Does God exist outside of time?

[jb]

I could say a bit about this but I havn't got the time

Awk, go on, take the time...watching the highlights of the royal wedding?

 

[mailmandan]

I once heard someone say (although I have not seen this specifically spelled out in the Bible) that light is the visible movement of time and when you get to the actual source of light (God) there is no time, just eternity. Interesting thought.

 

[posthuman]

Okay, lol, let me try to clarify. God has always existed. Right? So, whenever He did something, anything, is the point at which we can then measure time.

"-" <---- represents eternity, okay? "_" <------ this represents an action or point in eternity that occurred. The arrows at each end will represent going on forever, no beginning and no end.

<----------------_----------------->

So, what we can gather from this is that time can only be measured at the moment ( "_") something occurs, and prior to that moment time couldn't be told or measured.

Now, when we take that "occurrence" or "moment" and wait for another, we then can tell time, based upon measurement.

<-------------_---------------------------_-------->

At least, to me, that seems logical. That time can only work with a reference point (in our case, a beginning), but in eternity as a moment taking place and then from there onward.

Its kind of weird to think of, because God has always existed with no beginning and no end, He is eternal, so does that mean He doesn't have a first action, thought, creation, or moment that can be measured? At the very least, from an eternal stand point, God could measure how long it has been since He created the world from eternity, or use any, again, moment that took place and then start counting (such as Heaven, angels, etc).

Since finite has two definitive points, represented by o ~ o, then these two points are reflected by o, and the ~ represents the measure between these two points.

Since the eternal has no beginning or ending point, it would have no measure of time, because there is no point, either starting point or beginning point by which one could hope to begin calculate a measure of time by.

So if only the eternal has no starting point, then anything with a starting point would not be eternal, and if not eternal it would have an ending point. So if in the beginning was the 'Word' and the "Word' was with God, then who was before the Word and the Spirit?

let's say i represent any two events in time like this

- - - - -----•-----------•------ - - - -​

where -------- is the ((presumed linear)) timeline, and • is an event.
i'll make no assumption about either •, that is, • can be any event you like, even a 'first' or 'last' event or both.

•--------------•​

now let's measure time.
we'll call the total time in our interval τ
let's define ○ as the point in time, τ/2. our timeline looks like this now:

•-------○-------•​

now let's define two more points in time, at τ/4 and 3τ/4.

•----○----○----○----•​

hey we could do this again, why not?
i'll graph 4 more 'events' defined by times τ/8, 3τ/8, 5τ/8 and 7τ/8

•--○--○--○--○--○--○--○--•​

can i keep going?
can i always define points in time between others?

does T[SUB]i[/SUB] = { τ*k*2[SUP]-i[/SUP], for k ∈ ℕ, k = 1 .. (2[SUP]i[/SUP]-1) } exist for every positive integer i ?

can i measure time by the number of these intervals i define?
is every time interval infinite?

what i'm asking is if time is continuous or discrete. is it measured by the real numbers, or by the natural numbers? it's Zeno's paradox, the Cantor set; if time is continuous, then every nanosecond has infinity in it.

 

[posthuman]

also wanted to point out that

•---------- - - - - - ----->

is still infinite. any time you choose a particular ---◘--- i can always choose one called ○ that comes after it, so we have ---◘--○---
then •-----○ is always 'longer' ((has greater measure)) than •-----◘

we can go on like this for ∞

 

[Laish]

also wanted to point out that

•---------- - - - - - ----->

is still infinite. any time you choose a particular ---◘--- i can always choose one called ○ that comes after it, so we have ---◘--○---
then •-----○ is always 'longer' ((has greater measure)) than •-----◘

we can go on like this for ∞

Cut it out your giving me a headache lol .
Blessings
Bill

 

[Laish]

also wanted to point out that

•---------- - - - - - ----->

is still infinite. any time you choose a particular ---◘--- i can always choose one called ○ that comes after it, so we have ---◘--○---
then •-----○ is always 'longer' ((has greater measure)) than •-----◘

we can go on like this for ∞

Oh great Posthuman! Look what you did !
You broke the TARDIS !

