Paul Helm on "God and Spacelessness"

Here is a summary of Paul Helm’s “God and Spacelessness,” Philosophy 55 (1980):

Helm begins with two authors who made similar claims against the timelessness of God. J. R. Lucas made this claim: “To say that God is outside time, as many theologians do, is to deny, in effect, that God is a person.” He reasons that to be a person is to have a mind, and to have a mind requires that it be in time (i.e., thoughts require a sequence of events, etc.). A.N. Prior claimed that a proposition such as “It is raining now” is not equivalent in meaning to “It is raining on Tuesday,” and that an omniscient God who knew the latter would not necessarily know the former, and would not know it if he were timeless, since he could not be present on the occasion on which it was raining.”

Helm argues against both authors by merely showing that such a claim also entails the denial that God is spaceless, which in turn denies that God is infinite--something these authors want to maintain. Helm writes that “the arguments used to show that God is in time, in effect support the view that God is finite, and so anyone who wishes to maintain that God is infinite, as the traditional theist does, will either have to find other arguments for the view that God is in time, or eschew the idea of God being in time altogether”—-this is the dilemma Helm presents to these authors.

Helm does not try to show that God is in fact timeless, nor is his purpose to show that the logic of these two authors is wrong. He admits that he doesn’t even fully understand what it means to say God is both timeless and spaceless. He’s only claiming that a denial of God’s timelessness is also a denial of God’s spacelessness.

After making his arguments he leaves the reader with three alternative consequences to choose from:

1) The belief in God is even more incoherent than previously thought, in that it requires unintelligibilities such as a timeless and spaceless existence;
2) Recognize that since the belief in God requires an infinite and spaceless God there must be something wrong with the current arguments against the timelessness of God; or,
3) The burden of proof is on these authors to present an argument against God’s timelessness that does not also apply to God’s spacelessness.

That is, one can either, a) Deny (or accept) the unintelligible existence of both a timeless and spaceless God, b) Accept the consequences of a God who is both in time and finite, or, c) Supply other arguments on behalf of a God who is in time which does not also deny God’s spacelessness. Not being able to do (c) presents the dilemma of choosing either (a) or (b).

Helm closes with these words: “Nothing in the argument of this paper requires one of these consequences as against either of the other two to be the correct one.”

Enjoy the discussion.

16 comments:

Breckmin said...

As a born-again Christian I agree with much of this article.
The problem with saying "God is *outside of* time in the English is problematic. It would be much more logical to specify that God is omnipresent throughout consecutive linear time or to say that God the Father is "beyond the limitations of time and space" rather than saying that God is somehow "outside of" time. To look at it mathematically...you could say that God is Infinite at point N if N is denoted as "t" at all points of the x,y,z Cartesian coordinate system. In this case you would have infinite variables in all infinite directions.

I believe it is a fallacy to say that God is somehow "non-spatial" and then say that God is omnipresent. It is much more logical to look at it as "us" entering God's infinite domain OR all finite existence that becomes temporal enters into God's infinite domain of infinite time and 3 dimensional spatial existence rather than claiming that God is outside of time.

It goes right back to the Berry paradox or Richard's paradox and the inability of words and languages to communicate mathematical principles involving infinite determiners.

Just because Paul Helm may be right on spacelessness and people like Bill Craig are wrong...doesn't mean that Craig is wrong if he modifies his arguments as he learns. Bill Craig will be in heaven worshipping Jesus Christ and that is all that matters.

And he will admit that this is by God's grace and ultimately God's grace alone.

Breckmin said...

"He reasons that to be a person is to have a mind, and to have a mind requires that it be in time (i.e., thoughts require a sequence of events, etc.)."

This is one of many reason why I always note that the "bible" is much more anthropomorphic than most Christians realize...at the very basic point of imperfect languages themselves.

God is NOT a finite created being that He should have to have a "brain" in order to have infinite consciousness. Neither does He need to "wait" to think like a man. Often we might describe our Holy Creator as an Infinite Personal Existence but even this expression defames God in our imperfect languages just as much as saying "Infinite Conscious Existence." The best thing to say is that "God is" or "God Exists" or to note that God is a Holy Infinite Creator.
"Omniscient" and "immutable" are a little more accurate in describing certain characteristics of God's nature than "omnipotence" or "omnibenevolent" which are both clearly imperfect and easy to explain where they fail at encompassing that which is contradictory. When we say God is "immutable" that is an imperfect description of essence of being and not necessarily variances of "thought" (anthropomorphic)or 'thinking' or infinite consciousness.

