[_ Old Earth _] Need help...Verse that states God "is not bound by time".

Orion

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
1,614
Reaction score
0
I'm looking for the verse that states that God "is not bound by time", or something along those lines. I've heard it said before, and am curious as to the verse where this thought comes from.

As this is the science section, . . . please discuss the ramifications, if it is true. Is God actually bound by time? Is the concept just saying that God can go back and forth in time, but still actually IS BOUND by it?

If there is any movement at all, . . . there must be time included.
 
As God created the conditions for the big bang to occur then it seems reasonable that he is outside space time, as time existed only at the point of creation.
yours
ÒõýþüäðýóÖ
 
So basically, there aren't any biblical verses, just opinion based upon what people believe MUST be the case. If that IS the case, then fine. I just wanted to know why Christians insist that it is true when there isn't any biblical backup. Thanks for your input.

As for your statement "time existed only at the point of creation", and that God started it, . . . if God moved or did anything at all, it required a time frame for that task.
 
Orion said:
if God moved or did anything at all, it required a time frame for that task.
you are still working in our physics and not Gods, where there is no time not space. But that is unknown
so it cannot be talked about with credibility. Maybe one day we will find out, but it is not in the bible, which is our book but outdated to scientific knowledge. This is my opinion only.
yours

VFX
 
I appreciate you giving your opinion. :)

I guess I am just uneasy with believing or agreeing with a concept that we can't test for,. . . and why there is a need for the "God doesn't operate on our phyiscs priciples" thing. I understand your opinion, though. :wave
 
Think of it this way: every effect has a cause. Time is an effect. Something had to cause time. A rule of cause and and effect is the cause has to be greater than the effect. This means time has a cause that is not restrained by it. Don't get wrong, it baffles me. But it follows, logically.
 
Crying Rock said:
Think of it this way: every effect has a cause. Time is an effect. Something had to cause time. A rule of cause and and effect is the cause has to be greater than the effect. This means time has a cause that is not restrained by it. Don't get me wrong, it baffles me. But it follows, logically.
 
Crying Rock said:
every effect has a cause
That is not true in the world of quantum physics where particles behave both in the past and the future.
Crying Rock said:
Something had to cause time
You have no evidence of this either as time is something quite unknown but often investigated. Your logic is correct but in the quantum world where time and space reside, logic goes out the window.. You cannot apply Newtonian physics to the quantum world. Do I really understand quantum physics: the answer is yes and NO.
yours

ÒõýþüäðýóÖ
 
Still no verses. I would say that any being, including God, is bound by time. Any action requires a time frame to complete it. Since there is no verse, then there is only the supposition of people who must come up with something that is "beyond our ability to know" in order to make God so much more mysterious and fantastic than us. Same for the doctrine of the Trinity. No verses for that either, but it MUST be true, because we are incapable of understanding it.

IF such things are true, . . . IF God is "so far beyond our knowledge", then how CAN you know that you have "love" for such an entity? Any human-ic characteristics would be, at best, scratching the surface. How could you even KNOW if what's beyond that IS "lovable"?
 
Hello Orion, Long time.

As for the verses, I am sure we could use ‘for God a 1000 years is a day and a day a 1000 years’ as conceptual hinting that He is not bound by time. Some might even be able to point to prophecy and say He can see the future ‘as is’ from present which we are not capable of. Rather than data mine biblical verses, I want to address a different point in your post, which VenomFangX touched upon. A few decades ago a majority of scientific community believed that the universe always existed. The biblical “in the beginning†did not make much sense because there cannot be a beginning to a steady state universe. Big Bang theory falsified steady state universe and put forth the ever active expanding universe which has a beginning. This beginning is not just the beginning of space but time as well. So scientifically you cannot speak of time before this beginning. You cannot use the current physics to evaluate a pico-second right after the Big Bang let alone a moment before the Big Bang like you want to. So a statement God “moved†in the literal sense is incorrect. Motion is what we describe in our universe with the current set of laws. You cannot apply that to an existence before the current universe.

Having said that, I see creation as a limitation on God. There were times when a computer was the size of a room. Now a computer that sits on your desk is far more powerful and smaller and efficient than the first computers made. Just as we were limited by how many computations we make by the machine we built, God is limited by the creation He chose to direct. God has to interact with us through time and space. This is a limitation of creation. I know your next question, can God travel through time?

Before you start asking these questions you need to understand what time is. Ever heard of the twin paradox? It’s a thought experiment of Special Relativity where a twin leaves behind his brother on earth in a rocket which reaches considerably close speeds of light. Then he turns around and comes back to earth after a few years. Upon return he finds his brother is waaaaaaay older than he is. How can the twins be of different ages when they meet again? But that is what Einstein’s relativity is. The twins will be of different ages. It is a hard concept to wrap your head around. Your logic/reasoning in your mind wants to tell you that they will be the same age when they meet, but the result is quite contrary. So realize that time is relative and there is no simultaneity in our universe. Given this complexity of time, it would be even more compounding to add God into the mix and understand how His existence worked before time, when we find it hard to comprehend our existence in time in our present universe.

