dhw: If he can and does work in our time/universe, then it is absurd to say he does not exist in our time and universe. What do you mean by he is “timeless” if you don’t mean he is eternal? How does eternal-ness come to mean that he does not exist in time? It simply means he has no beginning and no end. That does not exclude the “passage of time”, as evinced by what you believe was the creation of the universe from an unknown “before” through sequence after sequence of time-dependent causes and effects.

DAVID: God works in our time, which means a portion of His consciousness is here at work. But that is just an extension from His real existence which is eternal andoutside the universe He created. We agree.

I don’t know what you mean by his “real” existence. Being eternal does not mean that he is unreal when he is busy creating sequences of causes and effects, which he could hardly do if he did not exist inside the universe and inside time. But I’m glad you agree, and we can make our way out of this particular cul de sac.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I will have to return later to answer yesterday's remaining posts. I'm very pressed for time, which is all too real at the moment!

OK

DAVID: God works in our time, which means a portion of His consciousness is here at work. But that is just an extension from His real existence which is eternal andoutside the universe He created. We agree.

I don’t know what you mean by his “real” existence. Being eternal does not mean that he is unreal when he is busy creating sequences of causes and effects, which he could hardly do if he did not exist inside the universe and inside time. But I’m glad you agree, and we can make our way out of this particular cul de sac.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I will have to return later to answer yesterday's remaining posts. I'm very pressed for time, which is all too real at the moment!

DAVID: The general view of God is all-knowing. Again your concept is humanizing.

dhw: You have agreed that his thought patterns etc. may be similar to ours, and I’m sorry, but I do not regard what you consider to be the general view as evidence that you and the large numbers of your fellow believers have any more inside knowledge of your God’s patterns of thought than I do.

We don't humanize.

DAVID: As usual, you slip into human thinking about God. We view His possible previous events as indicating 'time', but it is OUR view, not His. Spacetime is a property of this universe, not outside of it, where is where I view God as existing.

dhw: How on earth do you expect to know God’s view? Of course these are our views. We have no idea if there is an “outside” of our universe, but you have just stated that “He can and does work in our time in our universe which is time as you define it.” If he works inside our time and our universe” (the only universe we know of), it is patently absurd to tell us that he does not exist in our time and universe! And I still haven’t a clue what is the point of this discussion.

DAVID: It is God's duality: He can work in our time/universe but He is timeless outside of it. In a weird way it is like the coven of witches around the boiling cauldron, creating.

dhw: Why do you keep agreeing with me and pretending you disagree with me? If he can and does work in our time/universe, then it is absurd to say he does not exist in our time and universe. What do you mean by he is “timeless” if you don’t mean he is eternal? How does eternal-ness come to mean that he does not exist in time? It simply means he has no beginning and no end. That does not exclude the “passage of time”, as evinced by what you believe was the creation of the universe from an unknown “before” through sequence after sequence of time-dependent causes and effects. The coven of witches can’t possibly create without being in the same place as the cauldron, using the sequence of past, present and future, cause and effect, to work their magic. I still don’t know what this discussion is about, except that you can’t bear to contradict Feser, even though you agree with me.

God works in our time, which means a portion of His consciousness is here at work. But that is just an extension from His real existence which is eternal andoutside the universe He created. We agree.

DAVID: (Saturday 6 February) All we can be sure of is logic on his part. His thought patterns and emotions are possibly similar, but that possibility cannot be used to give him human desires.

dhw: Apart from your censorship of what sort of thought patterns and emotions you will allow him to have, you agreed that similar thought patterns etc. are possible. And I still don’t know what gives you the authority to state that your God is unchanging and cannot learn. Do please tell us the source of your inside information.

DAVID: The general view of God is all-knowing. Again your concept is humanizing.

You have agreed that his thought patterns etc. may be similar to ours, and I’m sorry, but I do not regard what you consider to be the general view as evidence that you and the large numbers of your fellow believers have any more inside knowledge of your God’s patterns of thought than I do.

DAVID: As usual, you slip into human thinking about God. We view His possible previous events as indicating 'time', but it is OUR view, not His. Spacetime is a property of this universe, not outside of it, where is where I view God as existing.

dhw: How on earth do you expect to know God’s view? Of course these are our views. We have no idea if there is an “outside” of our universe, but you have just stated that “He can and does work in our time in our universe which is time as you define it.” If he works inside our time and our universe” (the only universe we know of), it is patently absurd to tell us that he does not exist in our time and universe! And I still haven’t a clue what is the point of this discussion.

DAVID: It is God's duality: He can work in our time/universe but He is timeless outside of it. In a weird way it is like the coven of witches around the boiling cauldron, creating.

