Eleonore Stump - What is God's Eternity?

[@paulmoore-LPC-LMFT-NCC]

I appreciate her because she is a genuine teacher.

[@pauldance7387]

Eleanor is my favorite CTT guest, brilliant.

[@tmariepi1472]

I love listening to her. She's amazing.

[@555usher]

I have never seing robert lawrence kuhn so silence in a coverstation...

[@wlljohnbey1798]

A brilliant philosopher of monotheism.

[@realebogadikole9734]

I've thought about this for a while -- good to know someone else is thinking the same. Great content Robert!

[@JuanRPF]

Brilliant explanation!!

[@ericday4505]

Eleanor is quite brilliant, she makes sense far more than those silly physicists.

[@Mastermindyoung14]

hahahahahahahaaaaaa!

[@HardKore5250]

Lol

[@benwincelberg9684]

😂

[@socksumi]

I would say quite the opposite.

[@aloser09]

c. s. lewis spoke of this in mere christianity as God being the author of a book, and us the characters limited to the pages which tell our story. God has the vantage point to look at all pages at the same "time" being as his "time" is not limited by the story's timeline. he exists outside of time, in an "atemporal" state. quite a fascinating take. but in the Christian tradition, this also is inadequate because God inserts himself into the story at the birth of Christ. So God exists in a sort of "punctuated atemporal" state....

[@HardKore5250]

Joel Biester god is a transformer

[@HardKore5250]

Joel Biester What book was it?

[@socksumi]

And you know this how?

[@written12]

Yes, but even we can logically put the matter, we - at least I - can’t grasp it intuitively. It still seems so weird because all we know and experience is time, Lewis analogy doesn’t work for me. A novelist has created the characters, given them a mock-up, so to speak, of real time to live in, and directs their every action. Even Stump’s drawing has the problem of substituting spatial/size differences for differences in duration. In other words, I can intuitively see how a larger area can encompass a smaller area- one “here” encompassing a smaller “here”. When it comes to having two “now’s”, I’m baffled.

[@arulross70]

what a delightful woman

[@TheTruthseeker1231]

Can God foreknow the future? No. For God, there is no future only now! Wow!

[@Hjgfrfjufdetivjiu]

There is no moment in time because it’s infinitely divisible

[@cleansl88ds]

I think I like your comment because otherwise it would seem, for example, that Jesus would forever be on the cross...

[@renzodelaquintana566]

O God that Was beautiful 😍

[@ibperson7765]

Im not a silly Einstein worshipper, as is en vogue (since he’s not even smartest physicist to have lived, let alone smartest person). That said, his description of what time is ultimately like.. matches this almost exactly.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

At about 4:57, she says there is no past and future, no earlier or later than. Personally, I believe that to be not totally correct. ASSUMING "God" exists, and "God" has a thought, there was a "time" before "God's" thought, a "time" during "God's" thought, and a "time" after "God's" thought. Past, present and future do indeed exist. We envision a future, that flows through the present, and goes into the past, hence we perceive a flow of time. Now, an argument could be made that we all exist in the "eternal now". The thing is though that within that "eternal now" there is a past, present and future. There was a "time" before this comment was posted, a "time" during the post of this comment, and a "time" after this comment was posted. So, past, present and future all exist within the "eternal now".

[@BenElyon3]

Of course a time before this comment and after, but not a time where God existed and or a time He didn't

[@solomonessix6909]

But is there a Hector in front of Nancy? And a Sergio in front of Hector and so on???

[@Icecoldhard]

Philosophicalizing god into existence.

[@bobpolo2964]

not exactly

[@andrebrown8969]

@@bobpolo2964 What is she doing then?

[@hellmes1826]

We 'philosophise' existence itself into existence. We don't blindly accept that we exist that we exist just because we appear to, or at the very least we shouldn't.

[@andrebrown8969]

@@hellmes1826 If I get pricked by a thorn do I not bleed, or did I imagine the pain and bleeding.

[@hellmes1826]

​@@andrebrown8969 For this to occur both the thorn, you, bleeding and pain need to exist. Descartes used the example of a demon or some evil force tricking him into believing into seeing when he actually wasn't and in modern times the idea of a simulation is often used. Effectively you have no clear proof that your sense are real and what you perceive to be happening actually is happening.

[@arulross70]

metaphysically equal but I would contend , hierarchically delineated.

[@Hjgfrfjufdetivjiu]

I get this but what really confuses me is when we get to the eternal now, we must have a sequence of events otherwise we would be frozen. So there would have to be a timeline for human souls who are inside the eternal now which god and also see all at once, all time in the universe but ALSO all eternal now time of passing event???? So confused

[@tlafleur8433]

We will feel very spacy at first.

[@alittax]

But then this means there is no free will, because the sequence of events is linear, there can only be one way for the events to unfold, just like with determinism.

[@jedi4049]

Free will in our POV.

