Does this make sense? Here are some objects. Do any of them work? I feel like you need a more rigorous definition of what 'outside time' means. I can think of two different interpretations of the term which lead to different answers.
Omniscience - Has correct knowledge of the complete future It is difficult to reconcile the existence of an omniscient being with the existence of human free will, but some people have attempted to do so. In my opinion, the three most interesting solutions are:. Molinist Solution: G-d knows the initial conditions of The Universe and They know all the rules governing The Universe, including how every creature will act in every possible situation.
From this information G-d can calculate everything that will happen. Thus, G-d is omniscient without infringing on free will. This solution is interesting since it compatible with the A-Theory of Time and relies on the global hidden variable interpretation of quantum physics. Aristotelian Solution: Regarding a different problem, Aristotle claimed that "no proposition about the contingent future has a truth value.
Unfortunately, it also implies that if G-d is infallible, then G-d is not omniscient in the strongest meaning of the word. Boethian Solution: This is the solution I personally subscribe to. Basically, it says that any claim regarding when G-d knows something is false. Therefor, G-d can know something, without knowing it in the past. In other words, G-d has no temporal properties; They are "not in time".
This solution may be the most appealing to you, as it appears to be in line with your current beliefs given how you describe "outside of time". Atemporal - Does not vary with time There are many things that are a temporal. The easiest to recognize examples are the fundamental constants of physics e. However, recent work has challenged this notion. A more rigorous example would be abstract objects as described by platonism e. It is worth noting that there is some issues regarding the existence of abstract objects and G-d.
That debate mostly focuses on if G-d could have created abstract objects, so I do not think it prevents us from explaining G-d's relationship to time by analogy with abstract objects. For the purposes of this answer, I am defining G-d as the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent creator of The Universe. Under this definition, I see no problems with the claim that G-d is atemporal.
However, I also see no problems with the claim that G-d is temporal. I am not sure if you can form a more restrictive definition of G-d without your question becoming tied to a specific religion, in which case your question probably belongs on a different Stack Exchange site. Non-Causal - Does not participate in causal relationships If the existence of G-d implied anything regarding an important issue, then there must be a causal relationship between G-d and that issue.
Therefor, the claim that Their existence is relevant to anything important is incompatible with the claim that G-d is non-causal. For this reason, I cannot imagine that anyone would claim that G-d is non-causal. Add on to this the fact that a reasonable argument can be made that no non-causal object exist, I do not feel the need to pursue the matter further. Time is widely expected to be emergent, for gravity and space-time to be reconciled with a quantum picture.
We can think of our experience of dimensions as emergent sets of properties that stay the same between situations. Quantum Loop gravity is an example of picturing space and time symmetries, and associated causality, as emergent from a more fundamental layer, in this case spin networks. If our universe exists within a higher dimensional space , a higher dimensional being could act causally in a way we can't see, like a human could effect and observe the path of an ant over a 2D surface in ways the ant cannot.
For more discussion of the problems with causality-as-fundamental, see Is the idea of a causal chain physical or even scientific? See Kurzgesacht's video The Egg for a nice example of how this kind of thinking could build common grown between monotheistic and karma-based perspectives. If one begins with the premise that A God exists, followed by B He or It is an Omnipotent Being who is NOT subject or subordinate to the laws of nature, including space and time, then arriving at the conclusion that God is independent from or outside of time, should not be so difficult to understand or acknowledge.
I would like to ask here, is is proven that time is the fourth dimension? Can it be proven? Does time exist at all? Is everything really tied to time? I mean take gravity, which scientists say bends time. If gravity is particles, then these particles would exist beoynd time, as gravitation slows time down only if these particles are existing in zero time Or maybe not. It gets a bit esoteric. Just wanted to understand time better so that I coudl see if something could be that is not tied to time Let me put it this way.
The theory of relativity is one of the most accurate theories ever devised. In the theory, which is a mathematical model or description of nature it is stated that time is "the fourth dimension".
In this sense, i. However, one normally asks "how well does a theory agree with nature" rather than if it can be "proved correct". A theory is said to be good if it agrees with nature well and bad if not.
This is to a large extent "user defined" as it will depend on what you want to describe and at what level. Those are good questions, Inquisitor. Easier to think about when cleanly separated from theological issues. Physicists are undecided about time. There was just an essay contest on The Nature of Time and several world-class physicists contributed. For some purposes it is useful to geometrize timethink of the universe as a 4-dimensional blocktreat time as if it were another spatial dimensiona block containing the track of every particle back into the past and forward into the future.
That can be a useful effective model for analyzing some things but it seems to have problems at a fundamental level.
So what you are raising are, in fact, open questions. Physicists haven't settled on a single idea of time. They discuss it and argue, take different positions on it.
You may have heard of the current difficulty they're having putting the two main 20th century theories together General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Both are fine accurate theories that have given us a lot correct precise predictions and a lot of progress etc, but they actually have incompatible ideas of time and that is the key reason they don't fit together nicely.
BTW just realized the question was moot. Well, inside christian theology, anyway. Why the geezer thought God exists outside time is a question I had better put to the said preacher the next time I see him! He clearly is a Heretic!
Well, here comes the Inquisitor! If we treat time as a 4th dimension. More questions:. This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here. More From Forbes. May 6, , am EDT. Feb 9, , am EST. Feb 4, , am EST. Jan 26, , am EST. Oct 29, , pm EDT.
Oct 27, , pm EDT. Oct 13, , pm EDT.
0コメント