Was Time Created?
Dr. Peter May has a fine article at bethinking.org titled, Has Science Disproved God? In it he fortifies the Cosmological argument with scientific discovery.
I do have one disagreement, though. In his article, Dr. May suggests that time is a created thing:
We cannot speak about time before time existed. God, if he created the universe, must live outside of space and time.
Time as the Movement of a Clock
For scientists such as Einstein or Hawking, time must be physical because their worldview rules-out the existence of abstract entities. Therefore, they ascribe a beginning to time and describe it as, basically, the movement of the hands of the clock.
Christians too typically fall into this line of reasoning when they speak of God being “outside of time.” Time is seen as a creation of God that will someday be done away with. Until then, He will content Himself with being a sort of jack-in-the-box, jumping in and out of this box called “time.”
Eternal Now?
Another Christian explanation of God and time, sometimes called “eternal now,” was held by many of our Church Fathers, including Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Methodius.
This view puts God in a window overlooking a parade—the ever-present spectator, God is perched high-above observing all events at once. Consequently, the creation of the earth, the crucifixion of Christ, and the consummation of the age are all happening at one time. As if all events were thrown into a cosmic Cuisinart.
Sequence
Is it the case that time is a creation of God’s, and a material one at that? I don’t think so. Time is usually defined as duration—that which passes between events. It seems to me that there is something else to consider: sequence, which includes the events themselves. Here’s what I mean:
There are two types of sequence: logical and temporal. An example of a logical sequence would be counting, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. “2” logically follows “1.”
A temporal sequence would be a simple recounting of events. For example, if I numbered four Popsicle sticks and then randomly laid them out, they might turnout like this: 4, 2, 1, 3. That’s a temporal sequence.
Sequence and Temporality
Before God created the material universe there was a before. Before denotes a temporal sequence and is a hallmark of time. Therefore, since there was a before preceding the creation of the material universe, then time could not been part of that creation.
Here’s something else to consider: before that creation, God created a certain number of angles; and before He created them, He set a fixed number in His mind. This involves counting—logical sequences. Since God is not material, and since He is counting and creating, then neither logical nor temporal sequences are material; and since they necessarily precede His creative work, they themselves cannot be created; hence time cannot be material nor created.
The Challenge
Every Christian I’ve discussed this with has simply assumed that time is created and have offered no arguments for time’s creation and no valid refutations to my argument regarding sequences and time markers.
For those espousing the “time is a created thing” position, please tell us why we should accept your position? Why should we believe that before God engaged in His creative handiwork that He didn’t think (was He comatose?), plan (e.g., when would the consummation of the age be), add (e.g., establish the number of angels He’d create), love (inner-Trinitarian), etc.? Why should we believe something that is obviously self-refuting: that before before there was no before? Why would we believe that right now, to God, He is talking to Moses, bringing the plagues upon Egypt, being crucified in the person of Christ, bringing about the consummation of the age, ect?
What those of us who are skeptical of this position are looking for is a rational argument for time being created and not applying to God. (I'd also appreciate a refutation of the argument I've offered.)
It is a difficult issue, and highly speculative and mysterious, and we must take care not to create new mysteries. Those of us with these questions could be completely wrong about this, but to know that we are, we're going to need a valid argument (not an assumption) that time is a created thing.
Labels: Doctrine of Creation, Philosophy
posted by The Catechizer and The Deacon | 2:28 PM
5 Comments:
I was hoping for more feedback on this topic.
One of my favorite Bible teachers is fond of saying that time is a physical property and that God and the Bible are and from outside our time domain. A lot of it makes sense to my feeble pea-brain, but I'm not a scientist.
It was an interesting post that has caused me to re-evaluate my own thoughts on this.
Thanks for sharing. I'll be linking to it tomorrow!
I’m glad you found value in the post, Joe. I’m looking forward to seeing if you get any comments.
Thanks for stopping by (and the link).
--Shawn
Great post. I contemplate this often myself and have come away thinking many of the same thoughts. Since the post is still open, allow me to share some thoughts.
I don't find the 'eternal now' at all satisfying. I believe scripture reveals God is transcendent within His creation. The word clearly presents God as omnipresent, omniscience and omnipotent, the complete bundle. There fore, the notion that He sometimes disengages, so to speak, to view creation as a scroll or parade doesn't seem to fit within the defined attributes. Based on this, I don't find the suggestion that God can be in several temporal locations at once all that implausible.
