I was reading through this article and it says:

What may be the dominant view of philosophers today is that he is temporal but everlasting; that is, God never began to exist and he never will go out of existence. He exists at each moment in time.

Suppose the universe had a beginning. We ask “What caused the universe?” and the answer is “God”. Then we ask “What caused God?”, and we get infinite regress.

To solve this problem, it used to be said “God is eternal. He is outside of time”. This eventually led to a God who cannot move, because time is simply the measurement of movement.

Now we have a God who can move, but he has lived infinitely in the past; so that must mean (without involving space into all of this) he has always moved.

In other words, he has moved towards more than every configuration an infinite amount of times. It seems unreasonable to say that he only has a few moves that he repeats an infinite amount of times, otherwise, there would be an infinite amount of universes that work the exact same way.

Regardless of what God does, we get infinite regress, which is no different than asking “What caused God?” What proposals have been made by philosophers and theologians to explain how God can be temporal without an infinite regression of movements?

This question has an open bounty worth +100 reputation from anonymouswho ending in 2 days.

Looking for an answer drawing from credible and/or official sources.

Please include a description of “movement”. My question is not about “potential infinities” such as numbers, but about a “rational actual infinity” that co-exists with time.

Controversial Post — You may use comments ONLY to suggest improvements. You may use answers ONLY to provide a solution to the specific question asked above. Moderators will remove debates, arguments or opinions without notice.

  • This conversation has been moved to chat. Please use the comments only for suggesting improvements, not for (partial) answers or discussions. You are free to use chat for this. – Philip Klöcking Oct 12 at 5:42

How can God be temporal if he never began?

I share belief in the following various premises with some other philosophers, although I may be the only one who believes all of them simultaneously:

  • The Universe is all of space and time and their contents

If the Universe is time, then it is eternal. It was never created or caused by anything. It simply exists, forever and infinitely.

And if the Universe was never created, it must be the Creator. Thus:

  • The universe is eternal
  • God is the universe
  • God is eternal

Therefore, God did not "create the universe". Because if the universe has always existed, it could not have been created by anything. So God did not create itself. It just exists, eternally.

So it is correct to say that God "never began". Nevertheless:

  • Eternity is defined as what exists outside time
  • So eternity is not temporal

Therefore if God is eternal and exists outside of time as we know it, then God is not temporal.

However, God the eternal universe is the environment affecting everything within it. Therefore God is the creator of all things which are temporal. That is everything which is not the universe itself, including our species.

And the only way that God can be outside of time ("timeless"), is if God is time: past, present, and future, together.

He has made every thing beautiful in his time: also he has set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God makes from the beginning to the end...I know that, whatsoever God does, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it...That which has been is now; and that which is to be has already been; and God requires that which is past.

Ecclesiastes 3:11, 14-15

And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, And swore by him that lives for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished...

Revelation 10:5-7

So, from my readings of the KJV Bible I conclude that:

  • God is eternal, not temporal
  • there is no mention of God creating the "universe"
  • someday time will no longer exist for us, so we will no longer be temporal either
  • precisely how that will happen is a mystery

The Biblical suggestion is that we mortals are temporal until the day when we will somehow be allowed to join God in eternity. Evidently that is where divinity or holiness comes in. Or some might say, spiritual communion. Or faith.

How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?...Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

2 Corinthians 3:8, 16-18

It seems to me that consciousness of our moral responsibility to and recognition of our creator God as the source of Righteousness, as applied to the exercise of individual free will, is some sort of manifestation of our personal divine nature and connection to immortality.

"I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven..."

Matthew 16:19

Again, "How can God be temporal?" He is not temporal. Jesus Christ the incarnated son of God was 'temporal', 2000 years ago. But his immortal body is eternal, because he gained victory over death, in the resurrection. So perhaps suffering and death is all just an illusion.

But moral responsibility / freewill is not an illusion; it's very serious. And our illusions should be taken just as seriously. Because if life really is "but a dream", shouldn't we want our children to have sweet, happy dreams rather than nightmares?

