• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Time doesn't exist.

Derf

Well-known member
Reread, I think you'll catch your mistake.
I suppose you mean "thief", where He comes, takes, and leaves. But if He wasn't there, then was, then wasn't. The absence alone is not enough to cause the melting/atomic explosion, since He wasn't there before He was, even if He won't be there after He was. These may be two different states, but all we have there is two similar states, separated by a different state. "Not there" then "there" (comes) then "not there" again. And if He's in the first "not there" state, and we still aren't melting with fervent heat, then the latter "not there" state is not sufficient reason for everything to melt.
Does He answer prayer? Wouldn't that be considered to be manipulation?
Yes, but constant?
In such instance, if we went back to our alternating current (plugged in AC) and direct current (batteries DC), it'd be akin to getting plugged in, if we went with the hands-off thought. The issue is whether these 'hands-on' theologian are right, or the ones who say 'hands off' are correct and it boils down to how we read scripture. Reread your scripture, if it said what you thought it did, It'd have more weight.

Here is a point where we can see eye to eye: God is involved/relational to His creation, but isn't living 'in' it as best as I grasp scripture: Act 17:24 He is Spirit. Such intimates something like a different dimension and also intimates that the physical comes from Spirit which often confuses us as physical beings (Scientists thing dark-matter or matter existed always). Yet Acts 17:24 says 'in' Him.

I think pouring through these commentaries will be helpful toward your desire.
Here's the one that I gravitated toward:
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
For in him we live - The expression "in him" evidently means by him; by his originally forming us, and continually sustaining us.
But Barnes resorted to "evidentiary" meaning. So he needed some figurative leaning as well. "In" doesn't normally mean literally "forming and sustaining". It just doesn't.

Yes, but...
"How free is free?"
We are given responsibility which means independence and a bit like the AC vs. DC discussion. Relationship means 'still plugged in' to a degree, meaning my decisions are functioning only by His sustaining power.
But not solely by His sustaining power. I suppose if we are dead/blown to bits, there's no decision we can make, but while we're not in that condition, we can make decisions by the power He granted us, including to do wrong. So if He's not manipulating us to do wrong (please tell me you reject that idea), then His "sustaining power" isn't causing any decisions. We believers give Him sovereignty over our decisions if we're "plugged in" (abiding in Him). If not, then our decisions are going against His will until He decides to finally conform us to His will...by completely restricting our access to all that is good if we don't willingly conform.
A good argument for DC is that God could have pulled the plug just before Eve took the fruit, shooed the serpent from the Garden, and plugged them back in. That it doesn't go down that way suggests that DC is the better analogy. Regardless, it is how we basically grasp Acts 17:24, John 15:5 and similar verses, that informs our opinions. It is an old debate, I'm not sure we'll conclude it here, but be informed by the ongoing thoughts over these specific scriptures.

It is why I think, for present, that AC vs DC helps and works for analogy.

There is a theological need to make sense of our autonomy and also, to remember 'you are not your own, you were bought with a price'
Well, if we are not (edited) in the condition of having been bought with a price, then there was a time when we weren't in that condition. Either way, the condition is not merely always accurate in description.
as well as "We being many, form one body, and each of us belongs to all the others."
Are we talking about everybody in the body of Christ? Which would exclude those not a part of his body. So then it can't be talking about the same thing as "in Him we live and move and have our being", since that was to be universally applied to all men, believers or not.
Living in a nation with a Declaration of Independence often has us thinking of our individual God-given rights. I'm pretty independent and especially as I get older with these 'pesky kids' need to remember we are lights on a hill and supposed to be interacting for the spread of the Gospel.

