God and the idea that he's timeless

[rational experiences]

Males, in science the inventors of all themes as a human on a created planet.

Says I theorise that once Earth was owner of an Immaculate heavenly cold clear gas, the Sun burst and blasted the planets, converted Earth historically and set its atmospheric gases alight.

Been burning ever since.

Theory once there was no light.

However if he looks out into space/the cosmos how long have gases been burning in space? As nothing to do with his Planet Earth theme/theory for science.

Seeing in rationale he is only living on planet Earth doing Earth sciences?

 

[Aupmanyav]

If you take Jesus as the God and anointed Son of God born in an immaculate conception, then it is totally anthropomorphic and weird.

 

[rational experiences]

If you take Jesus as the God and anointed Son of God born in an immaculate conception, then it is totally anthropomorphic and weird.

The Immaculate is said to be the heavenly spirit (gases in science) that came out of the first God body O stone, the planet.

STone is not owned by males. Simple fact. Heavenly body is also not owned by males, another simple fact.

But animals, who live before us historically dinosaurs live in the heavenly gases, and then it changed by ICE frozen water, so the gases changed and so did the life living inside of the Heavens.

Reason. The amount of gases as heavenly mass burning was removed.

So science as a man/male who quotes ownership falsely as he thinks and tells stories from his own male psyche, the scientist...claims that his owned male human reasoning/storytelling thus gives him that ownership. When not one body he discusses was every naturally named by anyone other than his male self.

How he gave self the self concept of false ownership. Such examples Nature owns the production of food for everyone. Males took over communities, said he owned the growth of food and even made other family members starve claiming he now owned possession of it.

How the fake Jesus/God male theme was introduced, when in fact is was relativity of science caused discussions. Science male human invented.

As cold clear gas mass is a life support in our heavens the science story said that after a O huge asteroid wandering stone removal leaving just gases in space cooled space and Earth attack, the Immaculate mass returned. Baby human newly formed/returned and reincarnated DNA in the Holy Land where evil occult pyramid science had nuked them, then regained a healthy life.

After living a long existence of a mutated life from the Moses event. Exactly how it was taught. Therefore the Immaculate gases not burning, own no time, so consciousness in a male human science life psyche claim that Jesus is timeless as a conscious aware, as the gases are not burning theme.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

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.

The "problem" of infinite regress isn't a problem.

It isn't reality, because it ignores something repeatedly mentioned by the Bible in its very first moments.

God, an eternal being created the heavens and earth.

Eternal means not have a beginning. That is, an uncreated being created all things. This is no infinite regress.

Also, I am so tired of the "modern" ideals of the secular world telling how "outdated" things like hospitality, kindness, and decency are. Just because we have high-tech doesn't mean our ability to make others feel welcome and loved.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you take Jesus as the God and anointed Son of God born in an immaculate conception, then it is totally anthropomorphic and weird.

I agree.

 

[shunyadragon]

Also, I am so tired of the "modern" ideals of the secular world telling how "outdated" things like hospitality, kindness, and decency are. Just because we have high-tech doesn't mean our ability to make others feel welcome and loved.

Disagree. It is not "modern" ideals" and secular world that is responsible. It is human nature over the millennia that is responsible. Nothing new.

Passing the buck to justify one's own beliefs does not cut the mustard.

 

[Rizdek]

[Emphasis mine]

Anyway, give this a read and share you thoughts, if any: Eternal Life?

Done, see rsp there,

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Disagree. It is not "modern" ideals" and secular world that is responsible. It is human nature over the millennia that is responsible. Nothing new.

Passing the buck to justify one's own beliefs does not cut the mustard.

Disagree to your disagreement!

I was reading a science book one day, and they were talking about how spontaneous generation was once a thing and people believed living things had a life force that caused tiny critters to spring into being but "we now know that no life force exists" and thus spontaneous generation doesn't work. Oh, do you now? So wise and studied are you in the affairs of the supernatural world that you've solved all the mysteries have you?