In scripture which looks at God anthropomorphically we say that certain things are sealed up before the foundation of the world.
This is a demonstration of a "state of ordination" which does not depend on our consecutive timeline rather than God coming to a specific point in time and then somehow making a decision like He is not omniscient.
When you remove past tenses from lapsarianism, for instance, you begin to realize the fallacies of Calvinism and Reformation theology to not address atemporal concepts.

It is because God is omnipresent throughout consecutive linear time that God is omniscient about the quote unquote "future." It is also how God is able to observe our choices and interact with them (sunergeism).
Timelessness is just an English word which is clearly imperfect.
Spacelessness is a word I would stay away from...since God is Infinite and omnipresent.

D.L. Folken said...

Breckmin has a great point. I believe both Paul Helm and Bill Craig will enjoy the love of God for eternity!

The big question is: Where will John be?

John, just look at all the fun you are missing out on. You simply preach negativity at this point. You could instead enjoy a life of positive speculation reflecting on the nature of God.

Instead, you think you know it all now having realizing that life is meaningless. What fun is that? You should have something to live for rather than trying to destroy everyone else’s belief system.

Christians are the ones having all the fun. Atheists can only sit back and throw rocks hoping that they will get a direct hit. You have to be pretty cruel in your heart to be an atheist. Hopelessness that leads to cruel behavior is all I have seen so far.

Christians don’t rely on apologetics; rather, they rely on love. The love of God is building His Kingdom! The message of the cross is positive showing a path not only to salvation but to life everlasting!

You should really be creating an atheistic world that you can enjoy. I believe that if you attempting to make atheism a positive lifestyle that you would find it don’t work. Atheism is grounded in hate and anger towards those who love God. It doesn’t have a positive message at all.

God Bless.

Owen said...

Welp, Zdenny has done it. I believe it all now.

Rob R said...

another post just for me cause I raise a ruckus on open theism? Shucks John! you make a feller blush.

Helm argues against both authors by merely showing that such a claim also entails the denial that God is spaceless

You have a longer description of the direction of the article, but the arguments to this effect are absent.

As for Ludas' claim, I would agree with it, but it is something that I intuit, it is not something I'd deduce. Maybe he has a good argument that brings that deduction to light, but I am not familiar with it. And I've never really been impressed with the Argument attributed to Prior since God would still have knowledge that It is true that "it is raining now" as long as the utterance is simultaneous with the event of raining. And the phrase "it is raining now" would seem to me to lose ontological significance if a B theory of time is presumed (which most advocates of timelessness do... at least the ones I run into who are usually laymen anyhow(not that I'm claiming not to be a layman... and I'm sure I've established that well:) )).

I hold an A theory of time because I think it is almost empirically undeniable. Even if our equations of physics cannot pick out a special moment, that to me only demonstrates that our physics is not sophisticated enough to explain one of our most basic perspectives of our existence. So of course in that light, Prior's observation is arguably more problematic for a timeless God. And not only does a B theory of time conflict with our our basic grasp of the flow of time, it also conflicts with our basic beliefs about our own free actions. I truly believe that when I am deliberating, one course of actions is open to me while on the other hand, I truly believe that I may refrain from that action. But if future me has already made the decision, a true authentic robust libertarian freedom that affirms these beliefs as true cannot stand. In a B theory of time, it is not possible for me at Time y to choose any amongst all the options that present themselves to me if at chronologically later time z, the option is already decided by me. And of course, there is also the argument that if we aren't free with respect to the past and yet all time is ontologically equivalent to the past, then neither are we free with respect to the future. So on the basis of our powerful and unavoidably ubiquitous experience of the flow of time and our experience of free will, I reject the B theory.

As for the physics of that, I have already noted that the physics isn't complete and coherent on this issue and I mentioned

The reason I hold to the dynamic view of God is because I believe it is most faithful to scripture (and not a reality excluded by the observation that some desriptions of God are metaphorical). God plans, remembers, acts and reacts all in chronological sequence. Of course Jesus was God and the idea of "stepping into time" without becoming fully temporal seems absurd to me. But the most obviously unavoidable temporal thing that God does is that he forgives. In forgiveness, there is the chronological sequence of holding something against someone, and then releasing it. Besides that recognition of forgiveness within our piety, it is undeniable within the personal piety of many of the saints in scripture that they believed that God was planning one thing, they ask him to change his plan, and then the narrative records that he does.

