It's a matter of time. Time and Matter: Substantivalism vs Relationism

[HeirofSalvation]

In Genesis we have 'duration' prior to the reference of metered time so, there was duration prior to the celestial objects that were created 'for signs' a la 'metering'.

This would be my first place of disagreement: The "problem" with time, is that any workable definition is circular by default. Look at your definition here: which is a good one

It can be said that time is the 'distance' between two events.

You see that even your definition assumes time? However, to say there was "duration" in Genesis prior to those celestial objects meant to be our reference points is merely to say there was "time" already. I respectfully disagree.

We also cannot confuse a thing itself with our capacity to measure that same thing. The ability to measure time is not synonymous with what time itself IS.

I think if we study Genesis (specifically chapter 1) very deeply, we can conclude quite reasonably that Time, Space, and Matter are a part of the initial creative decree. Genesis 1:1 reasonably can be understood to imply this.

In much the same way, I do not believe that distance is a created thing. It can be said that distance is the 'time' between two objects. The act of spanning between the two objects gives the sensation of motion. The fact that we actually have the two objects I'm referring to is all that is required for us to appreciate the idea of distance and motion. Since we have the two objects, what results concomitantly is 'relation' and the relation is understood as 'distance', ie. space.

While it would be more difficult to demonstrate Biblically my contention that Time was a part of the initial creative decree...it is perhaps much easier to demonstrate that "Space" is...Again if you study Genesis 1 in detail....I think you will definitely see that Space is indeed a created thing. Henry Morris' book "The Genesis Record" is very informative about this. The "Heavens" themself does not refer to celestial objects in space, but rather Space or an "Expanse" itself. Similarly, the "firmament" described in 1:7 we are told is synonymous with "heaven" according to verse 8...a firmament is a space....a firmament is a "heaven" and God "created" them. The celestial bodies were created after the "beginning" and were put INTO space or Heaven...

Probably, the main reason many refuse to believe that God has always existed in "Time" is because it creates too many problems...Infinity-of ANY sort, an actual infinite, created by a continuing succession of events, such as what time would be, is a self-contradictory and absurd notion. An actual infinite is simply logically absurd. You cannot (I think) have the Deity existing...infinitely in a previous state of time. If God has existed FROM an Eternity PAST and will exist FOR or TO an eternal future, we have some obvious problems to any who will consider them. I disagree with those who IMO unwarrantedly assume that when the Scriptures speak of God having always existed "from everlasting to everlasting" it must be referring to an infinite state of prior time. I do not think that "Eternity" is properly understood as a reference to time. I think that is an unwarranted assumption.

It is perfectly reasonable IMO to have God simply being unaffected whatsoever, at least in his fundamental essence, by time.

 

[HankD]

In the beginning...

Eternity has no beginning or end.

"In the beginning God created..." therefore has to be understood as

In the beginning (of time) God (out of eternity) created...

The creation of time was therefore His first act of creation.

Out of it came the space-matter relationship and all life in six sidereal days as a result of a direct act of His will and word (Let there be...).

the heavens - space
and the earth - matter

This of course is my opinion.

And everybody is entitled to my opinion.



HankD

 

[HeirofSalvation]

In the beginning...

Eternity has no beginning or end.

"In the beginning God created..." therefore has to be understood as

In the beginning (of time) God (out of eternity) created...

The creation of time was therefore His first act of creation.

Out of it came the space-matter relationship and all life in six sidereal days as a result of a direct act of His will and word (Let there be...).

the heavens - space
and the earth - matter

This of course is my opinion.

And everybody is entitled to my opinion.

:thumbsup::wavey:

 

[freeatlast]

In the beginning...

Eternity has no beginning or end.

"In the beginning God created..." therefore has to be understood as

In the beginning (of time) God (out of eternity) created...

The creation of time was therefore His first act of creation.

Out of it came the space-matter relationship and all life in six sidereal days as a result of a direct act of His will and word (Let there be...).

the heavens - space
and the earth - matter

This of course is my opinion.

And everybody is entitled to my opinion.



