Time, the eternal Now, and thinking out loud

[Jamie Wayne]

The latest thread about Open Theism brought up some thoughts about time and the like, and I really think that it's worth starting a new thread on this topic.

So, I'll start thinking out loud, and maybe others will have something to say, too:

Consider if there was nothing in "outer space" except a sphere. There is no movement, just "space" and a sphere. There's nobody to tell time, and there's no movement. It's as if time stood still, really. If there were a clock, it would be ticking, but then the only thing moving would be the hands of the clock, and the only relations would be the unmoving sphere to the unmoving "space" and a moving clock. What's the point of time, then? Time would be meaningless, really. Yet, so long as something is moving, i.e., the hands of the clock, I guess time isn't "standing still" like it would be weren't there the clock.

Is God that way?

I mean, if God were "all by Himself" would it be as if time were standing still? God's just like the sphere, unmoving somewhere in "outer space."

Do thoughts count?

I mean, if God were thinking, don't thoughts require sequence? Maybe God doesn't think like we do? I mean, consider the classic Aristotelean syllogism:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Doesn't the first premiss precede the second, and don't both the first and second propositions go before the conclusion in logical order?

Maybe God doesn't need "time" to think. I don't know.

What about goals, though?

Goals are about the future, in a sense, aren't they?

In the community of being that is the Trinity, in the Dance, is there a goal? If there's a goal in the "immanent" Trinity, what is it? Were there a goal in the Trinity does that mean that the Trinity is lacking in some way?

Where I'm going is the question that, if God were all by Himself, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, whatever that means, in some sort of perichoresis or trinitarian love dance, what's the beat that they're dancing to? Dancing without a beat is hard to do, isn't it? I mean, consider a deaf guy watching people dance: wouldn't it look ridiculous because he's not hearing the music? What's the music that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are dancing to?

Maybe it's because I'm used to music existing in time, where the beat goes on like the tick of a clock, but how would that be for God if there were no beat?

Does the love of the Father for the Son, and the love of the Son for the Father increase as "time" goes by, or is it a love stagnant like the sphere that's not moving in an empty space? Is there room for growth in God, or does that mean that God wasn't always "complete" or "perfect"? Was God incomplete before He created us, as if His happiness depends upon creation? Maybe creation is the beat to which God dances, but that would mean that God wasn't dancing before creation - or maybe God was dancing before creation, but without a beat it seemed too silly. I don't know.

Surely, though, unlike creation, God exists in the eternal now in the sense that God is fully present always and everywhere right now. We creatures are usually living in the past or hoping for some future rather than living in this present moment.

Now 234, now 234, now 234...maybe the continual procession of the now is the beat? Now 234, now 234, now 234. It's always now. The beat goes on, and maybe, instead of the beat existing outside of God, God Himself is the music, too, a music, as T.S. Eliot refers to that is heard so deeply that you are the music, while the music lasts. Maybe God is dancing to the beat of His own drum? Now 23, now 56, Now.

The future doesn't exist, so why do we worry? The lilies of the field don't care about the future. The past doesn't exist, so why do we dwell there? The birds of the air don't dwell in the past.

I can't wait for heaven, boy, I tell you what!

The Kingdom of God is at hand...NOW.

Isn't that what Jesus kept saying?

Yet, so often we think of how great it'll be in the future or how much better things were in the past.

If time didn't exist, there would be no growth, no love, no relations, there wouldn't be the now that is gone or the now that hasn't happened yet.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I can't wrap my mind around there being no such thing as time. How can God be "outside" time if God is "in" all things?

Maybe later I'll know. Then, I shall see clearly, but now I see dimly.

[Eric Vail]

If there were a clock, it would be ticking, but then the only thing moving would be the hands of the clock, and the only relations would be the unmoving sphere to the unmoving "space" and a moving clock. What's the point of time, then? Time would be meaningless, really. Yet, so long as something is moving, i.e., the hands of the clock, I guess time isn't "standing still" like it would be weren't there the clock.


What is the relationship of the existence of clocks to to the existence of time? Just because we can name sets of conditions where hands on a clock are in different positions does not mean we've proven time, does it? All the existence of that clock tells us is that there are 12x60 possible sets of conditions.

Just asking... I don't have any brilliant answers at the moment. Thanks, Jamie, for starting this thought provoking thread.

[Jamie Wayne]

Eric, what do you think about the old question about a tree falling in the woods without anyone there to hear it?

If there's nobody to observe time, does it really exist?

Does the movement of the hands of a clock imply time if there's nobody to notice the movement?

How much "stuff" in "outer space" is moving right now without any created thing observing it?

To answer your question, Eric, the relation between the existence of a clock to the existence of time has to do with motion...movement only occurs "in" time, doesn't it?

