wordsmyth

This thread is a continuation of a tangential argument started in the thread Omniscience, Salvation and Free Will

You will find that most atheists will object to this definition because it also assumes the existence of God or gods. A more proper definition would be… “one who lacks belief in God or gods”. The difference is subtle but important.

Yes, as I’ve already pointed out, the definition of atheist you provided does indeed assume the existence of God or gods. The key word in that assumption is “denies”, but “disbelieves” is also a poor choice to use in the definition of atheist. Hopefully now that I’ve pointed this out you can see it.

Sure it does. It is simply an abstract concept like truth or justice. You do realize there are definitions for eternal other than outside of time, right? I provide a few below, so keep reading.

The notion of God(s) is unnecessary to define eternal. In fact most of the definitions given for eternal are absent any mention of God(s).

1.) Continuing without interruption; perpetual
2.) Forever true or changeless; eternal truths
3.) Seemingly endless; interminable

Eternal

I’m aware of the standard apologetics, but that doesn’t mean it is coherent. What I’m trying to get from you isn’t a link or quote of the standard apologetics response which I’ve heard and read before, but a more coherent explanation. I need a coherent explanation of how to get from one state to another without time.

If I took everything at face value without question I would be a theist.
Absolutely. Why couldn’t it? It simply means that at some point in the infinite expanse of time, the big bang took place. From our perspective, that point was approximately 15 billion years ago.

15 Billion years ago from our perspective. Infinite time does not preclude the big bang from happening and if you are looking for an explanation beyond the big bang, then I'm afraid there isn't one yet, so the answer isn't necessarily dependent on time being finite. Please explain why the big bang could not have occured at some point within an infinite amount of time.

In a timeless state we cannot get from t=0 to t=1, because that implies that time already exists. Changing states requires time, so to get from a state of no universe to a state of universe requires time. This is logical and below you state that God is subject to logic. As I've said before, time is a requirement of changing states, so a timeless state is unchanging because it is incapable of changing.

Please elucidate me, because I think it solves more problems than it introduces, though admittedly I’m no physicist.
I understand that you cannot have an infinite regress when you are dealing with finite time. However, it would be perfectly possible to have an infinite regress within an infinite amount of time.
Time being a requirement of changing states is logical, so if god is subject to logic, then time must be a requirement for him to change from one state to another.
To pass from one state to another requires time. Again I will use the analogy of two frames of film. In one frame we see no angelic beings, in the next we see angelic beings. To get from one state to the next requires some modicum of time. If, as you assert, God created the angels outside of time, then they too would be outside of time and thus eternal, but if the angels are eternal that means they have no beginning and thus God could not have created them. The same problem holds true for the universe if God created it outside of time as you assert.

Neo flies in the real world too. Remember the Nebuchadnezzer? Seriously though, the Matrix is a fictional place, so if you are willing to concede that God and his domain are fictional, I will stipulate that the rules of our universe do not apply to God just as the rules of our universe do not apply to Neo.
I’ve already explained, multiple times, why this isn’t logically possible. You cannot get from T=0 to T=1 without adding the 1. If there is nothing (i.e. no time) to add, then you can never get from T=0 to T=1. You are trying to go from 0 to 1 without adding 1.
If you have an empty basket and you want to put an apple into that basket, then it requires that at least one apple exists. If apples do not exist, then you can never put one into that basket. You cannot get from zero apples to one apple without an apple. Similarly, you cannot get from T=0 (no time) to T=1 (time) without adding the 1, which means it must already exist, which means there was no T=0. I may not be a physicist, but I do understand basic math fairly well.

Time is like a bridge that connects states. Without that bridge you are stuck forever in one state. If we assume God created the universe, then there must have been a state in which the universe did not exist and apparently (from all observations) there is another state in which it does exist. To get from one state to the other requires the bridge that is time. The only other possibility is that there existed a single state in which there was both a universe and no universe, which goes back to your square circle analogy of something God cannot do because it is illogical.
Sure, and I also agree that the universe began at a point in time. As I’ve already said, I do not believe the universe could begin out of time. So I fail to see how this bolsters your argument.
I’m looking at the passage you posted and I don’t see the words instantaneously or developed anywhere. What I do see is the word beginning, which all by itself implies time. Without time, the word beginning in this context is meaningless. It also fails to explain why God took 6 days developing things, when he could have done it all in no time as you assert.

pariah

like to elaborate on this and what follows for you...stephen hawking, among other scientists, have created a theory (supported by hubble telescope evidence and other things) that (UBER simplified version) the universe came from a "box" where time did not exist. wave functions....its complicated. poitn being, this is the explanation you are looking for.

haverbob

I know precisely what you are talking about and it seems reasonable from the common sense perspective. Yes a clock ticks, memories build....). What alot of theists are not aware of is what the scriptures really mean in terms of timelessness. Consider two words, Everlasting and eternal. Everlasting means what it says "lasting forever", it has a beginning but has no end. The common interpretation for eternal means "no beginning or no end, outside of time, or timeless", however, I think the scriptures were actually talking about something much more abstract when they mentioned "eternal".

Consider the statement "there is no such thing as the past nor the future, there is only the present moment which goes on and on and on.... (forget which book that was from). Sure, I guess there is a past, but if you think real hard about it, the past is nothing more than memories. It's not actually reality, only the present moment is reality. Sure you can pull out a newspaper from 1960 and say the past is real, but even in 1960, the author wrote that stuff from memories, not in the present moment. The past is a concept that we make up, it's not true reality. The future is something we make up in our heads as well. You may say "wrong, the future is reality as well, it just hasn't gotten here yet". Okay, so when it gets here, what's it going to be? It's going to be the present moment, not the future and usually it ends up being alot different than the future that we made up in our heads.

This whole "and the kingdom is here" or "and the kingdom is now" was supposed to mean living moment to moment in the present moment and not carrying the past we create nor the future we create with us in the present moment because they serve to share or partially block the present moment.

Only when the present moment is unblocked do we truly get in touch with reality and some would say that this is where God is found. But someone would have to live that way before they can say that this is where God is found or not and that's very difficult to do when one has been taught otherwise for so many years.

Please don't confuse "living in the present moment" with "living day by day" or "live for today" Those two phrases have to do with time. The word "moment" does not have to do with time, otherwise we could determine how long a moment lasts like we can with second, hour, day.... Eternal means outside of time "eternal life", "eternal damnation" and the present moment is eternal (or outside of time) as well for reasons given. Hence, when we live moment to moment in the clear, non blocked or shared, present moment, we are living eternal (or timeless) lives, "eternal life". When we carry the past and future with us into our present moments, we are damning eternity, living in time. Thus "eternal damnation".

I know this sounds crazy. I probably had to be told this a hundred times before I saw the alternate angle to these words and the light bulb went off. I'll bet you I get more arguments about this from theists then I will atheists. We'll see.

wordsmyth

I have read a bit of Stephen Hawking's work, specifically A Brief History of Time and The Universe in a Nutshell. In the book A Brief History of Time, Hawking posited what he termed imaginary time as that which was before the big bang.

I've read that many physicists believe that time began during the big bang, but I've never seen an explanation as to why they believe that or how it is even possible given our common sense understanding of the way time functions.