God and the idea that he's timeless

[Rizdek]

For many years, I've been an atheist who finds arguments for God fascinating. Lately I've been reading more about the various cosmological arguments. Part of the foundation for those arguments is the idea that the natural world cannot have an infinite past because of the assumed impossibility of an infinite regress. The impossibility is either expressed as something that is intuitively understood to be true or examples are given to show how if the past was infinite, we could never, for example, arrive at this point in time, because that would imply that an infinite amount of time had to have passed in order to arrive at this point. And since it is impossible for an infinite amount of anything to have transpired, the natural world cannot have an infinite past.

The argument then proceeds to assert something else must exist that is other than or outside of the natural world. And it is further asserted that this thing must, almost by definition, be infinite/timeless/non-temporal. And that thing ( which of course ends up being God based on further arguments and reasoning) is supposed to solve the conundrum of the infinite regress.

But...I just can't figure it out. How does just 'saying' something is timeless avoid the problem of an infinite regress? Most theists who believe in a creator God also believe God thinks. So even if one is comfortable seeing that this God doesn't change...there is an implication that God thinks and thinks multiple thoughts. Now...does God think all these thoughts at once, in that one eternal, timeless moment, or does he actually have sequential thoughts where, for example, he 1) decides to create, 2) weighs the pros and cons of creating, 3) plans how to create, 4) actually creates and then 5) thinks about whether and how to involve himself with his creation, whether to bless, judge, penalize, or whatever. And did God have OTHER thoughts than just those relating to creating? You know...'what was God thinking before he decided to create?' or 'what was God's first thought?'

So...even if we are to somehow SAY God is timeless, if he has sequential thoughts, those would seem to indicate a kind of time passing because for all intents and purposes, isn't time the thing which keeps everything from happening all at once? And if his thoughts didn't happen all at once, they happened sequentially. So at a minimum we would think of sequential thoughts instead of ticks of a clock as being the measure of time, for God.

It would seem that if God did all that thinking in one eternal moment, then the natural world that he is supposed to have created must have also existed eternally since no time...no sequence of events, nothing could separate the moment when God thought to create and when the natural world popped into existence. And this gets us back to the problem of infinite regress...if the universe has always existed, how did we ever transcend an infinite amount of time and arrive at this point.

But beyond that, if there is some hypothetical explanation for how God can be timeless/eternal AND still have sequential thoughts, then I guess as a naturalist I can borrow that hypothetical explanation and apply it to some arrangement of the natural world and say it too is eternal and timeless, never had a beginning and still managed to do something that resulted in the time/space matter/energy universe emerging from the timeless background existence.

I realize this is just one part of the many arguments for God, but it is among the most intriguing, to me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But...I just can't figure it out. How does just 'saying' something is timeless avoid the problem of an infinite regress?

Could you briefly describe this "problem of an infinite regress"?

 

[Nimos]

Lately I've been reading more about the various cosmological arguments.

The cosmological argument is a flawed argument. First of all, even if we assume that it is true, it does not proof any specific God, which means that all religions could be equally wrong. They simply assume that if this argument is accepted, then obviously their God is the right one.

Furthermore, the argument is one out of ignorance, because nothing seem to suggest that the first cause should be a God. It could be anything really. Also who say that something can't simply have existed forever? We know that our Universe were created, but that doesn't mean that everything else has to outside of it? And in that case there doesn't need to be an intelligent creator of anything.

So...even if we are to somehow SAY God is timeless

I don't know, if I would use the word timeless, rather than saying that time is irrelevant. If something have always existed, they might still experience time, obviously if we are talking about an intelligent being, it will probably be boring at some point But if it's not, why should time matter?

 

[rational experiences]

Evolution places the past as a hot burning dense state that cooled.

Cooled is the highest presence of mass as one whole presence, when you relate teachings about one God...the first being stone mass. The second being circulating movement in the gases in burning light cooling. As circular bodies of 2 variables.

In both conditions if you regressed, the light gas in a cooled light condition....vacuum, cold gases, water would take it back to a destructive minus point, burning gas, removing back to a carbonisation.

The same for the removal of mass also....for it does not infer going back in time, to a hot burning gas in stone.

