Is God Truly Outside of All Time

[CV75]

Is God truly outside of all temporal dimensions and not subject in any way to any of them?

The reason why I ask is because of any action or change to take place, there has to be a temporal dimension for the change to occur. For example, in the Bible it states that God repented of certain of His actions or thoughts, so doesn't "repentance" indicate some type of change? Did God always plan on creating the Earth ever since forever ago, or did He decide at some point to create the Earth where before He hadn't decided?

Some cultures view the event as where time takes place; in order for time to be, an event has to provide the "space" for it. Time is flexible while the event is not (it simply "is"), and some events are more eternal than others (as in "I Am").

[mfbukowski]

Ex nihilo theology doesn't eliminate "first cause" issues.

No, it creates them!

[Nofear]

I think Blake Ostler does a good job in refuting the idea that God exists in an "eternal now" in "The Attributes of God" (Greg Kofford, 2001), pp. 152-53:

While I may disagree with Ostler on several different points, I quite agree with him on time here. Moreover, it is what the scriptures quite plainly say in several places. That God interacts with and is participatory in time is the only consistent interpretation of the King Follett Discourse (handys003's interpretation to justify his God-outside-of-time view is nonsense). The idea of God being outside of time is a theological abomination wrought upon mankind by apostate philosophy (see for example: eternity).

That said, it should be acknowledged that we really have no truly fundamental understanding of time. A full understanding of what time is remains one of the great mysteries of physics. Nonetheless, the scriptures and reason clearly testify that God is within time.

PS: I see no good reason to posit extra "dimensions of time" - we scarcely understand the one we know about. Contemporary physics certainly does not require such speculation (albeit plenty of physicists do so anyway).

[Que]

in the Bible it states that God repented of certain of His actions or thoughts...

Sorry for the aside, but doesn't JST render this opposite? (Moses 8:25 - And it repented Noah, and his heart was pained that the Lord had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart.)

[David T]

While I may disagree with Ostler on several different points, I quite agree with him on time here. Moreover, it is what the scriptures quite plainly say in several places. That God interacts with and is participatory in time is the only consistent interpretation of the King Follett Discourse ...

That said, it should be acknowledged that we really have no truly fundamental understanding of time. A full understanding of what time is remains one of the great mysteries of physics. Nonetheless, the scriptures and reason clearly testify that God is within time.

Completely agreed.

[Nofear]

If I am going to denigrate handys003's position as nonsense, I suppose I should deign to address the one argument (I used the word loosely here) I've seen for his position:

If that is true, he could not progress. He could not change from state of perfection 1 which is lower than state of perfection 2 unless he does it in time.

Then why have the concept of eternity? If forever is forever then like how you said how can there be progression? When the glories are closed are not eternal progression stopped for those in the telestial and terrestrial? That's why I accept KFD as doctrine. There is no beginning and there is no end. Timeless

1. Lack of progression from kingdom to kingdom* does not preclude time or necessitate existence outside of time -- events can exist which are not "progression".

2. No beginning and no end does not mean the absence of time or the existence outside of time.

3. Eternity, eternal, endless should not necessarily be equated with no beginning and no end (see D&C 19)

PS: urroner, you should read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article I linked. Even some of those that accept creatio-ex-nihilo note that the idea of God outside of time is not a particularly coherent position.

* A position that should by no means be taken as a given in Mormonism.

[Vance]

No, it creates them!

It took me a minute to get it.

Edited to add,

What can I say?

I am slow,

. . . BUT I'm inefficient!!

[Zakuska]

I'm with Ostler on this one.

Me too... and I personally feel it has Bibilical precident. Here we have a detailed description of Gods thought process of trial and error, until he finds a suitable future to unfold. (Reminds me of "Sliders")

Amos 7

1 Thus hath the Lord God shewed unto me; and, behold, he formed grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and, lo, it was the latter growth after the king

[Vance]

Me too... and I personally feel it has Bibilical precident. Here we have a detailed description of Gods thought process of trial and error, until he finds a suitable future to unfold. (Reminds me of "Sliders")

Amos 7

1 Thus hath the Lord God shewed unto me; and, behold, he formed grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the latter growth; and, lo, it was the latter growth after the king

[mfbukowski]

PS: I see no good reason to posit extra "dimensions of time" - we scarcely understand the one we know about. Contemporary physics certainly does not require such speculation (albeit plenty of physicists do so anyway).