Rob R said...

post 2 of 2


I point this out to some of my fellow Christians and they immeadiately say "but that's just man's perspective". But I can't help but see this not as deflecting the problem of timelesseness but only brushing it under the rug. This still leaves our piety as illusory and it only brushes the problem under the rug as far as I can tell.

If I were to guess as to why Helm thinks (or has argued) that God must be spacial on the grounds of Prior's comments, I'd have to think that he thinks time and space are parallel with regard to language. So a timeless being cannot know that "it is raining now" when it is raining. Only a temporal being can know that. So I would speculate that Helm reasons that God cannot know "It is raining here" unless God is here except this is a bad comparison, since "here" is not an ontologically significant statement like "now" is if an A theory of time is true. Now if you want to argue that God is spacial on the grounds of omnipresence as Breckmin does, that's a different matter altogether and is not relevant to whether the dynamic view of God implies it as well. But again, if God is indeed spacial, I'm really not that concerned. As a matter of fact, I think it's more interesting to think of God as being spacial on many dimensional levels beyond our 3 spacial ones. But that's just speculation.

As for a spacial and temporality in opposition to infinitude, I've already commented on that.

One last thing, the idea that timelessness or spacelessness is unintelligible, or more accurately is is not fully comprehensible would not impress metaphysical realists who embrace the reality of concepts, forms, logic, etc. even though such things are neither spacial nor temporal. And a lack of full comprehensibility is a far cry from incoherence.

Anonymous said...

ZDENNY, how old are you?

Breckmin, if there's no words to describe your god, than how can you possibly have thought about them? No human thought is outside the words that could explain it.

You're being nonsensical. Literally. You claim to know this god to a degree which you say the human brain can't comprehend. But you have a human brain yourself.

I'm pretty sure you don't have a clear idea about the god you've found yourself trying to believe in. I think you don't believe in your god as much as you'd like and as much as you want us to believe.

From your own admitance, the human mind can't comprehend this god, hor ave words to describe, see, hear, taste, or touch your god. Therefore you can not believe in it.

Gandolf said...

ZDenny---"John, just look at all the fun you are missing out on. You simply preach negativity at this point."

Since when is pointing out dilemma, become thought a negative thing?


ZDenny---"You could instead enjoy a life of positive speculation reflecting on the nature of God."

What? you suggest continued promotion of barbaric ignorant " faith freedom" laws that historically have always allowed for far to much abuse, that dont even HONESTLY! meet any standard of the golden rule ....Is a positive speculation?

Pffftttttt !!

Its doing a great job of EXPOSING the faithful as being the forked tongued abusive snakes that they always have been .Not so sure that can be classed as being anything so positive though ZDenny.

ZDenny --"You have to be pretty cruel in your heart to be an atheist. Hopelessness that leads to cruel behavior is all I have seen so far."

Cruel??...You need to NOT even possess a heart! anymore, just to be able to continue to participate in being involved in continued promotion of unporoven superstitious faith beliefs.You need to become indoctrinated! and dead in the heart!.You need to become a jesus zombie!,who dont mind ignorant faith causing the harm of many children worldwide psychologically abused! or death of those wrongfully disallowed medicines! or those killed after being wrongfully accused as witches!, by African christians.

To be faithful you need to become a ignorant thoughtless uncaring selfcentred selfish gamblers able to act blindly like a ostrich! and disassociate your thinking from the feelings and safety of others!.Who`s only thought and vision and goal in life is focused on a personal addiction to unproven salvation of "the self" .

In other words to be faithful,one must become ignorantly SELFISH,and turn a blind eye to need of keeping any golden rule.

The type of persons who we might even expect might even thoughtlessly let somebody drown,just so long as their "self" is taken care of and feels happy and content.

There is little left that is positive about faith today ZDenny ...It is being exposed daily as being a complete fraudulent load of rubbish built and maintained on much false pride and ignorance.

Rob R said...

I think it's more interesting to think of God as being spacial on many dimensional levels beyond our 3 spacial ones. But that's just speculation.

As spelled out in the 1-31-2010 "how to debunk Christianity" thread, suggesting God is spacial does not indicate that God is finite at all. This is completely baseless since We already pointed out that there are an infinitude of ways in which an infinite being can be infinite, some of which are completely useless and out to be denied.

I just remembered however another way in which spacialility does not imply finitude. God could have an infinite number of spacial dimensions.

There is one objection to a spacial God. Supposedly he'd also then be physical. This is the mistake of extrapolating that just because the only thing that we know of that takes up space is matter and energy, then the only thing that takes up space is matter and energy. This is of deductively invalid.




