God's Beginningless Past

[O'Darby]

"Infinity" is not a measurement of time or distance any more than "eternity" is. To speak of "crossing an actual infinity" strikes me as semantic gibberish. William Lane Craig has done by far the most work on the issue of time as it relates to God. His work is very complicated, but my understanding is that he believes God existed in a "timeless eternal now" before the creation and "entered into time" with the creation. See God, Time, and Eternity | Reasonable Faith. I tend to think of God as always existing in a timeless eternal now and of our universe as a bubble in which time as we experience it operates. In other words, God always remains in the timeless eternal now but observes and interacts with time as we experience it in the context of His creation.

FWIW, I had never even heard of the late Bob Enyart, but I would scarcely put him in the same category as William Lane Craig: Bob Enyart - Wikipedia.

 

[Logikos]

"Infinity" is not a measurement of time or distance any more than "eternity" is. To speak of "crossing an actual infinity" strikes me as semantic gibberish.

And yet God has done just that.

William Lane Craig has done by far the most work on the issue of time as it relates to God.

I'm not familiar with it.

His work is very complicated, but my understanding is that he believes God existed in a "timeless eternal now" before the creation and "entered into time" with the creation.

Now that's what I call gibberish! Self-contradictory nonsensical fairy tales.

See God, Time, and Eternity | Reasonable Faith. I tend to think of God as always existing in a timeless eternal now and of our universe as a bubble in which time as we experience it operates.

Literally impossible. A timeless existence is an existence without duration, which is just another way of saying that it doesn't exist.

In other words, God always remains in the timeless eternal now

Notice your own contradictory terminology. "Always remains"? That's duration, that's time. "Now" is also a time word.

You aren't the only one with this trouble. It turns out that it is impossible to discuss timeless existence without instantly and repeatedly contradicting yourself in this manner. It is as irrational a concept as can be thought of.

....but observes and interacts with time as we experience it in the context of His creation.

Once again, observation and interaction are events, without time events cannot occur.

FWIW, I had never even heard of the late Bob Enyart, but I would scarcely put him in the same category as William Lane Craig: Bob Enyart - Wikipedia.

I don't know Craig but I know Enyart and his family. You might not be so quick to dismiss him if you'd read much of his material. He was simply the most brilliant and intellectually honest theologian I have ever encountered. He was a soul winner, a preacher, teacher, talk show host, activist, author, armature scientist, terrific husband and father. Perhaps the best man I've ever known.

It hadn't ever occurred to me that there would be a Wikipedia page on him. The multiple mentions of his "child abuse" conviction are typical of those who hated him. He spanked his two boys with a belt and liberal Colorado called it "child abuse". It was a completely normal spanking. He did not beat them up or anything like that at all. Since there were two boys, they charged him separately and tried the two cases separately. At the first trial he was acquitted. The second trial had the same charge, the same lawyers, the same judge, the same evidence, the same testimony in the same court room but the second jury convicted him and he spent 60 days in jail. The only actual abuse that happened was Bob being tried twice for the same crime and him being sent to jail because he refused to apologize for disciplining his kids or act as if doing so was a crime by pleading guilty.

 

[O'Darby]

And yet God has done just that.

It appears to me that you are way out over your skis on this issue. I am at least somewhat over my skis as well, but I have read Craig, who is one of the two or three premier Christian philosophers and who has done by far the most sophisticated work on God's relation to time. To say that God has "crossed an actual infinity" is just nonsense. Literally nonsense.

I'm not familiar with it.


Now that's what I call gibberish! Self-contradictory nonsensical fairy tales.


Literally impossible. A timeless existence is an existence without duration, which is just another way of saying that it doesn't exist.

Now, look - If you're not familiar with Craig's work on time, you can't possibly be in a position to discuss the issue because he is the acknowledged preeminent thinker on the subject. To describe his work as "self-contradictory nonsensical fairy tales" makes you sound like a clueless crank. BTW, I'm no big fan of Craig's - it's just that he and other highly respected philosophers who are in an entirely different league from Bob Enyart have done tremendous amounts of work on this difficult subject.

