God and Time, closing words of William Lane Craig

You state that God lives outside of time as if you know it. However you do not know any such thing. You have no scripture to back that up. It would be fine if you said I believe, such and such, but not to say something is fact when there is no evidence. All this high brow mumbo jumbo is nothing but vanity without scripture to back it up.

 

Denied perhaps not, but rejected for another explanation yes. While He did enter in our domain in Christ and into a system of relating the elements of time I feel it is not accurate to suggest He lived or lives in a timeless realm. Like I said before, the dictionary says that time is any period where someone or something exists. If we accept that as true, then time has always been because God has always been. Just because He does not use a clock or count time as we do does not mean time is non existent in His realm.

 

This reveals the essential difficulty with the whole discussion. God's eternal existence is ineffable. We are time-bound and *cannot* conceive of anything that isn't time-bound. So, we both end up having to resort to what are ultimately nonsensical statements to support our position.

A classic example, is "Craig proposes for a timeless God prior to creation". "Prior to creation" is ultimately nonsensical - since time did not exist before creation, the statement "prior to creation" has no real meaning. "Prior" has no meaning outside of time, thus nothing can be "prior" to creation. Our mind, of course, rebel at such a statement even though it is perfectly true and accurate. We simply can't conceive of anything not having something "prior" to it.

So, while its obvious what one means by "God prior to creation", strictly speaking is a nonsensical statement. "Prior to creation" is as absurd as a corner of a circle or the 4th side of a triangle.

 

Again you cannot accurately say that time did not exist before creation. You have absolutely no way of knowing that! It is true that there was no accounting for time as we know it, but only because this realm was not created. While I still believe that time has always been I can certainly go along with the idea that the accounting for time as we know it has not always been.

 

Your definition is a very poor one. For one, it doesn't address a very key aspect of time - that of continuity. Your definition allows for time to exist w/o continuity - that is, past, present and future do not need to exist as a part of your definition of time. Is that an allowable definition of time to you? If not, then the definition you give is insufficient even by your own standards.

Also, it is untrue that the dictionary says this is what time is.
1. the dictionary gives many meanings
2. more significantly, a dictionary does not define what something is - it only tells what people mean when they use a word.

Using the dictionary in the manner you do, I can just as easily prove that God must exist outside of time. After all, the dictionary says that time is finite vs. infinite. Since God is infinite, we must conclude that God exists outside of time.

So, we need to get away from dictionary definitions as foundations for proofs. The possible meanings of time are so broad that such an approach can be used to prove contradictory propositions. Its, simply put, an invalid approach.

 

My reasoning in the post assumed that God exists outside of time "prior" to creation (something Quantum agrees with). It was not an attempt to prove this - I was showing one of the logical consequences of holding such a position. So, please don't take that post as proof of my position - merely an examination of one aspect of my position. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

 

First off I did not write the dictionary. Second while a dictionary does usually give several meanings to a word those meaning do not exclude one another without some modifier to point to an exactness for a word. In this case we have to receive them all without denying any of them.

Now you say we need to get away from dictionary meanings. That I can accept as long as you offer your own clear definition. Then you can build a theory around it. What do you say time is?

 

Quantum, what? Quantum theory? If so look close at that last word. Theory. In other words theory agrees with theory, correct?.

 

1. The same exact criticisms apply to your own position.

2. The statements I reference are explanatory - I am explaining my position, not attempting to prove it in that post. I haven't yet really attempted to prove my position.

3. Regarding the lack of Scripture, that is patently false. You have already been presented with one such verse. You merely chose to dismiss it out of hand. Also, most posts have referenced several Scriptures. Sorry if i didn't give chapter and verses - I thought the references would be obvious.

4. I HAVE stated that this represents my view, my opinion. Expecting me to state it at every turn is not very reasonable IMO. However, I will try to qualify it at each post just so you are clear on this.

 

quantumfaith

 

First, while yo did not write the dictionary, you are cherry picking from it. Second, while meanings are not necessarily exclusive of each other, neither are they necessarily inclusive. You can't simply point to one of them and base your argument exclusively on that. Such a method is fallacious. I again bring up this example to demonstrate the fallacious nature of such an approach.

The dictionary says that time is finite vs. infinite. God is infinite. Thus God cannot exist in time.

