Pomp

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas,

How is 'God is outside time' a 'contradiction of Scripture'?

I'd suggest that it is a contradiction of a plain reading of Scripture, which consistently uses tensed language to describe Yahweh's existence and actions. You, of course, will argue that this is merely the translation of Yahweh's hyperdimensional qualities into language that makes sense to we four-dimensional beings, but I don't see where the evidence for such an interpretation is. As Rim points out, it sure looks ad hoc from over here.

But, as I've said, you're free to define your god-concept any way you desire.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Pompous,


Graci.


SOMMS

sandlewood

I’ve never really seen how the words “outside of time” mean anything. How does anyone know such a thing is possible or makes sense? To begin with, using the word “outside” is the start of an assumption already, as if those things experiencing time were inside a kind of fishbowl and all else was outside of the fishbowl looking in. I have always suspected that there is really no such thing as time, only change. If that is true, then what is claimed is that God is changeless. He isn’t really outside of anything or non-subject to anything, he is simply changeless. But what does this really mean? What does it mean for a conscious being, a being with thoughts, to be changeless? Theists speak the words, but I don’t think they really know what it means. It’s just a way to escape argument. If God was outside of time, then everything he intended to accomplish is already existent. Everyone who is going to get into heaven and worship God is, from God’s point of view, already there worshipping him. His goal, or plan, is instantly accomplished as soon as he conceives of it, since he is timeless and omnipotent. The concept of goals or plans should be meaningless for a timeless, omnipotent being. In fact, why would God bother to create time at all? What a waste of time that would be! Why not just create the final state that he wants, which is everyone in Heaven worshipping God? To answer these questions by saying “well, we are too limited to understand what it is like to be a timeless God” does not solve anything. It only means that you do not really know what it is you believe in. You are an agnostic theist. And as was said, the Bible is full of instances of God seemingly changing. So where did the idea and the justification for God being outside of time come from?

I think this is yet another case of theists merely attempting to provide a consistent explanation of how a god might exist. But this is not enough. It does not go anywhere to show that such a being does exist. In science, this would be nothing more than a hypothesis. Theists seem to think that all they need to do is explain how God might possibly exist, and therefore he does exist. Not at all. If someone claims that God is outside of time, they can’t just claim it. They have to show that he really exists and is outside of time.

I think Flatland analogies can only go so far. For one thing, I don’t think anything can actually exist if it has only two dimensions. (Though perhaps someone can prove me wrong here) So to talk about 2-dimensional things is groundless. You will hear people say that the 2-dimensional beings of Flatland cannot see us 3-dimensional beings. But how could they know that? What being with perception ability could possibly exist as 2-dimensional? A 2-dimensional object is not merely very thin. Rather, it has zero depth. Other than by mathematical speculation, is there any reason to believe that anything could exist with any number of graphical dimensions other than three? Not that I know of.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]</p>

GunnerJ

Pity me SOMMS, for while I've been toiling away at work all day, PB has once again picked up the check for me. Just one question: can your failure to respond to anything other than the small portion of my post you quoted be taken as a concesion?

tronvillain

Personally, I have no problem with the "God exists outside of time" position if correctly formulated.

tronvillain

Theli:
The present could potentially be analagous to a point moving along a line at some rate, but that require the existence of some sort of meta-time. Of course, this just pushes the problem back a step without solving it.

In other words, since you have specified the past as unchangeable and the future as unclear, the only point in time at which God can intervene is the present. Of course, neither of those things follows from the existence of a moving presence. With the existence of a meta-time, which a moving present requires, a being outside of time could logically alter the past (actually, a being within time could as well as long as the alterations eventually produced that being to make the alterations).

Theli

Tronvillain...

I'm not familiar with the term "meta-time". Could you explain this?

But, in doing so it would erase all events from the point he interviened until "our present".
Time had to start over (so to speak) in order to follow the changes made by that being.

Also, if god had no time, his change in the past would happen simultanius as the creation of the universe and should not count as "altering the past".
Of course his actions in a certain point in time would require that he knew everything that would happen before that event (before it even happened). If he wanted to talk to a human that human cannot have free will, if he did it would be like (for the human) talking to a videotaped message.
That's the problem with prophecies. If you know that you will be run over by a car 3 days from now, there is a bilion ways for you to prevent it.

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Rimstalker,
In all honesty...I quit reading it after the third insult.


Work is hectic and I can only read and respond to 2 or 3 posts a day if I'm lucky. If a post displays too much emotional baggage...it's simply not worth my time.


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

GunnerJ

An obvious an demonstrateable lie; the portion of my post you actually replied to came after (at least) the fifth insult. If you need to come up with cop-outs to evade my arguments, fine, but at least have the courtesy to make them plausible.

One imagines SOMMS being visited by an alien...

(A spaceship lands outside SOMMS' house, and SOMMS goes out to meet it. Out of the hatchway comes a tall, gray-green being wearing a long gold robe.)

The aliens says: "Satan Oscillate My Metalic Sontas?"

SOMMS replies: "Yes?"

Alien: You're a jerk. A total knee-biter.

SOMMS: There's obviously too much emotional baggage here. I will continue to disavow the existance of aliens.

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]</p>

tronvillain

Theli:
If you propose that the present is moving forward in time like a point along a line, then you wish to treat time as a spatial dimension. In order for the present to be said to move in a spatial dimension, a meta-time (analagous to our time, but for four dimensions rather than three) must be proposed to solve the rate problem.

No, that doesn't follow from the existence of a moving present, which is not a logical necessity in any case. Intervening at a point in the past could simply instantly alter all events between that point the the present. On the other hand, as you point out, it could also simply reset the present to that point.

God being external to time does not imply that all of God's experiences are simultaneous, merely that all existing moments in time will be simultaneous. While from God's perspective both 1879 and the big bang will exist comparable to points on a line, altering anything before the present will count as "altering the past" from the perspective of the present.

Actually, it would be more interactive than that, since intervening at any point in time will alter all subsequent points. If God talked to a human being, that humans behavior will be altered accordingly, which is the only coherent definition of free will I've ever seen.

If a being outside of time tells you that you will be run over by a car three days from now, it may be that there is no way for you to prevent it. It may be that being told you will be run over by a car three days from now is a key event in the causal chain that results in you being run over.