I think in a continuation just above, we 'can' be independent by choice, but 'take up your cross and follow me' is a call to be 'plugged in' such that I think it is something inbetween the respective views of AC vs DC. It seems, by analogy, both AC and DC.
So if there is a "not plugged in" condition, it isn't the same subject as "in Him we live and move and have our being."
God isn't physical. Whenever I hear 'in' and scripture does use it, it isn't 'inside' as if God were a physical being. A lot of people hate mysteries, but this is one of mine, I have no idea how everything is 'in' Him. I'm not sure Panentheism from a Christian perspective does either. They certainly do not mean 'physically in.'
So I think we're in agreement. It isn't literal.
I think you'd agree with me that God certainly has manipulated your and my every decision because we 'no longer live to ourselves' as Scripture says. I'm not sure if analogy will work, but it is like we became DC. Adam and Eve were told they'd surely die and it seems the AC connection is the breaking point. It seems to me the answer, again however crude but serviceable the analogy: that we are both AC and DC. There is every sense that we recharge by the sun, by food, etc. on this planet for the sense that we have to get 'plugged in' to recharge/keep going. It seems Acts 17:24 emphasizes the 'plugged in' idea.

That is pantheism.
Ok. i get the two confused some.
I reject that as well. I also reject any idea that God is physical such that we are 'inside' of Him physically yet when those who are saying we are 'in' Him else we'd combust, they are intimating a physical idea. So, for me, we aren't 'physically' in God in that way.
Yep. Are we in God in some other way? Spiritually (including the unbelievers)? I'm not sure. So I keep leaning toward the figurative.
One day we will not have physical bodies, and will not cease to exist 'in' Christ.
Only when we're dead do we not have our "physical" bodies. Jesus was resurrected in a physical body. So shall we be, it seems.
In a nutshell, I'm not sure if the universe would fly apart, just 'how' He sustains. In Him
Ok.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Lon

Well-known member
I suppose you mean "thief", where He comes, takes, and leaves. But if He wasn't there, then was, then wasn't. The absence alone is not enough to cause the melting/atomic explosion, since He wasn't there before He was, even if He won't be there after He was. These may be two different states, but all we have there is two similar states, separated by a different state. "Not there" then "there" (comes) then "not there" again. And if He's in the first "not there" state, and we still aren't melting with fervent heat, then the latter "not there" state is not sufficient reason for everything to melt.

Yes, but constant?
As I said, perhaps a bit of AC and DC by analogy. John 15:5 is talking about being 'plugged in.' The Vine/branches analogy always means life is plugged in. Paul uses it often as in 'grafted in.'

