Outside time?

Originally posted by knightmeister
What is your PROOF for statement 2 ? Do you have one or are you just stating it as self evident?

I find it self evident.

I see that 2 could be true but I don't see why a complete timeline could not be created by events that potentially could have been different but just.....ehrm...weren't. Can you tell me why I CANNOT be right or alternatively retract the catagorical nature of your statements.
I tried to explain it to you before with programming analogies but you apparently could not or would not get it.
From the perspective of the external entity, the universe is static. There is only one timeline with only one state at any given point along the time dimention. To talk of 'possible' states that are not anywhere on that time dimention is simply meaningless. They do not and cannot exist. Hitler may not have known what was going to happen, and we may see a pattern in events that leads us to believe that what happened was as a result of his actions. But only one future of Hitler existed or exists. Or future exists. It is set.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I find it self evident.

[b]I see that 2 could be true but I don't see why a complete timeline could not be created by events that potentially could have been different but just.....ehrm...weren't. Can you tell me why I CANNOT be right or alternatively retract the catagorical nature of your statements.
I tried to explain it to you before with progr ...[text shortened]... f his actions. But only one future of Hitler existed or exists. Or future exists. It is set.[/b]

The question is who or how is it set.

Time marks the beginning of created existence. God never began to exist. He can extend His presence into time but is free from its application.

A.W. Tozer said that God dwells in eternity but time dwells in God. That God dwells in eternity is confirmed by Isaiah 57:15. "the high and exalted One, Who inhabits eternity."

Of necesessity God is ever-existing, imoortal, eternal and without origin. God has no origin by definition. Though atheists may whine and cry because God has no creator or origin that is His nature by definition - "without begining or origin".

God is deathless - absolutely free from death. And First Timothy 6:16 says that He "alone has immortality". "God alone possesses immortality as an essential element of His being."

The concept of limitations of time do not apply to God. God is immutable as opposed to mutable. Mutable means subject to change or alterations. God is unchanging, invariable, unalterable, not susceptible to change.

The theological word "aseity" denotes the independence of God from anything else. God is not dependent upon anything else. The Latin root of the word means "of oneself". God is self-existing and without origin. God is separate and distinguished from all things which are not God. He is the unique independent Being.

We're sorry if this breaks the heart of the atheist. Regardless of how he pouts that it is not fair, God is ever-existing, self existing, eternal, with no origin, and free from the limitations of time.

I believe that TIME is His creation for our convenience. We need TIME and SPACE to exist. Just as a parent prepares a crib for a infant's well keeping - TIME and SPACE or prepared by this all powerful God mainly for our existence. He does not need Time and Space.

Therefore don't be mad. Don't say its not fair. Don't say that everything else has a beginning and it is not fair that God gets to have no beginning.

The universal buck stops with God. Be thankful that it doesn't stop with you and I. The universal buck of all existence stops with God.

We arrived on the scene and God was already here. He can't but be.

Originally posted by jaywill
Time marks the beginning of created existence. God never began to exist. He can extend His presence into time but is free from its application.

A.W. Tozer said that God dwells in eternity but time dwells in God. That God dwells in eternity is confirmed by [b]Isaiah 57:15. "the high and exalted One, Who inhabits eternity."

Of necesessity God is e ...[text shortened]... God.

We arrived on the scene and God was already here. He can't but be.[/b]

We're sorry if this breaks the heart of the atheist. Regardless of how he pouts that it is not fair, God is ever-existing, self existing, eternal, with no origin, and free from the limitations of time.

This kind of throw-away, puerile comment is unworthy of you. In the present context, it in no way characterizes twhitehead's arguments—which I find quite interesting—nor his position generally.

I could just as well say, “Sorry, Jaywill, if our challenges to the Biblical texts break your heart, but regardless of how much you pout that it is not fair, we believe our arguments to be well-reasoned.” I would never say such a thing to you; and I would be absolutely foolish if I did. It’s a foolish kind of thing to say, no matter who says it. And you are no fool.

Look, you once said something to the effect that you found it sad (“tragic” may have been your word) that I could argue Christian theology pretty knowledgeably, but really missed the point by not being a Christian (that’s the gist of what you said, as I recall). Some thought it was an offensive statement, but I did not, not at all (do you recall the incident?). I have always thought that we remained friends even when we disagreed, and relished the times when we did agree. We have argued alongside one another on points of Christology; I have found your soteriology—what might be called a soteriology of transformation—to be at least close (and in some ways richer) than what I have from time to time articulated; I think your correction of the theological notion of God being causa sui is spot on (so that I will never again make that error). You see—I do still pay attention to what you present on here!

Now, you likely still find all of that a bit tragic. I take that in the best possible way. What I am trying to say is that I hope you will take my calling you on your comments here in the same way. I know that you are better and more capable than that. (I also admit that I have not been immune from doing such things myself, and do not pretend otherwise.)