What about in a multiverse theory? I am presuming that a given universe could start at t1 and then another at t2, or 3 etc- all within the same time context or continuum?

Carrying that forward, did our Big Bang happen at a moment in "pre existing" time, or did time start with the BB? Does the question make sense?

Was the BB an event in a preceeding and then on going timeline, or did it create its own timeline? I can speculate that I know the answer just logically but I am wondering if I am correct according to accepted physics....

Edit:

Graphically with the line representing time, was it:

___________________Big Bang____________________matter coalesces____________________________planets form_____etc

Or was it

?????????????????? Big Bang, time starts__________________matter coalesces___________etc?

[mfbukowski]

My understanding is that time could not exist without space- and space-time all started with the BB

So then to say that God exists within time, one would have to say that he did not exist before the BB? That would be a hard one to swallow.

The solution would be that the BB was an event in time in some sense- but that "God's time" is outside our understanding of time and space- with the implication that if there is "God's time" there must also be "God's space"??

So which is it?

[Nofear]

I'm also not a believer in multiverses. They are speculated but no observation requires them.

As for time and the big bang theory, yes time "starts" according to the traditional big bang theory -- if one extrapolates all the way to a singularity. And yes, this is problematic for the existence of eternal things (not just God). However, the big bang theory as a model to explain our observations only needs to be extrapolated back to a time of very high density and temperature. It does not need to be taken back to a singularity*.

I don't like the singularity version of the big bang theory. I place my hopes in a theory which allows for existence to continue into the infinite past. A singularity which spawns all of space and time and matter/energy is problematic not just for God and time but also "intelligences" - the stuff that can not be created and which has always existed. God isn't the only eternal player here. I find it curious how some Mormons will laud the necessity of God existing super-temporally on the basis of his eternal existence while ignoring the other eternal, self-existent entities in our theology.

* There is considerable hope and even confidence among cosmologists that a theory of quantum gravity will avoid the singularity.

[Brade]

My understanding is that time could not exist without space- and space-time all started with the BB

So then to say that God exists within time, one would have to say that he did not exist before the BB? That would be a hard one to swallow.

The solution would be that the BB was an event in time in some sense- but that "God's time" is outside our understanding of time and space- with the implication that if there is "God's time" there must also be "God's space"??

So which is it?

I'm certain people have different intuitions about this, but I don't think it's that hard to swallow, and, in fact, it's sort of been my personal speculative belief for a while.

[cdowis]

And IF God created everything ex nihilo, then He sat FOREVER (explicitly meaning the passage of time) in nothing, doing nothing.

So, what caused Him to change?

Several years ago I attended an Evangel meeting where one of those brilliant theologians gave a lecture. He said that we (scholars) know so much more about the nature of God than any of the Bible prophets did. For example, we "know" that God lives outside time.

I asked him a very simple question, and remember the silence, "If God is outside time, how could He create the universe. Before the creation and after the creation implies that time has always existed. Creation implies that there was a time before the creation."

No time implies that everything is frozen, no motion, no beginning, no before and after so nothing can happen.

He changed the subject and started talking about how they were sending missionaries to assist the Russian Orthodox Church as advisers on how to deal with the "Mormon problem". He was asking for donations for this important cause.

[handys003]

While I may disagree with Ostler on several different points, I quite agree with him on time here. Moreover, it is what the scriptures quite plainly say in several places. That God interacts with and is participatory in time is the only consistent interpretation of the King Follett Discourse (handys003's interpretation to justify his God-outside-of-time view is nonsense). The idea of God being outside of time is a theological abomination wrought upon mankind by apostate philosophy (see for example: eternity).

That said, it should be acknowledged that we really have no truly fundamental understanding of time. A full understanding of what time is remains one of the great mysteries of physics. Nonetheless, the scriptures and reason clearly testify that God is within time.

PS: I see no good reason to posit extra "dimensions of time" - we scarcely understand the one we know about. Contemporary physics certainly does not require such speculation (albeit plenty of physicists do so anyway).

Says who! It fits perfectly with HF was once man. Explain the concept of eternity. Your hyperbole assertion is unwarranted. Discuss civilly but knock off the trollism. Your no as only the degree of knowledge other than what science today can explain in it's limits or philosophy teachesper your understanding. I suggest you go buy a copy of Melton Stelters book on Particle and Waves. It discusses the KFD in relation to relativity and quantum physics. When you have done that come back and discuss with me rather than singling out people and using ridicule for your unsustained hyperbole.

