Infinite regression of time

[Guest]

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".

So is it fair to say that you believe that God had a beginning in the same way that time did? I don’t want to sound irreverent, but, in your view, does God have an age and a birthday?

Does that which God was doing for that infinity of time affect anything after creation began?

My feeling is that, yes, it absolutely does, or, more probably, it will. I see the eternity to come as equally and perfectly balanced by the eternity past. It would take eternity to prepare for eternity.

How would things be different if He had done nothing?

Beats me. I look forward to finding out.

Is the only reason you cannot accept that time had a real beginning, that you cannot conceive of it?

No. I can conceive of oblivion beyond the beginning of time. (I would say, oblivion “before” the beginning of time and feel I was saying essentially the same thing. But that’s just a fine point of semantics.)

Well, I can now conceive of it far better than I can conceive of an infinite regression of time into the past.

So far, it seems, our differences lie in what we find most aesthetically pleasing.

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".

I’ll pursue this because it may lead us somewhere.
I don’t find your statement very logical. Without the second object there would be no frame of reference. You could no more say the marble had a diameter of an inch than you could say it had a diameter of a bazillion miles. Indeed, Inch and mile are themselves simply comparisons to some other frame of reference. (The same is true of time, BTW. We compare rotations of planets to thier orbits around the sun to vibrations of cesium atoms.)

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?

That comparison doesn’t apply to the scenario you described. Just because an object’s size hasn’t been measured doesn’t mean that it does not have relative size in the universe we inhabit. In the universe you posited there could be no relative size.

Only if "distance" is defined in terms of measuring instruments.

I would say that anything that has distance is a measuring device.

There is a vast difference. The first expression [“at the beginning of time”] recognizes the beginning of time. The second one [“before time began”] doesn't.

I would say that “beginning” is just as dependant on the concept of time as “before”, so that the two statements saying the same thing. We may have to agree to disagree on this point.

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.

Perhaps if you walked me through how you came to this realization. Also, I’m curious about some of the irreconcilable contradictions you mention.

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.

I’m not sure how you’re model solves TK’s problem. If I understand you correctly, in saying that “time began”, you’re saying that time has an age. Ignoring the fact that this means defining time only in terms of itself, TK’s question could just as easily be asked as, “Why didn’t time begin a year ago, or ten years ago, or a bazillion years ago. Why did it begin at that particular beginning of X years ago? And HOW could it begin, when “begin” by definition, includes the concept of time?”

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.

I assert neither. I’m willing to live with the fact that you may be convinced that an infinite regression of time is an impossible state of affairs. I find the mental concept of “beyond the beginning of time” just as impossible. Indeed, more so. (I started to say "the mental concept of something beyond the beginnig of time," but decided that you would call me on the word "something").

But that’s okay. How boring would it be if we all thought alike?

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."

Bah! Let’s not waste our time with semantical constructs such as “What happens when irresistible force meets immovable object?” This isn’t a difficult conundrum, and I’m surprised you mention it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_force_paradox

It seems off topic to me.

Perry

[Guest]

Perry wrote:

Just because an object’s size hasn’t been measured doesn’t mean that it does not have relative size in the universe we inhabit. In the universe you posited there could be no relative size.

Thank you, Perry. You seem to be correct. But then I wonder, would the marble not have a width in terms the atoms, of which it is comprised, (in other words "an atomic width")?

TKK wrote:

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?

THERE IS NO TIME BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF TIME!

Sorry I had to shout that. There was no "time" when there wasn't God, because God was there at the beginning of time. He performed His first act in generating His Son. And so time began. If you come to understand that time had a real beginning, you would see that your question ought not to be asked.

Indeed, there was also no "time" when the Son did not exist (Supposedly, one of the errors of the Arians was to affirm that there was a time when the Son did not exist)) ---- even though He had a beginning... or probably more accurately expressesd by some of the early Christians, "He was the Beginning", the Beginning of time and the Beginning of creation ---- the first-born of creation.

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.

I am not surprised.

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.

CS Lewis wrote some wonderful things as well as some (in my opinion) false things. His view of time was purely fanciful --- appropriate, I suppose, for a writer of fancy. I also think he was mistaken in his theory of punishment.

"God is outside our time stream" is to me a case of fanciful imagination ---- meaningless nonsense. It doesn't affirm anything meaningful.

It's a bit like saying there's a little green man who hangs around just outside the range of our telescopes. As soon as we develop more powerful telescopes, he moves the appropriate distance away, so that he cannot be observed. There's no way to prove or disprove his existence.

Another example is, "Everything in the Universe doubled in size last night, including the speed of sound and of light." If such a thing had occurred and there was no observable difference, what does it mean to affirm that this doubling has occurred?

[Guest]

Thank you, Perry. You seem to be correct. But then I wonder, would the marble not have a width in terms the atoms, of which it is comprised, (in other words "an atomic width")?

Paidion,

Ummm... Are you just trying to have fun with me? You can't go changing the rules like that right in the middle of your analogy. First you posited a universe of a single marble, and now you're positing that it's really (presto-chango) a universe of many atoms.

Perry

[Guest]

<crickets>...