Blessings
Bill

 

[kaijo]

If something has a beginning and an end, then it is subject to time.

Therefore the opposite must also be true.

i.e. If something has No beginning and No end, then it is Not subject to time.

 

[maxwel]

?

what i'm asking is if time is continuous or discrete. is it measured by the real numbers, or by the natural numbers? it's Zeno's paradox, the Cantor set; if time is continuous, then every nanosecond has infinity in it.

Let's not equivocate.

This would lead to the conclusion that if time is continuous, then every nanosecond has an infinity of "measurements of time", not an infinity of time.

 

[BenFTW]

Let's not equivocate.

This would lead to the conclusion that if time is continuous, then every nanosecond has an infinity of "measurements of time", not an infinity of time.

Yeah, but it would add up indefinitely, making it infinite. Not the nanosecond itself, but every subsequent nanosecond that followed would be endless, and once you enter a space in which will never reach an ending (cease to exist), then eternity once entered would be an infinite amount of time. You're taking the finite and placing it into the infinite, like God takes us mortal beings and will have us put on immortality. If you took a stop watch from Earth and hit "start", and never hit "stop" it would go on forever (granted the battery doesn't die, haha).

 

[kaijo]

If you have 8 people then remove half of them, there will be 4 people left.
If you remove half of them again then you have 2 people left.
Half them again, then you have 1 person left.
But what happens if u try to remove half of that 1 person?
You no longer have a "person" anymore.
Can half of a person be considered a person?
No.
You are now dealing with fractions of a person.
Which we don't do.

Likewise, God created what units of time would be considered as "time".
If you start to chop up the smallest unit of time which He ordained to use, can it still be considered as time?
Or merely a fraction of the unit which qualifies as "time"?

I think that anything less than the smallest unit of time that He ordained is merely "man made" (i.e nano-second).
And could serve as confusion towards understanding the concept of "time", the way He intended it to be understood.

 

[posthuman]

Let's not equivocate.

This would lead to the conclusion that if time is continuous, then every nanosecond has an infinity of "measurements of time", not an infinity of time.

yes, you're right; no, an infinite number of instants in each instant doesn't make an instant infinite in duration.

but a finite duration could be mapped to an eternal one, whether a ray or a line. and what i described is even full of jump discontinuities, but it's infinite. i didn't mention any thirds, for example - so there are infinite sets between the infinite set of halving intervals.

if we live in 7 dimensions and only perceive 3 or 4 of them, the remaining ones are collapsed down to some finite scale. maybe even an infinitely small scale, like a point, if we could graph our existence. i have to ask myself, what does time look like from outside of it? ((ala ~ Flatland)) that's where i'm headed with all that.

 

[MattforJesus]

Time only applies to the creation from start to finish.

Before creation that started in Genesis, no time, when creation started, time started, and when heaven and earth shall pass away time will end, and the when the saints are with Jesus in the new heaven, and earth, New Jerusalem, then no time.

Time is only for the measuring of the creation, and God salvation plan, for things are on a schedule, the time God took to create everything, and the day of rest, 6000 years God allotted mankind to dwell on earth to take a people out of the world for His name, and the millennial reign of Christ, and then heaven, and earth shall pas away, and shall not be remembered, not come to mind, and then there is no time for there is no schedule to keep.

Also the sun going up, and then down, and then up, concerns a day, but before creation there is no sun, and after heaven and earth pass away, there is no sun, for the Lamb lights the New Jerusalem, so there is no measuring of days without the sun, so there is no time.

Before creation, no time, after heaven and earth pass away, no time, for that which is eternal, and all is the same, and nothing scheduled, there is no time.

The creation is scheduled from start to finish so there is time to measure the schedule, but that which is eternal has no time applied to it.

There is no such thing as time other than it is a creation of God to measure creation from start to finish.

If God would of never created anything there would never be time, and time is only temporary, and is not even anything physical but conjured out of thin air to measure creation from start to finish.

Time is something without substance.

