Can God go back in Time?

[RamistThomist]

I was reading a medieval history and came across St. Peter Damian, who wrote On Divine Omnipotence. Essentially he argued that God was so sovereign he could go back in time. Has anyone else explored this type of statement?

 

[etexas]

Perhaps He could...there are things I am sure God could do that in His infinite wisdom does not do. Also we are not privy to the whole counsel of God. What he has revealed to His Elect is sufficient reveation.

 

[Pergamum]

For what purpsoe wold He need to go back in time...to correct a mistake?

 

[panta dokimazete]

Time is not linear for God, that's why the Father and the Son said, "I am" - time is no more limiting to God than any other dimension. He is "above all".

 

[Devin]

For what purpsoe wold He need to go back in time...to correct a mistake?

That was my initial thought as well. I fail to see a reason why He'd need to go back. But, that still doesn't answer the question of the OP

 

[panta dokimazete]

a quick, weak example is that all creation from beginning to end is laid out to God - just like a tapestry. He can see all events simultaneously. For God, there is no "past, present or future" only "now".

 

[VictorBravo]

Time is not linear for God, that's why the Father and the Son said, "I am" - time is no more limiting to God than any other dimension. He is "above all".

First thing I thought of. God created time, he owns it all.

 

[etexas]

For what purpsoe wold He need to go back in time...to correct a mistake?

I think the question was could he...not what for what is intent would be. For my part I simply say some things are very far above our minds. I would be reluctant to say God could not do such a thing....would he....don't know. God is no mans debtor...He does not owe us an explanation of what He can or cannot do.

 

[BrianLanier]

Interesting question. Two quick thoughts:

(1) If God is atemporal, then the question appears to not make any sense.

(2) If God is temporal (this doesn't have to mean he has *always* existed temporally), then the question becomes: in what sense is the past necessary? And that is not an easy question to answer (even though it seems to be).

 

[RamistThomist]

Interesting question. Two quick thoughts:

(1) If God is atemporal, then the question appears to not make any sense.

(2) If God is temporal (this doesn't have to mean he has *always* existed temporally), then the question becomes: in what sense is the past necessary? And that is not an easy question to answer (even though it seems to be).

That's kind of what I was touching on, though I will come back to (1) in a moment. The answer to this question, as I see it, is related to God's relationship with time.

 

[VictorBravo]

That's kind of what I was touching on, though I will come back to (1) in a moment. The answer to this question, as I see it, is related to God's relationship with time.

Just a quick thought, I've got to run. Time equires at least two objects and some changeable relationship between them. Otherwise there is no meaning to time. So time is intimately intrinsic to creation. That's what I meant by God owning it.

 

[panta dokimazete]

God is supra-temporal, not atemporal. Atemporal suggests he is still "in" time, just not affected by it. God is over and outside time.

 

[etexas]

There has been for a long time a debate over the concept of time as we know it or understand it......the debate being, is time a "creation".

 

[BrianLanier]

a quick, weak example is that all creation from beginning to end is laid out to God - just like a tapestry. He can see all events simultaneously. For God, there is no "past, present or future" only "now".

Now this may be true, but it is not obviously true. There are very good arguments for God's 'eternality' to be defined as 'everlastingness' (see N. Wolterstorff "God Everlasting", 1975, W.L. Craig "Timelessness and Necessary Existence", etc.). That is there was never a 'time' when God did not exist, rather than God not existing in time at all (atemoral). So you would have to phrase your above statement with the qualifier that "now" refers to a 'timeless' concept. Now it is very hard to describe this in our natural language: 'now', 'eternal present', 'simultaneous', etc are are tensed. But on the other hand, Paul Helm (Eternal God) and Brian Leftow (Time and Eternity) have made good arguments for the atemporal concept. It appears as if the biblical texts are underdetermined in this respect.

 

[BrianLanier]

God is supra-temporal, not atemporal. Atemporal suggests he is still "in" time, just not affected by it. God is over and outside time.

Not true. 'Atemporality' does *not* suggest that God is "in time". In the literature, the correct phrase is 'atemporal' not 'super-temporal'.

 

[panta dokimazete]

God is supra-temporal, not atemporal. Atemporal suggests he is still "in" time, just not affected by it. God is over and outside time.

Not true. 'Atemporality' does *not* suggest that God is "in time". In the literature, the correct phrase is 'atemporal' not 'super-temporal'.

I will concede that atemporality is most commonly utilized in the literature - I believe that supra - temporality more accurately describes the relationship of God to time.

Atemporal suggest that He does not interact with time...and we know that God (in Christ) did interact with time, yet was Lord over it simultaneously.

 

[caddy]

Oddly enough Kreeft has a very interesting Chapter in his book Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven. The chapter is Chapter Ten: Is there Time in Heaven? Chapter 11 is entitled: What is Eternity?

There are some interesting portions:

The image of eternity as a point does, however, contain an essential truth: that eternity is not spread out like time. It is simultaneously present all at once, not piece by piece in passing. The answer to the question "What time is it in eternity?" is: Now. Thus Boethius' classic definition of eternity is "the simultaneous possession of all perfection in a single present"...One of the reasons we need eternity is so that our lives can finally have that wholeness, that oneness, that all-together-ness.

But we need no dimensional analogy, for we can be literal about dimensions: if there are three dimensions of space and time is the forth dimension, then eternity is the fifth dimension. Eternity includes time as time includes space. He then goes on to say that, unfortunately, it is a bit more complicated that that. Eternity is the sixth dimension, kairos-time the fith, and eternity the sixth. Thus there are three temporal dimensions, just as there are three spatial dimensions. Chronos is the first temporal dimension, like a line; kairos is the second, like a surface; and eternity is the third, like a solid: the concrete reality of which the others are only abstract aspects.

We need an image that will combine the truth symbolized by the point ( viz., that in eternity all time is present at once, rather than dispersed into past and future) with the truth symbolozed by the solid body ( viz., that time is only the abstract boundary of a fully eternity).

A medieval image for God was "a spiritual sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere". The universe images God in these two ways: its center is also everywhere, because there is no absolute center in relative space; and its circumference is nowhere because its boundaries ( finitude ) are everywhere in it, not outside it.

Anyhow, he deals a lot with Kairos and Chronos, but much of what he says seems speculative on the one hand but comes off as sounding sensible on the other. There are "some" scripture references here and there, but I think there is a lot philosophical reaching going on. I know this doesn't deal directly with your questionm but thought it might interest you.

 

[panta dokimazete]

God is supra-temporal, not atemporal. Atemporal suggests he is still "in" time, just not affected by it. God is over and outside time.

Not true. 'Atemporality' does *not* suggest that God is "in time". In the literature, the correct phrase is 'atemporal' not 'super-temporal'.

I will concede that atemporality is most commonly utilized in the literature - I believe that supra - temporality more accurately describes the relationship of God to time.

Atemporal suggest that He does not interact with time...and we know that God (in Christ) did interact with time, yet was Lord over it simultaneously.

To wit: Would you say that God is moral, amoral or supra-moral?

 

[RamistThomist]

Oddly enough Kreeft has a very interesting Chapter in his book Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven. The chapter is Chapter Ten: Is there Time in Heaven? Chapter 11 is entitled: What is Eternity?

There are some interesting portions:

The image of eternity as a point does, however, contain an essential truth: that eternity is not spread out like time. It is simultaneously present all at once, not piece by piece in passing. The answer to the question "What time is it in eternity?" is: Now. Thus Boethius' classic definition of eternity is "the simultaneous possession of all perfection in a single present"...One of the reasons we need eternity is so that our lives can finally have that wholeness, that oneness, that all-together-ness.

But we need no dimensional analogy, for we can be literal about dimensions: if there are three dimensions of space and time is the forth dimension, then eternity is the fifth dimension. Eternity includes time as time includes space. He then goes on to say that, unfortunately, it is a bit more complicated that that. Eternity is the sixth dimension, kairos-time the fith, and eternity the sixth. Thus there are three temporal dimensions, just as there are three spatial dimensions. Chronos is the first temporal dimension, like a line; kairos is the second, like a surface; and eternity is the third, like a solid: the concrete reality of which the others are only abstract aspects.

We need an image that will combine the truth symbolized by the point ( viz., that in eternity all time is present at once, rather than dispersed into past and future) with the truth symbolozed by the solid body ( viz., that time is only the abstract boundary of a fully eternity).

A medieval image for God was "a spiritual sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere". The universe images God in these two ways: its center is also everywhere, because there is no absolute center in relative space; and its circumference is nowhere because its boundaries ( finitude ) are everywhere in it, not outside it.

Anyhow, he deals a lot with Kairos and Chronos, but much of what he says seems speculative on the one hand but comes off as sounding sensible on the other. There are "some" scripture references here and there, but I think there is a lot philosophical reaching going on. I know this doesn't deal directly with your questionm but thought it might interest you.

I had Kreeft in mind but I didn't want to invoke him because people would get mad at me for quoting a Catholic.