God therefore proves by the condition of a human standing upon the body and living inside of its heavens that infinite regress does not exist.

Yet as a thinker, who lives in cooled light in water/oxygen that takes our life continually into replaced existence until we die...our experience is variant to that of science thesis about infinite.

As a thinker I learnt that God the stone mass came from the eternal. So you would mind quote eternal, no space, eternal change to a God O state, thinning, then bursting, then removal in total. Space became the divide from the eternal.

We then own a consciousness who as a spirit body came out of the eternal due to gas mass filling back in that space as a variant to what the origin of eternal once owned. No space, and also no burning. So 2 forms of eternal history split are being experienced. The atmospheric eternal history...and then our presence inside of the history reason for a gas....so we experience the shift of the split from the eternal in 2 forms of reasoning.

Why we could reason that God in the heavens communicated to the eternal and forced spirit to be released from it again. As cause and effect teaching. What you give out.....God being lost from the eternal....the spirit who forced God out of its body, then also got forced out the eternal. Which is our inheritance.

We taught this concept as karmic.

In human science to equate reasoning is by formulas for numbering to apply a number to begin and a number to end. God the stone never owned a number to begin.

Space however is pondered to be a infinite oblivion measure applied by thinking as a non stop number without any end. Therefore we can only count one, from the place where we live to be enabled to apply that infinite exists. So space also does not own numbering in reality. How the reason to apply a number was never real regarding space.

As we all only own one conscious life expression as a self, we also know that the statement timeless is not real. For we do not live as one single self in a timeless condition. We only share a pre lived human experience from which we derive our own truths.

 

[shunyadragon]

Could you briefly describe this "problem of an infinite regress"?

Good question.

 

[viole]

For many years, I've been an atheist who finds arguments for God fascinating. Lately I've been reading more about the various cosmological arguments. Part of the foundation for those arguments is the idea that the natural world cannot have an infinite past because of the assumed impossibility of an infinite regress. The impossibility is either expressed as something that is intuitively understood to be true or examples are given to show how if the past was infinite, we could never, for example, arrive at this point in time, because that would imply that an infinite amount of time had to have passed in order to arrive at this point. And since it is impossible for an infinite amount of anything to have transpired, the natural world cannot have an infinite past.

The argument then proceeds to assert something else must exist that is other than or outside of the natural world. And it is further asserted that this thing must, almost by definition, be infinite/timeless/non-temporal. And that thing ( which of course ends up being God based on further arguments and reasoning) is supposed to solve the conundrum of the infinite regress.

But...I just can't figure it out. How does just 'saying' something is timeless avoid the problem of an infinite regress? Most theists who believe in a creator God also believe God thinks. So even if one is comfortable seeing that this God doesn't change...there is an implication that God thinks and thinks multiple thoughts. Now...does God think all these thoughts at once, in that one eternal, timeless moment, or does he actually have sequential thoughts where, for example, he 1) decides to create, 2) weighs the pros and cons of creating, 3) plans how to create, 4) actually creates and then 5) thinks about whether and how to involve himself with his creation, whether to bless, judge, penalize, or whatever. And did God have OTHER thoughts than just those relating to creating? You know...'what was God thinking before he decided to create?' or 'what was God's first thought?'

So...even if we are to somehow SAY God is timeless, if he has sequential thoughts, those would seem to indicate a kind of time passing because for all intents and purposes, isn't time the thing which keeps everything from happening all at once? And if his thoughts didn't happen all at once, they happened sequentially. So at a minimum we would think of sequential thoughts instead of ticks of a clock as being the measure of time, for God.

It would seem that if God did all that thinking in one eternal moment, then the natural world that he is supposed to have created must have also existed eternally since no time...no sequence of events, nothing could separate the moment when God thought to create and when the natural world popped into existence. And this gets us back to the problem of infinite regress...if the universe has always existed, how did we ever transcend an infinite amount of time and arrive at this point.

But beyond that, if there is some hypothetical explanation for how God can be timeless/eternal AND still have sequential thoughts, then I guess as a naturalist I can borrow that hypothetical explanation and apply it to some arrangement of the natural world and say it too is eternal and timeless, never had a beginning and still managed to do something that resulted in the time/space matter/energy universe emerging from the timeless background existence.