Pathetic argument by yourself.

[mfbukowski]

I'm certain people have different intuitions about this, but I don't think it's that hard to swallow, and, in fact, it's sort of been my personal speculative belief for a while.

Well since none of this can be "proven" with certainty anyway, and is all speculation, one can I think still go with a multiverse interpretation. Just logically, if multiverses exist, their "timeline" would not affect our timeline. I don't know the science nor do I purport to, but it just seems logical since we do not know of any time effects which have obviously happened in our universe, presumably while other universes are theoretically blinking in and out of existence.

Pragmatically it doesn't matter much since it is all speculation. If one believes in God, especially through direct experience of his effect in their life, a speculative and unanswered question in science should not have any effect on their belief.

Also, perhaps God was not God before the BB, as you are suggesting. That is one of those things which would not affect my testimony if somehow proven "true"- but in principle I think it cannot be proven. If Abraham has been exalted already as per the D&C, we know it does not exactly take an "eternity" for that to happen.

So there is no need to postulate an inconsistency regardless of how it goes.

[handys003]

Several years ago I attended an Evangel meeting where one of those brilliant theologians gave a lecture. He said that we (scholars) know so much more about the nature of God than any of the Bible prophets did. For example, we "know" that God lives outside time.

I asked him a very simple question, and remember the silence, "If God is outside time, how could He create the universe. Before the creation and after the creation implies that time has always existed. Creation implies that there was a time before the creation."

No time implies that everything is frozen, no motion, no beginning, no before and after so nothing can happen.

He changed the subject and started talking about how they were sending missionaries to assist the Russian Orthodox Church as advisers on how to deal with the "Mormon problem". He was asking for donations for this important cause.

Time is relative. It is a tool for use as measurement in implementation such as a universe being created. If you conclude that HF is an eternal being then time has no relevance. Eternity is forever therefore time does not exist. The only other conclusion would be that the eternal nature of HF does not exist and he has a time limit. He then does have a beginning and an end and KFD is a false assumption by JS.

[Brade]

Well since none of this can be "proven" with certainty anyway, and is all speculation, one can I think still go with a multiverse interpretation. Just logically, if multiverses exist, their "timeline" would not affect our timeline. I don't know the science nor do I purport to, but it just seems logical since we do not know of any time effects which have obviously happened in our universe, presumably while other universes are theoretically blinking in and out of existence.

Pragmatically it doesn't matter much since it is all speculation. If one believes in God, especially through direct experience of his effect in their life, a speculative and unanswered question in science should not have any effect on their belief.

Also, perhaps God was not God before the BB, as you are suggesting. That is one of those things which would not affect my testimony if somehow proven "true"- but in principle I think it cannot be proven. If Abraham has been exalted already as per the D&C, we know it does not exactly take an "eternity" for that to happen.

So there is no need to postulate an inconsistency regardless of how it goes.

Oh, I agree that one can have a consistent belief system either. FWIW, in addition to (speculatively) believing that God may not have always existed, I'm also inclined to think that some form of multiverse theory is right, and I think that those two beliefs can be made consistent.

[mfbukowski]

Oh, I agree that one can have a consistent belief system either. FWIW, in addition to (speculatively) believing that God may not have always existed, I'm also inclined to think that some form of multiverse theory is right, and I think that those two beliefs can be made consistent.

Yep.

There are many ways to create a consistent understanding.

[cdowis]

Time is relative. It is a tool for use as measurement in implementation such as a universe being created. If you conclude that HF is an eternal being then time has no relevance. Eternity is forever therefore time does not exist. The only other conclusion would be that the eternal nature of HF does not exist and he has a time limit. He then does have a beginning and an end and KFD is a false assumption by JS.

Perhaps you could look at DC 88, starting with verse 42. I see time as a tool, like a hammer. It exists, but the hammer has a different meaning to the carpenter than it does to the house. (poor analogy, but you should get the point)

[Nofear]

I suggest you go buy a copy of Melton Stelters book on Particle and Waves. It discusses the KFD in relation to relativity and quantum physics. When you have done that come back and discuss with me rather than singling out people and using ridicule for your unsustained hyperbole.

While I am well versed in relativity and quantum physics and the King Follett discourse, thanks for the suggestion. If I run across the book, I'll take a look at it.

Says who! It fits perfectly with HF was once man. Explain the concept of eternity. Your hyperbole assertion is unwarranted. Discuss civilly but knock off the trollism. Your no as only the degree of knowledge other than what science today can explain in it's limits or philosophy teachesper your understanding.