Okay, you may now know that spontaneous generation doesn't pan out, but the other one is a matter of theology not science. Anyway, in the Dream and the Lie of Louis Pasteur, they talk about how he did actually find life breeding in a compost pile (it wasn't wholly spontaneous, it was native cultures reproducing from things in the vegetables, but he wouldn't have made this distinction) and he went out of his way to suppress this because he thought that life should only come from God. Now secular types have twisted his findings to push some sort of notion about what we now know.

Yes human nature over millennia is responsible. But they use the fact that "it's the '20s, '80s, 2000s, etc Grandpa! We don't do these quiant things anymore!" Like write letters to loved ones or knock on their door (especially now, what with them being contagious), or treat the elderly with any dignity rather than shooing them off to nursing homes. The "modern" people of todat use their modernity to turn their back on sound teachings, and have itching ears for other tutors. That last sentence should sound familiar if you read the Bible. It's from Timothy. Even in his day, probably people were like "it's the 80s! (As in 80 AD)" as an excuse not to keep with traditions. Your point stands, but my point that basic morality doesn't become "obsolete" because of new stuff. Yes, we can eat pork now, but these are dietary laws not moral ones.

So we have a buck that is being passed around and some mustard. Interesting. I might try that one day. Venison.... :drools:

 

[Rizdek]

Probably little help except I view "now" as eternal. Now is timeless. The universe is in a perpetual cycle of creating now. What came before o longer exists. You can conceptualize a past that regresses to some starting point but none of that actually exists now. Now is all that exists. Now is all that ever will exist.

The beginning of the universe is now. Each moment the universe creates itself from nothing. You want to go back to the creation of the universe, you are already there. There is no "time" that the universe wasn't creating itself.

Unfortunately, I doubt this view will help you win an argument since most are going to insist the beginning of the universe happened sometime in the past.

Of course greater minds than mine are pondering this, but I wonder if the answer may be" hidden in plain view," in that everything in the universe...each object, each point in space, each consciousness and everything else each exists in its own now state. And all those 'now' states are unique...ie they don't even seem consistent in that NOW here where I am and at this point as measured from some arbitrary past time point is a different NOW state than what some other place or even someone else is experiencing. We (earthlings) all seem to be in the same now...and for all intents and purposes everyone on earth IS pretty much in the same now. But it's only because of how we're moving relative to each other ...and probably where we are in the expanding universe. The moon, the sun and even satellites orbiting the earth transmitting data to support the gps all seem to exist in a slightly different 'now.' The gps even has to accommodate this slightly different reference frame so that the system can accurately identify locations on earth. Yet we interact with them quite nicely...or, more precisely we interact with their signals indicating that they DO exist in some reference frame that is related to ours. So somehow, their past must have existed because we receive their signals that came to us FROM their past. So that might give us a hint that some background state of natural existence is, indeed, timeless and the 'time' that emerged/emerges is not one monolithic state, but malleable.

What little I understand of it, this seems to be what Einstein's theory of general relativity says. So the continuation might be that something IN, or some arrangement or state OF, the physical universe is timeless. That may be the underpinning for there to be time at all.

 

[Rizdek]

It need not be ‘other than’.

Consider for a moment that you are dreaming of romance. In dream, are ‘you‘ who are dreaming other than the ‘dream you’ who is romancing with a dream partner? These two ‘you’ are same yet not same.

Further consider the pre-dream deep sleep state, which subjectively is devoid of self-time-space. The one existent in deep dreamless sleep transitions to dream and waking states, and in these two states the self-space-time take birth. But ‘You’ in all these three states are the same.

...

Am I the same in all those three states? It's easy to assume that and it might as well be true. But who am I really? Is the consciousness I imagine/dream while I sleep the same one that remembers it when I wake up? Dreams are a whole other interesting phenomenon which likely deserves a thread or six in its own right.

 

[Rizdek]

Disagree to your disagreement!