Yes, in Craig's reasoning time in fact did not exist before the creation. The timeless eternal now is indeed without duration. Eternity is without duration because it is not a measurement or expression of time at all.

Notice your own contradictory terminology. "Always remains"? That's duration, that's time. "Now" is also a time word.

You aren't the only one with this trouble. It turns out that it is impossible to discuss timeless existence without instantly and repeatedly contradicting yourself in this manner. It is as irrational a concept as can be thought of.

Of course, we cannot get our human minds around eternity, let alone what it would be like to exist in eternity. "Timeless now" is a human approximation using human language to express a concept we cannot grasp. Instead of "always remains" I perhaps should have said "eternally remains."

Once again, observation and interaction are events, without time events cannot occur.

Right - in my little theory, time does exist within the bubble of creation and God interacts with us in this context. In Craig's terminology, God "entered into" time with the creation.

I don't know Craig but I know Enyart and his family. You might not be so quick to dismiss him if you'd read much of his material. He was simply the most brilliant and intellectually honest theologian I have ever encountered. He was a soul winner, a preacher, teacher, talk show host, activist, author, armature scientist, terrific husband and father. Perhaps the best man I've ever known.

It hadn't ever occurred to me that there would be a Wikipedia page on him. The multiple mentions of his "child abuse" conviction are typical of those who hated him. He spanked his two boys with a belt and liberal Colorado called it "child abuse". It was a completely normal spanking. He did not beat them up or anything like that at all. Since there were two boys, they charged him separately and tried the two cases separately. At the first trial he was acquitted. The second trial had the same charge, the same lawyers, the same judge, the same evidence, the same testimony in the same court room but the second jury convicted him and he spent 60 days in jail. The only actual abuse that happened was Bob being tried twice for the same crime and him being sent to jail because he refused to apologize for disciplining his kids or act as if doing so was a crime by pleading guilty.

Now, perhaps, we understand why this appears to be such an emotional issue for you. It should not be an emotional issue. I am very faniliar with the work of Greg Boyd on Open Theism, and I believe he is also located in Colorado, but I had never even heard Enyart's name.

Whatever Enyart's virtues, he was not a theologian AT ALL. Sorry, but a Catholic grammar school, public high school and computer science degree from ASU does not make one a theologian. He may have been a bright and interesting guy, but William Lane Craig is a world-class philosopher and theologian whose work can scarcely be compared with Enyart's.

Since I feel sure people can't get enough of this fascinating (not) stuff, here is Wikipedia's description of Craig's theory. It's at least enough to make the point that this isn't lightweight stuff for internet forum dummies (including myself, of course):

Philosophy of time​

Craig defends a presentist version of the A-theory of time. According to this theory, the present exists, but the past and future do not. Additionally, he holds that there are tensed facts, such as it is now lunchtime, which cannot be reduced to or identified with tenseless facts of the form it is lunchtime at noon on February 10, 2020. According to this theory, presentness is a real aspect of time, and not merely a projection of our thought and talk about time. He raises several defenses of this theory, two of which are especially notable. First, he criticizes J. M. E. McTaggart's argument that the A-theory is incoherent, suggesting that McTaggart's argument begs the question by covertly presupposing the B-theory. Second, he defends the A-theory from empirical challenges arising from the standard interpretation of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (SR). He responds to this challenge by advocating a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of SR which is empirically equivalent to the standard interpretation, and which is consistent with the A-theory and with absolute simultaneity. Craig criticizes the standard interpretation of SR on the grounds that it is based on a discredited positivist epistemology. Moreover, he claims that the assumption of positivism invalidates the appeal to SR made by opponents of the A-theory.​

Divine eternity​

Craig argues that God existed in a timeless state causally prior to creation,[96] but has existed in a temporal state beginning with creation, by virtue of his knowledge of tensed facts and his interactions with events.[97] He gives two arguments in support of that view. First, he says that, given his tensed view of time, God cannot be timeless once he has created a temporal universe, since, after that point, he is related to time through his interactions and through causing events in time.[97] Second, Craig says that as a feature of his omniscience, God must know the truth related to tensed facts about the world, such as whether the statement "Today is January 15th" is true or not or what is happening right now.[95][98][99][100]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig#cite_note-103​

​

William Lane Craig - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Logikos]

It appears to me that you are way out over your skis on this issue. I am at least somewhat over my skis as well, but I have read Craig, who is one of the two or three premier Christian philosophers and who has done by far the most sophisticated work on God's relation to time. To say that God has "crossed an actual infinity" is just nonsense. Literally nonsense.

