Infinite regression of time

[Guest]

Paidion said:

The "common mistake" that I see is the concept of an infinite regression of time into the past. Most people still hold to that concept today.

Paidion,

We're probably slipping way out on a skinny twig is speculation here, but perhaps we can have a bit of a "sidebar" discussion.

I find this notion of "untime" a problematic one. First off, we don't seem to have the linguistic tools to talk about it, and I'm uncertain whether we have the mental tools to really even think abou it clearly.

In secular scientific terms I think it's described something like this:
Anything that happened before the beginning of the universe is irrelevant.

My own thinking along these lines goes something like this:
Time is simply way of describing change. The second hand was here and now it's there. Something changed. This seems to be consistent with Einstein's discovery about the nature of time (that perception of change depends upon viewpoint).

In one sense, I suppose, this definition gives weight to the idea of "God outside of time". Mal 3:6

However, I don't quite see it that way. Given this definition, then any change, no matter how minute, automatically introduces time. That is to say, if something changes then there is automatically a before and an after. Indeed, the concept of time is really just a kludge we use to describe the change.

If this is so, then the nature of God's existence prior to the beginning, or prior to time if you prefer, would have had to be absolutely static. Personally, I find this idea philosophically repugnant. More importantly, I have not, so far, seen any compelling biblical evidence that suggests it.

All that leaves me with is an infinite regression of time into the past.

Perry

[Guest]

My own thinking along these lines goes something like this:
Time is simply way of describing change. The second hand was here and now it's there. Something changed.

The world, especially those who are inclined toward Einstein's Theory being a theory about time and space, would call your understanding of time "simplistic". I, however agree with your common-sense concept of time.

This seems to be consistent with Einstein's discovery about the nature of time (that perception of change depends upon viewpoint).

It is my opinion that Einstein did not make a discovery about the nature of time; he made a discovery about the nature of light, and its behaviour. I think the idea of time slowing down as one approaches the speed of light, and the idea that objects shrink as one approaches the speed of light, is incorrect. But I am incapable of entering into a debate justifying my view, so please don't ask me to do so.

In one sense, I suppose, this definition gives weight to the idea of "God outside of time". Mal 3:6

Maybe I'm dumb, but I can't see that.

However, I don't quite see it that way. Given this definition, then any change, no matter how minute, automatically introduces time. That is to say, if something changes then there is automatically a before and an after.

For all changes (with one exception), this is true. The one exception is a unique change: the first. Concerning the first event to occur (or "change" if you prefer), there is an "after" (because more events follow) but not a "before".

I have been suggesting that time began with the first event --- the begetting of the Son of God. I'm not sure whether or not to describe this event as "a change in God". If this event truly marks the beginning of time, then there was no time "before" this event. I think the phrase "in the beginning" in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 refer to the beginning of time.

If time refers to a measurement concerning two events, then, notwithstanding I have been saying, it may have been necessary for two events to have occurred before time could be said to have begun. Perhaps the second event was a creative act in reference to the universe.
So if time didn't begin until the second event, then I suppose in a sense, one could say that the Son of God was begotten before time began.
In any case, there were no events before the begetting of the Son, since there was no "before".

Since we are accustomed to there being a "before" and "after" for every event of which we know, the idea of an actual beginning to time is difficult for us even to imagine.

I think one could make an analagous case for "space". I think "space" is simply a measure of distance between two objects. If there were no objects, there would be no space. What if there were only one object? Would there be space in that case? I think so, since there would be a distance between the sides of the object, no matter how small the object was. But if the "object" could be of an infinitesimal size, I suppose there would then be no space.

Indeed, the concept of time is really just a kludge we use to describe the change.

That may be so; it is in keeping with my intuitionn.

If this is so, then the nature of God's existence prior to the beginning, or prior to time if you prefer, would have had to be absolutely static.

Remember? We cannot speak of "prior to time". There is no "before".
Someone may ask me whether I think that God did not exist before the beginning of time. Same answer. The question is meaningless, as there was no "before". All we can say is "God begat His Son at the beginning of time." Anything beyond this is inconceivable.

All that leaves me with is an infinite regression of time into the past.

So what was God doing eighty-twelve jillion years before creation? Nothing? You don't feel any philosphical repugnance about that?

[Guest]

Hiya Paidion,

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. I find some of what you said about Einstein interesting, and it piques my curiosity. However, like you, I’m not really interested in discussing physics or Einstein’s theories at the moment. I mentioned him only as an aside.

For all changes (with one exception), this is true. The one exception is a unique change: the [bold]first[/bold]. Concerning the first event to occur (or "change" if you prefer), there is an "after" (because more events follow) but not a "before".

I’m grappling with this concept. I’m really struggling with this idea of an “after” without a “before”.

I have been suggesting that time began with the first event

I think I understand what you’re saying. This statement is an illustration of my earlier comment that I think our language tools tend to get in the way of discussing this as effectively as we’d like to. The word “began”, in my mind, implies time also. I see you as falling into the same trap I fell into when I said “prior to time”.

Put another way, I don’t see much difference in saying “time began at event X” and in saying “before time began”.