I realize this is just one part of the many arguments for God, but it is among the most intriguing, to me.

It is very easy to define an infinite regress that unfolds in finite time. For instance, an infinite regress that does not take longer than one hour in the past.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

But...I just can't figure it out. How does just 'saying' something is timeless avoid the problem of an infinite regress? Most theists who believe in a creator God also believe God thinks. So even if one is comfortable seeing that this God doesn't change.

.

Infinite is a human construct in math, and only would apply in a time space universe. Also the nature of our physical existence does not have units of measurement. Also whether our physical existence is infinite or eternal or not is not falsifiable. Infinities in math are simple part of the tool box of math, and actually not necessary.

The Quantum world is most likely timeless beyond the momentary events at the plank scale. and possibly infinite and or eternal.

. . . .there is an implication that God thinks and thinks multiple thoughts. Now...does God think all these thoughts at once, in that one eternal, timeless moment, or does he actually have sequential thoughts where, for example, he 1) decides to create, 2) weighs the pros and cons of creating, 3) plans how to create, 4) actually creates and then 5) thinks about whether and how to involve himself with his creation, whether to bless, judge, penalize, or whatever. And did God have OTHER thoughts than just those relating to creating? You know...'what was God thinking before he decided to create?' or 'what was God's first thought?'

It is best avoid attributing anthropomorphic attributes of God. There most likely never was a first thought by God.

 

[Rizdek]

Could you briefly describe this "problem of an infinite regress"?

The way I understand it, if we think of the past as a series of moments, one before the other, then we can think of trying to count them. The one just before this one is...1. The next one back is 2. The next one 3. But how long would it take...what number do we have to count to to arrive at the beginning? The idea is that we can't, because that would involve counting TO infinity. Another aspect is that, let's say we go back, say, a billion moments. The same amount of time...the same number of moments, had to have elapsed for someone at that point as had to have elapsed for us to be at this point. Yet, infinity plus a billion is...still infinity.

This quote also describes an example: https://www.answers-in-reason.com/religion/god-infinite-regress/

"If we imagine a soldier waiting for orders from the soldier before to fire at the enemy. The soldier at the front asks the soldier behind if they have permission to fire. That soldier then asks the soldier behind them, then that soldier repeats the same process. Eventually we must come to a soldier that gives permission to fire, otherwise the soldier at the front of line would never be able to fire. There must be a soldier who is the ‘first cause’, the one that gives permission to fire."

That site also goes on to talk about what I am posing here...how does God solve the problem.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There must be a soldier who is the ‘first cause’, the one that gives permission to fire."

That site also goes on to talk about what I am posing here...how does God solve the problem.

Perhaps by being preturnatural?

 

[Rizdek]

.


It is best avoid attributing anthropomorphic attributes of God. There most likely never was a first thought by God.

Well....true, those are anthropomorphic representations of something(s) we probably wouldn't be able to fathom. But regardless of how one pictures a God's machinations, they either happen all at once or they happen in sequence. If they happen all at once, then that creates one conundrum. If they happen in sequence, that creates another conundrum. And neither seem to solve the problem an 'eternal' God is supposed to solve relative TO the presumed infinite regress paradox.

You probably aren't saying this but if it's as simple as saying that we're not talking about humans here, then me positing that some arrangement/basic form/unknown realm or level of a natural existence is timeless and yet still able to achieve/have sequential events is equally valid as someone asserting that a god (who is not human) could do any series of events.

 

[Rizdek]

Perhaps by being preturnatural?

Is it valid to assert something is the solution to a conundrum simply because it is 'other than' natural? There would still seem to be the issue of logistics.

 

[Thief]

How does just 'saying' something is timeless avoid the problem of an infinite regress?