Why do you keep agreeing with me and pretending you disagree with me? If he can and does work in our time/universe, then it is absurd to say he does not exist in our time and universe. What do you mean by he is “timeless” if you don’t mean he is eternal? How does eternal-ness come to mean that he does not exist in time? It simply means he has no beginning and no end. That does not exclude the “passage of time”, as evinced by what you believe was the creation of the universe from an unknown “before” through sequence after sequence of time-dependent causes and effects. The coven of witches can’t possibly create without being in the same place as the cauldron, using the sequence of past, present and future, cause and effect, to work their magic. I still don’t know what this discussion is about, except that you can’t bear to contradict Feser, even though you agree with me.

DAVID: I have granted you only logical thought. Stop backpedaling.

DAVID: (Saturday 6 February) All we can be sure of is logic on his part. His thought patterns and emotions are possibly similar, but that possibility cannot be used to give him human desires.

dhw: Apart from your censorship of what sort of thought patterns and emotions you will allow him to have, you agreed that similar thought patterns etc. are possible. And I still don’t know what gives you the authority to state that your God is unchanging and cannot learn. Do please tell us the source of your inside information.

The general view of God is all-knowing. Again your concept is humanizing.

DAVID: God is timeless (eternal) but despite that, He can and does work in our time in our universe which is time as you define it. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: Thank you. Let’s summarize our findings: God, if he exists, is eternal. He created the universe and life in a sequence of causes and effects continuing through the sequence of past, present and future that we call time. We do not know what he might have done before he created the universe, but since there must have been a “before” if he is eternal, he exists in time (contrary to the heading of this thread), although his time has no beginning and no end. We appear to be in total agreement, though whether this leaves us any the wiser I leave you to judge.

DAVID: As usual, you slip into human thinking about God. We view His possible previous events as indicating 'time', but it is OUR view, not His. Spacetime is a property of this universe, not outside of it, where is where I view God as existing.

dhw: How on earth do you expect to know God’s view? Of course these are our views. We have no idea if there is an “outside” of our universe, but you have just stated that “He can and does work in our time in our universe which is time as you define it.” If he works inside our time and our universe” (the only universe we know of), it is patently absurd to tell us that he does not exist in our time and universe! And I still haven’t a clue what is the point of this discussion.

It is God's duality: He can work in our time/universe but He is timeless outside of it. In a weird way it is like the coven of witches around the boiling cauldron, creating.

dhw: This exchange arose because you said your God was unchanging, and I have challenged your definitive statement. You are simply answering with another definitive statement, as if you knew God personally (whereas I offer alternative possibilities – not rigid beliefs.) And the fact that learning is a human characteristic ties in with your agreement that he and we may have thought patterns etc. in common, though you keep trying to forget it.

DAVID: I have granted you only logical thought. Stop backpedaling.

DAVID: (Saturday 6 February) All we can be sure of is logic on his part. His thought patterns and emotions are possibly similar, but that possibility cannot be used to give him human desires.

Apart from your censorship of what sort of thought patterns and emotions you will allow him to have, you agreed that similar thought patterns etc. are possible. And I still don’t know what gives you the authority to state that your God is unchanging and cannot learn. Do please tell us the source of your inside information.

DAVID: God is timeless (eternal) but despite that, He can and does work in our time in our universe which is time as you define it. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: Thank you. Let’s summarize our findings: God, if he exists, is eternal. He created the universe and life in a sequence of causes and effects continuing through the sequence of past, present and future that we call time. We do not know what he might have done before he created the universe, but since there must have been a “before” if he is eternal, he exists in time (contrary to the heading of this thread), although his time has no beginning and no end. We appear to be in total agreement, though whether this leaves us any the wiser I leave you to judge.

DAVID: As usual, you slip into human thinking about God. We view His possible previous events as indicating 'time', but it is OUR view, not His. Spacetime is a property of this universe, not outside of it, where is where I view God as existing.

How on earth do you expect to know God’s view? Of course these are our views. We have no idea if there is an “outside” of our universe, but you have just stated that “He can and does work in our time in our universe which is time as you define it.” If he works inside our time and our universe” (the only universe we know of), it is patently absurd to tell us that he does not exist in our time and universe! And I still haven’t a clue what is the point of this discussion.

DAVID: Again the difference between us is our individual perceptions of God. God knew exactly what He was producing when humans arrived as I view Him. You have again described Him as learning, a human characteristic.

dhw: This exchange arose because you said your God was unchanging, and I have challenged your definitive statement. You are simply answering with another definitive statement, as if you knew God personally (whereas I offer alternative possibilities – not rigid beliefs.) And the fact that learning is a human characteristic ties in with your agreement that he and we may have thought patterns etc. in common, though you keep trying to forget it.