[Guest]

I kind of get the impression that some believe time began at an event since, by this thought, if by the event it was the first occurance then it would not have a past from which to compare to. However, I don't think I hold to that kind of thinking. Who but God may call an event the beginning? Once the beginning occurs then we continue to see countless sub events (the first time this and the first time that).

Here is a thought I am pondering; If light and time are related in our universe, it is only that we see the light that we can relate to time but yet we know that if you were alone in a cave where absolutely no light exists but only total darkness, you would still be aware of some passage of time by many indicators. Sound, touch, smell, taste would still be available to us. We would be able to stumble around in the darkness. All these would be indicators of time passage. But yet light is present, its just that we do not see it because it has been blocked by the walls of the cave.

Take away the sun and then all we see are pins of light in the sky from distant stars. Take those sources of light away then we are in total darkness again, but not because it is blocked but because it does not exist, but yet time passage still occurs according to our senses.

We have a passage in Revelation which states that in the future "there won't be any night time nor need of a lamp nor the sun because the Lord God gives them light". God is light, and being light, He is time. God does not move in and out of time. He is the first eternal event and all things after are sub events which continue on even to this day (the first time a book is opened, the first breath of a baby).

Time and God are in seperable.

[Guest]

Draw a circle on a piece of paper. Make your circle any size you wish. Place the name "God" on the line of the circle anywhere you want it to be. Then at some point place the word "Creation" and at another place the word "End". All points in between "Creation" and "End" represent the us in the physical. The whole circle represents all eternity past and present and future. In this senerio, God and time are that circle. If the infinite can be measured then, in time, a full circle will be completed and will start again just as time before.

[Guest]

God does not move in and out of time.

I certainly agree with that.

He is the first eternal event

How can a person or entity be an "event"? An "event" is a happening. What is the first thing that ever happened? ----- the begetting of the Son.

Oh yes... and what would be meant by "an eternal event"? I never could make sense of the "eternal begetting" of the Son, as Trinitarians of the fifth century began to believe.

[Guest]

Paidion and others, just wondering what you think about William Lane Craig's view on God and time found at these links:

Subject: God and Timelessness
Subject: Creation and Time
Subject: God, Time, and Creation

[Guest]

I appreciated this statement of Craig's:

One nice way of expressing God’s priority to creation is to say that God is causally but not temporally prior to the beginning of the universe.

Craig is right in stating that it is logically contradictory to speak of something occuring "before the beginning of time."

Of course, as you know, I don't believe that creation marked the beginning of time, but rather the beginning of time was marked by the begetting of the Son, the Father's first act and the succeeding event. So if you substitute "the begetting of the Son" for "the beginning of the universe", then I would agree with Craig's statement quoted above.

Dr. Craig also suggests that God in a timeless state can "think" or "know things". In my view, thinking itself is a process in time. Even if God did his thinking in a micro-second, it would still have to be within time.

My view is that there were no events at all before the beginning of time --- because there was no "before". No thoughts of God; no intentions of God; nothing. I think Craig would agree, but he thinks there were thoughts of God, not before time, but outside of creation. I see time as a measurement of the passing of events. There has to be at least two events in order that there be time between them ---- just as there has to be at least two objects in order that there be space between them. Space doesn't exist unless there are two objects. Time doesn't exist unless there are two events. So I disagree with Dr. Craig, who believes time began with the first event.

The first event was God begetting his Son. Whatever happened next was the second event, and thus time began. For there was a time, (whether a microsecond or an hour or more) between the first and second event.
So this means that there was not a time at which the Son of God did not exist. For His begetting was the first event, and there was no time prior to that. This is contrary to Arius, who seems to have held to the same view of time as Newton: that time regresses infinitely into the past. )

I know, as Dr. Craig realizes, that whatever view we hold, there seems to be insurmountable difficulties. I belief that mine, of course, is the most coherent. Yet, someone might ask me, "Did God not exist before He begat the Son?" But the question is meaningless unless we hold to an infinite regression of time into the past. It is meaningless because there was no time before the begetting of the Son. So where did God come from? That question, too, has no answer. God begat his Son, and something else happened and time began. But how could God beget his Son unless God existed? Well, God did exist at the event of begetting his Son, and the Son also existed at that event. But we cannot speak of "before" that event. There was no "before". It seems we can only affirm, "God begat his Son ---- the first event". There's nothing we can say by way of explanation, for there were no events prior to that ---- because there was no "prior".

Dr. Craig's idea of God somehow moving from timelessness into time by doing something is an interesting idea, though I comprehend his statement that God exists in timelessness outside of creation (Notice Craig is careful not to say that God exists before the first moment of time.)

Notice that in Craig's view as well as mine, time doesn't have to be created in the sense that it is an entity. Though Craig does speak of God bringing time into existence. I think he simply means God got time started by doing something.

[Guest]

Thanks for your comments.

Dr. Craig also suggests that God in a timeless state can "think" or "know things". In my view, thinking itself is a process in time. Even if God did his thinking in a micro-second, it would still have to be within time.

What about the point that he makes that God "changes not". This meaning that God could exist in a timeless state before the creation because He isn't doing anything because He "does not change" (until the creation, that is).