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Philippians 4:8

  • 3
    Unfortunately, this answer seems to be Christianity-centric, and that too on a specific non-dominant interpretation of Christianity, unsupported by papal dogma. This answer could be improved if it were specified that this answer was a non-general Christian interpretation of the question, and if sources from received theological scholarship were provided to back up the interpretations made here on the primary sources (since anyone can interpret these religious texts in any arbitrary way). – Carl Masens Oct 15 at 8:35

I don't think it's contradictory to say that timeless God exists temporally wherever time exists. According to Christians, God has overcome weirder transitions than that: omnipresent God became monopresent at the incarnation of Christ.

Likewise, I think that it's not contradictory to end the causal chain at God. Of course it's true that causal logic precludes that; but it should come as no surprise that "God is special."

Still, it would be very silly to view Christian thinking as a tiny walled city, outside the walls of which much knowledge has been excluded for no good reason. The discussions among Christians like William Lane Craig about the nature of God should demonstrate otherwise! ...let alone Christians who make contributions to social and natural sciences, both under the umbrella of "Christian ministry" and as ordinary members of society.

It is true that Christians accept revelation about God from prophetic sources as well as knowledge about God that is available in nature. But this should be no more controversial than accepting the verdict of a civil or criminal case in court.

You asked this question relative to "movement", but a better and more general term would be "state change". This ties the question more explicitly to time -- the sequence of state changes.

God being in time is actually a minority position among Christian theologians. Two I have encountered who accept that are Richard Swinburne https://philpapers.org/rec/SWIGAT-2 and John Polkinghorne http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2008/09/god-and-time/. A God in Time changes states, and if God can be in another state, then God cannot be logically necessary. Most theologians are unwilling to give up on claiming God being necessary -- and prefer to try to finesse a God out of time not being able to act over one that is contingent.

There are only three ways to deal with ultimate cause:
1) postulate some exception to causation, 2) causal loop 3) infinite series

All three tend to be rejected as violating one or another assumption of reasoning.

Most theologians adopt 1), and assert God is the sole exception to everything needing a cause. As a argument strategy -- this is flawed, as non-theists are free to propose exceptions to causation of their own -- the favorite is the Universe -- but a time-space probability field, or an Eternally Inflating state -- these have both been proposed as well.

Some assert that God is self-created, with would actualy make God a causal loop (2) of just two steps. There is a lot of logic thinking today that is exploring causal loops -- they are no longer automatically rejected: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23250587?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Many of the Gods of other religions are self-created: https://www.ancient.eu/amun/ Among contemporary thinkers, the causal loop concept is less popular. It is advocated by Elijah Mohammed, of the Nation of Islam, and by the Sikh Gurus: http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Guru_Granth_Sahib_on_the_Universe there is a non-theist version of a causal loop explanantion. Although the universe is not a plausible two-step causal loop, it is possible that a cycling universe could be a long causal loop.

Option 3) -- a God just existing for eternity, is what Swinburne and Polkinghorne are arguing for. This too allows for a non-theist equivalent -- that the sequence of universes too could exist for eternity.

So, there are two other options for you besides an infinite series.

Interesting question! Unfortunately I suspect whether there is an answer at all depends on whether you are primarily interested in the concept of God or the concept of time, so I will try to be brief with a abstract answer and a hint at a direct answer (which I can elaborate later if you clarify the question).

First, consider a flat surface that stretches out to infinity along the X axis, has a width of n along the Y, and no depth in the Z axis (i.e. it lies entirely on the XY plane). If you observed this object from one aspect, you would say it is infinitely large; from another, that it has a diameter of n ; from a third, that it has no measure at all. Normally it is contradictory to say that an object is unbounded, and infinitesimal, and has a discrete measure of n, but not when these refer to distinct aspects of the entity. Orthogonal spatial dimensions are the easiest version of "distinct aspects" for us to visualize (what else would we visualize?) but they certainly aren't the only example of aspects.

That a concept of God requires an entity with more than one aspect is widely - universally? - recognized. The problems with naive monistic theism go much deeper than the issue you're raising about time (even e.g. Spinoza, probably the most famous modern "monist", posits that God is a substance with two fundamental attributes), so any coherent onto-theology can easily solve your problem by assigning interaction within time and eternity beyond time to different aspects. The actual challenge in these theories is to demonstrate that the aspects in question do inhere in a single unified entity, but probably (unsatisfying though it may be for you) whether they do so successfully won't hinge on how the different aspects they postulate handle God's various relations to time.