I have granted you only logical thought. Stop backpedaling.

dhw:. We have no idea what your God got up to before the Big Bang (if it happened), but he did not “recognize” the passage of our time – according to you he created it! So it's HIS time. And he used it. And if he is still alive, he exists in it. […]

DAVID: [….] God created our time and entered it for His creations of our reality. Outside the universe there is no time and God is there, timeless. Pure panentheism.

dhw: If your God created and entered our time, then he exists in his/our time and has worked through all the sequences that make up my definition of time. I’m reluctant to speculate on what “outside our universe” might entail, but if he’s there as well as here and is doing nothing, then time is irrelevant and he might just as well not be there. You still have him here, though, and since you think he is here, inside the time he created, he “exists in time”. So what? I still haven’t got a clue what you and Feser are trying to prove.

DAVID: Obviously. Simply, God is timeless (eternal) but despite that, He can and does work in our time in our universe which is time as you define it.

dhw: Thank you. Let’s summarize our findings: God, if he exists, is eternal. He created the universe and life in a sequence of causes and effects continuing through the sequence of past, present and future that we call time. We do not know what he might have done before he created the universe, but since there must have been a “before” if he is eternal, he exists in time (contrary to the heading of this thread), although his time has no beginning and no end. We appear to be in total agreement, though whether this leaves us any the wiser I leave you to judge.

As usual, you slip into human thinking about God. We view His possible previous events as indicating 'time', but it is OUR view, not His. Spacetime is a property of this universe, not outside of it, where is where I view God as existing.

dhw: I have defined time as the sequence of cause and effect, of past, present and future, of before, now and after. I have suggested that timeless means eternal, i.e. with no beginning and no end. This leaves us with an eternal God who created all the causes and effects that depend on the sequence of past, present and future and which constitute my definition of time. (Humans did not exist when this process began.) “Is that difficult to understand?” If you disagree with my definition of time, then please supply your own.

DAVID: Your definition is just fine.

Thank you. First step towards agreement.

DAVID: Your questions do not fit the quality of this discussion. God doesn't need to learn. His mind is so much more than ours.

dhw: Nobody could possibly doubt that if he exists, his mind is “so much more than ours”. How does that mean he can’t learn? Supposing, for instance, he had never created humans before. Is it not possible that he would have needed to experiment? You have no more idea of God’s “mind” than I have, so I don’t know why you come up with these authoritative descriptions of what he does and doesn’t need or want.

DAVID: Again the difference between us is our individual perceptions of God. God knew exactly what He was producing when humans arrived as I view Him. You have again described Him as learning, a human characteristic.

This exchange arose because you said your God was unchanging, and I have challenged your definitive statement. You are simply answering with another definitive statement, as if you knew God personally (whereas I offer alternative possibilities – not rigid beliefs.) And the fact that learning is a human characteristic ties in with your agreement that he and we may have thought patterns etc. in common, though you keep trying to forget it.

dhw:. We have no idea what your God got up to before the Big Bang (if it happened), but he did not “recognize” the passage of our time – according to you he created it! So it's HIS time. And he used it. And if he is still alive, he exists in it. […]

DAVID: [….] God created our time and entered it for His creations of our reality. Outside the universe there is no time and God is there, timeless. Pure panentheism.

dhw: If your God created and entered our time, then he exists in his/our time and has worked through all the sequences that make up my definition of time. I’m reluctant to speculate on what “outside our universe” might entail, but if he’s there as well as here and is doing nothing, then time is irrelevant and he might just as well not be there. You still have him here, though, and since you think he is here, inside the time he created, he “exists in time”. So what? I still haven’t got a clue what you and Feser are trying to prove.

DAVID: Obviously. Simply, God is timeless (eternal) but despite that, He can and does work in our time in our universe which is time as you define it.

Thank you. Let’s summarize our findings: God, if he exists, is eternal. He created the universe and life in a sequence of causes and effects continuing through the sequence of past, present and future that we call time. We do not know what he might have done before he created the universe, but since there must have been a “before” if he is eternal, he exists in time (contrary to the heading of this thread), although his time has no beginning and no end. We appear to be in total agreement, though whether this leaves us any the wiser I leave you to judge.

DAVID: I refuse nothing. You don't like my answers. God works in human time. Is that difficult to understand?

dhw: I have defined time as the sequence of cause and effect, of past, present and future, of before, now and after. I have suggested that timeless means eternal, i.e. with no beginning and no end. This leaves us with an eternal God who created all the causes and effects that depend on the sequence of past, present and future and which constitute my definition of time. (Humans did not exist when this process began.) “Is that difficult to understand?” If you disagree with my definition of time, then please supply your own.

