What does outside of time/existence mean?

Lockon-Stratos · #1 by **Lockon-Stratos** » Dec 28, 2011 5:07 am

Hey guys, eh I hope this is the right section. But onto the topic, what does it mean when a theist says that god is outside of time/existence(I've seen both being used). Whenever I ask what is meant by that; the original assertion is repeated, so I thought I would ask here.

Ihavenofingerprints · #2 by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Dec 28, 2011 6:03 am

They justification is probably something along the lines of "the universe requires a timeless, immaterial, personal, creator".

Why? Because the universe requires a first cause greater than itself. This cause needs to be outside of time/space ect... Because if it's not - the same logic used to object to a material universe would apply to their favorite deity as well.

CdesignProponentsist · #3 by **CdesignProponentsist** » Dec 28, 2011 6:18 am

The best that can be physically manifested for such a scenario is an extended higher dimensional space. But this would still be a form of existence.

A nonexistent existence is just that: nonexistent. (as in it doesn't exist)

Fenrir · #4 by **Fenrir** » Dec 28, 2011 6:46 am

Time is how we denote change.
Timelessness (or existence outside of time) to me suggests no change, at all.
That a transition from no universe to universe could happen without change is entirely nonsensical to me.
In fact the very idea of existence without change is nonsensical to me.
As far as I can see theists suggest an existence outside of time in order to avoid having to justify their claims and to place their god firmly in the gaps, though the attempt is a failure.

Oldskeptic · #5 by **Oldskeptic** » Dec 28, 2011 7:02 am

Lockon-Stratos wrote:Hey guys, eh I hope this is the right section. But onto the topic, what does it mean when a theist says that god is outside of time/existence(I've seen both being used). Whenever I ask what is meant by that; the original assertion is repeated, so I thought I would ask here.

It means that they have been backed into corner that the can't get out of so they start spouting gibberish.

There is no outside of space and time, but since science has blasted all their biblical myths out of the water that is the only place to go. The universe as we know it is not eternal, but for God to have created it he must be, and if time and space were created at a certain point then God has to be outside of time and space.

It is all nonsense, and William lame Craig gets so tangled up in it that he has claimed that God popped into existence at the same instant that the universe as we know it came into existence just so God could create the universe.

Here's the basic argument: We know that God created the universe, but for him to do that he had to exist before the universe; before time and space. So God is outside of time and space.

This argument hinges on a belief that God and only God could create the universe. Ignoring that the universe does not seem to need a creator with intelligence or a purpose.

Lockon-Stratos · #6 by **Lockon-Stratos** » Dec 28, 2011 3:00 pm

^^ So, it's basically just a way of getting ready to use a god of the gaps?

z8000783 · #7 by **z8000783** » Dec 29, 2011 8:36 am

Ask the man himself -

John

Oldskeptic · #8 by **Oldskeptic** » Dec 29, 2011 9:34 am

z8000783 wrote:Ask the man himself -

John

11 minutes and 37 seconds of utter bullshit.

z8000783 · #9 by **z8000783** » Dec 29, 2011 9:35 am

... and that's just part 1.

John

Jireh · **#10** by **Jireh** » Dec 29, 2011 11:20 am

Fenrir wrote:Time is how we denote change.
Timelessness (or existence outside of time) to me suggests no change, at all.
That a transition from no universe to universe could happen without change is entirely nonsensical to me.
In fact the very idea of existence without change is nonsensical to me.
As far as I can see theists suggest an existence outside of time in order to avoid having to justify their claims and to place their god firmly in the gaps, though the attempt is a failure.

http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/timeless.htm

God's bringing about the universe is the total and direct dependence of the contingent universe on the divine will. Such a relation of dependence does not require that God be located in time. Thus, divine timeless action is not incoherent.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... unbau.html

The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not temporally, prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist.

Contemporary philosophical discussions of causal directionality deal routinely with cases in which cause and effect are simultaneous; indeed, a good case can be made that all temporal causal relations involve the simultaneity of cause and effect.