I also want to mention that this isn't just fun speculation. These things are consequential. Logical Coherence is after all a feature of truth thus we Christians ought to be very concerned about it. After all, I almost lost my faith on the related issue of determinism.

But at the same time, Breckmin is right that whether we get these things right is not going to be a litmus test for heaven. It's Jesus, not Plato, and there won't be a logic test at the gates of heaven to makes sure we are worthy. It's not consequential in that if we are illogical, we won't necessarily be barred from heaven (unless that irrationality is also part of a sinful rebellion, which it doesn't necessarily have to be) but if one percieves the claims about God and Jesus to be illogical, they may reject the faith. Even then though, that does not determine faith as one is, as I was, free to persevere until a satisfactory answer can be found.

Anonymous said...

Rob,

What a great way to sell your brand of religion! You can be dumb - that's no problem! Heaven doesn't want logical people. Heaven wants sheep who don't think!

You said it yourself. [There's] not going to be a litmus test for heaven" And "if we are illogical, we won't necessarily be barred from heaven."

You're really making sure to cover your bases here. Can't detect god? He's undetectable! Trying to think about that too much? Don't, god doesn't want you to think.

Dumb, and ignorant. Love it.

Jim said...

I think ZDenny gets the award for making the most baseless assertions:

"Christians are the ones having all the fun."

"Atheism is grounded in hate and anger towards those who love God."

"It doesn’t have a positive message at all."


And on and on and on and on . . .

It's a real waste of time to have to wade through this nonsense.

ZDenny is doing such a pitiful job at defending his perfectly loving, innocent child-killing God, that he really can only attempt to get an emotional rise out of atheists. There's not enough time in the day to keep responding to this stuff. The problem is that he is probably deluded enough to think that failure to respond point-by-point means he's somehow making thought-provoking points.

(sigh . . . .)

Brad Haggard said...

Relativity theory makes the idea of a God outside of our spacetime (they have to go together now) intelligible, even making sense of divine omniscience. It amazes me to think about just how many philosophers hold on to a Newtonian view of space and time.

I think this article did well in 1980, but I don't think it'd pass muster today.

Breckmin said...

I would just clarify that it is not that I believe that God is infinite because "space" (clearly not quantum) or infinite 3 dimensional existence is infinite...
I think that is backwards. I would say that 3 dimensional existence is infinite because God is Infinite...and we enter (come into existence)into His Infinite Domain of infinite time and infinite 3 dimensional existence at creation.

This would be true of all matter or finite existence.

Rob R said...

Brad, the physics of the issue is less important than you think and very far from determinative as I went into more depth on your claim in the first open theism thread.




magnumdb,

What a great way to sell your brand of religion! You can be dumb - that's no problem! Heaven doesn't want logical people. Heaven wants sheep who don't think!

Christianity is for humans, even ones with low IQs. And it is for the very smartest which is why these issues are essential. What I wrote is not anti-intellectual in the least but is part of the observation building from Paul's statement that the church is to be a complex body of differently gifted people. Some have gifts of working out the Christian world view, and thankfully, since that is a means to an end and not an end in itself, others have different gifts and are not burdened by the fact that they may not have the time or ability to delve to the same depth as the those who devote themselves to theological or philosophical rigour. Perhaps they are better at something that is even more important such as living the compassion of Christ in an extreme way. It all has a place in the church.

Samphire said...

Brad says,

"Relativity theory makes the idea of a God outside of our spacetime (they have to go together now) intelligible, ...."

How? Relativity theory has no relevance outside of spacetime.

Rob R said...

How? Relativity theory has no relevance outside of spacetime.

Many people believe that relativity implies a B theory of time, or eternalism, the idea that past, present and future all equally exist though there are some who would take issue with that. Proponents of a timeless God view God as looking at all of time at once, and a B theory of time makes that more intelligible than an A theory of time where only the present exists, the past did exist and the future is not yet to be.

Of course, even if that is true, as I said, the status of relativity is up in the air given it's conflict with quantum mechanics. People of my point of view certainly do not hitch our point of view to Newtonian physics as Brad claims and I don't understand why he'd want to hitch his to a view that is just as tentative and may very well yeild to more basic and accurate physical laws that for all we currently know may not favor a B theory of time. Physics underdetermines metaphysics. It does not decide these issues.

It's even more dubious since the findings of physics aren't even universally available to all person, not like our basic experience of the flow of time (which favors an A theory) and our experience of free will. These are universal experiences and thus arguably better grounded than our understanding of physics which has and will continue to change.