Orion said:
I would say that any being, including God, is bound by time. Any action requires a time frame to complete it.
To make that claim you need to claim to know the conditions of existence before space-time existed. Care to explain ‘what’ this existence is without expressing it in space-time? I agree that after creation God might be bound by space-time by the way he interacts with humans.

IF such things are true, . . . IF God is "so far beyond our knowledge", then how CAN you know that you have "love" for such an entity? Any human-ic characteristics would be, at best, scratching the surface. How could you even KNOW if what's beyond that IS "lovable"?
I think you are confusing that love and understanding are exclusively interdependent. When you fell in love with your ex, did this love arise out of complete understanding? Looking back can you say you might have only be scratching the surface when you fell in love with her? Understanding might be one of the factors that triggers love but not all.
 
Hey, TanNinety.

I was speaking of the human era, and God's interactions, mostly. To say that "God is not bound by time" doesn't make sense to me. I don't claim to be an expert in physics, but to me, it seems like there "MUST be so much that can't be understood by us", when it comes to God. Much of it would be because some things started to make no sense, and a rationalization had to be made.

As for "not being able to love without knowing", . . . you mentioned my ex, and you are right that I "fell in love" with her not knowing all there was about her. I realize now, knowing more information, that she was not a person I could love. In the same way, . . . after I left the "knowing God" up to what a preacher would give me on Sunday morning, and started my own investigation, I realized that I was no longer able (with the new information gathered) to "love" this being.

Oh, by the way, I know about the twins paradox. It does give the brain a workout.
 
When it comes to expressing the characteristics of God, I tend to run them through the ‘necessary’ filter.

We are not capable of time travel. So it makes more sense now to say that God is bound by the same restriction as we are. But who is to say that some genius in the future won’t figure out a way to perfect worm hole travel which not only transports us to a distant galaxy but also a different time? When that happens, having the knowledge of the workings of time we wouldn’t question if God can do the same. So the question is not if God can travel back and forth in time and freeze it but is it necessary for Him to do so. Based on the dialogue in the old testament, it seems to suggest that God interacts with us in the ‘now’, past is a memory and future is a plan. He is angry, He regrets, He is open to suggestions. All this, He does through interaction with humans in time. Is He bound by it? Yes, as necessary to have a coherent interaction with us. So this limitation as I see, is a necessity of humans and not the capacity of God.

Orion said:
"MUST be so much that can't be understood by us", when it comes to God.
Change the can’t in your above statement to don’t and I agree with you.
There is so much we don’t understand about God. But this is what we need to start getting comfortable with. An ‘I don’t know’ is a perfectly good answer. That’s what science does. Most scientists would agree that what we do know is but a bucket of water out of the ocean that is out there. When we ask the question, what existed before the big bang, science is pretty comfortable in saying, I don’t know. Why should like charges repel? I don't know. Why do electrons orbit a nucleus? I don't know. What determines what atoms decay in a half life of an isotope? I don't know. Let's get comfortable like the scientists, we don't have to know everything immediately. Why doesn't God perform miracles in the 21st century? I don't know!

after I left the "knowing God" up to what a preacher would give me on Sunday morning, and started my own investigation, I realized that I was no longer able (with the new information gathered) to "love" this being.
I wish we could discuss this new information that you gathered but I am sure you beat that horse to death discussing it with a lot of believers. But if it has anything to do with science please bring it up and I will see if I can give any satisfactory answers.

It took me days and days to get my head around the twin paradox. It still manages to leave me scratching my head :)
 
The twin paradox is not really a paradox as the faster you go time slows down to the point at near the speed of light 99.999% a year of your time could mean about 30 million years on earth.
from:
http://www.1728.com/reltivty.htm ( saved me typing it :-) )
Velocities in ordinary life which to us might seem incredibly fast have only a miniscule relativistic effect. For example, orbital velocity (5 miles per second) produces a relativistic factor of change of only 1.000000000360219.

Travelling at 93,141.1985 miles per second (half the speed of light) produces a factor of 1.1547005383792517. Here the velocity is incredibly fast and yet the change is still quite small.
At .9 times the speed of light, the factor becomes 2.294157338705618. Finally, the effects of relativity become significant. What does this factor mean though? If you were in a spaceship travelling at .9 times the speed of light:
1) the ship's mass (and you) would increase by a factor of 2.294
2) the ship (and you) would contract in the direction of travel by 2.294, meaning a 300 foot ship would shrink to 130.77 feet.
3) Perhaps the most interesting change is that 1 year to you would seem to be 2.294 years for someone back

Not really a paradox just basic math.
[attachment=0:2okzfrdl]relatvty.gif[/attachment:2okzfrdl]
yours
ÒõýþüäðýóÖ
 
Orion said:
I'm looking for the verse that states that God "is not bound by time", or something along those lines. I've heard it said before, and am curious as to the verse where this thought comes from.