HankD

Hank I don't believe that the creation is the beginning of time, but the beginning of the physical creation. The creation account is not about the creation of time, but the creation of everything physical. Time has always been since God has always been. If you notice in the account in Gen. time is counted the same way on the 1 day when there is no sun, stars and all in that is in the heavens as it is on the 6th day after everything is created. In other words on the first day when there was no sun for an earth to go around there was still time being counted. The evening and the morning was the first day.
That means time has always been, and that He created only the system that we use to determined how to calculate that time, not time itself. Time is any period where someone or something exists. God has always been so time has always been. I would agree that the temporal counting or accounting for time may not have always been, but time has always been.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

There was no Sun...but there was Light for "evening and morning"...The celestial bodies are being (incorrectly I think) suggested to be the measure of time itself...but they are for "signs and seasons" not so much the calculation of time itself.

Unless time (or temporality) is thought to be somehow a fundamental property of God's essential being...it does not follow that simply because God exists that time exists. There seems to be some latent Platonism here....namely, that there are necessary things such as properties or time which exist and exist necessarily...I maintain only God exists necessarily.

 

[freeatlast]

There was no Sun...but there was Light for "evening and morning"...The celestial bodies are being (incorrectly I think) suggested to be the measure of time itself...but they are for "signs and seasons" not so much the calculation of time itself.

Unless time (or temporality) is thought to be somehow a fundamental property of God's essential being...it does not follow that simply because God exists that time exists. There seems to be some latent Platonism here....namely, that there are necessary things such as properties or time which exist and exist necessarily...I maintain only God exists necessarily.

OK please explain what is involved in no time?

 

[Cypress]

There was no Sun...but there was Light for "evening and morning"...The celestial bodies are being (incorrectly I think) suggested to be the measure of time itself...but they are for "signs and seasons" not so much the calculation of time itself.

Unless time (or temporality) is thought to be somehow a fundamental property of God's essential being...it does not follow that simply because God exists that time exists. There seems to be some latent Platonism here....namely, that there are necessary things such as properties or time which exist and exist necessarily...I maintain only God exists necessarily.

HT agrees with the premise that time is a property of Gods essential being. btw, so do I.

 

[HankD]

Hank I don't believe that the creation is the beginning of time, but the beginning of the physical creation. The creation account is not about the creation of time, but the creation of everything physical. Time has always been since God has always been. If you notice in the account in Gen. time is counted the same way on the 1 day when there is no sun, stars and all in that is in the heavens as it is on the 6th day after everything is created. In other words on the first day when there was no sun for an earth to go around there was still time being counted. The evening and the morning was the first day.
That means time has always been, and that He created only the system that we use to determined how to calculate that time, not time itself. Time is any period where someone or something exists. God has always been so time has always been. I would agree that the temporal counting or accounting for time may not have always been, but time has always been.

Not a problematic difference. You may very well be correct.

I'm sure threre is much to be learned about our Father's creation that we will understand when we are with Him after the resurrection.

For now we do the best we can to understand His glory as reflected in His creation.

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.​

Psalm 97:6 The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory.​

HankD

 

[HeirofSalvation]

HT agrees with the premise that time is a property of Gods essential being. btw, so do I.

I haven't heard him say as much, but that would make sense. I don't agree with it, but that is valid enough IMO. I think it utterly non-sense to think that "time" would exist a se, which is basically the claim unless it were. It is a "Neo-Platonism" which I would wish to avoid more than anything. I couldn't stomach a belief in "time" as an ontologically real "thing" unless it WERE somehow a fundamental facet or property of God's being. You and HT are not in an altogether bad camp! Isaac Newton believed as you do. He posited a sort of "real" or "actual" time which was relegated to time as God experienced it, and a "relative" time as we humans do. I think he was wrong...but it isn't foolishness.

 

[Yeshua1]

I haven't heard him say as much, but that would make sense. I don't agree with it, but that is valid enough IMO. I think it utterly non-sense to think that "time" would exist a se, which is basically the claim unless it were. It is a "Neo-Platonism" which I would wish to avoid more than anything. I couldn't stomach a belief in "time" as an ontologically real "thing" unless it WERE somehow a fundamental facet or property of God's being. You and HT are not in an altogether bad camp! Isaac Newton believed as you do. He posited a sort of "real" or "actual" time which was relegated to time as God experienced it, and a "relative" time as we humans do. I think he was wrong...but it isn't foolishness.

Think the point is what do we xonsider as being eternal? Bible Says God is ONLY self existent being, ALL other things created by Him...

IF Time existed eternally, so would space, so how can they also be created by Him for His use?

