God's timelessness and the afterlife...

[jfryejr]

If God spans all time, as in he is the alpha and omega, not he was the alpha and will be the omega, wouldn't that mean that to him, I am already dead and in heaven or hell.

Also, if God is outside of time, wouldn't heaven be as well. So, I could feasibly (in the Catholic tradition) ask myself, as a Saint (haha), for special favors.

If it's true that he does span all time and the "judgement" has already happened, could my soul, while residing in my body now, simultaneously reside in heaven or hell.

Comments?

This question assumes some timeless god exists (like Yaweh, Allah) and that this god judges and has a heaven and/or hell (like Allah, Yaweh).* I'm not looking for an existence/non-existence argument--they give me headaches.

*This does not necessarily represent the view of the poster...

[Santas little helper]

Fascinating thoughts jfryejr.I've made similar thoughts myself.

If God spans all time, as in he is the alpha and omega, not he was the alpha and will be the omega, wouldn't that mean that to him, I am
already dead and in heaven or hell.

I assume by dead you mean your physical body.I would say yes, God can perceive any event at
any point in time and space so he can perceive your death as well as your birth and the
birth and death of your children ( if you have any ) and your grandchildren and so forth.

If it's true that he does span all time and the "judgement" has already happened, could my soul, while residing in my body now,
simultaneously reside in heaven or hell.

I would say that it does.
Of course this presents a bit of a problem.If you are in heaven or in hell ( and the same goes for me )
why aren't we experiencing heaven or hell ? ( I'm not ; not sure about you :D )

Anyone has thoughts on that ?

[jfryejr]

If you are in heaven or in hell ( and the same goes for me )
why aren't we experiencing heaven or hell?

I think that is what I was trying to ask, but couldn't quite phrase it...

I guess one could argue, depending on religious beliefs, that people aren't in heaven until the end of time...I don't know what the xtian Bible (never quite "got" Revelation) and the Koran write about this.

But, that argument could bring about another problem...if god is spanning all of time simultaneously, how could it ever end. Time should constantly progress from beginning to end ad infinitum. Hmmm...:banghead:

Thanks for the reply!

[Philosoft]

As this topic seems to specify the Judeo-Christian God, I think it fits better in GRD.

[Magus55]

I think you are a bit confused Jfr. Yes God exists outside time. Meaning he isn't bound to it. And God can see the past, present, and future all at once, as though its the present. But you are still bound in time, therefore the timelessness doesn't apply to you ( meaning you aren't judged yet, and aren't in Heaven/Hell).

And for God, time never does end. Time doesn't exist to God in the sense that it does to us. 1 day to God is as 1000 years to us - its meaningless. God has existed for all eternity up to this point. Before Time was created, He was. He controls Time, not the other way around.

[mark9950]

And God can see the past, present, and future all at once, as though its the present

God must have seen the 9-11 twin towers attack,but due to his incompetence did nothing about it.

I wander how many parents will let their child drink anti freeze and let them die without going to the hospital?

[Doctor X]

Indeed, Magnus, as mark demonstrates, your line of reasoning:

And God can see the past, present, and future all at once, . . .

leads to four out of the Five Choices [All Rights Reserved.--Ed.]--all of the ones other than Non-Existence.

You have certainly removed any excuse for him not to intervene in unjustified suffering. If he wants it to happen, he becomes Evil. If he cannot--sort of like The Watchmen's "Dr. Manhattan"--because everything that did and will happen is happening at the same time to him so he cannot actually intervene--he becomes Irrelevant. If he has no idea how to intervene he becomes Incompetent. Of course, he can still be a Combination of those three.

--J.D.

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by Magus55
I think you are a bit confused Jfr. Yes God exists outside time. Meaning he isn't bound to it. And God can see the past, present, and future all at once, as though its the present. But you are still bound in time, therefore the timelessness doesn't apply to you ( meaning you aren't judged yet, and aren't in Heaven/Hell).

And for God, time never does end. Time doesn't exist to God in the sense that it does to us. 1 day to God is as 1000 years to us - its meaningless. God has existed for all eternity up to this point. Before Time was created, He was. He controls Time, not the other way around.
I'm guessing apologetics becomes much easier when you abandon rationality and cohesiveness when formulating your explanations. Does the above make sense to you, Magus? Really?

[mark9950]

I used the wrong analogy

How many parents if they see their child run in front of a car,just let him do it and get hit?