Isn't that part of St. Thomas Aquinas' argument for the existence of God, his "teleological" argument? Teleos meaning something of "goal." What (or who) set things in motion, i.e., the "prime mover"? What (or who) was the "first cause"?

My question is whether or not the Prime Mover was already in motion, and whether the Uncaused Cause was without effect, before creation.

[Ryan Scott]

I think you hit on the important fact that time is something we've invented - sort of. We only know time because we count rotations of the Earth or orbits around the Sun. There are other measures, but they are all just measures of things in motion. Time, at least our conception of it, would be impossible without things by which to measure.

That doesn't mean God has to be outside of time, just that God can't be bound by our conception of time. It seems like a relatively easy faith statement to say God has acted in various ways, which we can only describe as sequential.

I don't see why God acting sequentially has to be bound by our understanding of measured time (which is founded on the idea of a beginning and an end - something we would definitely not prescribe to God).

It doesn't answer every question, but I'm willing to say God exists in some form of time analogous to our understanding of time, but fundamentally different. We can't explain it - but it does help to explain our belief in an everlasting future. When this created time we're in now comes to an end - God can inaugurate another time, one more closely related to the way God experiences time (perhaps the same), one without end.

It's obviously something we can't prove or disprove, but it seems to fit my understanding of how things work better than any other option I've run across.

[Jamie Wayne]

I think you hit on the important fact that time is something we've invented - sort of. We only know time because we count rotations of the Earth or orbits around the Sun. There are other measures, but they are all just measures of things in motion. Time, at least our conception of it, would be impossible without things by which to measure.

Motion would be impossible without time, however, regardless of whether or not there are things by which to measure it - or any awareness of anything having moved.

That doesn't mean God has to be outside of time, just that God can't be bound by our conception of time. It seems like a relatively easy faith statement to say God has acted in various ways, which we can only describe as sequential.

I don't see why God acting sequentially has to be bound by our understanding of measured time (which is founded on the idea of a beginning and an end - something we would definitely not prescribe to God).I'm not so sure, Ryan, that our understanding of measured time requires a definite beginning or an end, in the sense of posing time against eternity. We can say that there was a time when the Word had not yet become flesh, for example, yet we can still have faith in the Eternal Word.

It's much easier when referring to the "economic" Trinity - that is, the Triune God creating and interacting with creation - because then we have something to relate God to - creation. God can be "measured" as moving in relation to creation. There was a time before which God had not given to Moses the 10 Commandments, for example. The relation is between God and creation.

What about the "immanent" Trinity, though, God in God's self? Is there no movement within the Godhead without relating the Godhead to creation? That's the real issue, I think. If there is "movement" within the relations of the Godhead, then doesn't that "movement" imply time, also?

It doesn't answer every question, but I'm willing to say God exists in some form of time analogous to our understanding of time, but fundamentally different. We can't explain it - but it does help to explain our belief in an everlasting future. When this created time we're in now comes to an end - God can inaugurate another time, one more closely related to the way God experiences time (perhaps the same), one without end.

It's obviously something we can't prove or disprove, but it seems to fit my understanding of how things work better than any other option I've run across.Maybe so, but I wonder how another "time" would be any different if time is the measure of motion. Maybe how we measure time would be different, but if there's motion, there must be time - regardless of how we understand it. How, then, can we imagine God's "time" being fundamentally different if time is simply the measure of motion?

I guess I wonder whether time must come to an end - or have a beginning. You seem to think so, but if God was always the Living God, then God must have always been in motion - and always will be in motion. The Dance never began, and it will never end - it simply always is, now after now after now.

Perhaps if we were totally in this present moment, we would not be aware of time past or time future, but be totally one with time present, with no concept of motion, no concept of change, and no concept of anything but the Dance, which, though it is in motion, is realized in utter stillness.

[Ryan Scott]

I guess I don't know where you're getting this "motion requires time" thing. Certainly it does in our understanding of time, but that doesn't mean it would work the same way for God or in another system. Again we can't prove or disprove the idea that God's time is analogous, but not identical to created time - but it seems like a good idea to me.

[Jamie Wayne]

I guess I don't know where you're getting this "motion requires time" thing. Certainly it does in our understanding of time, but that doesn't mean it would work the same way for God or in another system. Again we can't prove or disprove the idea that God's time is analogous, but not identical to created time - but it seems like a good idea to me.

How can you conceive of motion without that very motion requiring time?

Is there another way of conceiving motion without such a time requirement?

Can you conceive of a single analogy by which motion can be accounted for without time?

It seems to me that both statistically speaking, though realizing we are speaking of the Almighty here, and according to Ockham's Razor, it is reasonable to assume, though, again, we are speaking of the Almighty here, that motion, whether divine or otherwise, creative or created, requires time.