Saying it doesn't make it so!

Why is it nonsense? What's nonsensical about it?

Indeed, the purpose of the opening post is precisely about presenting an argument that makes sense out of it!

Do you not believe that God has always existed? Do you believe that God had a beginning? Is there any such thing as "before God"?

Now, look - If you're not familiar with Craig's work on time, you can't possibly be in a position to discuss the issue because he is the acknowledged preeminent thinker on the subject.

No that's nonsense! I can't discuss a subject because I haven't read an author that YOU declare to be the preeminent thinker on the subject?

If you're so well read and I'm so ignorant and poorly equipped to discuss the subject the prove me wrong! It should be easy for you to do something other than merely proclaiming that my position is nonsense and stating that I don't know what I'm talking about. The argument I presented isn't even my own! Its a quotation from a man that I can guarantee has more experience with the topic than the both of us put together and multiplied by five.

To describe his work as "self-contradictory nonsensical fairy tales" makes you sound like a clueless crank.

I didn't merely describe it as such but have explained why it is so. Care to refute my arguments or is this personal stuff all you've got?

BTW, I'm no big fan of Craig's - it's just that he and other highly respected philosophers who are in an entirely different league from Bob Enyart have done tremendous amounts of work on this difficult subject.

You don't know anything about Bob Enyart and have no grounds whatsoever to make such an assessment.

Yes, in Craig's reasoning time in fact did not exist before the creation.

BEFORE creation?

You will fail to refer to timelessness without contradicting yourself. It will happen every single time you try it.

The timeless eternal now is indeed without duration.

Then it does not exist, by definition.

Eternity is without duration because it is not a measurement or expression of time at all.

This commits a stolen concept fallacy because the concept of existence implies duration. Duration-less existence is a contradiction. Contradictions do not exist in reality (law of contradiction). Therefore, timelessness does not exist.

Of course, we cannot get our human minds around eternity, let alone what it would be like to exist in eternity.

That is because it is an absurdity. It is precisely like trying to imagine what perfect spheres with flat sides and sharp corners would look like. It cannot be done. Not because we're stupid or hobbled in some manner but because it cannot be done at all. It is logically absurd.

If we permit ourselves to accept absurdities at truth then we should not only start calling ourselves Democrats but we have no means to dispel any claim that any lunatic wants to present to us as the truth, no matter how insane it might be!

"Timeless now" is a human approximation using human language to express a concept we cannot grasp. Instead of "always remains" I perhaps should have said "eternally remains."

Semantics won't help you. It is the concepts that contradict each other.

Eternity is not timelessness it is the opposite of that. It is infinite time. It is time with no beginning and no end.

Why are you so quick to reject that as "nonsense" but willing to accept timelessness (durationlessness) as totally acceptable? You yourself state that you can't wrap your head around timelessness so why the preference for one over the other, especially in light of the fact that a perfectly reasonable defense has been presented which is based on the premise that God had no beginning and has always existed, a premise that you do not deny!

Right - in my little theory, time does exist within the bubble of creation and God interacts with us in this context. In Craig's terminology, God "entered into" time with the creation.

You speak of events as though doing so doesn't employ the concept of time, which you detect intuitively and thus feel compelled to place time related phrases in quotes. You are simply incapable of discussing existence outside of time without contradicting yourself in this manner because it is literally a logical absurdity!

Time is not a place. It is not a substance. It is not a thing (ontologically). It is an idea! It is a convention of language that is used to refer to events relative to other events. The moment you speak of any event you instantly employ the concept of time, even if it doesn't occur to you that you're doing so.

Now, perhaps, we understand why this appears to be such an emotional issue for you.

It isn't an emotional issue for me at all!

It should not be an emotional issue. I am very faniliar with the work of Greg Boyd on Open Theism, and I believe he is also located in Colorado, but I had never even heard Enyart's name.