I believe the regression is plausible in thought

take all the motion we see in our telescopes .....and draw it back
all the way back

and you arrive at the primordial singularity

MOVEMENT is then the question
science would have you believe the object will remain motionless until
Something moves it

science would also have you believe in action and equal reaction
once the BANG begins it would be a hollow sphere of energy
expanding equally is all directions
one percussion wave

but that is NOT what we see when we look up

so.....I SAY......
the rotation would need to be in play BEFORE the expansion begins

the singularity was pinched .....and snapped
by the fingers of God

so to speak

 

[Nimos]

"If we imagine a soldier waiting for orders from the soldier before to fire at the enemy. The soldier at the front asks the soldier behind if they have permission to fire. That soldier then asks the soldier behind them, then that soldier repeats the same process. Eventually we must come to a soldier that gives permission to fire, otherwise the soldier at the front of line would never be able to fire. There must be a soldier who is the ‘first cause’, the one that gives permission to fire."

This is from that link:
This argument is then transferred to the beginning of our universe by creationists. The claim is that we cannot have an infinite amount of preceding events that led to ‘The Big Bang’, otherwise ‘The Big Bang’ would never have happened as we would be caught in ‘infinite regress’.

I don't see why that would make Big bang unable to happen. If something have always existed, which have the ability to create Universes, whether its through godly powers or some unknown energy, it might have already created an infinite number of Universe (Multiverse), and we simply happen to exist in one of them. The moment we accept that a Universe can exist, which it can, since we live in one. It doesn't really matter at which point we come into existences. Our Universe might be finite in how long it will last, but that doesn't mean that it have any resemblance to whatever caused it to exist in the first place. It might simply be a byproduct of something that have always existed.

 

[Thief]

btw.....time is a measure of movement

no movement .......no time

and God is said to be everywhere.....all at once

the measure cannot be applied to Him

 

[Rizdek]

It is very easy to define an infinite regress that unfolds in finite time. For instance, an infinite regress that does not take longer than one hour in the past.

Ciao

- viole

So the picture is that the universe could have entertained (for want of a better word) an infinite number of events, but they all happened in a given time span. I think that depends on a human construct of...an arbitrary length of time. It seems to get us into something akin to Zeno's paradox which addresses how there can one traverse an infinite number of, say, halfway points between point A and point B. As I (don't) understand it, this is solved though calculus. But would that apply to the universe as a whole?

 

[Thief]

So the picture is that the universe could have entertained (for want of a better word) an infinite number of events, but they all happened in a given time span. I think that depends on a human construct of...an arbitrary length of time. It seems to get us into something akin to Zeno's paradox which addresses how there can one traverse an infinite number of, say, halfway points between point A and point B. As I (don't) understand it, this is solved though calculus. But would that apply to the universe as a whole?

yeah

for the singularity to be truly singular
a secondary point is not allowed

once the secondary forms......infinity is simultaneous

 

[Rizdek]

btw.....time is a measure of movement

no movement .......no time

and God is said to be everywhere.....all at once

the measure cannot be applied to Him

Is time JUST the measure of movement?

If I set in one place doing nothing but thinking, am I depending on 'time' for those thoughts to occur sequentially?

But let's say that's true. If that's the case, then a basic form of the natural world may not be moving, so the measure of time may not apply to that either.

 

[Rizdek]

yeah

for the singularity to be truly singular
a secondary point is not allowed

once the secondary forms......infinity is simultaneous

What would qualify as a secondary point for the universe? What would qualify as a secondary point for God?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is it valid to assert something is the solution to a conundrum simply because it is 'other than' natural?

Yes. The whole point underlying the First Cause argument is that, if there is indeed a first cause, it must be a preternatural one.

There would still seem to be the issue of logistics.

I have no clue what that means.

 

[viole]

So the picture is that the universe could have entertained (for want of a better word) an infinite number of events, but they all happened in a given time span. I think that depends on a human construct of...an arbitrary length of time. It seems to get us into something akin to Zeno's paradox which addresses how there can one traverse an infinite number of, say, halfway points between point A and point B. As I (don't) understand it, this is solved though calculus. But would that apply to the universe as a whole?

Who can say? Probably not. But fur sure infinite regress does not seem to pose any logical problem per se.
Anyway, the nuclear option against the cosmological argument is that the Universe, since spacetime is a physical part of it, is very likely timeless, too.

I don't like to use it, unless I feel lazy, because it kills it immediately without fun.

Ciao

- viole