Your definition is just fine.

DAVID: Your questions do not fit the quality of this discussion. God doesn't need to learn. His mind is so much more than ours.

dhw: Nobody could possibly doubt that if he exists, his mind is “so much more than ours”. How does that mean he can’t learn? Supposing, for instance, he had never created humans before. Is it not possible that he would have needed to experiment? You have no more idea of God’s “mind” than I have, so I don’t know why you come up with these authoritative descriptions of what he does and doesn’t need or want.

Again the difference between us is our individual perceptions of God. God knew exactly what He was producing when humans arrived as I view Him. You have again described Him as learning, a human characteristic

dhw:. We have no idea what your God got up to before the Big Bang (if it happened), but he did not “recognize” the passage of our time – according to you he created it! So it's HIS time. And he used it. And if he is still alive, he exists in it.

DAVID: No. He works His creations in our time, but outside our time He is timeless. The time He created is for us, not for him.

dhw: We did not even exist when he started to “work his creations”, i.e. to build effects upon causes, i.e. to proceed from a before to a now to a future (which according to you he constantly “anticipates”). What do you mean by “timeless” if you don’t mean eternal? And what do even mean by “outside our time”. What is “our” time? Do you mean the human classifications of days, months, years? Then I agree – I don’t imagine your God saying “I’ll do such and such on Friday”. All this is meaningless unless you define your terms, which you keep refusing to do.

God is eternal and timeless. He works in the time that exists in our universe. And He might decide to do something on our Friday. Are you purposely confused? I've been quite clear as in my statement above.

DAVID: God created our time and entered it for His creations of our reality. Outside the universe there is no time and God is there, timeless. Pure panentheism.

dhw: If your God created and entered our time, then he exists in his/our time and has worked through all the sequences that make up my definition of time. I’m reluctant to speculate on what “outside our universe” might entail, but if he’s there as well as here and is doing nothing, then time is irrelevant and he might just as well not be there. You still have him here, though, and since you think he is here, inside the time he created, he “exists in time”. So what? I still haven’t got a clue what you and Feser are trying to prove.

Obviously. Simply, God is timeless (eternal) but despite that, He can and does work in our time in our universe which is time as you define it.

dhw: Why do you refuse to define time and timeless? And unchanging in what way? For instance, do you think he is incapable of learning? You believe he is interested in us, so does that mean he watches us but his mind remains a total blank?

DAVID: I refuse nothing. You don't like my answers. God works in human time. Is that difficult to understand?

I have defined time as the sequence of cause and effect, of past, present and future, of before, now and after. I have suggested that timeless means eternal, i.e. with no beginning and no end. This leaves us with an eternal God who created all the causes and effects that depend on the sequence of past, present and future and which constitute my definition of time. (Humans did not exist when this process began.) “Is that difficult to understand?” If you disagree with my definition of time, then please supply your own.

DAVID: Your questions do not fit the quality of this discussion. God doesn't need to learn. His mind is so much more than ours.

Nobody could possibly doubt that if he exists, his mind is “so much more than ours”. How does that mean he can’t learn? Supposing, for instance, he had never created humans before. Is it not possible that he would have needed to experiment? You have no more idea of God’s “mind” than I have, so I don’t know why you come up with these authoritative descriptions of what he does and doesn’t need or want.

dhw:. We have no idea what your God got up to before the Big Bang (if it happened), but he did not “recognize” the passage of our time – according to you he created it! So it's HIS time. And he used it. And if he is still alive, he exists in it.

DAVID: No. He works His creations in our time, but outside our time He is timeless. The time He created is for us, not for him.

We did not even exist when he started to “work his creations”, i.e. to build effects upon causes, i.e. to proceed from a before to a now to a future (which according to you he constantly “anticipates”). What do you mean by “timeless” if you don’t mean eternal? And what do even mean by “outside our time”. What is “our” time? Do you mean the human classifications of days, months, years? Then I agree – I don’t imagine your God saying “I’ll do such and such on Friday”. All this is meaningless unless you define your terms, which you keep refusing to do.

DAVID: God created our time and entered it for His creations of our reality. Outside the universe there is no time and God is there, timeless. Pure panentheism.

If your God created and entered our time, then he exists in his/our time and has worked through all the sequences that make up my definition of time. I’m reluctant to speculate on what “outside our universe” might entail, but if he’s there as well as here and is doing nothing, then time is irrelevant and he might just as well not be there. You still have him here, though, and since you think he is here, inside the time he created, he “exists in time”. So what? I still haven’t got a clue what you and Feser are trying to prove.

