Theology of time

Post Reply New Topic

According to special relativity, time is subjective. There is no monolithic present but rather a conglomeration of subjective presents.

I have heard people tell me that God exists in all times, that God exists outside of time, and that God only exists in the present.

If you believe in God, what is God's relation to time?

Damn it! There is a third option that won't show up.

God is only in the present because the past and future don't rightly exist.

Yeah, that 3rd option is sort of important too. That is unfortunate. I honestly don't know what my answer is to this theological question. Like, answer 1 and answer 2 really seem to effectively be the same thing, but the issue is that if God is equally throughout time, or is outside time, then the notion of an uncreated future(necessary for free will) cannot exist. Because God will not be an interacting God as he has none of his own time to act with, and we won't have free will as all of time is ordained, then the uni/multiverse is sort of static(there is variance throughout time, but no freely willed variations), which seems a rather unpalatable conclusion.

The issue with the 3rd option and relativity is the issue of an absolute *and* relative present, which causes some logical contradictions with time.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 18 Mar 2008, 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

"God does not play dice!!" -Einstein when discussing relativity, space/time.

There are quite a few unfortunate Einstein (who never quite accommodated himself with quantum theory) quotations about God. Stephen Hawking more realistically indicated that not only was dice being played but that it was played where no one could see it.

The idea that the past and the future does not exist is in the same category of the idea that the moon ceases to exist when you look away from the sky.

God its outside of time, becuse if he where in time he will be afected by it and so be geting older and older until he would desapear in a long time term.

Nobody recently has come across Him so I assume if He was around He long ago gave up on this planet.

EXIT GENESIS

I have," said God.
"A nice idea,
A thing that could be fun."
So he twiddled 'round
With time and space
And fuddled up the Sun.

"Now, that's quite neat!",
He said with heat.
"I'll make a couple more."
And he tumbled out a quantity
'Til it became a bore.

But suns put out a lot of junk
Like planets, dust and gas.
And God, with red-rimmed eyes looked 'round
At all this messy jazz.

It made God twitch,
It made God sneeze,
It gave him water on the knees,
It gave Him pimples on his face.
And so, He said, "To hell with this!"
And went some other place.

I choose the first, but the correct answer is both.

I don't think that time is actually occurring, depending on one's place of perspective, i.e. God's versus ours.
I think time is something God invented for finite beings, to keep everything from hitting us all at once.
He has set the clock of reality at the best average speed for us all:
This seems to make sense, since time seems as often "too slow" as it does "too fast" for us personally.
This points to the conclusion that time's rate may well be the best steady rate there could be for humanity as a whole.

Last edited by Ragtime on 18 Mar 2008, 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I am more of a pantheist, so i believe that all existence everywhere is god instead of god being a deity seperate from the universe. In that sense, we all have a piece of "god" in us and in everything that exists everywhere. To put it simply, i don;t believe got created the universe. God IS the universe. I believe that atoms are just a type of solar system. The pattern continues infinately.

Although the Bohr model is useful for calculating atomic spectra for ionized atoms with one electron, even it is incorrect. Current scientific model has "orbitals" of electron density clouds and not "orbits". Even hydrogen has an s-orbital and not an orbit.

As for the ad infinitum idea, the nucleus looks nothing like an atom and molecules are certainly not like clusters or galaxies.

Time's rate isn't constant. It depends on your relative velocity and relative distance from a center of mass (of large enough proportion). Atomic clocks in Denver run 5 microseconds per year faster than those in Greenwich, their relative radius from center of gravity being one mile delta abouts.

I wasn't aware that anyone actually knew the correct answer. I was just asking for opinions. It seems that there is no real consensus on this topic. Why is your answer more correct than everyone else's? Also, how do you account for human free will?

What do you mean by Can there be both?

What do you think of what Sand said:

I don't see how an absolute and relative present are compatible. I don't see how the future exists in the present except in that the present is always pregnant with the future. The past only exists in the present in so far as it composes what the present becomes, but it is no longer existent in that it cannot be changed or altered. I find all this very confusing and am not able to sort it all out.

Probably not.

I was looking up some stuff on relativity last night because of your phrasing and ran across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

That poses an issue for saying "present" as if God exists in the present then he would have to exist/work within in an objective present, but such a thing does not exist.

I tend to agree with him. I think a lot of the issue that he was dealing with though was one of phrasing as there are the people who say "only the present exists" and argue that time does not exist but take no real effort explaining change and processes.


I have difficulties seeing how an absolute and relative present are compatible. Right, well, the issue is sort of within the phrasing I think. The future does not exist in the present but the future might be knowable and determined from the present, obviously time t and t+1 cannot both exist at a point where time = t. The past does not exist in the present so much as it precedes it and is knowable with certitude in the present.

I didn't say that atoms were EXACT replicas of solar systems. I said they were a TYPE of solar system. My point is that there's no such thing as a basic unit or a whole unit. For instance, you are made of cells. The cells are made of different organelles. The organelles are made of molecules. Molecules are made of atoms. Atoms are made of protons, nuetrons and electrons. (I think) neutrons, protons and electrons are made of querks (sp). Quarks are made of Jewes (I think). Then what are THEY made of? And the things that make Them up, what are they made of? And so on, so on, so on, so on, and so on ad shitium. everything is made of SOMETHING. And also, everything MAKES UP somtheing! Planets make up the solar system, the solar system make up a galaxy. The galaxy make up a galaxy cluster. And they make up something and so on and so on ano so on ad barfium. Your skill of science seems to be better than mine, so sorry if i got some of the names wrong, but do you see my point? Existence is a fracal. It is infinte. It's the infinite consciousness. I guess you could call it "god"