We agree, I believe, that there was no “before time began.“ We disagree about whether time had a beginning.

Since we are accustomed to there being a "before" and "after" for every event of which we know, the idea of an actual beginning to time is difficult for us even to imagine.

In my first post, I called this, for lack of a better word, “untime”. I’m unsure whether this gives us a useful shorthand for referring to this concept or not, particularly since I‘m trying to describe a notion that I don‘t agree with. If I understand you, then you would answer that “untime” is that about which we cannot logically speak, for we cannot even conceive of it, and any conception would be meaningless conjecture anyway. Am I stating your case fairly?

Would there be space in that case? I think so, since there would be a distance between the sides of the object, no matter how small the object was.

That analogy doesn’t work for me. Distance implies a second object with which to measure.

Someone may ask me whether I think that God did not exist before the beginning of time. Same answer. The question is meaningless, as there was no "before". All we can say is "God begat His Son at the beginning of time." Anything beyond this is inconceivable.

Again, I see little difference in “at the beginning of time” and “before time began”. Similarly when you say “Anything beyond”… even the word “beyond” implies some sort of spacial or temporal quality. Again, the language fails us.

So what was God doing eighty-twelve jillion years before creation? Nothing? You don't feel any philosphical repugnance about that?

I feel compelled to mention that I didn’t mean to imply any irreverence on your part. I don’t think that at all. If it came across that way, I apologize.

The idea that God was doing nothing for eighty-twelve bazillion years before creation, is precisely what I find repugnant. He was NOT doing nothing. He was doing something. And if He was doing something, then that implies time (which, of course, the eighty-twelve bazillion years already said anyway). You may ask, “Well what about eighty-twelve bazillion years before that?” And I say, “Same answer. He was doing something, and that implies time.” And you say, “When did He start?” and I say, “He didn’t start… He was Always doing something… forever and ever infinitely, and that implies an infinite regression of time.”

So then you ask “WHAT was He doing?” and I answer, “Beats me! I look forward to finding out. I expect it’ll take a looooong time. In fact, it’ll take an infinitely long time.”

This notion I find philosophically appealing.

“Philosophically appealing” is a poor basis for theology, but in the absence of scriptures refuting this idea, I’ll hold on to it for now.

I think that the “beginning” referred to in Genesis and John can be reasonably thought of as “the practical beginning as it concerns us for now”. There seems to me to be scriptural evidences for this rather unwieldy definition. We can explore that if you like.

Perry

[Guest]

The problem i have with "infinite time regression" (even thought this is how i have always conceived it) is this: if God existed infinitely in the past (which i hold that He did) then how did it ever become "now?"-- or how did the "day" ever come when He created the universe? An infinite regression of time into the past is a large (impossible?) amount of time to cover.

TK

[Guest]

I follow you TK. I've wondered about exactly that question. The only answer I can come up with is this: If indeed there was an infinate regression of time, then that question becomes just as valid no matter WHEN that day came. In other words, had He decided that the day He created the universe should have come a few gazillion years ealier, so that, for instance, Steve's birthday today, also came a few gazillion years ealier, then your question would have been just as valid then as it is today.

That may not be a very satisfying answer, but it's the best I got.

I don't see how Paidion's position answers this question any more satisfingly, but perhaps he has an insight that I haven't yet considered.

Perry

[Guest]

I feel compelled to mention that I didn’t mean to imply any irreverence on your part. I don’t think that at all. If it came across that way, I apologize.

It didn't come across that way. You have nothing for which to apologize.
I am wondering why you thought I took it that way? Did I sound defensive in my statement? Actually your statement:

If this is so, then the nature of God's existence prior to the beginning, or prior to time if you prefer, would have had to be absolutely static. Personally, I find this idea philosophically repugnant.

doesn't apply to me. For as you must know by now, I don't believe in any existence, or anything else "prior to" the beginning of time, for there is no "prior to".

However, if there was such a thing as God's existence "prior to" the beginning of time ---- an existence which was "absolutely static", I was amazed that you would find this idea "philosophically repugnant" while you don't find God existing infinitely into the past and doing nothing "philosophically repugnant". To me they seem exactly the same thing. However, now I have discovered that you believe that God was "doing something" for that infinity of time. You just don't know what that "something" was. Does that which God was doing for that infinity of time affect anything after creation began? How would things be different if He had done nothing? Is the only reason you cannot accept that time had a real beginning, that you cannot conceive of it? Well, I can now conceive of it far better than I can conceive of an infinite regression of time into the past.

In my first post, I called this, for lack of a better word, “untime”. I’m unsure whether this gives us a useful shorthand for referring to this concept or not, particularly since I‘m trying to describe a notion that I don‘t agree with. If I understand you, then you would answer that “untime” is that about which we cannot logically speak, for we cannot even conceive of it, and any conception would be meaningless conjecture anyway. Am I stating your case fairly?

I am not sure what you mean by "untime". Are you describing the idea of God existing outside time? Or are you describing the notion of there being some kind of "special time" before time actually began? Whichever of the two you mean, I think that "untime" doesn't exist, and therefore there is nothing to talk about.