No other possibility readily presents itself - except that time doesn't work the same way for God. How else can motion work?

Maybe that's limiting God to the box of motion requiring time, but I don't know of any other way to think of it. We already limit God in other ways, don't we? In fact, the Open Theism debate supposes that God can't know the unknowable future because time is sequential; if that's the case, why shouldn't we suppose that the very same God is limited by time in this case, whereby motion requires time? If we don't think that God's time works as ours does, then why shouldn't we suspect that God can know the future?

Isn't the very premiss of Open Theism that God's time, in this sense, isn't different than ours?

* I'm not trying to knock Open Theism, I'm just contemplating the nature of time. In fact, I think that it would help the argument for Open Theism if it were accepted that God doesn't have some "other", beyond our understanding, concept of time.

[Ryan Scott]

I guess this is a sidetrack to me. I don't know why God's creation requires motion? Do we believe God has some physical form that must move to act?

The problem for me arises when we make God subject to our conception of time is then "when did time begin?" Has there always been a series of actions governing things? I don't think there is a good answer to this out there. Which is why I said God is within a time that is analogous, but not identical to our experience of time. That's about all I'm comfortable saying.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I think "time" exists only in the sense that a "mile" or a "pound" exists. None are "things" - they are simply measurements.

[Barbara Moulton]

What is "now"?

Sometimes...late at night my mind starts to consider this. I typed the first "W" in this post IN THE PAST. In fact the moment any letter is on the screen, its typing is in the past. But then, even within the action of typing, my finger going "down" to hit a letter key is in the past the moment that the key is indented.

Is time past, present and future? Perhaps. But if there is actually a "present" (a "now") then that existence is so brief it hardly exists at all. The past is just a memory. And the future hasn't happened yet so it doesn't exist either.

So, you could almost say that we all live in an "eternal" now and time hardly exists for any of us. But in order to remain sane we have to perceive it as existing.

That perception of "now" can vary. If I am not concentrating on my keyboard the way I was, "now" could include my whole morning. For some engaged in a longer process "now" could include the days between this moment and the deadline. For someone driving in a car suddenly realizing that they are about to crash into another car "now" becomes a sharply focused, fear filled moment.

When we talk about "time" perhaps we might only be talking about a measurement of something that we perceive but which barely exists. So "Now" is simply a way of perceiving our existence within something that barely exists. (Like I said...you gotta keep your sanity)

When it comes to God, maybe past, present and future are no different than for us. But because He is God, He perceives it quite differently.

The above written with the disclaimer that I haven't been smoking anything :)

[Jamie Wayne]

I guess this is a sidetrack to me. I don't know why God's creation requires motion? Do we believe God has some physical form that must move to act?

You make a good point about motion requiring some sort of physical "stuff," but that's why I brought up thinking and loving. If God has thoughts, does God think sequentially, and if there is love in the Godhead, how can that love be a living thing, in the sense of being a verb, if there is no motion? Maybe motion doesn't really require physical "stuff"?


The problem for me arises when we make God subject to our conception of time is then "when did time begin?" Has there always been a series of actions governing things? I don't think there is a good answer to this out there. Which is why I said God is within a time that is analogous, but not identical to our experience of time. That's about all I'm comfortable saying.

If there has always been the love of God, a living flame of love, then love had no beginning and has always been - and, that love has been governing things all along.

I guess, Ryan, that I keep coming back to love needing an expression, and that expression requires time. If God is love, and, hence, "does" loving things, then time must necessarily exist "in" which those expressions of love can be manifested.



I think "time" exists only in the sense that a "mile" or a "pound" exists. None are "things" - they are simply measurements.

Sure, and the Glory of God, the "weight" of God, fills the heavens...and the earth, yet nobody can measure the weight of God. Does there have to be a measurer for the Glory of God to exist?



What is "now"?

Sometimes...late at night my mind starts to consider this. I typed the first "W" in this post IN THE PAST. In fact the moment any letter is on the screen, its typing is in the past. But then, even within the action of typing, my finger going "down" to hit a letter key is in the past the moment that the key is indented.

Is time past, present and future? Perhaps. But if there is actually a "present" (a "now") then that existence is so brief it hardly exists at all. The past is just a memory. And the future hasn't happened yet so it doesn't exist either.

So, you could almost say that we all live in an "eternal" now and time hardly exists for any of us. But in order to remain sane we have to perceive it as existing.

That perception of "now" can vary. If I am not concentrating on my keyboard the way I was, "now" could include my whole morning. For some engaged in a longer process "now" could include the days between this moment and the deadline. For someone driving in a car suddenly realizing that they are about to crash into another car "now" becomes a sharply focused, fear filled moment.

