiritually "offensive".
Two:
What are the reasons given for God being temporal after creation exists?
Three:
On the use of "offensive", you might find the idea of "speculation" on God's purposes as being a waste of time and effort.

Our discussion is not a waste of time but exposes our failure to grasp what
God has already revealed regarding His plans that are future to us but were
formed prior to the "foundation of the world". Saints know their "names are written in the Lamb's book of Life and that He was slain
(in His eternal plan)
from the foundation of the world". Rev.13:8; Rev.17:8.

We may "speculate" on the relation of time to eternity; but we should not
question what God has revealed about those in the future who will inherit
an "eternal kingdom on earth" that is promised to King David and cannot
be fulfilled until "all men know the Lord...from the least to the greatest"!
Jesus refers to a possible 50% of mankind being "kept alive if they don't
seek to save themselves; but repent and beg for mercy at His coming"!!
He finally revealed to John that "they are blessed and will be invited as guests to His wedding supper when He comes with the called,
elect and
faithful"!!! Ezek.37:22-28; 38:23; 39:22-28; Heb.8:8-13; Rev.21:24-26.

This "literal" approach to Scripture regarding God's plans for eternity will
begin to replace speculation with reality "on the Day the Son of Man is
revealed from heaven...in flaming fire! On the Day He is glorified among
all who believe...from the least to the greatest!! These are the true
sayings of God"!!! Luke 17:30-36; 21:36; Rev.11:18; 17:14; 19:7-15.
Mel

 

[HankD]

I believe that time is the result of God's existence. Without God there would be no time.

Time had a beginning :

Genesis 1

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.​

Time will cease:

Revelation 10

5 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,
6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer.​

HankD​

 

[webdog]

Time had a beginning :

Genesis 1

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.​

Time will cease:

Revelation 10

5 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,
6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer.​

HankD​

Rev. 10:6 has been misapplied as meaning time will one day cease. The KJV's translation is not the best for that particular verse.

The ESV:
6and swore by(H) him who lives forever and ever,(I) who created heaven and what is in it, the earth and what is in it, and the sea and what is in it, that there would be no more delay,

NKJV:
6 and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and the things that are in it, the earth and the things that are in it, and the sea and the things that are in it, that there should be delay no longer,

In context it is stating the urgency or no longer waiting, not the fact time will cease to exist. Time will never cease to exist, just as we will never cease to exist and be human even after death. We are both part of God's creation.

 

[lastday]

Lastday

Webdog,
You wrote:

Rev. 10:6 has been misapplied as meaning time will one day cease.
The KJV's translation is not the best for that particular verse.

The ESV:
And swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven
and what is in it, the earth and what is in it, and the sea and what
is in it, that there would be no more delay,

I think the Mighty Angel, speaking to John, revealed the same message
as that given to Daniel regarding the "end of time"! Dan.12:4-11. It is
not a case of "either/or" but that the end of "delay" has come...meaning
with respect to the "End of Time, Times and a Half of Time"!! Daniel was told that "knowledge of the End of Time" would increase during the 1290 days that belong to completing the latter half of Daniel's 70th "7"!!!

The Mighty Angel and voice from heaven then spoke in unison that he,
John, must prophesy again about/before many peoples, nations, kings
and tongues"! Rev.10:11. That means, whether or not John returns from heaven as one of the Two Prophets, "God's mystery would be finished and the climactic countdown of their 1260 days" will climax the 3.5 Years of
Dan.7:25 and 12:7 (to which the revelation is irrevocably connected) so
as to close the countdown of "Chronos-Time"...with 3 or 4 days remaining until the "appointed Kairos-Time" comes for Christ to appear in His glory to resurrect and reward the saints and to destroy earth's destroyers!! Rev.11:18. IMO, there's no doubt about the End of Time occurring "within the (3 or 4) days of the 7th Trumpet Angel sounding that "God's wrath has come AND the exact DAY for 3 R's: Resurrection, Rewards and Retribution!!!
Mel