LucidFlight · **#11** by **LucidFlight** » Dec 29, 2011 11:32 am

God is all time: past, future, and present. But God is also out of time and beyond time. God transcends time, yet is part of time. However, time is also part of God. Through time, we can experience God personally. It then follows from that experience, that one is able to transcend time themselves and experience the non-temporal nature of pure conscious being, detached from the physical universe. Through the non-temporality of higher existence, one has the potential to experience timelessness in God — in a sense, to be with and at one with the timeless God. It is perhaps no surprise to learn that when one passes into Heaven, the experience of the eternal becomes timeless. And that, my friends, is why people are never bored in the afterlife.

Spearthrower · **#12** by **Spearthrower** » Dec 29, 2011 11:42 am

How to push your claim outside the realm of testability.

Animavore · **#13** by **Animavore** » Dec 29, 2011 11:54 am

Why is it when I read books on science on proposed universal origins, usually written in the straightforward and technical manner of - A.B.C - I can make some sort of sense of it but when I read so-called godly origins, always in the form - A.fluffy A.mysterious B.Wooish C.Unknowable G.therefore, Trancendant X. - I lose track after two or three sentences and interest after four? Why aren't gods interesting, understandable, desirable or even sensical to me? Aren't I praying hard enough? Has the speciall perception for understanding the unattainable not been revealed to me? Or does my bullshit detector just work astonishingly well even when if I can't always figure out immediately why something is bullshit?
If the latter, why do non-sensical concepts titillate the theistical mindset and make 'obvious'* sense to them? If the former :pray:

*A creationist friend when asked to define his god once told me his god was 'all-powerful'. I asked what does that even mean he said, this time with hand gestures, 'He's all-powerful!.' As if reiterating with emphasis made any difference. He finally fell back on accusing me of knowing exactly what he meant and I was deliberately denying because I thought I was 'smart'.

Mycernius · **#14** by **Mycernius** » Dec 29, 2011 12:25 pm

It is the new place that theists use to hide their unproven magic man. Why provide evidence when you can just hide it and then repeat empty assertions.

THWOTH · **#15** by **THWOTH** » Dec 29, 2011 12:35 pm

Lockon-Stratos wrote:[W]hat does it mean when a theist says that god is outside of time/existence(I've seen both being used)? ...

It means nothing.

Shrunk · **#16** by **Shrunk** » Dec 29, 2011 12:42 pm

One apparent problem with this theist claim, as I have mentioned in other threads: If the claim is that God is "timeless", and that time did not begin to exist until God brought the universe into existence, this leads to the paradox that there was no time in which God existed and the universe did not. This means the statement "God caused the universe to come into being" is incoherent. You cannot have a cause that does not exist prior to the effect.

Regina · **#17** by **Regina** » Dec 29, 2011 12:54 pm

I guess the standard reply to that line of argument is that God transcends time, is not bound to what we experience as coherent and is also above paradoxes.

Shrunk · **#18** by **Shrunk** » Dec 29, 2011 12:56 pm

Regina wrote:I guess the standard reply to that line of argument is that God transcends time, is not bound to what we experience as coherent and is also above paradoxes.

Which means logical argument is useless in terms of describing God, and cannot be used to demonstrate its existence. The theist shoots his entire foot off if he tries that argument.

Regina · **#19** by **Regina** » Dec 29, 2011 1:06 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Regina wrote:I guess the standard reply to that line of argument is that God transcends time, is not bound to what we experience as coherent and is also above paradoxes.

Which means logical argument is useless in terms of describing God, and cannot be used to demonstrate its existence. The theist shoots his entire foot off if he tries that argument.

Yes, and that's why I find Mr Craig and his fan-club so bewildering. How can you use logic, something that reflects human thought processes, to describe something that can only exist outside anything we can deduce or imagine?

I.C.37 · **#20** by **I.C.37** » Dec 29, 2011 1:26 pm

According to general relativity, time slows down near strong gravitational fields. If you have a gravitational field of infinite strength, like for example in some of the pre-big bang singularity models(?), then, I assume, time would stand still, there would be no time. Then quantum mechanics come into the picture, saying that general relativity can't be applied at such short distances, on the Plank scale, inside a singularity. So maybe time would pass after all, but only at a quantum level and thus "change" can happen without actual time. This is confusing. :scratch:

Maybe God is a tiny tiny particle which could still act without being frozen in time by the infinite strength gravitational field. Hurray, I've found God! I think. :ask: