Good knows time, all within can change from your perspective, but in Gods perspective all is already there... so for him as for us there is only now, but his now is all of us now.
Uh, the medium is irrelevant. Light only ever goes slower than `c` from the perspective of a 2+ dimensional observer. Light is a zero-dimensional object with a 1D world-line.
That´s what I was thinking. For a photon, its existence is an “instant” (not sure if the same as ever present eternity?) with no passage of time. While we see the photon move for bullions of years across space at a measurable speed. That’s mind boggling enough. And God’s eternity is likely more “strange” to us still.
Time was never created, we live in a "now everywhere " universe. "Time" is built into matter as change and different rates of change, it doesn't exist in an other way in our universe. Duration can only be defined/created comparing different rates of change in, or movement of, matter. A photon has no mass and can not change.
God is time…time the creator of all things…we live within time and we die. The time still here. All that we created in our life time was all created within the time. Time is the omniscient and the omnipresent.
Excellent interview about eternity and time. Would faster than the speed of light put eternity into perspective Eleanor Stump's description of eternity sounds like faster than the speed of light to me.
"So I don't have to be in your space or at your time in order to relate to you...If you and I can relate that way without being in the same space and time, here's what follows: God can do it too. If I can do it, God can do it." - So, the form of this reasoning is: A can r B (without sharing s and t while r-ing). Therefore, God can r B (without sharing s and t while r-ing). This isn’t valid. Not only are there instances of r obtaining of A and that wouldn’t or couldn’t obtain of God, the deeper question is: why is that so? The answer (seems to me) in part is that for any instance in which A r B, each of the elements (including God) belong to the same mode of existence. Yet, it is precisely this point she denies when she claims that “There are two equally real modes of existence: time and eternity...They are real for us because we live in time…They aren’t real for God because He doesn’t live in time.” So, the equivocation on r (which according to her really involves two modes of existence) may account for why the reasoning seems valid and appealing to her. Yet, it is still mistaken. Moreover, I’m still not sure this distinction between "modes of existence" is even coherent, even if I am prepared to grant certain cross-categorial/categorical equivalences. (I’m sure I am missing something here.)
A lot of people in the comments are clinging to their preconceived understandings/ theological positions rather than listening to her position. I think the main thing stopping people is thinking she’s saying God is limited. Listen carefully and you will notice what she says He is unable to do, He is only unable to do because it is a -merely- human act, but He is perfect. Such as remembering or foreknowledge. God does not remember -because He doesn’t need to- God does not have foreknowledge -because He doesn’t need to-. It’s like saying because God can do anything, He must have the capacity to trip on a rock, but that is simply untrue because the eternal God is not limited by such things.
It seems that because we live in linear time that we have a difficult time understanding that it is possible that our God is not restricted to linear time. We understand that our God "was' before, during and after time, we think of this as being eternal. But what if our concept of "eternal" is too limited in that we think of it linearly. What if our God is not limited by linear time. What if our God accesses time like we access pages of a book, yet of course more than a book for "He" could actually be in the book of this Universe not just reading it if He desired. Of course if He could do this He would know any page of time. Knowing the end from the beginning. Now knowing all events does the mean that He makes all decisions? It could if this God wished to just have a puppet show but our God does not desire this according to His revelation. He desires we make our own decisions though He knows what they will be and also the results of them still we are responsible for our own decisions. To me though God is God He still delights in our reactions to the wonders around us. And because God moves through the world in His person Yeshua he also knows how linear time events are experienced in our person. He is familiar with being long suffering and enduring hardship. He knows of pain and is acquainted with grief. But all this is just my limited attempt to understand our God and I am just a blade of grass in the short season of life.
I don't have a problem with the model of time presented, as long as there is evidence. I do have a problem that there are no events in reality which we can know God had any influence. So, it is imaginary. God does not exist.
I wonder if Kuhn got Eleonore Stump, William Lane Craig and David Bentley Hart in the same room to discuss the philosophy of theism would they all agree?
The truth is we r not god.and we put god in a human perspective.actually god is extremly alien to what we r.as a mere creation we should accept that we exist in a tiny reality and we do not comprehend anything beyond our human experience wich shows our sad state of how far we r from accepting our position wich will allow us to move forward in our progression of ultimate understanding.
No, it is not relativistic time. The model she is stating is a "closed timeline loop". In this model, we experience time and have free will, while "Eternal Time" exists along with our time.
Very interesting, very titillating to the mind this conversation is, thank you. However, may I express my humble narrowmindedness? As I listen, I find the course sounding funnier and funnier for a theological prejudice: the discourse crosses borders to and fro, from time to eternity and then eternity to time. Shouldn't this be ridiculous? Don't get me wrong, I am not ridiculing the conversation which is deeply intellectual. Rather, my simple thesis is that in no way could we cross such border between time and eternity. Oh, yes, we can speculate for the pleasure of it. But to get to the bottom of the truth about God and our faith, nobody could do it surely. In a word, outside this beautiful program of theological conversation, at the end of the day, it begs to remind us that nobody knows that much, much less accurately and truthfully, about eternity. We're all creatures of time and space, even our transcendental empowerment to peep through finitude and see glimpses of the eternity of God.
These two people our both in the center of their own reference frame interacting with the wave particle duality of light relative to their actions. With the future unfolding photon by photon with each new photon electron coupling or dipole moment.
If they stop talking, stop looking at each other and are separated by a thousand miles, into separate rooms alone with minimal stimulus (interaction with other nearby conscious), would they then be asking and answering the same questions?