Wouldn't he be seen thus as being bound and confined by thsoe concepts time/space etc then?

 

[freeatlast]

Think the point is what do we xonsider as being eternal? Bible Says God is ONLY self existent being, ALL other things created by Him...

IF Time existed eternally, so would space, so how can they also be created by Him for His use?

Wouldn't he be seen thus as being bound and confined by thsoe concepts time/space etc then?

Why do you relate space with time? How is there any relationship between the two as if one cannot exist without the other?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Think the point is what do we xonsider as being eternal?

This appears to be the crux of the argument...I do not define "eternal" as an infinite series of consecutive "events"... Some obviously appear to. I would maintain that God's being "eternal" is to say something more like:

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.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.

Which would, to me, suggest that at a fundamental level: "time" as a "thing" is immaterial to him, and not something to which he is, in any way, beholden.

Bible Says God is ONLY self existent being,

Certainly...but "time" is not a "being", but a "thing", and I think our noble opposition sees time as a "thing" or "property" which is entailed within who God is...I disagree. I see time as a "thing" not a "property" which might be entailed within the very essence of who or what God is...

ALL other things created by Him...IF Time existed eternally, so would space, so how can they also be created by Him for His use?

Again, I agree....I think that time and space and even matter are inextricably interrelated and are co-dependent on one another and have no objective "reality" apart from one another....our opposition thinks otherwise.

Wouldn't he be seen thus as being bound and confined by thsoe concepts time/space etc then?

That would be my contention...but not, strictly speaking, theirs....They do not, I think, see them as being separable properties from his fundamental essence or "being"....You and I might. I do not think either time, space, nor matter to be intellible without one another...I see at minimum, matter, as being ONLY something which can possibly be a part of initial creative decree, and therefore, it would follow that so are space and time....I think our noble opposition does not assume their inextricable co-dependence as I would.

 

[humblethinker]

This appears to be the crux of the argument...I do not define "eternal" as an infinite series of consecutive "events"... Some obviously appear to. I would maintain that God's being "eternal" is to say something more like:

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.

HoS, this verse you refer to compares one measure of duration to another measure of duration and what should follow in our understanding is that to an eternal or everlasting or ever enduring Being measured duration is insignificant. In the two things compared, the commonality is that there is duration and that it is the measure of the duration that is insignificant to the Eternal One, not that duration didn't exist for Him. There is no reason at all to use this verse to support a philosophical absurdity of an 'eternal now' with no possibility of duration. Do you really think the author of this proverb was trying to explain an 'eternal now' to his pupil?

God's eternality is everlasting duration, duration is is in no way betrayed in these verses but yet are established as constants and the next verse adds the supportive idea that there is a past.

Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.

Which would, to me, suggest that at a fundamental level: "time" as a "thing" is immaterial to him, and not something to which he is, in any way, beholden.

This verse tells us that regardless of the measurement of the duration, when "it is past" then it is not retrievable (just like the night watch at the rising of the sun) except in the sense that it is a memory and duration has no ebbing effect on an eternal Being, that is, He can remember and recall all of the past regardless of the duration as though it were "yesterday". And, like the verse above, this verse in no way teaches a duration-less 'eternal now'. The pupil in now way would be expected to come to such a Platonic understanding. The two things compared ("thousand years" and a "day") are both measures of duration and the point was not that duration would somehow cease to exist.

I had not seen these verses and I'm glad you presented them. Any more verses that you would like to use to support "timelessness" or an "eternal now"? I don't think they are there, the idea is at best a philosophical one not conceived in or revealed by scripture but it is surely read into it.

Certainly...but "time" is not a "being", but a "thing", and I think our noble opposition sees time as a "thing" or "property" which is entailed within who God is...I disagree.

Close enough, thanks. It is not a thing in the sense I think you mean though... It is a relation due to being (Consider, if you will, 'Parenthood'. Is it best described as a 'thing' created or as an inherent 'relation' between two things that just 'are'?). Can you elaborate on what happens when the Father relates in an action of love or giving glory to the Son or the Persons of the trinity dialog in this 'timeless' state of 'eternal now'? How is that explained? Would you say it is mystery? What is the evidence that it is 'mystery' because the evidence found in scripture and our experience supports that it is not mystery but instead 'absurdity'. Surely this "Timeless" "eternal now" does not bind God to be ever experiencing all of the evil of this world, and each evil event to be experienced in an ever present sensation for Him. It seems more reasonable to believe that yesterday's evil is no longer present, just like "yesterday is when it is past".

