Ted Hoffman

This question is adressed to those who believe that the "first cause" did not require time - and therefore is constant (does not change).
I read the following argument from LinuxPup (Linux Puppy?)
I hope this thread will be focused on time and being.

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>

Tercel

The theories of relativity suggest that time is similar to physical dimensions and is thus a property of the universe (or "space-time" as it's sometimes called) and not an overarching metaphysical construct.
(Also, orthodox Christian doctrine tells us that God is timeless, or at least not in time as we know it - although I doubt you'd find that point persuasive! )

I would agree with LinuxPup and say that I think causality is more basic than time: Rather than causality requiring time to work, I would suggest that time requires causality. Kenny did an interesting defense of this position in the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000009&p=" target="_blank">God's long countdown thread</a>

Tercel

xoc

Hello jaliet;

I'm not going to make a very thorough response here, worthy a question as it obviously is, but I'd at least like to express another notion of God and Time that was expressed by astronomer and apologist Hugh Ross. His view is contrary to the "timelessness" of God view and instead opts for the timefulness of God.

Unfortunately I don't have the book where he expressed these views handy(a library book) but I'll try and at least produce a thumbnail sketch of it as I recall it.

Basically there is the view that God exists in multiple dimensions of Time rather than outside of one dimension of Time. Or perhaps it is better to say that God is eternal and time-minded. What greater "timefulness" allows is movement and action when and where the lesser "timeful" beings are still. If we hypothetically "freeze" a moment in time, and allow a person to walk through this frozen scene, (ala Twilight Zone fame) we have to ask: who is the timeful and who is the timeless in this state? The person that is able to move in their own line of time, perpendicular to the "normal" time could be said to be timeful. The people that are "frozen" in time could then be said to be timeless. If a person could move in multiple dimensions of time as he chose, he would be more powerful than those who are "forced" to follow one stream of time. The person that could move in/through "Time" at will would still have a personal timeline(the conscious life) but would not be restrained or limited by Time in the normal sense.

Basically we come to the notion of time in it's relationship to us and what it means. For the human, time is both a constraining element and an empowering force. We can't do what we'd like because we don't have enough time; and we are able to do anything at all because we [b]do[/i] have time to do it; we need time for motion and action it seems. So if we conceive of time as the "empowering" force, although with a certain unattractive Dictation (unlike space time decrees "things go this way", not allowing backward movement) it may make sense to consider God to be perfectly Timeful rather than Timeless. That is when we conceive of Time as an element of the volitional being rather than a law of the Universe; and when we allow "multiple time" dimensions instead of the one "time" we know it is easy to imagine how any being who had dimensional capacity in other "time" dimensions would not be less powerful but more powerful than "one-timers." He has the power that the producer has over the film. He can exist with the "movie people" in time, then stop it and rewind it on another "dimensional level" (analogously) and it would never be noticeable to the "movie people."

To qualify this again, in the analogy of the taping of a film, the director "transforms" time into space. Events that happened in real-time are put on tape, and then there exists the power to manipulate it; the turning of the reels causes the lesser time which can be stopped, fastforwarded etc. without any effect to the content. The power is making time spacelike, being able to go either direction within it just like we can go west or east freely. The significant difference between time and space as dimensions is time's arrow; not being under that command allows for incredable power, obviously.

There's a lot more that could be said about this, but that'll do for now. I'll try and expand or redefine this view if neccesary.

Draygomb

Time is the measure of change so anything that changes is bound to time. Therefore anything that doesn't have time is unchangeable.

xoc

Time is a measure and medium of change, likewise true of movement, and is the quantitative measurement of (biological)life. But if we envision a perfect cube moving through space/time(in relation to some framework), we can say that it has movement but that does not mean it has changed in essence. The doctrine of God's "unchangableness" does not refer to lack of motion, or lack of action, it simply means that God does not change in essence, power, etc. over time.

Ted Hoffman

Tercel
Do the theories of relativity tell us that there is something outside the universe? Something like God?

Do they indicate that time exists in our universe because there are certain properties that our universe has that makes it possible for time to exist ONLY in our universe?

"overreaching metaphysical construct"? what does that mean?
As for Gods long countdown, thanks for the link, Its long and soon as I am through, I will give a response on what I think of it.

DrayGomb and xoc, I will respond to your posts soon.

Theli

Transcend time?
I'm sorry, but this is the worst excuse I've heard yet. If someone would find solid proof of god's nonexistance, would you say "god transcends proofs" also?

By saying "god CAN exist if he's above this and that" doesn't really increase he's credibility. Of course ANYTHING can exist if you push it hard enough. Further, and further into the unknown. Whereever no real knowledge exists, except for speculations, there god can exist. But that space is getting smaller by the minut.

If you are going to prove god's existance, then show why god is NEEDED for the universe to exist.

Datheron

Jaliet,

I think what Tercel meant was that time is indeed an exclusive property of our Universe, and there is no "overarching time" outside of our Universe to make it possible to apply our temporal minds/equations. Are there certain properties that the Universe holds that make it special enough to be the only realm with time? Hmm...I'll let Tercel answer that one.

But I agree with you against Tercel in trying to claim a non-sequitur - that is, why does causality transcend beyond time?

Amos

God is not needed for the universe to exist but is needed for you to exist. The universe has no existence but is just space for you to exist and the same is true with time. Time does not exist but is just a measure of duration for you to find existence. Eternity does not have time but is suspended in time or within the flux of change. To observe the element of time we must step outside ot eternity or step outside the flux of change (or stream of consciousness) to extract time from eternity.

To transcend time is to transcend human understanding and to do this we must become an integral part of this stream of consciousness. It is in here that we have eternal life.

Amos

Theli

123321

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>