This is probably the simplest argument for the timelessness of God, and somehow I’ve missed out on it in the past:
God does not change.
Creation has a finite age.
There is nothing outside of creation besides God.
So, change has a finite age. (1–3)
There is no time without change.
So, time has a finite age. (4,5)
If something is in time, it has an age which is less than or equal to the age of time.
God does not have a finite age.
God is not in time. (6–8)
Premise (2) is supported by causal finitism and is also a part of Jewish, Christian and Muslim faith.
Some philosophers deny (3): they think abstract things exist besides God and creation. But this theologically problematic view does not affect the argument. For abstract things are either unchanging or they change as a result of change in concrete things (for instance, a presentist will say that sets come into existence when their members do).
The most problematic premise in my view is (5).
I like this argument!
ReplyDeleteInterestingly and as best as I can tell, Bill Craig's view, according to which God is timeless without the universe and temporal subsequent to the creation of the universe, commits one to the falsity of 8. I think on his view, God is ~14 billion years old (the age of the universe).
ReplyDeleteGod does not begin to exist with time, so to speak of God having an age just because enters time is misleading. If we qualify the statement, then God having a finite age no longer becomes problematic, if all it means is that God has been in time (updating His beliefs, etc.) for X years.
ReplyDeleteAnd the changes are plausibly only external, as well.
One important premise You haven't considered could be rejected is (1). There are theologians like Ibn Taymiyyah who argued there is no problem with God changing, rather, he said a God who can act when He wills is more perfect than one who cannot act in time.
ReplyDeleteTaymiyyans deny the Aristotelian account of change, deny potency, and reject the famous wide-spread principle in the Islamic world that: "That which is not free from accidents [temporal events/contingencies] is itself an accident [a contingent/created being]", which was used to prove God's existence (kalam-cosmological argument). Taymiyyans would explain change through numerical identity, deeming potency inflationary and removing the need for Pure Act or atemporal causation. To them, the kind of change that is impermissible for God is the gain or loss of Attributes in time, as this necessitates an imperfect God. When it comes to Volitional Attributes like Creating, which occur in time, they would affirm that God always had them rather then gaining and losing them, saying for example: God has always been the Creator (One who creates when He wills).
They reject that there was a first moment when God began acting, saying that time extends infinitely to the past (relationalist view of time rejecting time's existence), and with it, God's Actions extend indefinitely to the past.
This is quite interesting to me since You wrote that You view (5) to be the most controversial, whereas Ibn Taymiyyah would agree with (5) but reject (1) which it seems like You didn't find that controversial if at all. (He would also not quite agree with (3) as he rejects divine simplicity but that's besides the point of this comment)
I would like to know your thoughts. I kind of tried to sum up the Taymiyyan view briefly and I definitely didn't do a perfect job😅