This doesn't mean, though, that there isn't a substantive question to ask about how God intersects with time. I'm sharing three thoughts on this (with the caveat that, as I explained above, it's unlikely you would see these as "resolving" the problem that worries you).

a. If you think of a bulletin-board as a two-dimensional manifold where the creator can pin things to the board and take them down without ever being on the board; or a slide-show as a three-dimensional manifold where the creator can fiddle with the contents of the individual slides without ever becoming a slide himself; there is no real conceptual difficulty with the idea of Creation as a four-dimension manifold embedded in a higher-order space. Not only God, but any angelic creature with the appropriate dimensions could then readjust the contents of the manifold without ever entering into the manifold; the differences between the possible states of the manifold would be observed by its inhabitants as motion in the sense you stipulate (measurement of movement towards a configuration) but the cosmic entity doing the rearranging would not have moved towards any configuration (within the manifold).

(Note that I am not claiming God is a 7-dimensional creature! I'm merely pointing out that it doesn't raise even the slightest conceptual difficulty, you don't even need to step outside of linear algebra to find ways to evade the supposed paradox.)

b. But why would we accept the definition of time as "the measurement of motion" at all? Other ideas would be to relate time to (i) non-invertibility, (ii) conservation of quanta across moments, (iii) unity of identity across manifestations. If the essential attribute of time is that temporal sequences are non-invertible then again there is no conceptual difficulty with God existing outside time yet also moving: just as someone can walk to and fro around a pool and also dive off the diving board, so too can an entity exist outside time and also inject itself into non-invertible temporal processes. In fact, it could be God's primary form of interference with the world to enforce and uphold the non-invertibility of temporal processes —— mutatis mutandis for time defined with respect to conservation laws and with respect to unity of identity. There is no problem understanding an entity as not being subject to X yet also influencing a domain where all entities are subject to X, especially if it is that influence that upholds the condition!

c. The business about repetition of configurations, eternal recurrence etc. that you mention in your initial post I haven't really focused on because you don't have a very strong grasp of the mathematics of infinite sequences. Let's say that God is occupying a discrete point in space 1 foot away from me right now (time t) and was occupying a point 1.5' away from me at t-1 and 1.75' away at t-2 and, generally, is 2-1/(2^n) feet away from me at t-n... then God can occupy a different unique point in space at every moment in time back through infinity without ever needing to leave that specific 2-foot line segment. —— This doesn't mean your concern is nonsense, but you should think about finding a better example (and it may underscore my original suggestion that your ontological concerns will turn out to be unrelated to the nature of time).

New contributor
guest1806 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.

The only ‘palpable’ place God can be found is in the parts of the brain where the concepts that form God are stored. However storage undergoes change all the time and as long as the memory is present there, any concept including God is temporal...if we forget about God the memory of God would fade out in history.

New contributor
Ajagar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
  • I made some edits. Please check that they still represent your position. I assume you are aware you may edit your answer. Something to add to your answer to strengthen it would be references to people who take a similar view. Then the reader has a place to go for more information. Welcome! – Frank Hubeny 2 days ago
  • Hi Frank, well done. I don’t see anything changes to what I wanted to state as the answer. It is hard fore to refer to people who think the same as most is my own reasoning. I like to add answers that help apply knowledge from other fields to philosophical subjects. But if I know of one I will not hesitate to mention them in edited to help people along. And anyone reading this and knowing of good references feel Free to add in the comments. Thank you for the welcome. – Ajagar 2 days ago

"What proposals have been made by philosophers and theologians to explain how God can be temporal without an infinite regression of movements?"

None that I know of, or none that make any sense. It is telling that Whitehead characterises commonplace Christianity as 'a religion in search of a metaphysic'. This is because it fails to deal with questions such as this one.

There is another form of Christianity, the classical kind, and this form would question the idea that God exists in the same way as pianos and toasters and so avoids these problems. Regrettably the Church stamped out this 'heresy' in favour of the new Roman doctrine, thus rendering itself a metaphysical muddle.

You might like to check out the doctrine of Divine Simplicity.

Your Answer


By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.