Yes human nature over millennia is responsible. But they use the fact that "it's the '20s, '80s, 2000s, etc Grandpa! We don't do these quiant things anymore!" Like write letters to loved ones or knock on their door (especially now, what with them being contagious), or treat the elderly with any dignity rather than shooing them off to nursing homes. The "modern" people of todat use their modernity to turn their back on sound teachings, and have itching ears for other tutors. That last sentence should sound familiar if you read the Bible. It's from Timothy. Even in his day, probably people were like "it's the 80s! (As in 80 AD)" as an excuse not to keep with traditions. Your point stands, but my point that basic morality doesn't become "obsolete" because of new stuff. .

I always am humored when I hear someone today talking about how bad things, youth, morals, etc. are today compared with...'the good old days' which IMHO never existed.

The 2,500-Year-Old History of Adults Blaming the Younger Generation

"4th Century B.C.E.

'[Young people] are high-minded because they have not yet been humbled by life, nor have they experienced the force of circumstances.
…
They think they know everything, and are always quite sure about it.'” Aristotle

"1st Century B.C.E.

'The beardless youth… does not foresee what is useful, squandering his money.'" Horace

1300s

“Modern fashions seem to keep on growing more and more debased … The ordinary spoken language has also steadily coarsened. People used to say ‘raise the carriage shafts’ or ‘trim the lamp wick,’ but people today say ‘raise it’ or ‘trim it.’ When they should say, ‘Let the men of the palace staff stand forth!’ they say, ‘Torches! Let’s have some light!’” Yoshida Kenko

and there are more...every age looks back at the previous generation and palms their face. My dad complained about at the 'ya ya ya music' of the 60s and thought HIS music of the 30s and 40s was better.

 

[shunyadragon]

Disagree to your disagreement!

I was reading a science book one day, and they were talking about how spontaneous generation was once a thing and people believed living things had a life force that caused tiny critters to spring into being but "we now know that no life force exists" and thus spontaneous generation doesn't work. Oh, do you now? So wise and studied are you in the affairs of the supernatural world that you've solved all the mysteries have you?

Okay, you may now know that spontaneous generation doesn't pan out, but the other one is a matter of theology not science. Anyway, in the Dream and the Lie of Louis Pasteur, they talk about how he did actually find life breeding in a compost pile (it wasn't wholly spontaneous, it was native cultures reproducing from things in the vegetables, but he wouldn't have made this distinction) and he went out of his way to suppress this because he thought that life should only come from God. Now secular types have twisted his findings to push some sort of notion about what we now know.

You are apparently citing bad science books, or it is more likely misrepresenting science, and clinging to an ancient world view agenda, and reject science. It is the "archaic anceint world views and religions" that is a fact of recent history that divides the world in violent tribal divisions. It is only recently in the "modern" perspctive that we are beginning to deal with extreme racism of the past.

Discussion of 'spontaneous geration' is not contemporary science. In fact nothing is spontaneous in nature nor observed in science.

Yes human nature over millennia is responsible.

OK! It is not modern science that is not responsible.

 

[Rizdek]

My friend, we humans was created in the image of God. God have give humans power over everything in this world.
The thing is that we are not robots ta God has put a chip in our brains and control us. Human was just like a born baby that doesn't know what is good or evil. The angels are the same way created. We are made to be in companionship with God and also His others creation. But this earth sin has entered. Why? Because of disobedience of the man. Read Genesis 1 and think. Also Genesis 2.
Because we are already in the plan of God to come in existence, we have born in this sin world. We are the only created being and Satan and his demons knowing what sin is. For us humans there is hope, thanks to Jesus His blood. Now only through Jesus we can entered God's kingdom again. My friend, we are in the middle of a war that we must choose, on which side we will be. Ephesians 6:10-18.
And if you have time go here and tried to answer the questions.
The Atheist Delusion Movie (2016)
On YouTube.

I may watch it sometime, but an hour?

What were the questions? If you lay them out we can discuss how they may be answered from the perspective of a naturalists world view vs a theistic/supernaturalist's world view. Perhaps start a new thread? I'm game. I can guess the question(s), but my answer won't be trying to defend the naturalistic worldview, but to ask how does a god answer the question(s) if one has to pretty much make up/invent ad hoc the attributes/characteristics of god just so god can BE the answer.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I agree.

