Eternal (lives for ever within time) — Devans99

I don't think that you define "eternal" properly here. It means without beginning or end in time. Because its boundaries are not in time, its existence extends to outside of time. So what you call "timeless", outside of time, is the logical consequent of being eternal. The eternal thing is outside of time.

Yes sorry, my original question would of been better expressed as: Is god Everlasting (within time) or Timeless (outside of time)

I can’t make sense of the mainstream view that god is everlasting - For god to be within time makes no sense - who then created time? Or alternatively a god that extends forever in both time directions seems an impossibility...

Yes sorry, my original question would of been better expressed as: Is god Everlasting (within time) or Timeless (outside of time) — Devans99

Although I don't have any specific beliefs about God, I've always liked the idea that it sees everything that has happened, is happening, or will happen all at once. I guess that's a vote for timeless. On the other hand, if God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, I don't there is any difference between being timeless or being everlasting.

I think that the predicate that makes God transcend time is that of causation. Timeless (outside of time) should simultaneously mean "time's (or any other entity's) condition".

Yes sorry, my original question would of been better expressed as: Is god Everlasting (within time) or Timeless (outside of time) — Devans99

To say god is Everlasting, would be similar to saying god is time itself. So long as there is time, there is god, and god is inseparable from time, not being allowed to be outside of time. Isn't this what we normally do with "the universe"? The universe is inseparable from time. the existence of the universe means the existence of time, and the existence of time means the existence of the universe. So if we do this with "God" as well, then in this case God becomes equated with "the universe" and we have pantheism.

In Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, if you were to travel at the speed of light, the universe would appear contracted to a point-instant. That means at the speed of light, time as we know it, which is relative to the universe, is a subset of a larger reference.

In tradition, God is light of the world; light speed, so his reference contains time, but is also before and beyond time; alpha and omega.

At the speed of light, the fabric of space-time unravels into separated threads of space and separated threads of time. This is loosely similar to old blue jeans coming apart in blue and white threads. This separation of space and time, allows one to follow a time line without the constraint of space, and or a distance line without the constraint of time.

A timeline without the constraint of space allows one to know the history of the universe at a point in time. A space line without the constraint of time allows one to be anywhere in the universe in zero time; These describe the traditional attribute of God; omniscience and omnipresent. God jives with the speed of light based on an overlap of ancient traditions and modern traditions.

I suppose my position is the opposite of yours, @Devans99. I don't understand what people mean when they talk about something or someone's being spaceless and timeless. To me, it sounds more like a buzzword to get around tricky problems that is ultimately insubstantial. If something exists, then I am inclined to position it in a location relative to our own and in saying it exists, I am already saying that it presently exists but it doesn't make sense to me what the lack of either of those ideas could entail. Perhaps what people want us to believe is that the notion of "timeless" and "spaceless" is something beyond our conception and that my arguments against its conceivability do nothing to undermine it's possibility, though I don't find that line convincing. The usual contenders for being spaceless and timeless are God and the existence of abstract ideas (like numbers and the like). I'm not a Platonist or a believer of God (at least the ones of religion), but if I were to be, I would probably conceive of them as existing within time and space in some sense.

But God existing within time and space gives us the old regression problem of who created time and space (if it were not god)?

But God existing within time and space gives us the old regression problem of who created time and space (if it were not god)? — Devans99

The act of "creating" time in itself sounds problematic since it is an action that requires time. You can't solve one logical problem with another one as if two wrongs make a right, though it would probably make for some interesting poetry.

- Eternal (lives for ever within time)
Or
- Timeless (lives outside of time) — Devans99

Time lives forever within the eternal, and the eternal lives forever within time. Eternity is the timeless completion of temporality. "Time is the moving image of eternity". Plato

God said we had more important things to worry about than whether He was timeless or eternal. Based on His infinite knowledge of all that will come to be, He recommended we worry about global warming, population, and our individually short shelf lives. Which, he added, will get a lot shorter if we aren't careful.

I think that this is one of those "the question is wrong" type of questions. There are just so many premises and conceptualisations of power, potential, time, intention and other things to be even able to frame this question.

This reminds me of the question: "What is the difference between a duck?"

How do we get to questions such as these?

the act of creation of TIME does not require TIME.

Why is there anything at all instead of just nothingness? For anything to exist at all, causality must of been violated (unmoved mover) and causality is a feature of time.

So assuming time was created, whilst giving another paradox, it does move the discussion forward and it has the advantage that this view is compatibile with Big Bang cosmology.

the act of creation of TIME does not require TIME. — Devans99

Not sure what "creation" could mean here since I've always understood it in a manner that involves time. Same with "causality". God is sometimes said to "cause" time as well but to stand in a cause effect relation one must stand "before" the other.

Why is there anything at all instead of just nothingness? For anything to exist at all, causality must of been violated (unmoved mover) and causality is a feature of time. — Devans99

The existence of the universe doesn't require an unmoved mover. Things could've always been. I don't see anything wrong with that.

“Things could’ve always been” - what created the things then? How can they exist at all? Way back in time, each thing must of had a cause or are you implying an infinitely long history of cause and effect? Infinity is a mathematical not physical concept so invoking it when discussing the universe is questionable.

“Things could’ve always been” - what created the things then? — Devans99

Nothing. That's the idea.

How can they exist at all? — Devans99

Is there any reason to believe that they can't exist? I see nothing to preclude the idea or require the introduction of a first event.

@Janus
A reply of yours has been posted to The Philosophy Forum Facebook page.
Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution.