DAVID: All you have done is discuss the human concept of time and tried to apply that to God. God is unchanging all through eternity, and not being different ever He is timeless.

dhw: Why do you refuse to define time and timeless? And unchanging in what way? For instance, do you think he is incapable of learning? You believe he is interested in us, so does that mean he watches us but his mind remains a total blank?

I refuse nothing. You don't like my answers. God works in human time. Is that difficult to understand? Your questions do not fit the quality of this discussion. God doesn't need to learn. His mind is so much more than ours.

DAVID: What you have described are things that God does for us or for evolution in our time. Obviously God recognizes the passage of our time as He performs activity in that time.

dhw; And there you have the nub of the matter. We have no idea what your God got up to before the Big Bang (if it happened), but he did not “recognize” the passage of our time – according to you he created it! So it's HIS time. And he used it. And if he is still alive, he exists in it.

No. He works His creations in our time, but outside our time He is timeless. The time He created is for us, not for him.

DAVID: What you do not seem to understand is the separation. Timeless God can enter our time and remain timeless as He manipulates within our time. It is not pointless trying to make you understand Feser's concepts.

dhw: Again, what do you mean by “timeless”? I have no problem accepting the idea that he is eternal, but what do you mean by he “entered our time”, when you believe that he himself began the sequences of cause and effect, past, present and future, evolution etc. If by “timeless” you mean that he has always been one vast blob of pure energy, that’s fine with me, but it doesn’t mean that his work does (did) not depend on cause and effect, before and after. And if by timeless you simply mean “eternal”, then all you are saying is that your eternal God has always been there in HIS past and will always be there in HIS future. This whole discussion is meaningless unless you define your terms! Why are you so reluctant to do so? And what exactly is the point that you are trying to make?

God created our time and entered it for His creations of our reality. Outside the universe there is no time and God is there, timeless. Pure panentheism. To answer your question, to explain to you God's relationship to 'time' after you questioned Feser.

DAVID: All you have done is discuss the human concept of time and tried to apply that to God. God is unchanging all through eternity, and not being different ever He is timeless.

Why do you refuse to define time and timeless? And unchanging in what way? For instance, do you think he is incapable of learning? You believe he is interested in us, so does that mean he watches us but his mind remains a total blank?

DAVID: What you have described are things that God does for us or for evolution in our time. Obviously God recognizes the passage of our time as He performs activity in that time.

And there you have the nub of the matter. We have no idea what your God got up to before the Big Bang (if it happened), but he did not “recognize” the passage of our time – according to you he created it! So it's HIS time. And he used it. And if he is still alive, he exists in it.

DAVID: What you do not seem to understand is the separation. Timeless God can enter our time and remain timeless as He manipulates within our time. It is not pointless trying to make you understand Feser's concepts.

Again, what do you mean by “timeless”? I have no problem accepting the idea that he is eternal, but what do you mean by he “entered our time”, when you believe that he himself began the sequences of cause and effect, past, present and future, evolution etc. If by “timeless” you mean that he has always been one vast blob of pure energy, that’s fine with me, but it doesn’t mean that his work does (did) not depend on cause and effect, before and after. And if by timeless you simply mean “eternal”, then all you are saying is that your eternal God has always been there in HIS past and will always be there in HIS future. This whole discussion is meaningless unless you define your terms! Why are you so reluctant to do so? And what exactly is the point that you are trying to make?

dhw: What is your definition of time? Mine is the sequence of before, now, and after - of past, present and future. It is not one o’clock, two o’ clock, three o‘clock rock. The division of time into units is a human invention based upon natural cycles. But you have agreed that there must have been a “before” the Big Bang (since your God is eternal and created the universe), and you insist that your God created a sequence of befores and afters, fine-tuning the universe for life, then creating life, and then continuing to fiddle with it through a sequence of life forms until – according to you – after 3.X billion years he achieved his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens, having operated on pre-sapiens brains IN ANTICIPATION of future usages. The figure of 3.X billion years is our invention, but the history of the universe is a sequence of befores, nows, and afters. And so if you think your God did absolutely nothing before the Big Bang but simply existed as a totally inert blob of pure energy (but remember, nobody knows what sequences he might have created before the Big Bang ), then you can certainly argue that he created time when he created the universe (i.e. “when the universe appeared, time started”). But unless he is now dead, he lives in and uses – or used - the time he created. Please begin your reply with your definition of time.