Boyd is brilliant and famous. And while Bob had a national TV show for a few years and had a radio show in Denver for a long time, he wasn't nearly as famous but still very brilliant indeed.

Whatever Enyart's virtues, he was not a theologian AT ALL.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself! Do yourself a favor and keep your mouth shut about people you know nothing about. Everyone who knew Bob Enyart at all would be laughing in your face right now!

Bob was not only an ordained minister and preacher for decades but is a published author of a book that presents an entire systematic theology! His ministry sells several debates between him and prominent theologians from all over the country, some of which were televised and all of which he won, which is evidenced by the fact that his is the ministry that has the debates available for purchase. He has literally hundreds of hours of bible teaching where he takes his listeners through the bible verse by verse by verse. Etc, etc, etc...

NONE OF WHICH is even relevant anyway! Do you know what an appeal to authority fallacy is? Do you even care?

Sorry, but a Catholic grammar school, public high school and computer science degree from ASU does not make one a theologian.

Do you get all your information about people from Wikipedia?

Give me a break, please!

He may have been a bright and interesting guy, but William Lane Craig is a world-class philosopher and theologian whose work can scarcely be compared with Enyart's.

Maybe so but even if that is the case, it doesn't move the needle at all when it comes to refuting what is presented in the opening post.
Are you at all capable of presenting an actual argument or is this, "my mentor is better than your mentor" all you've got?

Continued.....

 

[Logikos]

Part II....

Since I feel sure people can't get enough of this fascinating (not) stuff, here is Wikipedia's description of Craig's theory. It's at least enough to make the point that this isn't lightweight stuff for internet forum dummies (including myself, of course):

Philosophy of time​

Craig defends a presentist version of the A-theory of time. According to this theory, the present exists, but the past and future do not. Additionally, he holds that there are tensed facts, such as it is now lunchtime, which cannot be reduced to or identified with tenseless facts of the form it is lunchtime at noon on February 10, 2020. According to this theory, presentness is a real aspect of time, and not merely a projection of our thought and talk about time. He raises several defenses of this theory, two of which are especially notable. First, he criticizes J. M. E. McTaggart's argument that the A-theory is incoherent, suggesting that McTaggart's argument begs the question by covertly presupposing the B-theory. Second, he defends the A-theory from empirical challenges arising from the standard interpretation of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (SR). He responds to this challenge by advocating a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of SR which is empirically equivalent to the standard interpretation, and which is consistent with the A-theory and with absolute simultaneity. Craig criticizes the standard interpretation of SR on the grounds that it is based on a discredited positivist epistemology. Moreover, he claims that the assumption of positivism invalidates the appeal to SR made by opponents of the A-theory.​

This sounds very much like what I believe and that Bob believed and that I've personally argued for decades.
I take some issue with the following sentence...

"According to this theory, presentness is a real aspect of time, and not merely a projection of our thought and talk about time."​

​

This statement is contradictory or at least it could be depending on just what is meant by it. Time is thought and talk. You can talk about the past, the future or the present and you can make certain observations about the differences thereof but it is all still thought and talk because that's all time is. Time is the talking about events relative to other events. If you wish to discuss what exists as apposed to what used to exist or what will exist then that is a discussion about existence which has the concept of time embedded within it, and the extent to which "presentness" is "real" is precisely and only the extent to which it is a real concept within a thinking mind.

Divine eternity​

Craig argues that God existed in a timeless state causally prior to creation,[96] but has existed in a temporal state beginning with creation, by virtue of his knowledge of tensed facts and his interactions with events.[97]​

Do I need to go through the exercise of pointing out the inherent contradictions that exist in that sentence or have you gotten now to where you can detect them on your own? (I highlighted the most obvious ones.)

He gives two arguments in support of that view. First, he says that, given his tensed view of time, God cannot be timeless once he has created a temporal universe, since, after that point, he is related to time through his interactions and through causing events in time.[97]​

Same as the last sentence!

"tensed view of time" (as though "tense" has any meaning outside of time.)
"once He has created"? (When did this event occur?)