Yeah this is philosophically flawed. You may hold this, though the problem still persists at a deeper level, if you are a Jew or a Muslim, but as a Christian we believe that the second person of the trinity took on a human nature and was, for a time, on earth. And hence for God there was a time when there the second person didn't have a human nature and a time where he did. So God is in time.
The flying dutchman No, God eternally willed that at the birth of Christ, a person would come to exist who was both fully man and fully God. This doesn’t require a change in God.
The second person of the Trinity did not change in the divine nature, the Son remained the same since eternity and did not change at all in his divine nature, the change takes place in the human nature, God willed since eternity that at a particular time He be born as a man and so acquire a divine nature, so, is there a time when the Son isn't man and when the son is man? From a human perspective it might be said so, since in 1000 BC the human nature has not come into existence, but actually God exists eternally in the divine nature timelessly, and the change only took place in the human nature, and so the Son is timeless still according to the divine nature and not in time by any means, yet in his humanity He came into it and maybe still experiences a kind of metaphysical time.
She says god doesn't have fore-knowledge. (2:55). This is an understandable position for someone who wants to believe, because otherwise there are seemingly insurmountable inconsistencies in theology. However, her statement also means she either hasn't read the bible, or doesn't accept it as true. See for example Romans 8:29, Romans 11:2, 1 Peter 1:2
It sounds like she believes that those verses are using anthropomorphism: she believes God knows what will happen in the future, but the facts about the future are only "fore" from a human perspective since God is outside of time. The Bible uses anthropomorphism frequently, like when it talks about God's "hand". God doesn't have actual hands since He's a spirit, but the Bible uses human imagery to describe His activity within the world.
@@jackjones6849 @Jack Jones if your god is outside of time, then how can he do anything? Because 'doing' requires time (a time before and a time after). I appreciate you have been told that this god exists, but apart from complying with what you're told to believe, do you have any good reason to believe it is true?
I admire her ability to conceptualize things that are "naturally" beyond human reason and put these concepts in a manner that can be understood, but understanding her foundation and training requires a philosophical mind. My only caveat here is that philosophers typically do not deal with straight-forward concrete answers, since everything can be presentable and there are no questions that are "off the table". If we are changed by "truth": then philosophy doesn't necessarily present truth, but rather affords one to have "table talks" about truths. Again, I admire her and love her work, but no human (finite being ) can comprehend that which is infinite! For her to say that God (Yahweh) does not have foreknowledge, is not accurate! For He is the reveler of truth and also grants humans (finite beings limited by time and space) visions, dreams, and even insights into the future. It's interesting that Philosophers or Scientist can not adequately explain the human consciousness, but can explain theories of other sorts.
@@francispoku766 Thank you beloved. My desire is to know Him as Jesus does and not just be smart or knowledgeable just for smarts sake. Shalom to you my friend!
I don't think you were quite grasping what she was saying, and to use your argument as an example, God granting someone a vision of the future does not mean he has foreknowledge. To have foreknowledge of something would require a temporal placement and progression. God, being eternal, exists in now, just like you do. Where yours, mine, and everyone else's now is constantly moving forward (now, now, now, now, now) his now is eternal, there is no future because there is no past, there is only now, and his now encompasses all nows.
The Truth is a person. A correct concept borrows its little bit of truth from the Truth, The Logos of God, The Christ. Truth cannot exist in a physicalist world, even correct concepts cannot (even concepts at all).
The very first point Eleonore make is flawed since she is necessarily causally connected in time with the person she listens to. It seems to me that the concept of a 'timeless' being requires a separation between that being and the entire space-time universe in which we exist.
***** I agree. The problem I have is this all feels like complete speculation in an attempt to reconcile scripture with what we know about the universe today. It seems that where science contradicts or even just does not support particular doctrinal 'truths', the theist resorts to this kind of 'just so' story and speculation.
Mrs. Stump, at 550 already answered your objection... she refers to two modes of existence, which do not reduce to each other... Since God is a necessary being, he sustains all creation, and thus is immanent in our timed nature, but in his eternal mode of existence, not our temporal one.
She is really articulate of what she is taking about, and they are great ideas, but no evidence, and just a bunch of words. The way she talks is as if she have proof or evidence.
Prayer is incoherent and useless if God is not limited by time. The Biblical presentation of prayer represents God as able to be affected by prayer. So God cannot be outside time. And, Classical Theism requires the Biblical data about God to be explained away, not explained. Classical Theism is, in effect, a subtle attack upon the Bible, which professes to respect its data, at the cost of emptying those data of meaning. The God of Classical Theism is called by all sorts of attributes which have no effect in everyday life - William James put paid to this Deity in “The Varieties of Religious Experience” in 1902; the Attributes of the GCT have no “cash value”.
You can watch the disappointment in Lawrence’s face grow and grow as he realizes she has answers prepared in advance to each of his spontaneous questions. He was caught off guard. And he doesn’t like that. At all.
God is Time and Time is God, with Time we were created and everything was created in its Time. Time is infinite in all senses and forms, without Time there is no life, there is no Time because Time is life and death, because Time is responsible for all life and death, Time is responsible for all contrition and of all destruction never hears a God greater than Time, many Gods died with Time, however, none has ever overcome Time. No God exists outside of Time and there has never been Time without God because God was Time. There can be no life without Time, a seed grows with Time, all evolution would not exist without Time and Time does not exist without evolution, because evolution is the expression of Time vise / versa. Everything works inside Time but Time works outside everything. If there is a God who is not Time, he must be limited because he cannot control Time. Nothing is superior that Time and Time cannot be created it just exists, it creates everything, it kills everything. We cannot control the Time. We cannot measure it. We cannot imagine it. We cannot create it. We cannot destroy it. We can do nothing for or against him, he is what he is and nothing more. All that exists is the expression of Time. (life or death) Time connects us all and everything. Time is everything and everything is Time. Conclusion: Time is God, is impregnable that rules fates and can devour everything.
God just needs to have a zoom meeting ... brilliant,but the lady assumes a lot of knowledge about God ... maybe its in Wikipedia? But how does she know what outside of time is ..back to zoom?
All in all....We have an assumption about God, according to culture. Most people, like Richard Dawkins, when they debunked God, assumes the ridiculous theologians of the UK-English culture. When Eleonore Stump talks about all this, she is still referring to "THIS DIMENSION" . There is the problem of the Human Ego thinking that even if there were a God that he would necessarily talk or relate to you. That God is necessarily GOOD is so deeply entrenched in a basic assumption of so many cultures..... We humans think so highly of ourselves, because we are cursed to be the most intelligent animal on Earth. The bottom line is the EMOTION that someday we'd just fade away, God or no God.....
She sounds so sure of herself; as if she has a handle on eternity and God; I can't buy what she says about this very profound topic because her answers are too facile. But anyway here's something to think about: Does God have free will? Is God omniscient? to have free will, you have to have an element of chance, of possibility; otherwise it's not free will. But if God is omniscient, he knows everything that's going to happen. If He knows everything that's going to happen, then there's not element of probability, and therefore no free will. Which is it? God can't have free will and be omniscient at the same time. I can across this last night on a RUclips vid, and I think it's made an atheist out of me.
bixntram there is no before and after in God. Only one eternal present, that is one absolute choice made freely willed that follows from what God takes to be good. God does not think about what to do next, but he makes one act of will from all eternity.
bixntram there is no before and after in God. Only one eternal present, that is one absolute choice made freely willed that follows from what God takes to be good. God does not think about what to do next, but he makes one act of will from all eternity.
@@ALMEYTRIX Thanks, Max. Actually I just figured it out (maybe) before seeing your comment. Yes, if God is omnicient (and He wouldn't be God if He weren't) and in the absolute present, beyond time, then 'free will' is an irrelevant concept. My past studies of Buddhism and on-going meditation practice have helped me 'get' this.
She is very creative as far as fantasizing about invisible magical beings is concerned. When I hear theologians making things up about an invisible magical friend it always makes me laugh. I wonder whether she takes this seriously herself. It is hard to believe. I realy expect her and Robert to burst into laughter when the camera switches off.
The idea that God is outside of time is not supported by the Bible in any way. Creation is an effect that God caused and all cause and effect phenomena require a time dimension. So for God to create the universe and it's time dimension he had to operate within another time dimension. Therefore, God is not outside of time, but in multiple time dimensions. The answer is not in God's lack of dimensionality but in his multidimensionality.
You cannot philosophize a god into existence. No matter how they try to frame it and use academic and philosophical language it is just trying to rationalize something that does not exist.
It's freaky - consider the following words - "Our dear loving leader loves us all. We are so happy to serve him. He will lead us to greatness and joy! We read only his thoughts, only his book. All those who speak against him are evil and must be destroyed" Have you not read these words from those living under Mao or other Communist countries? Now replace the word "leader" with "God" and you get the Abrahamic God! I hate to use the word Abrahamic, let's call it the Christian/Islamic God, because Judaism is a bit different from the other two and I don't think they belong in the same category Who knew Communism & Christianity/Islam have so much in common?
Yes, an immaterial being of maximal excellence is equivalent to a finite, human being of low excellence. Let's call your comment so stupid that it belongs in the same category as the moron who wrote it. Who knew they'd have so much in common?
@@joetech12 yep personal attacks are the weapon of a loser. you just called yourself a loser. God was built, you moron, there is no evidence of God, never has been, EVER! God was built using the most powerful man of their day - the King/Dictator/Master - "get down on our knees, swear loyalty and obedience, beg for his mercy and hope for a reward" The mentality of slave that is still being blindly followed today A being of maximal excellence doesn't act like a Crude dictator - rewarding people because they voted for him and abusing the rest
Ramaraksha you really are stupid aren’t you? You say “personal attacks are the weapon of a loser” and then turn around and use a personal attack! By you’re own definition, that makes you a loser! What idiot calls themself a loser as a comeback? You’re reasoning is superb, you really know what you’re talking about! Hahahahah!
@@joetech12 lol you got me there But still can't wrap my head around a "being of maximal excellence" who behaves like Hitler - condemning people based on their religion alone and dumping them into gas chambers Maybe you do think Hitler IS a "being of maximal excellence????? God is an idea, that's all -built using our experiences in life - built during a time when Kings/Dictators/Masters/Strongmen ruled & it is no surprise that God behaves just like any old Tin-pot dictator Religion seems to do the best job of brainwashing that even the best of minds can't see this
@@ramaraksha01 If there were a god like that then yes, I'd agree with you, it wouldn't exist. For it to even be possible for God to exist he would necessarily be maximally great, anything less wouldn't be God or exist. Not sure why you believe God is the one who actively does the things you mention, people have free agency to do evil.
Why are we the talking about us, we on earth are just a pin prick in the universe. Logically there must be billions of inhabited planets throughout the universe. Many will be down the evolutionary scale than we are, many will be at the same level than us and many will be so far above us on the evolutionary and spiritual scale than we are. its all so hard to get your head around, its mind boggling really. We as we are at the moment, its almost impossible to comprehend so called God, we sort of talk and think about God as being like a person. I guess beings on other planets who are a lot further up the evolutionary and spiritual scale must have a better idea and comprehension of what God is.....if God exist ?????
High Pitch you are an idiot. There are scientists on this channel that believe in multiple worlds to explain the double slit measurement problem and you want to give this video shade? Go watch cat videos then
So God is subserviently 'less than', locked into waiting for the consequences/events of that which He created (Time) to unfold/actualize. I don't think I like this rather weak version of God.
+John Abad - But this is still a weakened version of God. Knowing what will happen, but not being in possession of the "effects and causes" of all actions of both particles and man, leading up to and including every moment of time, puts God not just out of the loop, but now discards Him as a total irrelevance. (God is supposed to have created TIME!) God must be deterministic/unfree, otherwise, how can that which is perfect (i.e. that which is unable to make a mistake, which is what freedom is all about) endow man with that which He is not? God (if it exists) is determined, the universe is determined, and we the slaves of the universe (and by design 'stars') are determined. End of:-)
+31428571J I think you're asserting that if God is in an eternal now, then he can't sustain reality (as the primary, but not sufficient cause of all effects). I don't see how this is logically coherent though.
31428571J Well, the problem is, you're not paying attention to the rationale provided... If God is a mode of existence that is an eternal now, then he knows everything in the past, present and future... This is because it is not a finite, successive now, but an eternal now. Yes, past eternal models exist, but they all are implausible, and have to resort to quantum scales, which have no empirical evidence to support them. The classical model, which actually has evidence, points to a beginning, as seen in the B.G.V. theorem (as it applies to classical models).
Actually, I suppose I think that God is everywhen. Since it is believed that God is the creator/designer of TIME, I'm rather surprised that He hasn't got all of it covered as yet (knowledge of all things past, present, and future). I'm also one of the belief that God, if He exists, is timeless but somehow encoded in our universe since its origin (the BB highly ordered/low entropy state/origin being a rather interesting coincidence, though nothing more in relation to science). It's tricky though for me to insist upon this, unless of course it's somehow "turtles all the way down", or infinite divisibility is more than just a potential. I note that past eternal universes are now all the rage in physics, so I suspect that this is a question that will remain unanswered for quite some time (possibly forever, since we are locked out of knowledge (effect before cause) below a specified time (planckian).). Add note: I'm sure, as Augustine thought, that Now does not exist (I believe it's the timeless boundary between the past and the future).
+louisaahh These videos are essential watching for any thinking atheist imo. To challenge the varied arguments made for the existence of god you have to be aware of the arguments and understand them sufficiently to be able to refute them. In this one, a familiarity with Modal Logic as used in philosophy and the apologetic Modal Ontological Argument give the basis for a sound refutation. In short, you can't refute what you don't understand.
beautiful... Eternal present, simultaneity, analogy of intellect, time, mode of existence, and intimacy... thanks Thomist tradition!
Truly gifted. I've actually been awe struck. It's scary how smart she is🤯😟
God Bless Eleonore Stump. Fantastic interview!
What a gifted thinker and communicator!
Milady I wish I would have had a teacher like you in my life.❤
Good knows time, all within can change from your perspective, but in Gods perspective all is already there... so for him as for us there is only now, but his now is all of us now.
My High Tower My deliverer and he in whom I trust !
Two smart people- one brilliant & humble; the other wise beyond her years.
A beam of light in a vacuum Experiences no time.
Uh, the medium is irrelevant. Light only ever goes slower than `c` from the perspective of a 2+ dimensional observer. Light is a zero-dimensional object with a 1D world-line.
That´s what I was thinking. For a photon, its existence is an “instant” (not sure if the same as ever present eternity?) with no passage of time. While we see the photon move for bullions of years across space at a measurable speed. That’s mind boggling enough. And God’s eternity is likely more “strange” to us still.
Time was never created, we live in a "now everywhere " universe. "Time" is built into matter as change and different rates of change, it doesn't exist in an other way in our universe. Duration can only be defined/created comparing different rates of change in, or movement of, matter. A photon has no mass and can not change.
God is time…time the creator of all things…we live within time and we die. The time still here. All that we created in our life time was all created within the time. Time is the omniscient and the omnipresent.
She is a genius
Wow! I just met someone who has stunned me with her brillance.
I wish more women like Eleonore would defend the Christian faith
Excellent interview about eternity and time. Would faster than the speed of light put eternity into perspective Eleanor Stump's description of eternity sounds like faster than the speed of light to me.
"So I don't have to be in your space or at your time in order to relate to you...If you and I can relate that way without being in the same space and time, here's what follows: God can do it too. If I can do it, God can do it." - So, the form of this reasoning is: A can r B (without sharing s and t while r-ing). Therefore, God can r B (without sharing s and t while r-ing). This isn’t valid. Not only are there instances of r obtaining of A and that wouldn’t or couldn’t obtain of God, the deeper question is: why is that so? The answer (seems to me) in part is that for any instance in which A r B, each of the elements (including God) belong to the same mode of existence. Yet, it is precisely this point she denies when she claims that “There are two equally real modes of existence: time and eternity...They are real for us because we live in time…They aren’t real for God because He doesn’t live in time.” So, the equivocation on r (which according to her really involves two modes of existence) may account for why the reasoning seems valid and appealing to her. Yet, it is still mistaken. Moreover, I’m still not sure this distinction between "modes of existence" is even coherent, even if I am prepared to grant certain cross-categorial/categorical equivalences. (I’m sure I am missing something here.)
I've never been blown away by a woman before
she's brilliant!!!!!
God causation can relate to time? from beyond time to inside time?
AMAZING ANSWERS
A lot of people in the comments are clinging to their preconceived understandings/ theological positions rather than listening to her position.
I think the main thing stopping people is thinking she’s saying God is limited. Listen carefully and you will notice what she says He is unable to do, He is only unable to do because it is a -merely- human act, but He is perfect. Such as remembering or foreknowledge. God does not remember -because He doesn’t need to- God does not have foreknowledge -because He doesn’t need to-. It’s like saying because God can do anything, He must have the capacity to trip on a rock, but that is simply untrue because the eternal God is not limited by such things.
It seems that because we live in linear time that we have a difficult time understanding that it is possible that our God is not restricted to linear time. We understand that our God "was' before, during and after time, we think of this as being eternal. But what if our concept of "eternal" is too limited in that we think of it linearly. What if our God is not limited by linear time. What if our God accesses time like we access pages of a book, yet of course more than a book for "He" could actually be in the book of this Universe not just reading it if He desired. Of course if He could do this He would know any page of time. Knowing the end from the beginning. Now knowing all events does the mean that He makes all decisions? It could if this God wished to just have a puppet show but our God does not desire this according to His revelation. He desires we make our own decisions though He knows what they will be and also the results of them still we are responsible for our own decisions. To me though God is God He still delights in our reactions to the wonders around us. And because God moves through the world in His person Yeshua he also knows how linear time events are experienced in our person. He is familiar with being long suffering and enduring hardship. He knows of pain and is acquainted with grief. But all this is just my limited attempt to understand our God and I am just a blade of grass in the short season of life.
I don't have a problem with the model of time presented, as long as there is evidence. I do have a problem that there are no events in reality which we can know God had any influence. So, it is imaginary. God does not exist.
@@vshah1010 evidence?
I wonder if Kuhn got Eleonore Stump, William Lane Craig and David Bentley Hart in the same room to discuss the philosophy of theism would they all agree?
Craig disagrees with Stump on this theory of time.
The truth is we r not god.and we put god in a human perspective.actually god is extremly alien to what we r.as a mere creation we should accept that we exist in a tiny reality and we do not comprehend anything beyond our human experience wich shows our sad state of how far we r from accepting our position wich will allow us to move forward in our progression of ultimate understanding.
Tough topic. Comments are split in their reactions. It is an interesting conceptualization she presents. Need to keep an open mind.
Steve Elliott thank you for that common sense comment. Made with an open mind.
I don’t even know what questions to ask!!
Stump should be commended for at least trying to offer a plausible and interesting alternative to the usual A Theory or B Theory of time.
God’s time is not the same as us. A 1000 yeas is like a day to the Lord. We cannot comprehend time in the essence of God.
No, it is not relativistic time. The model she is stating is a "closed timeline loop". In this model, we experience time and have free will, while "Eternal Time" exists along with our time.
Very interesting, very titillating to the mind this conversation is, thank you. However, may I express my humble narrowmindedness? As I listen, I find the course sounding funnier and funnier for a theological prejudice: the discourse crosses borders to and fro, from time to eternity and then eternity to time. Shouldn't this be ridiculous? Don't get me wrong, I am not ridiculing the conversation which is deeply intellectual. Rather, my simple thesis is that in no way could we cross such border between time and eternity. Oh, yes, we can speculate for the pleasure of it. But to get to the bottom of the truth about God and our faith, nobody could do it surely. In a word, outside this beautiful program of theological conversation, at the end of the day, it begs to remind us that nobody knows that much, much less accurately and truthfully, about eternity. We're all creatures of time and space, even our transcendental empowerment to peep through finitude and see glimpses of the eternity of God.
is God's time part of his eternity?
She’s not cheating anymore than physicists using many worlds to explain the double slit measurement problem.
time in classic reality is different than God's time? causation from God's time to classic time?
❤️❤️❤️
Check out a book entitled "One Second and Now" by Todd Fries on Amazon.com. It relates directly to this subject.
icemanfreeze1 there is no now and time is not needed in quantum mechanics.
These two people our both in the center of their own reference frame interacting with the wave particle duality of light relative to their actions. With the future unfolding photon by photon with each new photon electron coupling or dipole moment.
If they stop talking, stop looking at each other and are separated by a thousand miles, into separate rooms alone with minimal stimulus (interaction with other nearby conscious), would they then be asking and answering the same questions?
Yeah this is philosophically flawed. You may hold this, though the problem still persists at a deeper level, if you are a Jew or a Muslim, but as a Christian we believe that the second person of the trinity took on a human nature and was, for a time, on earth. And hence for God there was a time when there the second person didn't have a human nature and a time where he did. So God is in time.
The flying dutchman No, God eternally willed that at the birth of Christ, a person would come to exist who was both fully man and fully God. This doesn’t require a change in God.
The second person of the Trinity did not change in the divine nature, the Son remained the same since eternity and did not change at all in his divine nature, the change takes place in the human nature, God willed since eternity that at a particular time He be born as a man and so acquire a divine nature, so, is there a time when the Son isn't man and when the son is man? From a human perspective it might be said so, since in 1000 BC the human nature has not come into existence, but actually God exists eternally in the divine nature timelessly, and the change only took place in the human nature, and so the Son is timeless still according to the divine nature and not in time by any means, yet in his humanity He came into it and maybe still experiences a kind of metaphysical time.
She says god doesn't have fore-knowledge. (2:55). This is an understandable position for someone who wants to believe, because otherwise there are seemingly insurmountable inconsistencies in theology.
However, her statement also means she either hasn't read the bible, or doesn't accept it as true.
See for example Romans 8:29, Romans 11:2, 1 Peter 1:2
It sounds like she believes that those verses are using anthropomorphism: she believes God knows what will happen in the future, but the facts about the future are only "fore" from a human perspective since God is outside of time.
The Bible uses anthropomorphism frequently, like when it talks about God's "hand". God doesn't have actual hands since He's a spirit, but the Bible uses human imagery to describe His activity within the world.
@@jackjones6849 @Jack Jones if your god is outside of time, then how can he do anything? Because 'doing' requires time (a time before and a time after).
I appreciate you have been told that this god exists, but apart from complying with what you're told to believe, do you have any good reason to believe it is true?
Nice
THERE is only NOW
I always thought sophistry was an invention. After listening to Eleonore Stump for a few minutes I know that is a real thing.
She is outstanding, and better than those silly physicists.
Yeah, with all their scientific evidence. Just silly.
wht can u do if u get tired of eternal life?
I admire her ability to conceptualize things that are "naturally" beyond human reason and put these concepts in a manner that can be understood, but understanding her foundation and training requires a philosophical mind. My only caveat here is that philosophers typically do not deal with straight-forward concrete answers, since everything can be presentable and there are no questions that are "off the table". If we are changed by "truth": then philosophy doesn't necessarily present truth, but rather affords one to have "table talks" about truths. Again, I admire her and love her work, but no human (finite being ) can comprehend that which is infinite! For her to say that God (Yahweh) does not have foreknowledge, is not accurate! For He is the reveler of truth and also grants humans (finite beings limited by time and space) visions, dreams, and even insights into the future. It's interesting that Philosophers or Scientist can not adequately explain the human consciousness, but can explain theories of other sorts.
The Spirit of God is well in you. Keep pressing in into the Kingdom. Most sense I've read from all these comments
@@francispoku766 Thank you beloved. My desire is to know Him as Jesus does and not just be smart or knowledgeable just for smarts sake. Shalom to you my friend!
I don't think you were quite grasping what she was saying, and to use your argument as an example, God granting someone a vision of the future does not mean he has foreknowledge. To have foreknowledge of something would require a temporal placement and progression. God, being eternal, exists in now, just like you do. Where yours, mine, and everyone else's now is constantly moving forward (now, now, now, now, now) his now is eternal, there is no future because there is no past, there is only now, and his now encompasses all nows.
The Truth is a person. A correct concept borrows its little bit of truth from the Truth, The Logos of God, The Christ. Truth cannot exist in a physicalist world, even correct concepts cannot (even concepts at all).
@@ibperson7765 so that means your concept doesn't exist?
The very first point Eleonore make is flawed since she is necessarily causally connected in time with the person she listens to. It seems to me that the concept of a 'timeless' being requires a separation between that being and the entire space-time universe in which we exist.
***** I agree. The problem I have is this all feels like complete speculation in an attempt to reconcile scripture with what we know about the universe today.
It seems that where science contradicts or even just does not support particular doctrinal 'truths', the theist resorts to this kind of 'just so' story and speculation.
Mrs. Stump, at 550 already answered your objection... she refers to two modes of existence, which do not reduce to each other... Since God is a necessary being, he sustains all creation, and thus is immanent in our timed nature, but in his eternal mode of existence, not our temporal one.
Don't get caught up in seperation. There is none. The only time is god time.
A life time of jokes about being “stumped” gave Eleanor a deep skill set of always having an elaborate nonsensical answer for every question!
Ms Stump has schooled this guy so many times, but he'll never wise up.
what are the effects of hallucinogenic mushrooms, particularly on this lady?! watch the whole video for the correct information 😃
Hmmm ... "Possible Worlds", I smell the Modal Ontological Argument.
David Martin Because that's the only thing you know about modal logic. Her statement had nothing to do with the MOA.
It is a "closed timeline loop" model, often used in sci-fi. You have free will at the moment, but there is this outside time that is eternal.
KENOSIS
She is really articulate of what she is taking about, and they are great ideas, but no evidence, and just a bunch of words. The way she talks is as if she have proof or evidence.
Prayer is incoherent and useless if God is not limited by time. The Biblical presentation of prayer represents God as able to be affected by prayer. So God cannot be outside time. And, Classical Theism requires the Biblical data about God to be explained away, not explained. Classical Theism is, in effect, a subtle attack upon the Bible, which professes to respect its data, at the cost of emptying those data of meaning. The God of Classical Theism is called by all sorts of attributes which have no effect in everyday life - William James put paid to this Deity in “The Varieties of Religious Experience” in 1902; the Attributes of the GCT have no “cash value”.
You can watch the disappointment in Lawrence’s face grow and grow as he realizes she has answers prepared in advance to each of his spontaneous questions. He was caught off guard. And he doesn’t like that. At all.
God is Time and Time is God,
with Time we were created and everything was created in its Time. Time is
infinite in all senses and forms, without Time there is no life, there is no Time
because Time is life and death, because Time is responsible for all life and
death, Time is responsible for all contrition and of all destruction never
hears a God greater than Time, many Gods died with Time, however, none has ever
overcome Time. No God exists outside of Time and there has never been Time
without God because God was Time.
There can be no life without Time,
a seed grows with Time, all evolution would not exist without Time and Time
does not exist without evolution, because evolution is the expression of Time
vise / versa.
Everything works inside Time
but Time works outside everything.
If there is a God who is not Time,
he must be limited because he cannot control Time.
Nothing is superior that Time
and Time cannot be created it just exists, it creates everything, it kills
everything.
We cannot control the Time.
We cannot measure it.
We cannot imagine it.
We cannot create it.
We cannot destroy it.
We can do nothing for or
against him, he is what he is and nothing more.
All that exists is the
expression of Time. (life or death)
Time connects us all and
everything.
Time is everything and
everything is Time.
Conclusion:
Time is God, is impregnable
that rules fates and can devour everything.
God just needs to have a zoom meeting ... brilliant,but the lady assumes a lot of knowledge about God ... maybe its in Wikipedia? But how does she know what outside of time is ..back to zoom?
first
+Colleen Sikel He, Him His?
this ain’t closer to truth... closer to blithering,
(maybe
All in all....We have an assumption about God, according to culture.
Most people, like Richard Dawkins, when they debunked God, assumes the ridiculous
theologians of the UK-English culture.
When Eleonore Stump talks about all this, she is still referring to "THIS DIMENSION" . There is the problem of
the Human Ego thinking that even if there were a God that he would necessarily talk or relate to you.
That God is necessarily GOOD is so deeply entrenched in a basic assumption of so many cultures.....
We humans think so highly of ourselves, because we are cursed to be the most intelligent animal on Earth.
The bottom line is the EMOTION that someday we'd just fade away, God or no God.....
I have an idea!
Lets tax millionaires at around 95 percent.
She sounds so sure of herself; as if she has a handle on eternity and God; I can't buy what she says about this very profound topic because her answers are too facile. But anyway here's something to think about: Does God have free will? Is God omniscient? to have free will, you have to have an element of chance, of possibility; otherwise it's not free will. But if God is omniscient, he knows everything that's going to happen. If He knows everything that's going to happen, then there's not element of probability, and therefore no free will. Which is it? God can't have free will and be omniscient at the same time. I can across this last night on a RUclips vid, and I think it's made an atheist out of me.
bixntram there is no before and after in God. Only one eternal present, that is one absolute choice made freely willed that follows from what God takes to be good. God does not think about what to do next, but he makes one act of will from all eternity.
bixntram there is no before and after in God. Only one eternal present, that is one absolute choice made freely willed that follows from what God takes to be good. God does not think about what to do next, but he makes one act of will from all eternity.
@@ALMEYTRIX Thanks, Max. Actually I just figured it out (maybe) before seeing your comment. Yes, if God is omnicient (and He wouldn't be God if He weren't) and in the absolute present, beyond time, then 'free will' is an irrelevant concept. My past studies of Buddhism and on-going meditation practice have helped me 'get' this.
@@MrRezillo both determinism and Free Will exist
It would be so much simpler if Miss Eleonor would accept Open Theism. God must experience sequence.
She is very creative as far as fantasizing about invisible magical beings is concerned. When I hear theologians making things up about an invisible magical friend it always makes me laugh. I wonder whether she takes this seriously herself. It is hard to believe. I realy expect her and Robert to burst into laughter when the camera switches off.
You’re adorable.
The idea that God is outside of time is not supported by the Bible in any way. Creation is an effect that God caused and all cause and effect phenomena require a time dimension. So for God to create the universe and it's time dimension he had to operate within another time dimension. Therefore, God is not outside of time, but in multiple time dimensions. The answer is not in God's lack of dimensionality but in his multidimensionality.
There is no place in the Bible which discusses the science of time and God's place within it. For reference, I am an atheist.
how arrogant and silly. I know as much about God as she does and I'm an atheist.
no Charles you do not.
I just know I'm not the only one who thought that was total nonsense.
Raymond Johnson nope! 2 of us at least, and I'm looking for God on Skype right now so I can give him a call...
If you think it's total nonsense...then that is a reflection of the limitation of your mind.
@@lekmon-ml8mj ++ As you say. Reason has limits, fantasy has no limits. Your mind is without limits and likewise without reason.
because you are a great idiot
#further from truth
God ? Are you serious 😂
Judge Judy mixed With Frank and Gracie
god is not audible, god is not physical... where is the interaction?
Huh? Are those 2 things the only methods of interaction?
The divine can communicate through love, syncronicities, dreams, any divinatory system, art, etc, etc, etc, open your mind.
You cannot philosophize a god into existence. No matter how they try to frame it and use academic and philosophical language it is just trying to rationalize something that does not exist.
Icecoldhard This is just begging the question
Would you like rational evidence?
It's freaky - consider the following words - "Our dear loving leader loves us all. We are so happy to serve him. He will lead us to greatness and joy! We read only his thoughts, only his book. All those who speak against him are evil and must be destroyed"
Have you not read these words from those living under Mao or other Communist countries?
Now replace the word "leader" with "God" and you get the Abrahamic God! I hate to use the word Abrahamic, let's call it the Christian/Islamic God, because Judaism is a bit different from the other two and I don't think they belong in the same category
Who knew Communism & Christianity/Islam have so much in common?
Yes, an immaterial being of maximal excellence is equivalent to a finite, human being of low excellence. Let's call your comment so stupid that it belongs in the same category as the moron who wrote it. Who knew they'd have so much in common?
@@joetech12 yep personal attacks are the weapon of a loser. you just called yourself a loser.
God was built, you moron, there is no evidence of God, never has been, EVER!
God was built using the most powerful man of their day - the King/Dictator/Master - "get down on our knees, swear loyalty and obedience, beg for his mercy and hope for a reward"
The mentality of slave that is still being blindly followed today
A being of maximal excellence doesn't act like a Crude dictator - rewarding people because they voted for him and abusing the rest
Ramaraksha you really are stupid aren’t you? You say “personal attacks are the weapon of a loser” and then turn around and use a personal attack! By you’re own definition, that makes you a loser! What idiot calls themself a loser as a comeback? You’re reasoning is superb, you really know what you’re talking about! Hahahahah!
@@joetech12 lol you got me there
But still can't wrap my head around a "being of maximal excellence" who behaves like Hitler - condemning people based on their religion alone and dumping them into gas chambers
Maybe you do think Hitler IS a "being of maximal excellence?????
God is an idea, that's all -built using our experiences in life - built during a time when Kings/Dictators/Masters/Strongmen ruled & it is no surprise that God behaves just like any old Tin-pot dictator
Religion seems to do the best job of brainwashing that even the best of minds can't see this
@@ramaraksha01 If there were a god like that then yes, I'd agree with you, it wouldn't exist. For it to even be possible for God to exist he would necessarily be maximally great, anything less wouldn't be God or exist. Not sure why you believe God is the one who actively does the things you mention, people have free agency to do evil.
This is just someone's imagination running wild without any reference to evidence, experiment or logic, very hard to take it seriously.
Why are we the talking about us, we on earth are just a pin prick in the universe. Logically there must be billions of inhabited planets throughout the universe. Many will be down the evolutionary scale than we are, many will be at the same level than us and many will be so far above us on the evolutionary and spiritual scale than we are. its all so hard to get your head around, its mind boggling really. We as we are at the moment, its almost impossible to comprehend so called God, we sort of talk and think about God as being like a person. I guess beings on other planets who are a lot further up the evolutionary and spiritual scale must have a better idea and comprehension of what God is.....if God exist ?????
Unsubbed. Never realized this channel subscribed to one of the gods in any way. Oh well.
High Pitch you are an idiot. There are scientists on this channel that believe in multiple worlds to explain the double slit measurement problem and you want to give this video shade? Go watch cat videos then
So God is subserviently 'less than', locked into waiting for the consequences/events of that which He created (Time) to unfold/actualize. I don't think I like this rather weak version of God.
no... she's saying God knows the future, not that he foreknows it... it's an eternal now.
+John Abad - But this is still a weakened version of God. Knowing what will happen, but not being in possession of the "effects and causes" of all actions of both particles and man, leading up to and including every moment of time, puts God not just out of the loop, but now discards Him as a total irrelevance. (God is supposed to have created TIME!) God must be deterministic/unfree, otherwise, how can that which is perfect (i.e. that which is unable to make a mistake, which is what freedom is all about) endow man with that which He is not? God (if it exists) is determined, the universe is determined, and we the slaves of the universe (and by design 'stars') are determined. End of:-)
+31428571J I think you're asserting that if God is in an eternal now, then he can't sustain reality (as the primary, but not sufficient cause of all effects). I don't see how this is logically coherent though.
31428571J Well, the problem is, you're not paying attention to the rationale provided... If God is a mode of existence that is an eternal now, then he knows everything in the past, present and future... This is because it is not a finite, successive now, but an eternal now.
Yes, past eternal models exist, but they all are implausible, and have to resort to quantum scales, which have no empirical evidence to support them. The classical model, which actually has evidence, points to a beginning, as seen in the B.G.V. theorem (as it applies to classical models).
Actually, I suppose I think that God is everywhen. Since it is believed that God is the creator/designer of TIME, I'm rather surprised that He hasn't got all of it covered as yet (knowledge of all things past, present, and future). I'm also one of the belief that God, if He exists, is timeless but somehow encoded in our universe since its origin (the BB highly ordered/low entropy state/origin being a rather interesting coincidence, though nothing more in relation to science). It's tricky though for me to insist upon this, unless of course it's somehow "turtles all the way down", or infinite divisibility is more than just a potential. I note that past eternal universes are now all the rage in physics, so I suspect that this is a question that will remain unanswered for quite some time (possibly forever, since we are locked out of knowledge (effect before cause) below a specified time (planckian).).
Add note: I'm sure, as Augustine thought, that Now does not exist (I believe it's the timeless boundary between the past and the future).
Somehow her arguments strike me as rather silly.
care to present counter-arguments?
somehow? lol
Frank S Maybe you could explain
uh, please stop posting thesevideos with crazy religious people, who cannot support anything they claim.
+louisaahh These videos are essential watching for any thinking atheist imo. To challenge the varied arguments made for the existence of god you have to be aware of the arguments and understand them sufficiently to be able to refute them. In this one, a familiarity with Modal Logic as used in philosophy and the apologetic Modal Ontological Argument give the basis for a sound refutation. In short, you can't refute what you don't understand.