DAVID: Your exposition of the human version of time is right on. Yes God has worked in our universe while our time passed by. Absolutely correct. But again you are off the main point. God is timeless. What He created before this Big Bang is a time concept as we see it , not as God would review it. God is timelessly eternal. Only when He creates a species that can understand the passage of events does the concept of time appear. I am a panentheist, and understand that God's consciousness enters our universe's time to act. Yes God acts in our time but He Himself is timeless. A distillate of my theological readings.

dhw: I asked you for your definition of time. If you accept my definition, do you think your God is ignorant of the fact that his work DEPENDS on there being a before, a now, and an after, although according to you it was he who created a beginning – the universe – and a sequence of befores, nows and afters from that beginning to our present? You even have him programming events and acting in anticipation of future events! What do you mean by “timelessly eternal”? The only possible meaning of “timeless” in this context is eternal, so yes indeed, an eternal God is eternal. But an eternal God who is eternal still “exists in time”, unless of course he is now dead, in which case he is not eternal. Without a definition of time as something that negates sequences of cause and effect, of before, now and after, and of past, present and future, this argument is pointless.

All you have done is discuss the human concept of time and tried to apply that to God. God is unchanging all through eternity, and not being different ever He is timeless. What you have described are things that God does for us or for evolution in our time. Obviously God recognizes the passage of our time as He performs activity in that time. What you do not seem to understand is the separation. Timeless God can enter our time and remain timeless as He manipulates within our time. It is not pointless trying to make you understand Feser's concepts.

dhw: What is your definition of time? Mine is the sequence of before, now, and after - of past, present and future. It is not one o’clock, two o’ clock, three o‘clock rock. The division of time into units is a human invention based upon natural cycles. But you have agreed that there must have been a “before” the Big Bang (since your God is eternal and created the universe), and you insist that your God created a sequence of befores and afters, fine-tuning the universe for life, then creating life, and then continuing to fiddle with it through a sequence of life forms until – according to you – after 3.X billion years he achieved his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens, having operated on pre-sapiens brains IN ANTICIPATION of future usages. The figure of 3.X billion years is our invention, but the history of the universe is a sequence of befores, nows, and afters. And so if you think your God did absolutely nothing before the Big Bang but simply existed as a totally inert blob of pure energy (but remember, nobody knows what sequences he might have created before the Big Bang ), then you can certainly argue that he created time when he created the universe (i.e. “when the universe appeared, time started”). But unless he is now dead, he lives in and uses – or used - the time he created. Please begin your reply with your definition of time.

DAVID: Your exposition of the human version of time is right on. Yes God has worked in our universe while our time passed by. Absolutely correct. But again you are off the main point. God is timeless. What He created before this Big Bang is a time concept as we see it , not as God would review it. God is timelessly eternal. Only when He creates a species that can understand the passage of events does the concept of time appear. I am a panentheist, and understand that God's consciousness enters our universe's time to act. Yes God acts in our time but He Himself is timeless. A distillate of my theological readings.

I asked you for your definition of time. If you accept my definition, do you think your God is ignorant of the fact that his work DEPENDS on there being a before, a now, and an after, although according to you it was he who created a beginning – the universe – and a sequence of befores, nows and afters from that beginning to our present? You even have him programming events and acting in anticipation of future events! What do you mean by “timelessly eternal”? The only possible meaning of “timeless” in this context is eternal, so yes indeed, an eternal God is eternal. But an eternal God who is eternal still “exists in time”, unless of course he is now dead, in which case he is not eternal. Without a definition of time as something that negates sequences of cause and effect, of before, now and after, and of past, present and future, this argument is pointless.

DAVID: It is obvious you do not understand Feder's point in any way. It shows why you have no clue why I tell you you are humanizing God. We live in time, God does not. You are using what happens to us to apply the use of time to God as if He lives in our time. Feser is a Thomist, whose philosophy I have accepted in large part, but not the trinitarianism. Have you forgotten that when the universe appeared, time started? That alone makes God timeless. So don't do some reading for yourself, especially when you assume the imagined role of theist.

dhw: What is your definition of time? Mine is the sequence of before, now, and after - of past, present and future. It is not one o’clock, two o’ clock, three o‘clock rock. The division of time into units is a human invention based upon natural cycles. But you have agreed that there must have been a “before” the Big Bang (since your God is eternal and created the universe), and you insist that your God created a sequence of befores and afters, fine-tuning the universe for life, then creating life, and then continuing to fiddle with it through a sequence of life forms until – according to you – after 3.X billion years he achieved his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens, having operated on pre-sapiens brains IN ANTICIPATION of future usages. The figure of 3.X billion years is our invention, but the history of the universe is a sequence of befores, nows, and afters. And so if you think your God did absolutely nothing before the Big Bang but simply existed as a totally inert blob of pure energy (but remember, nobody knows what sequences he might have created before the Big Bang ), then you can certainly argue that he created time when he created the universe (i.e. “when the universe appeared, time started”). But unless he is now dead, he lives in and uses – or used - the time he created. Please begin your reply with your definition of time.