That analogy doesn’t work for me. Distance implies a second object with which to measure.

Suppose the only object that exists is a marble. It doesn't matter whether one has a meauring device ("second object with which to measure) or not. There is a distance between the sides of the marble, which we call "the diameter". There are many objects which have never been measured from one side to the other. Does that mean that there is no distance from one side to the other? Only if "distance" is defined in terms of measuring instruments.

This reminds me of the old philosophical question as to whether or not, when a tree falls in the forest, there is a sound, if there is no person (or animal) present to hear it. It all depends upon how "sound" is defined. If it is defined as a certain brain sensation, then of course, there would be none. But if "sound" is defined as the vibration of air waves within a particular range, then there is sound whether it is heard or not.

Again, I see little difference in “at the beginning of time” and “before time began”.

There is a vast difference. The first expression recognizes the beginning of time. The second one doesn't. In the second, "time began" is redefined in some way so that it means something other than "time began". For if it really meant "time began" then there cannot be time "before". If there were, then time didn't really begin then. It had to have begun some time earlier.

Similarly when you say “Anything beyond”… even the word “beyond” implies some sort of spacial or temporal quality.

Not necessarily. Only if your referent is something spacial or temporal. In this case, my referent was something mental.

I think that the “beginning” referred to in Genesis and John can be reasonably thought of as “the practical beginning as it concerns us for now”. There seems to me to be scriptural evidences for this rather unwieldy definition. We can explore that if you like.

Your suggestion seems a possibility. Indeed, I once held it. But when I saw that "the beginning" referred to the beginning of time, I was able to reject the concept of an infinite regression of time into the past. It was this concept that flooded my mind with irreconcilable contradictions.

The problem i have with "infinite time regression" (even thought this is how i have always conceived it) is this: if God existed infinitely in the past (which i hold that He did) then how did it ever become "now?"-- or how did the "day" ever come when He created the universe?

Exactly, TK. That's one of the irreconcilable contradictions which I faced.
I had meant to bring that up. Now I don't have to do so. Thank you.

The only answer I can come up with is this: If indeed there was an infinate regression of time, then that question becomes just as valid no matter WHEN that day came.

This question does not concern validity, or WHEN the day came. The question is, "How could the day come?" But then again, why not? If you have one impossible state of affairs, infinite past time, why not have another impossible state of affairs? You can just say, as many do, God can perform contradictions. He can create a stone so large that He cannot lift it. And yet He can still lift it. He can know what a free will agent will choose, even though such knowledge would indicate that the agent does not have the ability to choose. With God, the surface of an object can be entirely blue and also entirely red simultaneously. I can be inside my house and outside my house at the same time. This is the interpretation some have of the statement, "With God all things are possible."

[Guest]

An Aside

For argument's sake, let's say Annihilationism is true.
"When" would it be after the second death (Re 20:14)?

Oops, wrong thread: I'm looking for "Infinite PROgression of Time" nm

[Guest]

Paidion--

I am a tad confused by your "time had a beginning" concept. Are you stating that therefore God had a beginning? In other words, was there ever a "time" (for lack of a better word) that there wasnt God? I am somewhat quoting from memory, but my old Ryrie study bible had a note for Gen 1:1- something to the effect that "in the beginning God created" did not mean the beginning of time, but rather signalled a "break" in God's previous eternal existence.

Could not God be outside our "time stream?" This is what CS Lewis believed. Physicists say there are parallel dimensions-- dimensions that are there that we dont interact with. God, it would seem, is outside and above all dimensions, including time.

I must be honest, though, that such speculation makes my brain hurt.

TK

[Guest]

Hi TK

Could not God be outside our "time stream?" This is what CS Lewis believed. Physicists say there are parallel dimensions-- dimensions that are there that we dont interact with. God, it would seem, is outside and above all dimensions, including time.

I must be honest, though, that such speculation makes my brain hurt.

Why this doesn't present any kind of problem at all to me is what I don't get! With God and: The Sovereignty of God...I don't know. When people try to figure it all out...it seems too Calvinistic (you know, those people who think they know what God's thoughts were "before time" and for lack of a better term, sorry).

What's wrong with me? lol God's Sovereign, really BIG and all that....I don't get it, I just don't get it. This has never presented any kind of intellectual challenge to me. I don't think I'm stupid: I just REALLY believe in the Sovereignty and Transcendence of God, lol
Ok, done,
Rick

[Guest]

Hiya guys,

I don't have time ATM to deal with your post at length. That's probably a good thing, becuase it's probably better for me to ponder your post before responding anyway.

However, I do want to respond to this:

I am wondering why you thought I took it that way? Did I sound defensive in my statement?

No, you didn't sound defensive at all.

That was just my own insecurity coming across. It occured to me later that my use of the word "repugnant" might be repugnant, that it might come across as though I were saying that I find your views repugnant (I don't), or that it might it sound as though I were saying that I find it repugnant that anyone could hold such a view (I don' t that either).

Anyway, 'nuff said on that. It's all cool.

Perry