Without the parents doing whatever they can to run to him and get him out of the way even if the parent is in fear of getting hit.

[Diadectes]

And for God, time never does end. Time doesn't exist to God in the sense that it does to us

Magus, as has been pointed out to you on several occasions, there is a difference between time never ending and time not existing. You need to decide which you mean if your apologetics are to make any sense. At present they are meaningless twaddle. An eternal (timeless) being cannot act in time. It may be able to see past, present and future as one, but would be able do nothing about it because there is no point in time at which it could intervene, because time for this being does not exist.

An everlasting one (for whom time doesn't end) could, because it would be temporal, and might therefore be able to influence events, but it wouldn't be able to see past present and future all at the same time. If you believe in an interventionist God, then I would argue that you are talking about an everlasting being that exists in time and therefore in our universe. But I'm not sure this would be the standard Christian God. Maybe the tribal entity that the Christians comandeered for their own mysterious purposes, but not the eternal 'ground of all being', or anything like that.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by mark9950
God must have seen the 9-11 twin towers attack,but due to his incompetence did nothing about it.

I wander how many parents will let their child drink anti freeze and let them die without going to the hospital? And if someone decides to go blow up a building full of people, God is required to stop them because ? ?

The human decided to blow up the building. That is his fault, and consequences will result, including death. Such is the problem with living in a corrupt world. Atheists seem to think God should just fix all their problems and stupid mistakes before they even do them. God gave you the ability to make a choice, if you make the wrong one, take responsibility and deal with the consequences, and stop expecting God to fix it everytime.

[Magus55]

Originally posted by Diadectes
Magus, as has been pointed out to you on several occasions, there is a difference between time never ending and time not existing. You need to decide which you mean if your apologetics are to make any sense. At present they are meaningless twaddle. An eternal (timeless) being cannot act in time. It may be able to see past, present and future as one, but would be able do nothing about it because there is no point in time at which it could intervene, because time for this being does not exist.

An everlasting one (for whom time doesn't end) could, because it would be temporal, and might therefore be able to influence events, but it wouldn't be able to see past present and future all at the same time. If you believe in an interventionist God, then I would argue that you are talking about an everlasting being that exists in time and therefore in our universe. But I'm not sure this would be the standard Christian God. Maybe the tribal entity that the Christians comandeered for their own mysterious purposes, but not the eternal 'ground of all being', or anything like that.

I'd say God is both eternal and everlasting. God can see the past, present, and future as one, and while not existing within, or bound by, time, he can enter His creation/time and intervene/work in it.

[Diadectes]

I'd say God is both eternal and everlasting. God can see the past, present, and future as one, and while not existing within, or bound by, time, he can enter His creation/time and intervene/work in it.

:banghead: Oh, I give up.

[mark9950]

And if someone decides to go blow up a building full of people, God is required to stop them because ? ?


If your child runs into the street and a car is going to hit him you or God should get him out of the way and stop stop him because???

He will die if the driver doesn't stop in time.

If God is a father than he is one who should have all of his children taken away from DCFS.

<insult deleted>

[jfryejr]

Magus55 wrote:I'd say God is both eternal and everlasting. God can see the past, present, and future as one, and while not existing within, or bound by, time, he can enter His creation/time and intervene/work in it.

If god is eternal, which I define to mean "spans all time", as opposed to immortal, which I define to mean "is created and exists from a certain point to infinity, then I would think that all of time would have already passed for god and we should be judged already.

Magus55 wrote:But you are still bound in time, therefore the timelessness doesn't apply to you ( meaning you aren't judged yet, and aren't in Heaven/Hell).

My perspective shouldn't matter. The perspective of god is more of what I'm after. If he is at the end of time, or spanning all times simultaneously, then to him I am already judged and in heaven or hell.

*Since I started the thread...my opinion is that this is another paradox that speaks against the existence of god as defined by Judeo/Christian/Allah tradition. (Although I don't think the Jews necessarily had a heaven and hell--I've heard different opinions on whether that is true or not.) I'm simply curious about other opinions on the subject as I've reached an endpoint with my ability to think about this subject in novel ways.

I think if one believes god exists in our time, as a part of our time, there is no paradox (at least not with regard to my original statement). While his experience of time may be different than ours, the actual time of his experience is the same as ours (hope that made sense). The end of time/judgement/whatever happens for us all simultaneously. This viewpoint places limitations on the power of god by necessity, although it is possible to argue than an omnipotent god could voluntarily limit his own power (although this would make him no longer omnipotent and would present another problem).