Your exposition of the human version of time is right on. Yes God has worked in our universe while our time passed by. Absolutely correct. But again you are off the main point. God is timeless. What He created before this Big Bang is a time concept as we see it , not as God would review it. God is timelessly eternal. Only when He creates a species that can understand the passage of events does the concept of time appear. I am a panentheist, and understand that God's consciousness enters our universe's time to act. Yes God acts in our time but He Himself is timeless. A distillate of my theological readings.

dhw: No, thank you. I would not even have commented on this if it were not for your claim that your God does not create in anticipation of watching with interest...How do you or Feser know that past, present and future are “all the same” to God. […]

DAVID: It is obvious you do not understand Feder's point in any way. It shows why you have no clue why I tell you you are humanizing God. We live in time, God does not. You are using what happens to us to apply the use of time to God as if He lives in our time. Feser is a Thomist, whose philosophy I have accepted in large part, but not the trinitarianism. Have you forgotten that when the universe appeared, time started? That alone makes God timeless. So don't do some reading for yourself, especially when you assume the imagined role of theist.

What is your definition of time? Mine is the sequence of before, now, and after - of past, present and future. It is not one o’clock, two o’ clock, three o‘clock rock. The division of time into units is a human invention based upon natural cycles. But you have agreed that there must have been a “before” the Big Bang (since your God is eternal and created the universe), and you insist that your God created a sequence of befores and afters, fine-tuning the universe for life, then creating life, and then continuing to fiddle with it through a sequence of life forms until – according to you – after 3.X billion years he achieved his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens, having operated on pre-sapiens brains IN ANTICIPATION of future usages. The figure of 3.X billion years is our invention, but the history of the universe is a sequence of befores, nows, and afters. And so if you think your God did absolutely nothing before the Big Bang but simply existed as a totally inert blob of pure energy (but remember, nobody knows what sequences he might have created before the Big Bang ), then you can certainly argue that he created time when he created the universe (i.e. “when the universe appeared, time started”). But unless he is now dead, he lives in and uses – or used - the time he created. Please begin your reply with your definition of time.

DAVID: I must remind that Feser was an atheist and now a highly regarded Catholic philosopher. Time is our concept, not God's. God does not create in anticipation of watching with interest that creation in the future. As stated, 1776 is the same as 2021 to God. If this seems disjointed, it is. Read the entire long entry for completeness.

dhw: No, thank you. I would not even have commented on this if it were not for your claim that your God does not create in anticipation of watching with interest...How do you or Feser know that past, present and future are “all the same” to God. You spend hours of your life (and mine) trying to demonstrate all the befores and afters as your God deliberately fine-tuned the universe in order to produce an environment that would later sustain life forms which would start off with single-celled organisms and would later evolve into different life forms, which would later culminate in humans. That sequence denotes the reality of time and your God’s use of it. And you yourself repeat ad nauseam that all his programmes and his operations and his lecture courses are In ANTICIPATION of what is to come. So how can you now support a “highly regarded Catholic philosopher” who is telling you that all your theories about evolution and planning for the future are wrong?

It is obvious you do not understand Feder's point in any way. It shows why you have no clue why I tell you you are humanizing God. We live in time, God does not. You are using what happens to us to apply the use of time to God as if He lives in our time. Feser is a Thomist, whose philosophy I have accepted in large part, but not the trinitarianism. Have you forgotten that when the universe appeared, time started? That alone makes God timeless. So don't do some reading for yourself, especially when you assume the imagined role of theist.

No, thank you. I would not even have commented on this if it were not for your claim that your God does not create in anticipation of watching with interest...How do you or Feser know that past, present and future are “all the same” to God. You spend hours of your life (and mine) trying to demonstrate all the befores and afters as your God deliberately fine-tuned the universe in order to produce an environment that would later sustain life forms which would start off with single-celled organisms and would later evolve into different life forms, which would later culminate in humans. That sequence denotes the reality of time and your God’s use of it. And you yourself repeat ad nauseam that all his programmes and his operations and his lecture courses are In ANTICIPATION of what is to come. So how can you now support a “highly regarded Catholic philosopher” who is telling you that all your theories about evolution and planning for the future are wrong?

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2021/02/smith-and-divine-eternity.html#more

"Smith begins by noting that the concept of eternity is traditionally defined in theological terms, as in Boethius’ famous characterization of it as God’s “possession all at once of unlimited life.” This “possession all at once” involves God’s existing timelessly. It’s not that God has always existed in the past and will continue to do so in the future, but rather that he exists outside of time altogether.

***

"I [Feser] would add two more points. First, “simultaneous” and “duration” are temporal notions, which should already make us suspicious of this way of spelling out the notion of eternity. (To be sure, it is very hard to avoid all temporal language when speaking of eternity, which means that we need to rely heavily on the analogical use of terms and explicit negation of all of the temporal implications of univocal usage.