[@alittax]

​@@jedi4049 That's not free will. Might as well hypnotize someone and make them do something. From their point of view, they were free, when they clearly weren't.

[@hughD11]

Sounds consistent with the space time loaf analogy.

[@ericcuthbert5974]

in other words time stops ? is that eternity ? when we die ?

[@rammmin1]

Time exist only in limitations, when you say eternity means no limitations. Therefore where there is no limitations there is no time.

[@ibperson7765]

Rupert Spira misses many things, but he’s right about time. It basically doesnt exist. Is our ordering of events. He has one called through doorway to eternity on here

[@markjosephdlandingin1012]

Is it possible for a timeless being to become temporal or for a temporal being to become timeless?

[@jedi4049]

Jesus is an example as son of man.

[@Hjgfrfjufdetivjiu]

You r stationary an time is moving through u.

[@markpaul1383]

"The logic of the idea - duration bigger than time, an infinitely existing present without past, without future, without earlier than, without later than. It’s a metaphysically bigger mode of existence. God’s present encompasses all of your world...Anybody in now (and is connected with God) is connecting with all of God’s life, all at once." - So, is this metaphysically bigger mode of existence something that God is in? It seems so. If so, does He just happen to be there, or does He have to be there? It can't be that He just happens to be there because that would imply that He may have or could have been somewhere else prior to being there, which either (a) begins a regress of bigger and bigger modes of existences or (b) drains the notion of this mode of existence of its theoretical importance. So, I guess it has to be the case that God has to be in this bigger mode of existence. But if God has to be in this bigger mode of existence, God could not be without it. If God cannot be without it, then God needs it, e.g. could not do without it in order to have life. But God should not be in need, and it isn't the case that He could not do without it in order to have life. So, the logic of the idea of this metaphysically bigger mode of existence, at least as it relates to God, doesn't make sense. It might be replied that it wouldn’t be correct to think of God being “in” this bigger mode of existence. Rather, it would be better to think of this mode of existence as a property God has, namely being eternal. But unfortunately, the difficulty provided above is just repeated here by asking the same questions and following very similar lines of thought: So, is this property of eternity that God has something that God just happens to have or instantiate, or does He have to have it or have to instantiate it? It can't be that He just happens to have eternity because that would imply that He may have not or could have not been eternal, which either (a) begins a regress of God somehow becoming or ending up eternal or (b) drains the notion of His being eternal of its theoretical importance. So, I guess it has to be the case that God has to be eternal. But if God has to be eternal, God could not be without it. If God cannot be without it, then God needs it, e.g. could not do without it in order to have life. But God should not be in need, and it isn't the case that He could not do without it in order to have life. So, the logic of the idea of God’s being eternal, at least as it relates to God, doesn't make sense. (I must be missing something here or there.)

[@MountAthosandAquinas]

I think your one step away from your answer. God is not “in the eternal as something contingent depending on something necessary. Nor is a “property” of God something other than God Himself. In short, God doesn’t inhabit a place called “eternity, nor does he have a property called eternity, but He simply IS. “Before Abraham was, I AM.” What He simply IS He cannot be otherwise. The finite is defined by the before and after. The prior and posterior. The progressive stages. “I AM” is “the same yesterday, today, and forever.” Simply put God IS eternity who’s very being IS. Since all creation proceeds from God as the first principle, all creations movement and time is distinct from, yet contained within, the infinite “now.” “Through Him all things were made.” “In Him we live and move and have our being.” The finite “now” participating in the eternal “now,” and all threads of the past “nows” and future “nows” threaded to, and dependent upon the eternal “now.”

[@KingWill333]

Physics merely tries to explain Clues that are of the fabric laid out by a higher being. Don't kid yourself that this is all there is because that shows a limited understanding of fundamental logic.

[@zanzibarbob7]

I have been praying to Zorro and gotten the same results. Of course, when the coincidences don't line up I always can fall back on the "works in mysterious ways." or "we cannot know the mind of." How about just having God do a "Pop-in." Simply pop-in for a few minutes, communicate, spin some straw into gold,...the usual stuff, just to set our minds at ease. I'll hold my breath.

[@ARIZJOE]

A lot of Dr. Stump's thoughts are a variation of Einstein's relativity. I don't object to her theory of eternity. But eternity is simply the absence of time as defined by Kant (as well as no categories of thought that humans use). There is no god with a white beard, no rational machinations by god, there is simply the transcendent which is beyond everything human, including time.

[@adampetersen4795]

Wow

[@marce953]

Eternity is the now out of time.

[@stevenamann6372]

but the future can be known in a prayer in thy book therefore all of time is accessible now

[@BenElyon3]

Could that only be because you access time past and future from eternity? Cos if not, past is history, future is from predictions.

[@doring4579]

🙂🌎⏳🙏♥️

[@josephcandito1538]

God enters time in the GodMan.

[@rammmin1]

Problem: personification of god , we think of god like human, time exists only in matter and motion, time do not exist beyond our physical world.