As this is the science section, . . . please discuss the ramifications, if it is true. Is God actually bound by time? Is the concept just saying that God can go back and forth in time, but still actually IS BOUND by it?

If there is any movement at all, . . . there must be time included.

1Jn 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

If God is light, and anything traveling at the speed of light can see past, present and future as the same thing, then I suppose God would not be bound by "our" time. Of course God is spiritual light, so, he would probably traveling faster than physical light i.e. light from the sun. Of course if God is light then he must have infinite mass thus he would be everywhere at the same time. Lol. Theoretically of course, lol. ;) :D
 
That does bring into account the aspect of "that which wouldn't be affected by natural law", the spiritual. Can we make an assumption that "the movement of a spirit would still require the input of a linear time"?
 
I don't know that I've ever paid attention to scripture looking for a particular passage about being bound by time..

But anyway, I love the subject :D

I sure hope I can articulate this right. Wow, it's been a long time since I've discussed time!

If you break down exactly what time is, it really ebbs down to the distance between two points which we would call particles. Without two particles, time cannot exist in the way we currently understand time because time is the result of measuring that distance.

Take for example our watches which we use to measure time, or rather the relationship to the heavenly bodies with our own earth in accordance to what position within the galaxy we are at the given moment. The early Egyptians figured out that it took 1,460 years to complete one solar revolution and thus, that is what they measured time with. Our current calendar is based of these findings.

VFX said:
The twin paradox is not really a paradox as the faster you go time slows down to the point at near the speed of light 99.999% a year of your time could mean about 30 million years on earth.

Does time really slow down, or are the effects simply relational to the environment in which said object is being measured? In other words, haven't we just changed our standard by which we measure particles?

So for me anyway, the question about God not being bound by time is mute... God existed before the heavenly bodies were created, for he created them. Thus, he is not bound by the solar system. However, since you cannot make something out of nothing, maybe the question should be asked, by what standard is God measured?
 
VenomFangX said:
Crying Rock said:
every effect has a cause
That is not true in the world of quantum physics where particles behave both in the past and the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics[/url]

This means that the uncertainty principle is related to the observer effect, with which it is often conflated. The uncertainty principle sets a lower limit to how small the momentum disturbance in an accurate position experiment can be, and vice versa for momentum experiments.

"...A mathematical statement of the principle is that every quantum state has the property that the root mean square (RMS) deviation of the position from its mean (the standard deviation of the X-distribution):.."

"...Albert Einstein believed that randomness is a reflection of our ignorance of some fundamental property of reality, while Niels Bohr believed that the probability distributions are fundamental and irreducible, and depend on which measurements we choose to perform. Einstein and Bohr debated the uncertainty principle for many years..."

"...Bohr spent a day considering this setup, but eventually realized that if the energy of the box is precisely known, the time the shutter opens at is uncertain. If the case, scale, and box are in a gravitational field then, in some cases, it is the uncertainty of the position of the clock in the gravitational field that alters the ticking rate. This can introduce the right amount of uncertainty. This was ironic, because it was Einstein himself who first discovered gravity's effect on clocks..."

"...Bohr was compelled to modify his understanding of the uncertainty principle after another thought experiment by Einstein. In 1935, Einstein, Podolski and Rosen (see EPR paradox) published an analysis of widely separated entangled particles. Measuring one particle, Einstein realized, would alter the probability distribution of the other, yet here the other particle could not possibly be disturbed. This example led Bohr to revise his understanding of the principle, concluding that the uncertainty was not caused by a direct interaction..."

"...But Einstein came to much more far-reaching conclusions from the same thought experiment. He believed as "natural basic assumption" that a complete description of reality would have to predict the results of experiments from "locally changing deterministic quantities", and therefore would have to include more information than the maximum possible allowed by the uncertainty principle..."

"...Karl Popper criticized Heisenberg's form of the uncertainty principle, that a measurement of position disturbs the momentum, based on the following observation: if a particle with definite momentum passes through a narrow slit, the diffracted wave has some amplitude to go in the original direction of motion. If the momentum of the particle is measured after it goes through the slit, there is always some probability, however small, that the momentum will be the same as it was before..."

"...Popper's criticism applies to nearly all probabilistic theories, since a probabilistic statement requires many measurements to either verify or falsify..."

"...While formulating the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics in 1957, Hugh Everett III discovered a much stronger formulation of the uncertainty principle[9]. In the inequality of standard deviations, some states, like the wavefunctionhave a large standard deviation of position, but are actually a superposition of a small number of very narrow bumps. In this case, the momentum uncertainty is much larger than the standard deviation inequality would suggest. A better inequality uses the Shannon information content of the distribution, a measure of the number of bits learned when a random variable described by a probability distribution has a certain value...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertaint ... ver_effect
 
Back
Top