My only "hyperbole" is to reject your reasoning in the strongest of terms as false and without rational merit (i.e. without sense, nonsensical). But I have only ridiculed your idea/assertion. One need not take it personally -- we all believe silly things from time to time. "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

If you conclude that HF is an eternal being then time has no relevance. Eternity is forever therefore time does not exist. The only other conclusion would be that the eternal nature of HF does not exist and he has a time limit. He then does have a beginning and an end and KFD is a false assumption by JS.

Above you ask me to explain eternity. Eternity has a few references. It can refer to a finite, but really long time. Or it can potentially refer to an infinite duration of time where time extends into the infinite past. Neither use precludes the idea of time existing.

So here, I ask you to explain and justify your statement that because eternity is forever, therefore time does not exist*. You clearly don't like me denigrating this idea. Nonetheless, I reaffirm my denunciation of the statement**.

* Perhaps handys003 will sustain his position by objecting to the existence of "actual infinities". However, in a preemptive rebuttal I'll point out that actual infinities are rather well established as logically coherent and feasible.

** And being a false statement, it can lead to false beliefs. This is precisely one of the things which apologetics is good for -- to defend the faith from spurious reasoning.

[mfbukowski]

I'm also not a believer in multiverses. They are speculated but no observation requires them.

As for time and the big bang theory, yes time "starts" according to the traditional big bang theory -- if one extrapolates all the way to a singularity. And yes, this is problematic for the existence of eternal things (not just God). However, the big bang theory as a model to explain our observations only needs to be extrapolated back to a time of very high density and temperature. It does not need to be taken back to a singularity*.

I don't like the singularity version of the big bang theory. I place my hopes in a theory which allows for existence to continue into the infinite past. A singularity which spawns all of space and time and matter/energy is problematic not just for God and time but also "intelligences" - the stuff that can not be created and which has always existed. God isn't the only eternal player here. I find it curious how some Mormons will laud the necessity of God existing super-temporally on the basis of his eternal existence while ignoring the other eternal, self-existent entities in our theology.

* There is considerable hope and even confidence among cosmologists that a theory of quantum gravity will avoid the singularity.

The more I think about it the more I think it is logically necessary that there could not have been a singularity for precisely the same reason that God cannot be outside of time.

For the singularity to "exist" at least in the way we think about it, it would have to exist in time- because, like God, there cannot be a time "before" time, which is "when" it would have had to exist.

On the other hand, if a singularity DID "exist" then God could have "existed" in the same sense, before time, whatever that means.

I think either way, there is not a problem with a theological solution paralleling the scientific solution, at least for Mormons. We are the only ones I think who have no problem with the notion of God existing in time- or outside, without it having major implications for our theology.

But another question pops up- in this whole context, what is the meaning of the phrase "time AND eternity"? Perhaps not much! The phrase itself implies that God exists outside of time.

[Nofear]

The more I think about it the more I think it is logically necessary that there could not have been a singularity for precisely the same reason that God cannot be outside of time.

For the singularity to "exist" at least in the way we think about it, it would have to exist in time- because, like God, there cannot be a time "before" time, which is "when" it would have had to exist.

On the other hand, if a singularity DID "exist" then God could have "existed" in the same sense, before time, whatever that means.

I think either way, there is not a problem with a theological solution paralleling the scientific solution, at least for Mormons. We are the only ones I think who have no problem with the notion of God existing in time- or outside, without it having major implications for our theology.

If God has to exist outside of a singularity, then so does everything else that is uncreate. So, if and when God created this universe with a Big Bang (an idea I reject) then he would have to take every other uncreate entity and place it into the universe (since we clearly exist in time).

But another question pops up- in this whole context, what is the meaning of the phrase "time AND eternity"? Perhaps not much! The phrase itself implies that God exists outside of time.

I simply read it as saying "for [this temporal/mortal existence] and [the existence beyond this temporal/mortal existence]". I don't read anything into it past that.

[Nofear]

So here, I ask you to explain and justify your statement that because eternity is forever, therefore time does not exist*. You clearly don't like me denigrating this idea. Nonetheless, I reaffirm my denunciation of the statement.

Seems, handys003 mounts his defense of this statement in another thread. I missed noticing it there, oops.

[mfbukowski]

If God has to exist outside of a singularity, then so does everything else that is uncreate.

Please explain what you mean by "everything else that is uncreate". Like what?