34
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: + + + +
Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless? (view source)
Revision as of 02:45, October 25, 2008
, 02:45, October 25, 2008→Yes
:I agree that time is a continuum, but the idea that one's position in time can be affected by movement in space suggests to me that it might be sensible to think of time in the same terms as the familiar spatial dimensions. If you follow my line of thought above, God can only be timeless if He is also omnipresent: do you believe it's possible for God to be omnipresent? If not, there's not much point pursuing this.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:57, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
:I agree that time is a continuum, but the idea that one's position in time can be affected by movement in space suggests to me that it might be sensible to think of time in the same terms as the familiar spatial dimensions. If you follow my line of thought above, God can only be timeless if He is also omnipresent: do you believe it's possible for God to be omnipresent? If not, there's not much point pursuing this.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:57, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
::But mixing omnipresence with general relativity implies that God is a physical part of the universe. Anyway general relativity would require that something without movement cannot progress in time, which doesnt allow for timelessness so much as a lack of a continuum for God to cause within.
I can understand how omnipresence might work, but it makes God a part of nature rather than the separate creator of the universe. -Barnes
== I don't know, and nor do you ==
== I don't know, and nor do you ==