My intention is now to “gird up my loins” to stay away from here for awhile (I said that just recently, and have not been able to pull it off). I’ll be back eventually, and will look forward to catching up on your theological discourses, as always.

Be well.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are all wrong. Time is a dimention of the universe similar to the spacial dimentions. It is the arrow of time that is a result of entropy change and that creates the illusion that we are moving through time in a specific direction. In reality information can flow in both directions through time but flows much better in one direction than the other.
...[text shortened]... only one future and one past and most importantly renders all talk of 'potential' meaningless.

Once again, you have written something that just stopped me dead in my tracks. It reminds me a bit of the stress on the occurence of "novelty" in process philosophy.

But I'm going to take it a bit as a Zen koan. 🙂

Keep yourself well.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think so yes.

Also:
1. Such a being could not be your God.

2. The existence of such a being guarantees that our timeline is single and complete (ie does not branch infinitely) thus the future is predetermined (ie it is meaningless to claim that Hitler had other potential futures).

So because a timeline is singular and complete why does that necessarily mean that the events that formed that timeline were pre-determined or "set" ?

What logic are you using here? Is it not possible for a single timeline to form but for it also to be unpredictable? Would a timeline formed by entirely random events occuring in sequence be pre-determined?

It just seems to me that you are saying that you are a hard deterministic and it's a self evident position for you and that's all there is to it. It's your bottom line.....All events are determined because they just are. Therefore a single timeline is pre determined because it just...well...is.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Number one is where your definition fails. I don't have to read any further.

Time is a function of entropy change, and have nothing to do with events.

"I'll meet you after the races."

Clearly for most people time and events are intertwined.

And why use 'time' when 'entropy change' will do?

If you think about it, entropy change is a sequence of events. The key is 'change'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
.

The reason we object to knightmeisters concept of an entity outside time is that it implies that the universe is contained in a larger entity, and that in that larger entity the universe is static. That tells us that we have only one future and one past and most importantly renders all talk of 'potential' meaningless.

But some scientists argue that this universe has bubbled off from another one. Therefore our concept of time is entirely relative, and knightmeister has a point of some kind. But probably not the point he thinks he's making.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I meant a sentient being like an alien living in a parallel universe that is not ours. What relationship might such a being have with the time dimension of our universe?

Just try and forget God for a minute.

No, you're on the wrong track here.

Look, postulating 'an extra-temporal deity' is idolatry pure and simple.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
But some scientists argue that this universe has bubbled off from another one. Therefore our concept of time is entirely relative, and knightmeister has a point of some kind. But probably not the point he thinks he's making.

What point do you think I've made and what point do you think I was trying to make?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think so yes.

Also:
1. Such a being could not be your God.

2. The existence of such a being guarantees that our timeline is single and complete (ie does not branch infinitely) thus the future is predetermined (ie it is meaningless to claim that Hitler had other potential futures).

2. The existence of such a being guarantees that our timeline is single and complete (ie does not branch infinitely) thus the future is predetermined (ie it is meaningless to claim that Hitler had other potential futures).---whitey-------------

You keep making these statements but with no back up argument.

===================================

This kind of throw-away, puerile comment is unworthy of you. In the present context, it in no way characterizes twhitehead's arguments—which I find quite interesting—nor his position generally.

I could just as well say, “Sorry, Jaywill, if our challenges to the Biblical texts break your heart, but regardless of how much you pout that it is not fair, we believe our arguments to be well-reasoned.” I would never say such a thing to you; and I would be absolutely foolish if I did. It’s a foolish kind of thing to say, no matter who says it. And you are no fool.
==============================================


I apologize if my phrasing was unkind to anyone.

================================

I have always thought that we remained friends even when we disagreed, and relished the times when we did agree. We have argued alongside one another on points of Christology; I have found your soteriology—what might be called a soteriology of transformation—to be at least close (and in some ways richer) than what I have from time to time articulated; I think your correction of the theological notion of God being causa sui is spot on (so that I will never again make that error). You see—I do still pay attention to what you present on here!

Now, you likely still find all of that a bit tragic. I take that in the best possible way. What I am trying to say is that I hope you will take my calling you on your comments here in the same way. I know that you are better and more capable than that. (I also admit that I have not been immune from doing such things myself, and do not pretend otherwise.)

My intention is now to “gird up my loins” to stay away from here for awhile (I said that just recently, and have not been able to pull it off). I’ll be back eventually, and will look forward to catching up on your theological discourses, as always.

Be well.

===========================================

Thank you for the words of exhortation.

Thank you for your good wishes.

Your posts are always respectful. And I cannot say that that is the case with me.

I will have to read through the above remarks again.

It is possible to be outside time. Time is the apparrent period separating dualistic cognition. When the mind is non-dual as it is in its most fundamental state one is outside time. Time only appears to exist to non-enlightened beings who grasp at phenonema as existing inherently. In fact no phenomena exists inherently and that includes time.