A distinction: *Unbelievers are not 'plugged in' but in every sense that we are Christians, we negate our will against God and are subsumed by Christ, His love, His desires according to the Spirit with'in' us. "In" us is a reality, not figurative but it doesn't have to necessitate physically. We have to understand that our new life is spiritual and 'plugged in' grafted into Christ in God. Scripture often uses 'in.'
Here's the one that I gravitated toward:
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
For in him we live - The expression "in him" evidently means by him; by his originally forming us, and continually sustaining us.
But Barnes resorted to "evidentiary" meaning. So he needed some figurative leaning as well. "In" doesn't normally mean literally "forming and sustaining". It just doesn't.
Glad the link was helpful for information. "In" is literal, real, face-value but we usually are talking about physical things and envisioning physical things when we talk about being 'in.' If we are 'in' God's love, we catch that it is real, in the literal sense. We aren't meaning 'figuratively' unless what you are saying here is not 'physically' in. I'd agree if I'm catching what you are meaning. "In" means something literal but not physical. God isn't physical.
But not solely by His sustaining power. I suppose if we are dead/blown to bits, there's no decision we can make, but while we're not in that condition, we can make decisions by the power He granted us, including to do wrong. So if He's not manipulating us to do wrong (please tell me you reject that idea), then His "sustaining power" isn't causing any decisions.
Yes. This is how I'd reckon it as well and how I've understood. If we leave 'in' against any physical notion behind for a moment, these theologians can yet mean we are 'physically sustained' and that is the vast majority of the estimates you read there. Bringing back 'in' for a moment, they think AC/plugged in because so much of scripture is a command to 'abide in me.' John 15
We believers give Him sovereignty over our decisions if we're "plugged in" (abiding in Him). If not, then our decisions are going against His will until He decides to finally conform us to His will...by completely restricting our access to all that is good if we don't willingly conform.
Agree. With our without a 'cord' we are responsible for our choices and have been given the kind of 'self autonomy' you are talking about.
AMR, if you remember him, said we had a 'culpable' will. Clete is correct that such Calvinists are compatiblist/a combination of ideas different than a double-pred Calvinist. He said double-pred was heresy. I've ever been 'close' to a 5 point without going the whole way specifically because my 'limited atonement' has never been like they believe. I simply say "of course it is limited when one rejects it." They believe like Clete, because of perfect definite foreknowlge, God cannot offer to those He already knows are going to be saved, but I rather say: He causes the rain to fall on the just and unjust. The same miracles that caused Israel to trust God during plagues, caused Pharoah's heart to harden.
Well, if we are not in the condition of having been bought with a price, then there was a time when we weren't in that condition. Either way, the condition is not merely always accurate in description. Are we talking about everybody in the body of Christ? Which would exclude those not a part of his body. So then it can't be talking about the same thing as "in Him we live and move ed to and have our being", since that was to be universally applied to all men, believers or not.
*see the asterisk above. I think it echoes your thoughts.
So if there is a "not plugged in" condition, it isn't the same subject as "in Him we live and move and have our being."
Not exactly, but as you've read, the idea is 'sustains everything' as Colossians intimates both by 'in' and 'upholds' (sustains-but JR doesn't like that definition).
So I think we're in agreement. It isn't literal.
If you mean 'not physical' I'm open to a challenge. I'm not sure if God has us on AC or DC but if you mean 'in' I think you are also meaning not literal.

I think it better to separate the two ideas:

1) We are powered to exist either by being plugged in and charged and let go, or with power somehow still connected. It boggles my mind because we are talking about the physical not being the reality, but a result of Someone 'not physical.'

2) "In" means something literal, but doesn't have to mean physical.

Is one of these what you are saying? Something else?
Ok. i get the two confused some.
Oops, I said that wrong! That idea was panentheism. Pantheism is "God is everywhere and in everything' and confines God generally to the physical universe.

We aren't just physical beings. Often, even as believers we mistake our 'tents' (as the Apostle Paul calls our bodies) as 'us.' We are spiritual.
Romans 8:10
 

Lon

Well-known member
Often?

Please quote these 'many' instances.
Romans 11:11-31 1 Corinthians 3:6-8 1 Corinthians 12 Galatians 5:22, Galatians 6:7 You probably don't have a farm upbringing? There is a lot of farm, vine, fruit, growing analogies and Paul carries a number. In a farm community, the preachers I've sat under would often go to planting, watering, growing in Christ etc. with sermons.

Not about vines and growing and grafting, but I read these when looking for you:

Gal 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity to indulge your flesh, but through love serve one another.
Gal 5:14 For the whole law can be summed up in a single commandment, namely, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”
Gal 5:15 However, if you continually bite and devour one another, beware that you are not consumed by one another.
Gal 5:25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also behave in accordance with the Spirit.
Gal 5:26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, being jealous of one another.

Gal 6:10 So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who belong to the family of faith.

Good reminders. Thanks for asking.
 

Lon

Well-known member
More:
Ephesians 4:15 Grow in Christ Ephesians 5:9 fruit Colossians 1:6,10-11; 2:6,7 2 Timothy 2:3-7 Hebrews 6:7,8

And some more good reminders for all of us:

Gal 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity to indulge your flesh, but through love serve one another.
Gal 5:14 For the whole law can be summed up in a single commandment, namely, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”
Gal 5:15 However, if you continually bite and devour one another, beware that you are not consumed by one another.

Tit 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, quarrels, and fights about the law, because they are useless and empty.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber

Part 1 of 4. More to come.
Really terrific content, but someone needs to pay closer attention to the audio quality. It sounds like his mic is practically inside his mouth. Maybe the use of a lapel mic would be better than the headset that he's currently using. You can get descent ones for less than was spent on "The End of the Timeless God".
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Really terrific content, but someone needs to pay closer attention to the audio quality. It sounds like his mic is practically inside his mouth. Maybe the use of a lapel mic would be better than the headset that he's currently using. You can get descent ones for less than was spent on "The End of the Timeless God".

Yeah, I've mentioned it before to them, but not sure if they've seen it.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Really terrific content, but someone needs to pay closer attention to the audio quality. It sounds like his mic is practically inside his mouth. Maybe the use of a lapel mic would be better than the headset that he's currently using. You can get descent ones for less than was spent on "The End of the Timeless God".
I don't pretend to be as well read as Pastor Duffy - not even close - and so with all due respect, I'm not as satisfied with the definitions of time that he offered as he is.

"The endurance of reality." - Duration? Relative to what?
"Proceeding from potential (possible), to actual to necessary." - The "actual" is already "necessary" in the sense the terms are being used here.

I've never heard any definition of time that is better than the one I've used here for years and that I did not come up with on my own (it was another poster here on TOL that said it before I did and I have no idea where he got it from)....

Time is a concept, not an ontological thing. It is a convention of language used to communicate information related to the duration and sequence of events relative to other events.

Notice that time is always a discussion of events relative to other events, both of which can be arbitrarily defined in a manner that is not agreed upon by anyone other than the parties involved in the discussion. In this sense, time is "relative" and not "absolute".

Also, in regards to change not happening without time, I think that is a bit of a logical error in that it treats time as an ontological thing. Time, as I said a moment ago, is an idea. Thus, prior to it being thought of, it didn't exist at all. There may have been all sorts of events that transpired prior to anyone having conceived of time and all of those prior events can be discussed in terms of time but the point is that time itself doesn't have to exist for change to take place because time itself does not exist at all except as an idea inside a thinking mind. A thinking mind existed prior to time. That mind understood how to differentiate one event from another and how those events relate to one another in a manner sufficient to assign words to name those events and to assign words to give name to the concepts that describe the sequence (i.e. succession) and/or duration of those events relative to each other (e.g. "before", "during","after", etc). All of those mental actions were not only events but mental changes that necessarily occurred prior to time being conceived of, or at the very least, as time was being conceived of. Thus, without change having taken place, time would not have ever been conceived of and you would not be able to say or think a thing about the duration of reality or the succession from potential to actual or used the concept of time in any sense whatsoever. The creation of time (i.e. the first time that concept was thought of) was itself a change, a movement, and thus the concept of "absolute time" as defined in the video is self-contradictory.
 

Lon

Well-known member
I don't pretend to be as well read as Pastor Duffy - not even close - and so with all due respect, I'm not as satisfied with the definitions of time that he offered as he is.

"The endurance of reality." - Duration? Relative to what?
"Proceeding from potential (possible), to actual to necessary." - The "actual" is already "necessary" in the sense the terms are being used here.

I've never heard any definition of time that is better than the one I've used here for years and that I did not come up with on my own (it was another poster here on TOL that said it before I did and I have no idea where he got it from)....