Similarly taking Bahaollah as a manifestation of a fictitious entity - God, also is weird, when neither the existence of God / Allah nor the contention that Bahaollah was given any message from such an entity is without any evidence. You are a person of science. How did you fall for this hoax?

 

[Rizdek]

The problem here is that it is confusing two different notions of 'the same amount of time': the subset notion and the cardinality notion. There is no actual contradiction.

I am pretty much only parroting apparent contradictions laid out by the likes of WLCraig

Except that is going backwards. It assumes a soldier has to ask all the way back. And that is what is wrong: in an infinite regress, there are *always* soldiers that have had permission and those that have not.

If there is no 'first soldier', then the permission is simply a traveling wave that has always been traveling. There *is* no first soldier.



It doesn't. There is no problem.

The example of the soldiers was only supposed to highlight an impossibility...NOT to actually describe a real life situation...ie no one imagines an actual army with an infinite number of soldiers.

So if there is no problem...are you saying the following quote is in error...ie actual infinities are not impossible? Or is it just that a universe without a beginning does not create the infinity thus described?

Kalam cosmological argument - Wikipedia

"The argument's key underpinning idea is the metaphysical impossibility of actual infinities and of a temporally past-infinite universe..."

In either case, that is going beyond what I'm saying. IF there is no problem with actual infinities, then a natural world with no beginning is...no problem and no explanation or god is needed.

 

[Rizdek]

I think some believers would deny that God experiences any sequence of thought. If God is absolutely perfect, and absolutely omniscient, then he would not have to consider between two alternatives (to create, or not to create, to penalize or not to penalize), the way we limited and imperfect beings do; rather, the correct course would be instantaneously evident to him. And this denial that God has any limitations or any imperfections is also part of why some insist that God is "outside of time," because if you say that God exists within time, you are implicitly saying that he is subject to time, and of course the idea that God is subject to anything can't be allowed.

Yes...and that would mean that multiple thoughts (for want of a better word to describe what goes on in the mind of God) would/could be simultaneous...multiple sensible "thoughts" that would be thought of as fitting together resulting in conclusions/decisions. IOW, even if we are to somehow imagine...or even just assert without imagining...that they are simultaneous events that happen with no time in which to happen, it merely means that it is not logically impossible. And as long as they're not impossible, then perhaps some arrangement/plane/level of the natural world may also be able to do the same thing.

 

[Rizdek]

I think the hypothesis was that each world was created by some entity without a beginning (just as Craig argues), but that such an entity would not need to be godlike, or even sentient.

Yes...at that point in the process, I think Craig would agree that he's not argued for, say, the God of the Bible. IOW, it's the first step in his line of reasoning that would LEAD to concluding the God of the Bible exists.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If time is infinite, there would be periods where the second law fails. It is a statistical law, not a fundamental one. There is even a time period associated with its failure: the Poincare recurrence time.

Most cosmologists don't go for an oscillating universe as much as they go for a multiverse with many universes. The multiverse would be eternal (infinite time into the past).

I didn't say time in this universe was infinite, I said it has a discreet beginning as spacetime/light's beginning, Gen 1:1.

The problem is you have what created matter/energy as ETERNAL, not infinite, without being divine.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Infinite regress is a human construct of a math infinity, and not remotely relate to the laws of conservation of energy nor thermodynamics. Infinite regress only defines the limits of an infinite regreess, nothing more.



No, and very very few physicists and cosmologist consider our universe physical existence had a finite beginning. Most scientists conside our universe is part of a multiverse, and/or support that our universe is cyclic.




Religious assertion based on ancient scripture, based on mythology.

Of course they believe this. It is eminently logical that with no God a multiverse is REQUIRED. That is, the matter/energy came from elsewhere. I also believe it came from elsewhere.

 

[Heyo]

Of course they believe this. It is eminently logical that with no God a multiverse is REQUIRED. That is, the matter/energy came from elsewhere. I also believe it came from elsewhere.

It is eminently logical that with a God a multiverse is REQUIRED, at least with a god that is outside of the universe.