An explanation that posits the existence of objects without explaining where the objects came from is not complete.

I’d also argue if we give any of these objects a mind then it has an infinite personal history which is impossible.

In addition, those objects require motion to achieve anything useful. What imparted the first motion to be one of these objects?

You are still invoking infinity in the time dimension when talking about the physical universe; it leads to paradoxical problems like everything that can exist must of existed and we should all be Bolzman brains...

Thanks Tiff, that's nice to hear. :smile:

An explanation that posits the existence of objects without explaining where the objects came from is not complete. — Devans99

Does there need to be an explanation? That's what needs to be justified isn't it?

I’d also argue if we give any of these objects a mind then it has an infinite personal history which is impossible. — Devans99

You keep saying these things are impossible without giving a solid reason as to why. Until you do, then I can only assume you have none and this discussion can't really go forward.

In addition, those objects require motion to achieve anything useful. What imparted the first motion to be one of these objects? — Devans99

There is no first motion as there is no creator. You have to stop thinking about things in terms of fundamental level. That's the idea.

You are still invoking infinity in the time dimension when talking about the physical universe; it leads to paradoxical problems like everything that can exist must of existed and we should all be Bolzman brains... — Devans99

Having an infinite amount of time doesn't entail that possibilities become necessities. That is based upon a faulty application of probability to infinities. You can flip a coin an infinite number of times and they can all turn up heads, for example, despite tails being a possible outcome in every coin flip. But anyways, even if everything that can exist must exist given an infinite time, then that doesn't sound like a problem in itself or paradoxical in any way.

As for your idea of Boltzmann Brains, I don't understand where you're coming from with that, specifically how it would entail a paradox that makes a beginning-less universe impossible.

“An explanation that posits the existence of objects without explaining where the objects came from is not complete.”
“Does there need to be an explanation? That's what needs to be justified isn't it?”

So your argument for the creation of the universe was a random arrangement of particles formed into the critical mass needed to trigger the Big Bang? The observable universe is 10^53 kg of particles that’s awful lot. If random formation was the cause we should expect to be living in a much smaller universe.

Then the fact that the universe appears fine tuned for life requires, under your explanation, not only a statistically unlikely random arrangement of matter but also a fortuitous set of physical laws and constants; which all of science tell us are time and space invariant.

This reminds me of the question: "What is the difference between a duck?" — angslan

That was a joke one of my schoolfriends told me back in about 1975. His answer was
'One of its legs is both the same'
I found it hilarious no matter how many times I recalled it.

Have you heard that answer - or a different answer? I've always wondered whether my friend made up the question (it seems not) or the answer.

I hadn't heard that one before. I googled it and found this;

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/349137-anti-joke-what-is-the-difference-between-a-duck/

One of the posters there claims to have invented the joke in 1969.

Thats rather defeatist attitude. Do you not keep abreast of science?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

God would be eternal to us but timeless to himself. We use clocks, God does not.

Did you mean to reply to somebody else? I can't see the connection between an absurdist joke about a duck and the old canard about fine tuning.

I can't see the connection between an absurdist joke about a duck and the old canard about fine tuning. — andrewk

Didn't you mean to say "the old mallard"?

I have definitely heard this as an absurdist joke rather than as a Zen koan.

I guess my point is - the question in the joke is nonsense, and the answer is nonsense. It would take quite some theorising to put together a group of concepts to suggest that there is a meaningful answer, and the answer is going to be wholly determined by the premises that you bring to it. We can certainly ask if God is timeless or eternal, but first we have to have determine what God is, what timelessness and eternity are, and so forth. And by the time we've done this we are so far away from wherever we started that the entire question and answer are just abstract, fictional constructs that don't tell us anything except how creative we can be.

It reminds me of the 'orange juice seat'. There is a linguistics discussion in which it is questioned whether the phrase 'orange juice seat' can be meaningful. Given context, it can: if there are three seats at which apple juice has been served and one at which orange juice has been served, we can identify this seat with the phrase 'orange juice seat'. So it can be meaningful, and so ca, probably, any phrase be meaningful. But the entire context that makes them meaningful has to be supplied and doesn't tell us anything much about the world or how it works.

So I guess where I'm going is - why do we think that this is a meaningful question?

And by the time we've done this we are so far away from wherever we started that the entire question and answer are just abstract, fictional constructs that don't tell us anything except how creative we can be. — angslan

So long as an eternity hasn't passed we should be doing fine. To deny the question as meaningful, as you are doing is what is a fictional construct. Just because you have no interest in this type of question doesn't mean that it is not an important question.

So I guess where I'm going is - why do we think that this is a meaningful question? — angslan

The inquiry is into the relationship between existence and time, "God" signifying the source of existence. A multitude of questions arise, as is evident from the op, one being whether time is necessary for existence, or can there be existence without time..

To deny the question as meaningful, as you are doing is what is a fictional construct. Just because you have no interest in this type of question doesn't mean that it is not an important question. — Metaphysician Undercover

Honestly, I hate this type of response. This language in this response suggests (a) the question is meaningful, (b) I know it, (c) I publicly state that it is not because (d) I have no interest in it.

I am interested enough to have replied for the first time in two years. What your response doesn't tell me is why it is meaningful.

You've provided a set of starting points for the conceptualisations of these ideas, but that doesn't tell me much about how or why we think these are meaningful enough and accurate enough to be able to phrase this question and answer it.

For instance: is the unfinished business of ghosts borne out of situatedness or virtue?