Second, Craig says that as a feature of his omniscience, God must know the truth related to tensed facts about the world, such as whether the statement "Today is January 15th" is true or not or what is happening right now.[95][98][99][100]William Lane Craig - Wikipedia​

​

William Lane Craig - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

This second argument is in support of God's existence within time, which is the only sort of existence that makes rational sense (i.e. that is real), and so, again, I find myself in agreement with Prof. Craig.

Some of this sounds very familiar indeed, by the way. It is possible that I've read more of his material than I remember reading. Not that my doing so (or not) is relevant. It's just an observation.

 

[Phil .]

Eternal overlooks itself being the lens, through the lens, and mistakes itself to be, “time”.
Time is as directly experienced. Nothings hidden.
The thought arises.

 

[O'Darby]

Eternal overlooks itself being the lens, through the lens, and mistakes itself to be, “time”.

BINGO! I actually started a blog entry prompted by this thread and then abandoned it. The salient point is, we have no concept and can have no concept of what it is to be God and to exist as God exists. Even concepts such as infinity and eternity are human concepts (albeit ones we can't grasp) and, as you say, lenses through which we attempt to view something that is far out of the range of our vision. It's all just mental masturbation. We're like Zen neophytes trying to "solve" a koan, when "solving" it isn't the point.

Is God eternal and infinite? Yeah, sure, whatever.

Anyway, @Logikos, you're one of those who parses others' posts into fragments - which is certainly your prerogative, but I have encountered it many times before and just don't have the patience anymore. I will say, I did Google the late Bob Enyart and discovered that his theory of time has generated absolutely no discussion anywhere except on his own sites. Which doesn't mean he was a loony - and I don't think he was - merely that he wasn't part of the scholarly debate.

I stopped reading Craig because I concluded that his work, scholarly as it is, is 98% mental masturbation - futile attempts to pin down a God who will not be pinned down. Hence, I am going to withdraw from this discussion, satisfied with my humble (and sure comically wrong) little notions. You may declare yourself The Winner if you like.

 

[Behold]

The following is an excerpt from an article entitled, "Is God Outside of Time? Not according to the Bible." by Bob Enyart,

Time has a beginning and an end.
God does not.

Humans and all of creation are created with a beginning, and there is an end.
God is not any of that....as He existed BEFORE He created what you can SEE... that was created through the Word, who is God manifested in the Flesh,.

Everything you can see is under the realm of Entropy.
That is... everything you see was created to stop, eventually.

It'll die.
It'll rust
It'll rot
It'll burn out
It'll run down.
It'll go from order to disorder.
It'll END.

See the Sun?
The Light you see, is the Sun BURNING OUT.

Reader, you are getting older.
That is your end, showing up, year by year.
it's called AGING.
Its actually the process of your body= DYING.

"Time" is a boundary and WE and all of the UNIVERSE, exit in it.

"God is A Spirit", who is not bound by Time.

But you are.
You had a birth and you have an appointment with Death. Hebrews 9:27

And when that Time comes, @Logikos ... you TIME is up. And as you head there, your TIME is running out.

This is not so with God, and you can tell that to BOB E. < as his time is running out, also.

 

[O'Darby]

I will just toss this in for the benefit of anyone who may not be familiar with Idealism or the recent work of Bernardo Kastrup. He is not a Christian but has published in numerous peer-reviewed scientific and philosophical journals, and I find his thinking to have intriguing Christian possibilities:

My current fascination at the moment is Idealism as Bernardo Kastrup proposes it in books like The idea of the World. The basic notion being that the reality we experience is fundamentally "mind" rather than "material" - meaning a mental construct of a master consciousness (God, in Christian terms). We collectively experience this reality. However, we as individuals exist as what Kastrup calls "alters" - little bubbles of consciousness within the master consciousness, with our own internal world of perceptions, thoughts and emotions. Although Kastrup isn't a Christian, Idealism fits nicely with the notion of God creating ex nihilo and "speaking" creation into existence and seems to me to avoid lots of other problematical issues.

Again, this is to an extent attempting to fit a "round God" into a "square human hole," so I don't think of it as "literally correct" but as perhaps being more in the right direction than much other thinking. It seems to me that it would largely eliminate the problem of time and some other issues that perplex Christians.