Time is a concept, not an ontological thing. It is a convention of language used to communicate information related to the duration and sequence of events relative to other events.
It could be more than just concept because we can use things to measure, in this case watches. It is basically observation and measurement of movement/change. As such, it is a property of constructs. The reason most of us believe observation and measurement don't directly apply to God is that He is not a construct, but the Being from which all constructs proceed. John 1:3 Ephesians 3:19
Notice that time is always a discussion of events relative to other events, both of which can be arbitrarily defined in a manner that is not agreed upon by anyone other than the parties involved in the discussion. In this sense, time is "relative" and not "absolute".
In a bit of agreement, this is why we see God as 'relational' not bound as time is concerned, when interacting 'with' Creation. He is uncreated thus there is a necessity to see something of God as not relating to His creation. "Time" is one pinnacle of disagreement, but it 'seems' that if time is arbitrary among parties, such would have God must necessarily above His created beings and their limitation of concepts that are 'arbitrary' and 'relative?'
Also, in regards to change not happening without time, I think that is a bit of a logical error in that it treats time as an ontological thing. Time, as I said a moment ago, is an idea. Thus, prior to it being thought of, it didn't exist at all.
I agree. When did God 'think' it? Some argue it is a part of His nature but you'd seem to be more in tune with me (or I you) that it is a property of what is created and their observations as creations. I believe 'logic' has a starting place for us that gives us diverse incongruent answers especially on concepts related. I read that God is apart from His creation:
1 Kings 8:27
“But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built!

Question: If we think of time as 'single-duration-movement.' Is God bound to only that? -As I believe with you that time is merely an apprehension for understanding movement and change (or is that different: the 'measurement/construct of time rather than duration itself?')
There may have been all sorts of events that transpired prior to anyone having conceived of time and all of those prior events can be discussed in terms of time but the point is that time itself doesn't have to exist for change to take place because time itself does not exist at all except as an idea inside a thinking mind.
This part doesn't add up as I'm following: How can there be events without any kind of concept of duration? And again, are we talking about a construct relating rather than the duration/change itself? Ultimately, we are trying to figure out if 'it' (Time and/or its concept) always existed or not. I begin with you that it coincides with creation but what happened 'before?' Scripture says eternity (a sense of timelessness, or at very least a meaninglessness to continuing to observe its successions) is set in our hearts. Something in us realizes and reaches past time constraints even as 'time-started' beings. Are we yet capable of grasping the eternal? My first inkling is that God never ever, ever, had a beginning. Because I'm stuck in successive cause/effect thinking, I'm just barely able to grasp "God has a beginning that never started and is still going well beyond my eternal ability to grasp how far back He began. That may not sound profound, but literally I 'can' think forever, daily (if such exists) for the rest of eternity, forever and ever, how long ago God 'began' and never reach that day. It is a logical conundrum but seems clearly to intimate that God cannot possibly have the same 'kind' of time we have, are bound to, or observe.
A thinking mind existed prior to time. That mind understood how to differentiate one event from another and how those events relate to one another in a manner sufficient to assign words to name those events and to assign words to give name to the concepts that describe the sequence (i.e. succession) and/or duration of those events relative to each other (e.g. "before", "during","after", etc). All of those mental actions were not only events but mental changes that necessarily occurred prior to time being conceived of, or at the very least, as time was being conceived of. Thus, without change having taken place, time would not have ever been conceived of and you would not be able to say or think a thing about the duration of reality or the succession from potential to actual or used the concept of time in any sense whatsoever. The creation of time (i.e. the first time that concept was thought of) was itself a change, a movement, and thus the concept of "absolute time" as defined in the video is self-contradictory.
It seems to intimate that 'time' in that sense is a property of God. My dilemma is yet just above: It doesn't seem God 'can' be but relational to time properties and uni-duration as we know it.
 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
It could be more than just concept because we can use things to measure, in this case watches.
It feels like you have read none of the posts here.
It is basically observation and measurement of movement/change.
Duh.
As such, it is a property of constructs.
What in the heck does that mean? Time is a CONCEPT ... i.e., a mental construct.
The reason most of us believe observation and measurement don't directly apply to God is that He is not a construct, but the Being from which all constructs proceed. John 1:3 Ephesians 3:19
What is a "construct"? Sounds a like like an IDEA... i.e., a NON-CREATED thing.
It seems to intimate that 'time' in that sense is a property of God.
That sounds a lot like blaspheme.
 

