Logic Times

God and Time

Posted by Aslan, 11/23/04, 11:31pm. Comments (6)

Part One: Ontological Time

The purpose of this thesis is to explore the idea that God, in the creation of the universe, has entered into a time-constrained path. Before the existence of our universe (let's flatter ourselves and imply that this is His only creation), God was timeless. This is essential, or First Cause will become a problem (see First Cause thesis).

I will propose that God has voluntarily constrained Himself in time to allow for the necessary function of free will, individuality, choice and reciprocal love.

God chose to create us. We assume He did so to achieve an end, that being the reciprocal sharing of love with an independent entity. He is the essence of love and love must be shared. However, in a timeless existence pre-creation, interaction with any created beings is nonsensical. You cannot fashion independence without choice and you cannot have choice (conditions, action, consequence) without time; creation itself implies time, and for true free will to function, God must choose not to transcend time. Why?

Every event in the past, present and future is equally real and in existence for a transcendent (timeless) Creator. Just because we hold a perspective in time does not mean this moment has any special priority to a timeless entity. Unconstrained by time, all events are laid equally before the Creator. Consider a movie playing at the theatre. The present – the “now” – is the image on the screen, but the movie is complete and “in the can.” Each celluloid frame has its own created reality independent of time; the movie plays out that reality in an arbitrary “now.” The creator of the movie, however, can be said to have created each and every event along that continuum from the opening sequence to the credits.

In this scenario, free will does not and cannot exist.

Part Two: Moral Choice

Posted by Aslan, 12/13/04, 11:31pm.

From the perspective of a being not constrained by time, take every variable of existence at a particular moment in the year 2040. That future point of existence has absolute reality and is completed - not subject to change. Every action between now and then unfolds into that reality and each of those actions have their own reality, all which are fixed to a timeless God and have been fixed since the creative act. There are no choices, no deviations from what was created. To suggest choice exists in this scenario is to imply one of two things:

Indeterminacy, which implies a Creator who is not omniscient, or
That indeterminacy and omniscience can coexist, which is sophistry.

Many other conflicts arise when we suggest a timeless God. Eternal life loses meaning if it loses a basis in time, as does eternal damnation. Without time in the afterlife, individuality ceases to exist - we are looking at a sort of Borg collective of love with no actions, just existence. If we accept the theological implications (across religions) that time continues in the afterlife, the value of the loving relationship between God and man requires time. For Christians, the value of a physical body (the resurrection of the body) in the afterlife only makes sense within time.

But the central reason to even bother with this thesis is that if we grant God his traditional array of powers/attributes, then free will does not and cannot exist. Let us be very certain about our definition of theological free will: the ability to exercise moral choice. This is not to say that we are not educated on which choices are correct or warned about the consequences of ill choices. It simply states that, whatever the level of information and persuasion, man is the final determinant of his moral choices. Of course, unless man is free is this manner, he cannot be held responsible for his actions any more than his birth weight or eye color. Our moral freedom is the bedrock foundation of almost all theology.

Next - Part Three: God and Physics

Posted by Aslan, 12/18/04, 12:01pm.

What limitation does this moral freedom place on God? God cannot cause our choice to happen. What is meant here by cause? He cannot be "that which brings about an action or result."

Now, a timeless God sees creation from a timeless perspective. To break time down into a less chronological concept, consider every moment in time a letter and every particle configuration in time as a number. So, if I were to freeze NOW, I could label it

A(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10...) where A is that moment in time and the numbers represent the state of all particles. It would be a long list of numbers, but it would represent a space-time snapshot of one instant of time.

A time-bound being would witness the unfolding of time as a movement from one state to another, which would be represented as:

A(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10...) -> B(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10...) ->

C(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10...) -> D(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10...) -> and so on with each previous set causing the distribution of each subsequent set.

A timeless God would not view anything from a causal perspective. The entirety of His creation would simply be represented as A1A2A3A4A5A6A7A8A9A10B1B2B3B4B5B6B7B8B9B10C1C2C3C4

C5C6C7C8C9C10D1D2D3D4D5D6D7D8D9D10E1E2E3E4E5E6E7... with no differentiation or relationship between A4 and D9 or any other points along a timeline. All would be created by Him when He began creation, and He would be responsible for all data points which would then exist.

For A(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10...) to represent a set of values that equals a rude driver about to exercise a free will choice as to whether or not to run another driver off the road, B(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10...) must be indeterminate or the rude driver’s freedom to make that choice is a farce and morality should not have lectured him to avoid road rage. The first set of values must determine the second set of values. Yet, with a timeless Creator, B(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10...) is fixed and complete and, at no time did there ever exist the necessary moment of indeterminacy to allow a moral choice to take place. In other words, while our driver contemplated road rage in the A(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10...) set of values, the B set of values already has existence to the Creator, is already determined - the driver's choice is not a choice at all. Now, one might say that God can both know and cause every part of His creation and, at the same time, allow for some free will to have unfolded at Creation and been pressed into the timeless collection of data like a cast of the dice or a ink blot. I have no defense for such a illogical and contradictory claim.