The sequence thing you mention is where I too get hung up. At first I contemplated the Book of Life. Was there a point in eternity that God actually 'wrote' our names in the Book (Rev 13:8) and was written name by name? Was Joe above recorded prior to me, John? That would indicate sequencing. But that could be dismissed because the Book and the names could have existed since eternity and the 'writing' mentioned in Rev is anthropomorphous. However, when it comes to creation itself, as you indicate, there was a point in eternity that God specifically said “Let there be light...”, thus the beginning of something that was not. This is a definite sequence; not-->is. I believe this is what you are referring to with the 'before' scenario. If so, I like it. When discussed, none of my friends can offer a viable explanation either.
Then again, we as created beings are somewhat confined in our way of thinking. Because we are finite beings, our thought processes tend toward the linear rather than abstract. (Even abstract has linear roots). To elaborate, Hawking and other modern physicists theorize up to 11 dimensions when discussing the complex intricacies of time and space. Since our present physical environment consist of only three, I myself struggle visualizing more than three, however, mathematically, Hawking can offer 'proof' that 11 dimension can indeed exist. So the hang up may be with our available thought processes. Could a thought process exists that is not based on linear sequencing in which God has not revealed? For example, at the risk of sounding a bit wacko, take the phenomenon of Deja Vu. Scientist recently chalk this up as not any mystical revelation but rather irregularities within the impulses of the brain that regulate memory vs. now. Sorta a reverse linear. Are there impulses that lay dormant within the brain that may extend, or even supersede our linear thought process?
It's a very interesting question and , like Joe, I'm anxious to hear more on this subject.
You make a good point about sequence. I understand the argument in terms of logic. God's logic is logical, in other words. However, I do have a couple reservations about the rest of your argument.
The Bible does not use the phrase "before creation". Rather, it uses the phrase, "in the beginning." Unless one holds to the opinion that everything is immortal (an opinion the Bible clearly does not share), then one will conclude that a beginning necessarily denotes an ending. God has no beginning or ending, correct?
Your argument appears to hinge on the notion that God is "not material". Here again, the Bible does not use this kind of language. Rather, the Bible says God is Spirit. It does not say He is not material. In fact, I would argue that God may indeed be material in the sense that Christ does, even now, have a body. And this not even to say what sort of body the believer will be raised with when Christ returns. A spiritual body may not be the same as an earthly body, but it is still nevertheless a body. 1 Cor 15:44
David, I’m not sure where we differ, so perhaps you can clarify.
The Bible does not use the phrase "before creation". Rather, it uses the phrase, "in the beginning."
I’m not sure why the distinction matters. Everything that is created has a beginning; only that which isn’t created (God) has no beginning.
Unless one holds to the opinion that everything is immortal (an opinion the Bible clearly does not share), then one will conclude that a beginning necessarily denotes an ending.
I assume you’re using “immortal” in the eternal sense. If so, then you’re right, the Bible does not teach that everything is immortal. For instants, the souls of dogs are not immortal. But the souls of people are. Thus while it’s true that dogs souls have an end, it is not true that human’s do, so your conclusion that things that have a beginning must have an end is not correct.
Your argument appears to hinge on the notion that God is "not material". Here again, the Bible does not use this kind of language. Rather, the Bible says God is Spirit. It does not say He is not material.
My point has nothing to do with whether or not God has a body. It’s simply that if time were only material, and material things came into existence, then time came into existence. But I argue that there is a non-material aspect to time that pre-dates the creation of the matter: if it pre-dates creation then it can’t be part of that creation.
Rather, the Bible says God is Spirit. It does not say He is not material.
By definition “spirit” entails being non-material. Why do you believe otherwise?
In fact, I would argue that God may indeed be material in the sense that Christ does, even now, have a body.
I’m not sure how you would make this orthodox. Christ took on a physical body; he did not have one prior to the incarnation. Do you believe otherwise?
“it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.”
I take the above verse to mean that our physical body dies but our spirit lives on, and that the one implies the other. Is it your view that we are given another material body to temporarily use until the resurrection?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home