Space is also something without substance, for when we look up at space we are not seeing space, but we are seeing God, for there is no space for God fills all space for He is omnipresent.

It is all God, and there is no space, and there is no time, that has substance.

 

[maxwel]

Yeah, but it would add up indefinitely, making it infinite. Not the nanosecond itself, but every subsequent nanosecond that followed would be endless, and once you enter a space in which will never reach an ending (cease to exist), then eternity once entered would be an infinite amount of time. You're taking the finite and placing it into the infinite, like God takes us mortal beings and will have us put on immortality. If you took a stop watch from Earth and hit "start", and never hit "stop" it would go on forever (granted the battery doesn't die, haha).

Zeno gives me an infinite headache




1. We know this isn't really how things work, it's only an "apparent" paradox, because... the real world simply doesn't work this way.

A.
According to Zeno's paradoxes you can never actually move from one second to the next , or move from one location to the next.

And yet we DO move from one second to the next, and we DO move from one location to the next.

Therefore, these paradoxes, must, by necessity, have some kind of logical flaw... they don't actually occur in the real world.

B.
No matter how many times you divide a second, the pieces can only add up to 1 second.
Infinite "measurements" of a slice of time DO NOT equal infinite time, and they CANNOT equal infinite time.

The simplest proof is to keep an eye on your watch... we DO move through time, therefore these paradoxes must have a flaw.

C.
Try this with a bit of string.
Keep chopping it in half and see if it looks longer.

The string never gets longer... so there has to be some kind of flaw in the paradox.

D. Try walking across the room.
According to Zeno's paradoxes, this is impossible, as the distance you walk would keep dividing down into smaller pieces, and you could never traverse the distance.

And yet... we can easily cross a room.

We know intuitively these paradoxes created by "infinite slices" don't really occur in the real world.
This means Zeno's paradoxes have some kind of flaw.

So what is the flaw?


2. The Flaw of the paradox

There are different solutions to Zeno's paradoxes.
We know, logically, there MUST BE some solution, because his paradoxes simply don't work in the actual world.
We QUITE EASILY traverse time and space in our normal daily lives, and under his paradoxes, this would be impossible.
There are a whole lot of things in life I'm overwhelmingly ignorant about, so I'll just give one solution to the paradox... one I find compelling.

I'm only going to give the Aristotelian solution.
A. When dealing with infinity, we first have to differentiate the "actual infinite" from the "potential infinite".
B. Next, if we take a look, we have to recognize that the "slices" proposed by the paradox are only "potential"
C. Next, we see that Zeno starts with a presumption, a presumption that distances (in time or space) are actually COMPOSED OF, MADE OF, an infinite number of slices.
D. Aristotle would claim (and our normal experience bears this out) that the WHOLE is LOGICALLY PRIOR to any divisions which are made in the whole.
E. Therefore, the slices are not an initial condition, they are something imposed upon the whole.. and if the slices are not the initial condition, and the whole is not COMPRISED of these slices, but merely CHOPPED INTO slices, then the paradox fails. (The means the slices don't exist until you go and make the slices, therefore, in normal daily life, you never have to traverse these slices because they don't actually exist.)
F. I think this seems reasonable, as it gives us a simple solution that also mirrors what we see in daily life.

*. If you want to go further, Aristotle has another problem with the paradox, saying that because Zeno's slices are "unequal", they don't hold up in the normal ways we describe the potentially infinite, and thus zeno's paradox fails on this count because "unequal" parts in a chain of the "potentially infinite" can only yield a FINITE measurement.


3. There are other solutions to Zeno, but I'll leave those to someone else.


4. Ultimately, regardless of the "fun" we can have with Zeno's paradoxes, we can confidently start with the assertion there MUST be a solution.
Why?
Because Zeno's paradoxes, if correct, would mean I cannot even walk across a room... and... I'm walking across the room right now... for more coffee... which I need after writing this post.

: )

 

[Jaybrewer]

If there is no such thing as the physical and only consciousness exists, God is a consciousness existing outside every other. Time defined unambiguously is Change. If God existed outside time he would be frozen in place.