 

[BrianLanier]

Not true. 'Atemporality' does *not* suggest that God is "in time". In the literature, the correct phrase is 'atemporal' not 'super-temporal'.

I will concede that atemporality is most commonly utilized in the literature - I believe that supra - temporality more accurately describes the relationship of God to time.

Atemporal suggest that He does not interact with time...and we know that God (in Christ) did interact with time, yet was Lord over it simultaneously.

To wit: Would you say that God is amoral or supra-moral?

Well if you ground ethics in God's nature, then neither would be appropriate. Then you could ask, is God supra-his-nature?

BTW, who uses 'supra-temporal' to discribe the relationship that God has to time? I don't remember seeing it in the discussions I've read (though I could have easily forgot or just haven't read enough!).

The atemporalist argument is that God *acting* in time does not entail God *being* in time. This seems to be identical to what you are saying, and if that is true, then why use a term that is not as prevalent in the literature to make the same point? Just wondering.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Well if you ground ethics in God's nature, then neither would be appropriate. Then you could ask, is God supra-his-nature?

"Moral" and "ethical" are words developed to define human characteristics - it is anthropomorphic to use them to describe God. Supra- takes the conversation/debate to the next level.

BTW, who uses 'supra-temporal' to discribe the relationship that God has to time? I don't remember seeing it in the discussions I've read (though I could have easily forgot or just haven't read enough!).

The atemporalist argument is that God *acting* in time does not entail God *being* in time. This seems to be identical to what you are saying, and if that is true, then why use a term that is not as prevalent in the literature to make the same point? Just wondering.

Mostly to move the conversation from an elemental characteristic discussion to a sovereignty discussion.

 

[BrianLanier]

Well if you ground ethics in God's nature, then neither would be appropriate. Then you could ask, is God supra-his-nature?

"Moral" and "ethical" are words developed to define human characteristics - it is anthropomorphic to use them to describe God. Supra- takes the conversation/debate to the next level.

BTW, who uses 'supra-temporal' to discribe the relationship that God has to time? I don't remember seeing it in the discussions I've read (though I could have easily forgot or just haven't read enough!).

The atemporalist argument is that God *acting* in time does not entail God *being* in time. This seems to be identical to what you are saying, and if that is true, then why use a term that is not as prevalent in the literature to make the same point? Just wondering.

Mostly to move the conversation from an elemental characteristic discussion to a sovereignty discussion.

Is 'good' a moral term? Is God good by nature? If so, then God is moral *by nature*. I know that there are arguments that claim that God is not 'good' in the 'moral' sense and so we can't predicate moral terms to God, I am just not sure I buy it.

I still see no point to using the term 'supra'-temporal to denote a concept that is identical with the already accepted term 'atemporal'. It can create unnecessary confusion and therefore should not be preferred. in my opinion. However, I do like the fact that you are trying to direct conversations toward discussing our Lord's sovereignty!!

 

[Anton Bruckner]

I was reading a medieval history and came across St. Peter Damian, who wrote On Divine Omnipotence. Essentially he argued that God was so sovereign he could go back in time. Has anyone else explored this type of statement?

But time is what was. It no longer exists. How can God go to something that doesn't exist? He would have to re-ordain it, and then it would become the present. The whole thing is illogical. Burn that book.

 

[RamistThomist]

I am surprised no one raised Possible World Semantics. That could solve one area of it.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

I am surprised no one raised Possible World Semantics. That could solve one area of it.

then it wouldn't be the past.

But I do fantasize of going back in time and not committing certain sins.

 

[BrianLanier]

I am surprised no one raised Possible World Semantics. That could solve one area of it.

Jacob, can you elaborate a little about what you had in mind with modal logic?

 

[RamistThomist]

I am surprised no one raised Possible World Semantics. That could solve one area of it.

Jacob, can you elaborate a little about what you had in mind with modal logic?

Not too much, because I am weak in modal logic. But I remember reading something from Kelly James Clark's Return to Reason, a few essays by Bill Craig, and a chapter in William Rowe's Philosophy of Religion. I will see if I can find them later.

However, here is what I was thinking: If I can exist on certain worlds, and these worlds do exist (don't ask how), then I would ask "Do they exist simultaneously?" If so, then my question is moot. If not, then the question of God and time might be related.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Possible Worlds? Sounds like this.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I don't know if God can go back in time... but I sure wish I could!

 

[Mushroom]

Space and time are equivalencies. Do you believe that God is limited in any way by space? If not, why would you believe that He is limited by time? If so, where could you go in the universe that He would not be? I believe His omnipresence indicates His *omnitemporence* (new word).