Consider then the logical cohesion of a God who has, as a characteristic of His creation, started something, placed himself concurrent with that beginning (by the very act of creation) and is watching it unfold. Now the whole process is that much more sensible and dynamic. Future events cannot be said to exist because the future does not exist - God and man both are within time.

Now, those familiar with Physics 101 are undoubtedly objecting to this line of thought. Time is fungible. Time contracts and dilates; every person’s clock actually runs at a slightly different time. Time is simply another variable physical dimension.

There is a physics distinction between time and measured time, and I make that distinction here. While a spaceman traveling near the speed of light is experiencing profound time dilation, he has an existence relative to every other measurer of time on the continuum, but he is still captive to an absolute time reference. The measurements vary, but there is an ontological point in time (God’s frame of reference) that does not.

As a side note, God maintains his omniscience and omnipotence because to control every event in the present is to control any configuration in the future. This would allow for prophecy and certain prediction/control of necessary future events. The power of prayer, the unfolding of revelation, the accuracy of prophets - all of it is possible with the omnipotent reign of God in the ontological present.

Comments

1: bobblehead24

December 4, 2004 08:29pm EST

I do not see how you can be a Christian and suggest God is constrained by time. Scriptures has countless references to God’s timelessness.

{Aslan: Patience, bobblehead24. I would ask that you let this essay play out before we get frantic.}

2: bobblehead24

December 18, 2004 07:21am EST

Okay, I have waited until the end. And I still don’t see how you, as a Christian, can propose that God is constrained by time.

1 Corinthians 2:7 (New International Version):

“No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.”

2 Timothy 1 (New International Version)

“This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time…”

These are just two of many references to God’s mastery over time.

{Aslan: I am not married to this thesis! And, it clearly is not a matter of central Christian doctrine. However, if one is intellectually honest enough to dig deep, there is a real conflict between necessary free will and a sovereign Creator transcending time. In the end, it may be one of those mysteries, like the Triune God, which defies logic. This thesis resolves the conflict without compromising God’s abilities – the process of Creation itself and desire for the sharing of love seem to require that God’s original timeless state be transformed.}

3: Paul5388

December 31, 2004 01:46am EST

I suppose there should be a recognition that God isn't always logical, so an attempt to trap Him in logical pursuits is doomed to failure.

Logic tells us you can't be here and there at the same time. That would create a logical impossibility for God to be omnipresent, i.e. here while He is there. In John 8.58, we find these words from Jesus, "Before Abraham was, I am." It should be noted that He didn't use a past tense verb for His position in time, like He did in reference to Abraham. He claimed a presence in the now, whenever that is and He claimed that presence before Abraham, to be in the now also. Simultaneous existence in two periods of time, as we know it.

So, we see logic breaks down in dealing with He who is above logic (Isaiah 55.8-10 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.").

The question about freewill has been discussed for a long time, most notably between Calvinists and Arminians and recently Open Theists. The Calvinist position would be most nearly described by the analogy of the celluloid film, where everything is predestined from before the foundation of the earth. On the other hand, the Arminian position would present every person with choices that are to be made without coercion or compunction. Whether anyone else, or even God, knew what that choice was before the person made it is irrelevant. Some might object, "But the film would no longer be accurate if a different choice was made than what was recorded." No, the choice was known beforehand and the film was pre-recorded on the basis of that choice.

So, how do we deal with the outcome of those choices being different than expected? It should be evident that God does intervene in the affairs of men. That is exactly what the first advent was all about, God intervening in such a way as to provide the means for salvation of man. God also intervened directly with Paul on the road to Damascus. There are many examples of God's intervention and that intervention changed the course of history.

God is here and He is in charge of the affairs of men and the entire universe. My choices don't surprise Him and the end will be just as He said it would be.

{Aslan: Thanks for your comments, Paul. They are outstanding. First, let me repeat that this is an intellectual exercise only, but for me it is more satisfying than simply chalking up the issue as a "mystery" or unfathomable. Since this is not a central issue of faith, I allow myself some leeway. Second, it is my goal in Logic Times to offer general apologetics and not specific Christian apologetics. Perhaps that will one day come about, but I think general apologetics is far more appealing to a broad audience.

As to your comments, Paul, let me address them in order:

Omnipresence Observation – This is brilliant and truly argues that my effort is humorously hypocritical. This because I accept an omnipresent Creator in space and reject an omnipresent Creator in time, which is of course just another dimension like space. However, the free will implications for the time paradox invited the questions in my essay, and I think now are still valid from the perspective of this question: does the future exist? Omnipresence spatially and temporally would apply to only something that exists. If God re-ordered the universe with creation so that the present became the sum total of existence, He remains omnipresent without being present in (and having created) the future. The future, perhaps, is constantly being created from the now.

Free Will Comment – I am in the extreme free will camp, rejecting election and predestination. Moral choice requires it.

Intervention Observation – No question God can and does intervene. While moral free will requires non-intervention for culpability to be present, nothing prevents an omniscient God from changing the rules at any time, from suspending free will for whomever he chooses, all for a greater good.

Great comments, Paul.}

(more comments here)