"Second, talk of God “seeing” different points of time all at once, though very common in discussions of eternity, is extremely misleading ... God does not know the world via anything like perception. He knows it by virtue of being its cause. In particular, he does not know what is happening in 1776 and 2021 by way of observing them. He know them because he knows himself as the cause of a world in which a series of events occurs, some of which are in 1776 and some of which are in 2021.

"(Compare: A novelist knows what happens in chapter 1 and chapter 5 of his book, not because he has read both chapters, but because he wrote both of them. Much bad thinking about God’s relation to the world in general and to time in particular results from thinking of God as if he were just one more reader of the “novel” that is the world, rather than the novel’s author.)

***

"...all this talk of God having “stages” is in any event a non-starter, because it violates divine simplicity... talk of “duration” has, here too, potentially problematic temporal connotations.

***

"Eternity is not endless duration, but it is more like endless duration than it is like an instant.

"The main problem Smith raises against the “tenseless instant” view is this. Suppose Washington was worshipping God one morning in 1776, but was not doing so an hour later when his attention was distracted by other matters. Then it seems that God underwent a change (i.e. from being worshipped by Washington to not being worshipped by him), and if he undergoes change, then he is in time. A traditional response to this kind of objection, which Smith considers, is that while this involves a change to Washington, it does not really involve a change to God himself, but only a change in the relations Washington bears to him. And this kind of change does not require God to exist in time.

***

"Smith (or his dialogue’s character) also neglects to consider the Thomistic position that while the world bears a real relation to God, God does not bear a real relation to the world.

***

"...his talk of eternity as a “standing now” also deploys a term with temporal connotations. However, the situation here is similar to the one we face when attributing things like power, goodness, knowledge, and the like to God. We are saying both that there is in God something analogous to what we call the now (or power, or goodness, or knowledge) in our case, but that it is not exactly the same thing, and that it lacks all aspects concomitant with our being changeable, corporeal, composite, and so on.

Comment: I must remind that Feser was an atheist and now a highly regarded Catholic philosopher. Time is our concept, not God's. God does not create in anticipation of watching with interest that creation in the future. As stated, 1776 is the same as 2021 to God. If this seems disjointed, it is. Read the entire long entry for completeness.

Max Planck: Gentlemen, as a physicist who all his life, within the most sober and rational science, has been devoted to the study of matter, I am certain to be free of the suspicion of being a dreamer, and so I say after my research on the atom; matter as such does not exist. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force that brings the parts of the atom in vibration, and keeps the smallest solar system of the universe together. ……

dhw: I hesitate to cross swords with such an eminent scientist who can't answer back, but hold on. “Matter as such does not exist”, but matter exists? Everything we know of has to originate, but how does that come to mean it doesn’t exist “as such”?

The atom is pure energy particles is his meaning.

Planck: As there in the entire universe does not exist an intelligent force, nor an eternal force- man has not yet succeeded in inventing the perpetuum mobile- so must we assume behind this force the existence of a conscious intelligent spirit.

dhw: So we don’t know of any intelligent eternal force, and that must mean there is an intelligent eternal force. And the intelligent eternal force must be something we don’t know of, but we’ll call it a conscious, immortal spirit. In other words, let’s substitute one unknown eternal force for another unknown eternal source.

PLANCK: This spirit is the basis of all matter. The visible but impermanent matter is not the reality and truth- because without spirit, matter wouldn’t exist at all- but the invisible, immortal spirit is the truth.

dhw: I’m going to risk philosophical life and limb here, but I truly believe that matter is real. I don’t know how it originated, but maybe…just maybe…it has always been there. Hold on for the next mystery…

But, remember E=mc2. At the plasma stage our universe was pure energy in a plasma state.

PLANCK: Because every spirit belongs to a being, we are forced to assume it to be a spiritual being. Because spiritual beings do not come about by themselves, but must be created, I will not hesitate in fact, to call this secretive creator, like people of all cultures through millennia has done, God.

dhw: So matter has to be created, it’s been created by a spiritual being, but spiritual beings have to be created, and therefore the spiritual being which created matter – or does he mean the spiritual being which created the spiritual being which created matter – was created by...oh, hold on...no this spiritual being is called God. So what spiritual being created the spiritual being called God?

DAVID: By spirit I feel he means intelligence in a Creator.

dhw: Of course he does. That’s why he called God the “secretive creator”. Why didn’t he just say there had to be a first cause, and he believed it was a spiritual being named God, instead of all this tangled sophistry?

I can't speak for him, but a first cause MUST exist eternally