When we talk about "time" perhaps we might only be talking about a measurement of something that we perceive but which barely exists. So "Now" is simply a way of perceiving our existence within something that barely exists. (Like I said...you gotta keep your sanity)

When it comes to God, maybe past, present and future are no different than for us. But because He is God, He perceives it quite differently.

The above written with the disclaimer that I haven't been smoking anything :)

I agree that time can be perceived differently, and perhaps that's what Ryan is getting at when he talks about our time only being analogous to God's "time." If that's the case, I would wholeheartedly agree that God would perceive time differently than any created thing. Also, we know that time does seem to slow down sometimes, like in that moment before a car crash, so the perception of time is certainly a factor; yet, the clock is still ticking regardless of how we relate to time. God may very well relate to time differently, but if God is moving, however we may mean that, isn't the clock ticking - regardless of how God may perceive it?

Interesting discussion.

[Randy McRoberts]

Before we measured time, we first had the concepts of "before" and "after".

However, they are relative.

We were playing in a golf scramble last year, and one of my team mates launched a shot directly at the cart of another group. I mean he hit it on a frozen rope, right at the cart.

As we realized what was happening, we yelled, "Fore!!!!!" The ball was traveling mighty fast. We heard "Fore. Thunk." The "fore" was before the "thunk", but just barely.

But we were probably 220 yards away, and sound takes time to travel. What the guys in the cart heard was, "Thunk. Fore." You can't blame them for being upset that they had no warning. From their point of view -- hearing, actually --, we didn't yell until it was too late.

Now if they had been looking at us, they would have seen us yell before the ball hit. But then again, if they had been looking at us, we wouldn't have had to yell.

This was a Nazarene scramble, so we all still love one another, at least as much as we ever did.

So anyway, we had "before" and "after" before we measured time. Measurements came with increasing need for precision.

[Jamie Wayne]

I guess were God's "thoughts" faster than the speed of light, and I don't know why they wouldn't be, then maybe God's perception is such that His thoughts happen before He realizes them - or vice versa! :)

...and if Jesus had flown around the Earth counter to the orbital spin, faster than the speed of light, He could bring Lois Lane back from the dead! :)

[Ramesh Deosarran]

Isn't that part of St. Thomas Aquinas' argument for the existence of God, his "teleological" argument? Teleos meaning something of "goal." What (or who) set things in motion, i.e., the "prime mover"? What (or who) was the "first cause"?

My question is whether or not the Prime Mover was already in motion, and whether the Uncaused Cause was without effect, before creation.

According to what you are saying the Teleogical Argument argues for the prime mover/first cause. How is this different from the Cosmological Agrument?

[Jamie Wayne]

I see Aquinas' argument being both cosmological and teleological, actually, since once we have the prime mover/first cause, everything is moving towards a goal.

I don't think that we can separate Aquinas' "Five Ways" as if he meant for one to be taken without the other four; in this sense, the argument from design fulfills the teleological dimension of the "Five Ways" as a whole, arguing ex fine. Aquinas begins with motion and causation, but he ends with the reason, or design element, proposing that God didn't simply set forth into motion this cause for no reason, but for a purpose, for an end.

Behind the question of "who" is the prime mover/first cause, is the "why" - and that is teleological.

[Charles W Christian]

It seems more biblical to me to say that God works "in time" not outside of time. Even if one says, "God created time" or something like that (which would be impossible for us to conceive, it seems, since there was something "before time", which would indeed be a measurement of time, etc.), then one at least has to acknowledge that God prefers to work "in time" when dealing with us. All the references to God's work in the Bible (including descriptions of the future) seem to be rooted in some form of history -- some form of "time." God has quite clearly proven that God can work in and through time, even when things happen in history that God would appear to prefer (like sin, suffering, and evil)....

Thanks,
Charles

[Jamie Wayne]

I agree; my point, I guess, is that God, in God's self, apart from creation, would "need" time if there is love, and love requires "motion." I don't think that the proposition "God is Love" is meant to mean that God, a noun, is, in any ontological sense, Love, as a noun. Well, maybe that's part of it, but I think that it's better put that God, a verb, is Love, another verb.

In other words, if it's tautological to say that God is Love, i.e., A=A, then A must be both a noun, in the sense of both God and Love being "ideas," but more properly that A must be a verb. If God and Love were both merely nouns, without being verbs, then God and Love would be meaningless.

Therefore, God working "in" history, that is, relating to creation, is also how God is "by Himself," in the economy of the immanent Trinity. In the Dance. Yet, in the stillness, too.

In other words, and perhaps simpler ones, the way that we've experienced God reflects how God is when not relating to creation. God isn't putting on an act with us, but the Trinity acts otherwise without us.

Does that make sense?

I think that you're right, though, Charles. I think that the way that we've seen God in the Bible, as you've said, is the way that God is outside the Bible, too - before the Bible...before creation.