Lon

Well-known member
It feels like you have read none of the posts here.

Duh.

What in the heck does that mean? Time is a CONCEPT ... i.e., a mental construct.
An apprehension, something you understand AND formulate in the mind. There is no such thing as a 'two' but as a mental apprehension. There is no such thing as a 'time' but as held in your mind. "Time" is a metaphysical property and relates to 'things we can measure.'
What is a "construct"? Sounds a like like an IDEA... i.e., a NON-CREATED thing.
"Idea" is a created thing, it is not a 'physically' created thing.
That sounds a lot like blaspheme.
It isn't my paradigm, it is an Open paradigm. Blasphemous? No. Wrong? I believe so but would have to yet prove my 'yes, it is incorrect.' No, not blasphemous. Open Theists (perhaps not you) say God is bound to forward momentum or "He couldn't move." For both of us, it can become a stolen concept premise, because we are importing our respective grasp of 'time' upon proofs. Because God has no beginning (His 'beginning' is "still going), for me: it means time is a lot different than your concept of it.
 

theMadThinker

BANNED
Banned
Couldn't find the thread I wanted to put this one in, so I'm starting a new one.

We Open theists have said a few things about time, but the most important being that time, as an entity, doesn't really exist, it's simply how we describe sequence of events in relation to each other.

Bob Enyart said a few times that theologians and philosophers often arrive at conclusions long before the scientists do (if someone has the exact quote, let me know, that's just a rough approximation of what he said based on my memory).

Well, it seems like that's at least almost true here as well, as Phys.org just posted this article.

It's simply abstract idea of man!
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Okay Lon, I didn't see this post until this morning because I've had you on ignore for a while. I can no longer remember specifically why I put you on ignore which I usually use as good enough of a reason to take people off of ignore. Here's hoping it lasts, because this is one of my favorite topics!

It could be more than just concept because we can use things to measure, in this case watches.
What does a watch do? What does any clock do?

A clock is simply a device that provides a set of events that are evenly spaced apart against which other events can be compared. Just as a ruler is a set of regularly sized distances marked out such that we can compare them to some other unknown distance and thereby refer to that distance with terminology that is regular and well defined and therefore useful. A clock does the same thing only with events rather than distances. All you are doing with a clock is comparing an event with a set of standardized events. More specifically, you are naming standardized events (seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, years, etc) and using them to refer to other events.

People used to use less precise terminology, "sunrise", "noon", "sunset" and for longer periods people would use the phases of the moon and the position of the Sun relative to a particular hill or standing stone or whatever and for even longer periods they would use the beginning of a king's reign or some cataclysmic natural disaster or something. These events are well defined and are fairly regular so they worked fine as clocks but the point is that, regardless of what you called it or what event you were using to make the comparison, the measurement of the passage of time is, and always has been, a convention of language where one is communicating information about the duration and sequences of events relative to other events.

It is basically observation and measurement of movement/change. As such, it is a property of constructs. The reason most of us believe observation and measurement don't directly apply to God is that He is not a construct, but the Being from which all constructs proceed. John 1:3 Ephesians 3:19
That makes no sense whatsoever.

Seriously Lon, you need to try hard to stop over intellectualizing everything.

Time and/or distance is not a property of anything. Both are themselves mental constructs! They are just ideas. One edge of my desk is in one position and the other edge is in a different position, the difference between them is what we call distance. My dog's life began and then it ended, the intervening passage of events is what we call time. Just because we give name to something doesn't make it pop into existence in an ontological sense. These are concepts that we can name, standardize and use to great effect but they are still just concepts and are not intrinsically part of anything, including God or my desk or my dead dog.

In a bit of agreement, this is why we see God as 'relational' not bound as time is concerned, when interacting 'with' Creation.
Or with Himself! There are three persons in the Trinity who have enjoyed a loving relationship with each other for a very very long time. An interaction is just another event that can be compared with some other event and by doing so, you've used the concept of time, whether you ever bother to call it that or not.