[@BaronReed-rj9rz]

Eternity is a person, Jesus Christ. Any other explanation man comes up with places limitations on the unlimited.

[@supercake2270]

Yall spoke about a God and called it a He. Ain't no god the way you see it

[@ronjohnson4566]

we live in time and space. god lives outside of space and time. we are not god so we cannot ever be outside of time and space. so no eternity for man.

[@HardKore5250]

ron johnson What does he do there?

[@ronjohnson4566]

he does whatever you say he does because no one knows and he can't tell us because he is outside of space and time and we are inside of space and time..... and never the Mark Twain shall meet.

[@AtheistCook]

I would disagree with that, God is everything that exists including us, a multi dimensional eternal conscience, the concience is part of space time.

[@josephshawa]

@@AtheistCook and you know this how?

[@abhishekpratapsingh9117]

Quantum0.qutrit:- +0: future; maitrey: eternity; -0:past

[@cleansl88ds]

Perhaps I am missing something here but wouldn't this concept make for at least some monotheist Christ on the cross forever? Otherwise a very intriguing explanation...

[@realislam3838]

From Quran perspective: 1- God describes himself he is the first and the he is the last and this description is more accurate than saying God is eternal because time has nothing to do with God and God existence is not subject to time and god has no start time and no end time 2- God time is slower than time on the earth which means what looks so far away in our future could be soon in God time. Everything (Except God) has its own start time and end time and time itself is not more than a dimension wherein the duration of sequential events take place. Time and space are the fundamental characteristic of the existence and both are not applied on God. God describes himself he is not like anything and this description is more accurate than saying God is infinite because God is not subject to any characteristic of existence. Moreover; Quran confirms that everything is finite which means nothing is infinite...and infinity is the invention of people.

[@MeMe-fb1hi]

Maybe this sweet sugar idea is just not true and we will be sent back to earth as another human being to our earth.

[@josealbinosantosnogueira6013]

Is she even vaguely aware how pretentious she is when claiming to know whatever she claims to know about what is ultimately unknowable,i.e., what happens to us after death if anything, by any human being who has ever lived, lives now and will live in the future?

[@chocoborider87]

She's knowledgeable and passionate about her subject of study. You make an interesting point though about discussing what might be unknowable. Yet, in principle, we don't know for sure what's knowable... so, I guess it's ok to try and formulate ideas and theories about the world and the transcendent.

[@josealbinosantosnogueira6013]

@@chocoborider87 Anyone can formulate ideas and theories, no matter how unsound they may seem.

[@chocoborider87]

@@josealbinosantosnogueira6013 Exactly, almost anyone can do it. And, personally, I'm happy I can do it too. However, the hard part is figuring out in a more objective way what's sound.

[@ibperson7765]

@@josealbinosantosnogueira6013 someone could reply similarly to you: Are you even aware of how arrogant you sound to adjudicate with such certainty that under no circumstance can ANY human being ever know these things: How exactly do you know that?

[@josealbinosantosnogueira6013]

@@ibperson7765 Evidence.

[@AtheistCook]

Very interesting, Good explanation of God. Noticed that she stay away from the legitimacy of religions .... or the legitimacy of Jesus, mohamend or Budda, If they existed they were no more sons of god than any of us. Just normal humans.

[@ibperson7765]

Can you rise from the dead and perform miracles?

[@Mastermindyoung14]

How does something "exist" outside of time? That's nonsensical. Existence is necessarily temporal.

[@aloser09]

depending on your definition of existence or state of being. platonism or aristotelianism, concrete versus abstract objects, B theory of time vs A theory of time... outside of time usually refers to the platonistic expression of forms, or abstractions so by that set of assumptions it would be "sensical." if you remember Plato's Cave, that analogy can serve as a template for us to imagine an atemporal state of existence.

[@Mastermindyoung14]

I have $7 billion that exists in my bank account outside of time (in the Platonistic sense). Seems legit.

[@infov0y]

Mastermindyoung14: "How does something "exist" outside of time? That's nonsensical. Existence is necessarily temporal." Not according to the speculative but mainstream modern physics of quantum gravity, where the fundamental entities of the Universe are possibly both non-spatial and non-temporal. Instead all one has is orderings. But even if those models in physics weren't around, existence still wouldn't be "necessarily" temporal as there are other philosophical possibilities (as referenced by Joel above. The nature of time is an empirical question.

[@HardKore5250]

God likes to chill out there.

[@johannbogason1662]

you have got to deserve it. when you do you will

[@josephshawa]

Looking as bored as you did kind of says it all.. LOL

[@vladimir0700]

Gee, I never knew it was all so simple--lol Logically speaking, her “arguments” just don’t hold water

[@jackmabel6067]

Sure would like to hear Eleonore Stump's definition of "god". Hopefully, it's not the hateful, nasty god of the Old Testament.

[@shaneharrington3655]

Fartbox.