It also occurred to me that the nature of time is one of the larger mysteries in purely secular philosophy and physics. In attempting to get our minds around God's existence in relation to time, we are attempting to mesh an Inherently unfathomable mystery (the nature of God's existence) with another great mystery (the nature of time). So while it may be fun it's an exercise in futility, or so it seems to me,

 

[Phil .]

BINGO! I actually started a blog entry prompted by this thread and then abandoned it. The salient point is, we have no concept and can have no concept of what it is to be God and to exist as God exists.

No concept is needed. It’s this.

Even concepts such as infinity and eternity are human concepts (albeit ones we can't grasp)

Human is a concept.

and, as you say, lenses

Lens, not lenses. It’s a very literal reference.

through which we attempt to view something

‘We attempt to view’ would be an additional concept.
Something / some thing would also be conceptual.

that is far out of the range of our vision.

That’s not what I’m saying.

It's all just mental masturbation.

Perhaps, but contemplation is worthwhile imo.

We're like Zen neophytes trying to "solve" a koan, when "solving" it isn't the point.

Is God eternal and infinite? Yeah, sure, whatever.

Self-realization is the point. I agree it’s not a matter of solving, figuring out.
It’s a matter of recognition of what is already the case.

What appears to forget, forgets by appearing.

 

[Logikos]

BINGO! I actually started a blog entry prompted by this thread and then abandoned it. The salient point is, we have no concept and can have no concept of what it is to be God and to exist as God exists.

How do you know this?

Even concepts such as infinity and eternity are human concepts (albeit ones we can't grasp) and, as you say, lenses through which we attempt to view something that is far out of the range of our vision.

Which concepts are not "human concepts"?

It's all just mental masturbation. We're like Zen neophytes trying to "solve" a koan, when "solving" it isn't the point.

What subjects would you consider to not be mental masturbation and why?

Is God eternal and infinite? Yeah, sure, whatever.

Does a belief in God make any sense or is it self-contradictory nonsense that we are supposed to believe because it makes no sense?

Yeah, sure, whatever.

I mean, what topics aren't trivial to your mind?

Anyway, @Logikos, you're one of those who parses others' posts into fragments - which is certainly your prerogative, but I have encountered it many times before and just don't have the patience anymore.

I respond my way and you can feel free to respond your way. Anyway you want to respond to my posts is perfectly fine by me so long as the response is a substantive one. I certainly do not expect for you to respond point for point the way I do.

I will say, I did Google the late Bob Enyart and discovered that his theory of time has generated absolutely no discussion anywhere except on his own sites.

That's because he doesn't have a theory of time. He discusses time and related theological issues in several ways and in several venues but he has not proposed any sort of formal "theory of time".

HOWEVER! I would point out that even if he had done so, the response from others has exactly nothing to do with whether it is true or false. You seem to run your entire theological life based on the opinions of others rather than on the merits of the arguments made in support of whatever question your considering. That is not the way truth works. Truth is not up for popular vote.

Which doesn't mean he was a loony - and I don't think he was - merely that he wasn't part of the scholarly debate.

Which is a feather in his cap, as far as I'm concerned.

I stopped reading Craig because I concluded that his work, scholarly as it is, is 98% mental masturbation - futile attempts to pin down a God who will not be pinned down.

How do you know that the attempt is futile? Who told you this? Where did you learn it? What was the argument that convinced you that you can know nothing at all of the God your worship?

It isn't that you can't know anything at all, you say? Well, then how can you know which issues are knowable and which issues are futile to consider and to discuss? It is a sixth sense that you have? Were you bitten by a spider and now you get a tingle up your back anytime a futile subject is brought up? Are you just guessing? What is it that informs you that its futile?

Hence, I am going to withdraw from this discussion, satisfied with my humble (and sure comically wrong) little notions. You may declare yourself The Winner if you like.

I have no need to declare something that is so obviously true. You picked up the discussion and quickly discovered that you are either incapable or unwilling to defend your position. That's very disappointing but at least you have the guts to openly state that you're intentionally bowing out of the discussion. Most aren't even that intellectually honest and so, as I said before, I'll consider what I've said to be seeds sown and will pray that God reminds you of all these rhetorical questions that you cannot answer and of the unavoidable self-contradictions that persist throughout any and every discussion about timeless existence that you'll ever hear or read for the rest of your days. Every time it comes up, you will think of this discussion were some random guy on the internet exposed you to ideas you'd never heard of before.