He is uncreated thus there is a necessity to see something of God as not relating to His creation.
Huh?

Do you mean to say that God is not the same thing as His creation?

If so, change the capital "H" above to a capital "D".

How is this even the slightest bit relevant to this topic?

"Time" is one pinnacle of disagreement, but it 'seems' that if time is arbitrary among parties, such would have God must necessarily above His created beings and their limitation of concepts that are 'arbitrary' and 'relative?'
Okay, that sentence was not written in English. It's total gibberish.

First of all, what does "time is arbitrary among parties" mean?

You seem to be trying really hard to make the concept of time into something way more complicated than it is. Why would a concept, regardless of who came up with it or how arbitrarily defined it was, be out of bounds for use by or in reference to God? Why would the concepts of time or distance be any less applicable to God than to any other real thing?

I would agree that it wouldn't make sense to try to measure God with a ruler or a clock but that's only true because they aren't intended to measure infinite things. Infinities of all sorts, whether mathematical or actual, are fundamentally ineffable and the concepts of time and distance are intended to be communication tools and so there's a conflict there. You cannot communicate the ineffable, by definition.

That, however, doesn't mean that its totally out of bounds to use these concepts in relation to God nor would it mean that the concepts are meaningless to God. So long as you aren't attempting to use distance to measure from the tip of God's head to the bottom of His feet (not talking about Jesus' physical body here) or attempting to use a clock to measure from God's beginning to His end, then it's perfectly valid to talk about God and issues related to Him in terms of both time and distance and for Him to do the same.

I agree. When did God 'think' it? Some argue it is a part of His nature but you'd seem to be more in tune with me (or I you) that it is a property of what is created and their observations as creations. I believe 'logic' has a starting place for us that gives us diverse incongruent answers especially on concepts related. I read that God is apart from His creation:
1 Kings 8:27
“But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built!
WHEN did God think of time?

Do you seriously not notice when you say such things?

And why did you put the word "think" in quotes?

And, no! I do not believe in the slightest that time (or distance) is a property of anything, created or otherwise. IT IS AN IDEA!!! It is nothing more than comparing one thing to another thing and giving that comparison a name. For time you are comparing events, for distance you are comparing locations. That's all these things are. They aren't ontologically intrinsic to anything.


Question: If we think of time as 'single-duration-movement.' Is God bound to only that?
Define "single-duration-movement".

-As I believe with you that time is merely an apprehension for understanding movement and change (or is that different: the 'measurement/construct of time rather than duration itself?')
Time is a convention of language used to communicate information related to the duration and/or sequence of events relative to other events.

Distance is a convention of language used to communicate information related to the position and/or size of objects relative to other objects.

Read those over and over again until you have them memorized. In two decades of using those definitions, to my knowledge, no one has come within a mile of even finding a flaw of any sort in them, much less debunking them. ("in two decades" - "within a mile" - see what I did there? lol)

This part doesn't add up as I'm following: How can there be events without any kind of concept of duration?
Because the word "duration" is simply a name that we give to the comparison of an event with some other set of events. The events don't have to have that comparison named in order to happen.

Remember, duration (and any other aspect of time) is a CONVENTION OF LANGUAGE.

Just the same as the color red existed before anyone said the word "red", so events happened before anyone used the word "duration" or even thought to talk about one event in terms of other events.

And again, are we talking about a construct relating rather than the duration/change itself?
This sentence is gibberish and was not written in the English language.

Time has to do with events. I don't care who or what or where the event happened in relation to. If it was an event that happened then the concept of time can be applied to it.

Ultimately, we are trying to figure out if 'it' (Time and/or its concept) always existed or not.
I'm not trying to figure any such thing out at all. Time DOES NOT EXIST in any ontological sense. It is an abstraction.