I see time as a "thing" not a "property" which might be entailed within the very essence of who or what God is...

Again, I agree....I think that time and space and even matter are inextricably interrelated and are co-dependent on one another and have no objective "reality" apart from one another....our opposition thinks otherwise.

That would be my contention...but not, strictly speaking, theirs....They do not, I think, see them as being separable properties from his fundamental essence or "being"....You and I might. I do not think either time, space, nor matter to be intellible without one another...I see at minimum, matter, as being ONLY something which can possibly be a part of initial creative decree, and therefore, it would follow that so are space and time....I think our noble opposition does not assume their inextricable co-dependence as I would.

Tell me, do you think an event can occur without matter existing? Does the Trinity experience events of love and glory? Jesus said that such happened before the creation. I see no reason to think that the Trinity did not experience events and nor do I see any reason to think that matter must exist for duration to exist, iow relation can exist without matter. For our experience in this universe they are bound together but prior to creation they were not. Duration and distance (time and space) only exist because of relation and due to relation they necessarily exist.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts, you just may convince me otherwise. Sometimes one can be surprised at the little thing that finally breaks the camel's back. I'm looking for it...

 

[Yeshua1]

HoS, this verse you refer to compares one measure of duration to another measure of duration and what should follow in our understanding is that to an eternal or everlasting or ever enduring Being measured duration is insignificant. In the two things compared, the commonality is that there is duration and that it is the measure of the duration that is insignificant to the Eternal One, not that duration didn't exist for Him. There is no reason at all to use this verse to support a philosophical absurdity of an 'eternal now' with no possibility of duration. Do you really think the author of this proverb was trying to explain an 'eternal now' to his pupil?

God's eternality is everlasting duration, duration is is in no way betrayed in these verses but yet are established as constants and the next verse adds the supportive idea that there is a past.

This verse tells us that regardless of the measurement of the duration, when "it is past" then it is not retrievable (just like the night watch at the rising of the sun) except in the sense that it is a memory and duration has no ebbing effect on an eternal Being, that is, He can remember and recall all of the past regardless of the duration as though it were "yesterday". And, like the verse above, this verse in no way teaches a duration-less 'eternal now'. The pupil in now way would be expected to come to such a Platonic understanding. The two things compared ("thousand years" and a "day") are both measures of duration and the point was not that duration would somehow cease to exist.

I had not seen these verses and I'm glad you presented them. Any more verses that you would like to use to support "timelessness" or an "eternal now"? I don't think they are there, the idea is at best a philosophical one not conceived in or revealed by scripture but it is surely read into it.


Close enough, thanks. It is not a thing in the sense I think you mean though... It is a relation due to being (Consider, if you will, 'Parenthood'. Is it best described as a 'thing' created or as an inherent 'relation' between two things that just 'are'?). Can you elaborate on what happens when the Father relates in an action of love or giving glory to the Son or the Persons of the trinity dialog in this 'timeless' state of 'eternal now'? How is that explained? Would you say it is mystery? What is the evidence that it is 'mystery' because the evidence found in scripture and our experience supports that it is not mystery but instead 'absurdity'. Surely this "Timeless" "eternal now" does not bind God to be ever experiencing all of the evil of this world, and each evil event to be experienced in an ever present sensation for Him. It seems more reasonable to believe that yesterday's evil is no longer present, just like "yesterday is when it is past".


Tell me, do you think an event can occur without matter existing? Does the Trinity experience events of love and glory? Jesus said that such happened before the creation. I see no reason to think that the Trinity did not experience events and nor do I see any reason to think that matter must exist for duration to exist, iow relation can exist without matter. For our experience in this universe they are bound together but prior to creation they were not. Duration and distance (time and space) only exist because of relation and due to relation they necessarily exist.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts, you just may convince me otherwise. Sometimes one can be surprised at the little thing that finally breaks the camel's back. I'm looking for it...

What did God create? was Time always there as a constant? time/Space/Matter/Energy are all interdependant upon each other...

How can the Lord be eternal if there were ANY other "things' there apart from Himself BEFORE "In the beginning?"