Revelation 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

 

[Logikos]

Time has a beginning and an end.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

In other words, this a premise which you have not established and which I reject as false.

God does not.

This premise - that God has no beginning or end - is the primary premise of the opening post.

In other words, I agree. God has no beginning or end.

Humans and all of creation are created with a beginning, and there is an end.

Humans have a beginning but we have no end. We will spend the rest of an infinite amount of time either which God or separated from Him.

God is not any of that....as He existed BEFORE He created what you can SEE... that was created through the Word, who is God manifested in the Flesh,.

Again, not in dispute!

However, what you say here does contradict your own position. You say time was created and then say that God existed BEFORE He created. "Before" has no meaning outside of time and so you presuppose time in order to make an argument against its existence. That's as self-defeating as anything can get. This sort of thing even has a name. It's called begging the question and, in this particular case it could also be called a stolen concept fallacy.

Everything you can see is under the realm of Entropy.
That is... everything you see was created to stop, eventually.

It'll die.
It'll rust
It'll rot
It'll burn out
It'll run down.
It'll go from order to disorder.
It'll END.

See the Sun?
The Light you see, is the Sun BURNING OUT.

Reader, you are getting older.
That is your end, showing up, year by year.
it's called AGING.
Its actually the process of your body= DYING.

None of this is in dispute.

"Time" is a boundary and WE and all of the UNIVERSE, exit in it.

This, again, is a premise that you have not established. You showing up to make the claim doesn't make it so.

"God is A Spirit", who is not bound by Time.

Prove it.

But you are.
You had a birth and you have an appointment with Death. Hebrews 9:27

Not in dispute.

And when that Time comes, @Logikos ... you TIME is up. And as you head there, your TIME is running out.

No, it hasn't. The time of my physical life has expired but by existence will CONTINUE (that's a time word) and it DURATION will never end as is true of all mankind. (Some people believe in annihilation of the souls of the damned but that's a topic for another thread. The point here is that the end of my physical life is not the end of me or "my time".

This is not so with God, and you can tell that to BOB E. < as his time is running out, also.

Christians are some of the rudest people on planet Earth. I know hard core atheists that would cringe at the idea of speaking of someone who had not only died but that they knew precisely NOTHING about in this flippantly callous manner. I'm genuinely embarrassed of you. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Logikos]

I will just toss this in for the benefit of anyone who may not be familiar with Idealism or the recent work of Bernardo Kastrup. He is not a Christian but has published in numerous peer-reviewed scientific and philosophical journals, and I find his thinking to have intriguing Christian possibilities:

Again, this is to an extent attempting to fit a "round God" into a "square human hole," so I don't think of it as "literally correct" but as perhaps being more in the right direction than much other thinking. It seems to me that it would largely eliminate the problem of time and some other issues that perplex Christians.

How would it solve the "problem of time"?

Just which problem are you referring to?

I see no problem with time at all, so long as one doesn't posit the entirely unbiblical, not to mention irrational, proposition that God exists outside of time. Drop that single idea and the problems go away, aside from the single issue of infinite regress which is solved by simply presupposing that God has always existed (i.e. that He had no beginning). A point that you do not dispute (per se) and that the opening post bases it's argument on - so far with no attempted rebuttal.

It also occurred to me that the nature of time is one of the larger mysteries in purely secular philosophy and physics. In attempting to get our minds around God's existence in relation to time, we are attempting to mesh an Inherently unfathomable mystery (the nature of God's existence) with another great mystery (the nature of time). So while it may be fun it's an exercise in futility, or so it seems to me,

The only reason its unfathomable is because it is irrational.

Also, as I asked once before, why are you willing to blindly accept the "unfathomable" notion of timeless existence but recoil at the notion that God has always existed? Why does the idea of infinite time cause you to recoil while the openly, flagrantly and unavoidably self-contradictory idea of timelessness does not?