God and Time

My thought is that time is a construct of the creation when God set the uninverse in motion

“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:14‬ ‭KJV‬‬

And so we the creation are within the construct of time limited by it , but he is outside of the construct being the one who existed before time was constructed eternity is not within time , time is a construct within eternity

peter is talking here saying that in the end times people will be wondering “ I thought this Jesus was going to come back where is he ? Everything is just going on like always …. Peter assures them he will return but makes this point

“But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭3:8‬ ‭KJV‬‬

This is evidenced when he tells Adam “ you’ll surely die in the day you eat the fruit “ yet adam lived 935 years and then he died .

God isn’t within the construct or limits of time he created it and existed before and will exist after so his ways are not subject to its construct when Jesus said “ I’m coming soon “

tbat to us means maybe a couple years or something but to him soon may mean ten thousand years because he’s speaking from an eternal perspective

if you experience eternity “ soon “ might be thousands of years but if you are mortal a hundred years seems like an extremely long wait and doesn’t feel like it’s “ soon “

time is part of creation God is the creator

Science, like all areas of academic endeavor, should affirm the glory of God. Where it doesn't, it is lagging behind. This is either due to the sinfulness of man or the lack of full revelation.

Kinda like theology, then.

First, if this view is correct, God exists in a constant state of stasis. Everything would be a frozen present to God. Thus, creation, redemption and recreation would all be simultaneous events for God. In fact, it would call into question the very concept of God creating the world ex nihilo.

The eternal One would more likely be in a constant state motion rather than in a constant state of stasis.

The term 'eternal' by principle infers a living entity that has always existed and does not change in form or nature;

Don't these contradict? Something in constant motion would be changing and therefore would be experiencing events in sequence, a.k.a. time.

Matter in this universe is not capable of constant, or perpetual motion. So as to whether something in constant motion would be changing in form if it was capable of perpetual motion, it would stand to reason that it would remain the same in perpetuity would not change in form, and without changing in form it could experience time without be affected by it.

Even if the entire content of the universe was motionless in terms of molecules, I think the sub-atomic particles would still be in motion.

You are perfectly free to think, in fact I encourage it; if the molecules are motionless, then wouldn't the sub-atomic particles be void of energy seeing that energy is the capacity of matter to produce force?

Since molecules are formed by atoms, if the molecule was motionless then that atoms would lack the force to put the molecule in motion. As I understand, either atoms pull other atoms to them or push them away, So if the atoms were motionless, then it would seem that the sub-atomic particles would be void of force which is the capacity of matter to produce motion.

Perpetual motion is the ability of matter, once set in motion having the ability to continue in motion forever, with no additional force required to keep it in motion. Since a sub-atomic particle is still matter, then it would seem that the same laws of thermodynamics would apply. Considering that the universe is a closed system, then isn't entropy the ultimate result of time as predicted by the Gospel in 2 Peter 3:10?

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Maybe not, you probably know more about the subject that I do. But if God so loved the world, then I would hold to the world being subject to end but not bound to end seeing that the scripture suggests that it is man, not the world that will perish.

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/what-absolute-zero-ncna936581

Does everything stop moving at absolute zero? Not quite. Atoms aren’t entirely still; they wobble as a result of effects related to quantum physics. And, of course, the activity within each atom continues no matter how cold it gets. Electrons keep moving, as do protons and neutrons."

I don't know, I guess we will have to wait and see whether the sub-atomic particles move when absolute zero is obtained, which as you said is not 0, but is theorized to be something like -273 \ Celsius.

But it is like the Cern experiment, they claimed they had accelerated a particle to the speed of light, some people thought they did, others people knew they didn't, and some just didn't know.

So until they until they reach absolute zero then I think I will hold on the the principle that absolute zero would require the complete cessation of motion of the atom since temperature is the measure of the atoms' motion. Or in other words, absolute zero = 0 motion.

So back to your original question, with time being the measure of motion, until the atoms were created there was no time to measure.

For the scientific community, the biggest problem they still have is explaining the: Uncaused Cause.

If God thinks in sequence and the Father speaks/thinks to the Son and the Son responds to the Father, then there is sequence in the economy of God, a.k.a. time.

Well, if you can explain how long God existed before the beginning of the universe then I would agree that there is a sequence in the economy of God, otherwise only one being can be eternal.

The scientific community doesn't have a problem explaining the eternal universe, it is its own cause and it doesn't need a creator to explain its existence.

The First Cause principle is based upon these two precepts 1) all things which exist have a cause; and 2) the effectual cause cannot be its own cause.

They don't need to argue against believers of a God that only wins by default, nor do the believers need the explain the Uncaused Cause.

By the law of entropy, something ordered will tend to disorder unless its order is sustained by someone intelligent who orders it.

For complex order to exist now, by the law of entropy, the universe must have been either more ordered in the past than it is now; or its order must have been caused and maintained by an external intelligent power. How do you explain increasing orderly motion (Big Bang to the extant universe) in a system that is subject to the law of entropy?

Ps. 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, you are God.

@PaulThomson i see that you've been busy.
There's another theory out there which says that our reality is a hologram coming from the edge of a black hole or some sort of "source".
What's your expert professional opinion on this?

Maybe the black hole is an orifice in the lower half of your body.