I begin with you that it coincides with creation but what happened 'before?'
Any event that happened before creation can be compared to the event of creation and concepts such as sequence and duration can be discussed in those terms. Creation itself becomes a tick of a clock. The concepts can be applied retrospectively so long as there are events to compare to other events because that's all time is, comparing events to other events and giving those comparisons names like "before", "after", "since", "during", etc.

Scripture says eternity (a sense of timelessness, or at very least a meaninglessness to continuing to observe its successions) is set in our hearts.
Funny that you should bring up that passage. Have you actually read the verse that comes from?

Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.​

That is not the verse anyone would want to use if they were trying to argue that eternity is "timelessness".

Something in us realizes and reaches past time constraints even as 'time-started' beings. Are we yet capable of grasping the eternal?
If by "eternal" you mean "outside of time" then the answer is, NO! The irrational does not exist and cannot be grasped. To try is a form of insanity.

And I think even "reaching past time constraints" is over stated. Events take time to happen and that will always be the case. If you desire, when you get to heaven, to learn to play every composition that Bach ever wrote then it's going to take time to learn those musical pieces and it will take time to play them and it'll take time for you to sit down after words with John to get his opinion of your performance over tea. In short, heaven is a real place where real events happen and we'll be able to make similar comparisons between events that we make now.

For example, the Tree of Life will produce twelve different fruits, one coming ripe each month. A very nice clock by which to compare the long event of your learning to play Bach's musical material. Perhaps apples will have come ripe on The Tree of Life fifteen times while you were learning that material. Maybe we'll refer to that duration of time as a year or maybe there will be a completely different word that we use but regardless of what you call it, the idea is the same. It's a regularly occurring event that you are using to compare with some other event or set of events to discuss the duration and/or sequence of those events. That's time!

As for "eternity in our hearts", it simply means that we all know intuitively that this life isn't all there is; that we are going to survive our physical death and that God's existence is real and that we are only a small part of that existence.


My first inkling is that God never ever, ever, had a beginning.
Good thinking!

Because I'm stuck in successive cause/effect thinking, I'm just barely able to grasp "God has a beginning that never started and is still going well beyond my eternal ability to grasp how far back He began. That may not sound profound, but literally I 'can' think forever, daily (if such exists) for the rest of eternity, forever and ever, how long ago God 'began' and never reach that day. It is a logical conundrum but seems clearly to intimate that God cannot possibly have the same 'kind' of time we have, are bound to, or observe.
Okay, be careful about admitting in one breath that you can't comprehend something and then, in the next breath, using that lack of ability as cause to conclude something about the very thing you just said you can't comprehend.

The problem isn't with your mind, it's with the instrument your using. Time cannot be used to measure the infinite. Just as there is no ruler long enough to measure God's height and width, there is no clock that can measure His duration. That doesn't mean you have a good excuse to throw out time and distance completely when discussing God. You just can't use them in ways that are self-contradictory. You cannot apply time to God's own duration because the concept of time requires the comparison of one event to another event. God had no beginning. There is no event that can be rightly named, "God's starting point" and so there's no event there to compare other events to. It's similar to trying to divide by zero. You can't do it because it's a contradiction. The word "zero" means "nothing" and if you're dividing something then the presupposition is that you are dividing by something, not nothing, and so division by zero implies an inherent contradiction. The same is true when trying to discuss God's duration in terms of time because there is no event that we can call "God's beginning" or "God's end".

It seems to intimate that 'time' in that sense is a property of God.
No. It is an idea.

Time is a convention of language used to communicate information related to the duration and/or sequence of events relative to other events.

My dilemma is yet just above: It doesn't seem God 'can' be but relational to time properties and uni-duration as we know it.
This sentence is gibberish and was not written in the English language.

All such confusion is a creation of your own. It comes from believing that an idea exists ontologically. Get rid of that single error and such gibberish sentences will never come to into your mind ever again.
 
Last edited:
Top