If one believes god spans all time simultaneously, then I think the paradox (is paradox good word choice?) above stands. Our "immortal" souls should already be in their final resting place, since they will exist in all time from their point of inception.

Magus you are cruel and heartless,OR JUST A TROLL.

Mark9950, while I don't agree with Magus (probably on quite a bit), he was simply replying to my post. The topic of whether god should stop evil acts from happening(I wander how many parents will let their child drink anti freeze and let them die without going to the hospital?) was actually brought up by you. I'm not defending Magus' position on god's apparent apathy (I can't and won't), but calling him a troll when he hasn't trolled is unfair.

[Abel Stable]

Originally posted by jfryejr
If it's true that he does span all time and the "judgement" has already happened, could my soul, while residing in my body now, simultaneously reside in heaven or hell.
Wow, thats interesting!- its sorta like a Shroedinger's Cat for heaven/hell religions. Would you simultaneously exist in both places until you die & are relegated to one? Afterall, both planes supposedly exist outside of time, but if we have "free will" then our final destination cannot be decided until the physical body expires. But then again, how can something pop in & out of timelessness? You can only be always in heaven or always in hell.

I guess it only goes to show: god works in mysterious ways.

[Crisor]

I've had a problem with this myself. I thought of another problem which some of you may or may not have thought of (or I haven't seen it anyway). It is this:
If an eternal and all knowing god existed, wouldn't this make the bible (or any religious book) useless. I mean, if god already knew who was on the A list and who wasn't, wouldn't he just have the people born with the knowledge needed to get there already without wasteing time with a bunch of people writing down a largely confusing and distorted book which is supposed to show the way (you know, I never really knew how long winded these things get until you write them down. Anyway...) This would stop those who seem to think that everybody needs to go to heaven from bothering us who don't really care.
Another thought, if god already knows who's going to be in heaven, what would be the purpose of creating them here. Skip the middleman, advance directly to eternal bliss or everlasting damnation.

[mark9950]

Magus you are cruel and heartless,OR JUST A TROLL.

Was cruel and heartless.

If you have children and they attempt to cross the street without your supervision what do you do.

a)Stop them
b)Let them get hit by a car
c)None of the above

[jfryejr]

Mark9950, I don't know if your last post was directed to me or the moderator (for deleting you comments), but I wasn't commenting on the cruel and heartless, just the troll part...

I agree it's cruel and heartless to let a child wander in the street where I know it will get hurt. I have a child and know that I will do anything to protect him from harm. I can also agree that an all powerful, personal god who could, on a whim, alleviate the suffering of all people, especially "innocent" people, but doesn't, is cruel and heartless. I don't, however, hold Magus personally resposible for this. I don't think Magus would intentionally let a child get hit by a car. I think very few people would actually intentionally let a child get hit by a car and the few that would have serious problems. If Magus' god would, then it is cruel and heartless.

Calling someone's philosophy cruel and heartless isn't wrong. Whether god is cruel and heartless is irrelevant to this thread. Magus' 1st post was on topic and simply a response to my question. His second post was a response to your post

God must have seen the 9-11 twin towers attack,but due to his incompetence did nothing about it.

I wander how many parents will let their child drink anti freeze and let them die without going to the hospital?

This post doesn't deal with whether god is timeless and so forth. Instead it says if god is timeless, he is incompetent and proceeds with a hyperbolic, rhetoric question meant to trap Magus into saying "no one". From which point, it could be said that god isn't a good parent...and the arguments go on from there.

Once again, I'm not defending Magus' position. I disagree with him. I'm merely stating that the post you wrote in response to his is a flawed/fallacious (?) argument with regards to this thread. My only intent is to be fair in the discussion...I didn't, and don't, really think god's timelessness and it's relation to the afterlife should lead to heated, emotional debate like some other topics.

The cruel and heartless (regarding god, not necessarily Magus) could be taken up in another thread...I just did a search and I couldn't find a thread addressing an argument to god's cruelty/lack thereof (I don't know if the search engine goes through the archive), I'll start one here assuming this is an ok forum for the discussion...

[mark9950]

, just the troll part...

You was commenting on the cruel and heartless part.

I apologize for the error.

I am sorry.

[jfryejr]

No problem...It's always hard for me to get across what I mean when I write...I'm so used to talking (often too much). I think I'm improving somewhat, though...but progress always take so long...