So, using your same method, I can easily disprove your position. Why does the same method lead to contradictory conclusions? Because its fallacious to begin with.

Check out post 9. I provide just such a definition at the beginning.

 

now I better understand where you are coming from. This is some of Charles Capps nonsense. Rather then receiving what we have and applying it Capps seeks to go way beyond what is given and pushing into scripture that which is not there. He has to come up with some high brow term (quantum faith) to justify his new teachings and yes some do fall for it. But to follow this line of thought we have to re-define just about every word we use today to make the meaning of the word fit what we support. I really beleive that this type of thinking is nothing short of sin. I base that on 1Tim 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].

I think I can pass on quantum faith in regards to scripture. Enjoy. :sleep:

 

The problems you note are not really problems at all if you accept that Gods knowledge of the future is not knowable where the actions of free creatures are concerned. It doesn't exist to be known. You are assuming that the future must be settled for God. Why would He be diminished or threatened by this. He can settle as much or as little of it as He wants to. I don't see creatures as any threat to the Creator. I think your opinion requires God to have complete knowledge of the future. Why is this necessary? There are many passages of Scripture that indicate that He does not.
Most of us live our lives as if the future is at least partially open, as if our actions have real consequences for the future. We petition God to act on requests, which has no meaning if He already knows the whole future.

 

Thats fine. However, I will point out that to be consistent, you should also refrain from saying that God is bound by time.

 

Ah joy. Open theism.

Since I wish to refrain from a broader discussion of this particular theology in this thread, I will simply agree with you. Yes, the problems I raise mostly exist for those who hold to God's omniscience extending into the future. Given that this is the standard orthodox position and one I assume is held by the majority here, I will continue to discuss from that set of assumptions. Open theism certainly addresses many of the problems I will raise. Of course, open theism has its own set of problems

EDIT: I would be interested in your comments on the points I raise about the I AMness of God in relationship to His being time-bound.

 

This is a topic that even the ancients debated.
I find it interesting that the Jewish calendar starts at the creation of Adam.
For the Jews TIME started on day six, when man was created.

Rob

 

Right, I agree. Thus my point about the absurdity of saying "prior to creation". If time started with creation there can be no "prior to" the start of time as "prior to" assumes a temporal relationship. Please don't misunderstand me. I am not pointing this out to negate what you said. I understand what you are trying to say and i agree. I just am using this to illustrate the ineffable nature of the subject. We can't even talk about it w/o ending up resorting to statement which are absurdities. To speak of A being "prior to" B presumes that there was a time in which A existed. So, saying "prior to" creation is the same as saying "prior to" time, which equates to "the time before time" which is an obvious absurdity. See, all of our language presumes the quality of time - it is impossible to refer to God's existence before creation (whoops there i go with the same absurdity) without resorting to logically absurd statements. The topic is ultimately ineffable.

Up to this point i agreed with him. Here I disagree. Very much. Both with the conclusion and that is it the most plausible. God interacts with us on a temporal level and God has entered time through the Incarnation, but God does not become temporal by the existence of creation. Such a conclusion would put God within creation.

 

dwmoeller1,

EDIT: I would be interested in your comments on the points I raise about the I AMness of God in relationship to His being time-bound.
Craig uses the A theory of time for his assumptions. What was God doing prior to creation? Honest question. If there is succession or progression of activity or thought, how would you define it without time. It seems illogical from the human perspective for progression or succession without time. Hard to imagine having at a minimum, all one's thoughts without progression, let alone without time. Perhaps our definition of time is flawed. I don't have the answer as to how it could be better defined, but I feel that Craig is partially correct at least. Time being co-existent with God may be closer to correct.
Looking back at your earlier posts in this thread show that your time definition requires that God is changeless and has no successive experiences. Am I at least partially correct in that interpretation?

 

Not if you also believe time started with creation. In that case, "prior to creation/time" is an absurdity. Its like asking about the 4th side of a triangle or what is 1 less than infinity. "Prior to creation" has real meaning only if time existed before creation.

Yes, in as far as we understand it the question. It allows the changeless nature of God to be truly changeless - the I AM, to be truly I AM equally at all points in time. A God with successive experiences implies a God that changes - a God that WAS, and WILL BE in addition to BEING.