45683968

WHERE DID GOD COME FROM?   

and

How did the Trinity first come into existence?

     “How could an eternal God with no beginning ever

come into existence in the first place and still be

eternal with no beginning?”  

 

In three separate essays, I will explain what I believe is the only possible way an eternal God with no beginning could have come into existence in the first place and still be eternal with no beginning.  

 

Essay 1 explains where God most likely came from (and how the Trinity most likely became an inseparable Trinity in the first place), whereas Essay 2 explains the process by which these events most likely occurred, and Essay 3 explains how an initially indifferent God would naturally and inevitably become an all-loving God.   So, with that as an introduction, let us begin.

ESSAY 1:

“How could an eternal God with no beginning ever

come into existence in the first place and still be

eternal with no beginning?”

 (i.e. “Where did God come from?”)

 

“How did the inseparable Trinity ever become

an inseparable Trinity in the first place?”

 

Here is a brief summary of my approach to this issue.  It starts with a proven scientific truth about the nature of time followed by several steps of logic.

 

Now there are two ways to think about time.  Either time is a real thing or time is just perception.  Some philosophers, as well as a few theologians and scientists mistakenly believe that time itself is not a real thing but is merely perception, intuition or imagination without any underlying physical cause.  If they are correct, then my entire theory is false.   So if any of you readers are also convinced that time is mere perception or intuition and not a real thing, this next paragraph is written especially for you.  (But if you already agree that time is a real thing and not just perception or intuition, then you can skip this next paragraph.)

 

Science has proven that spacetime itself is a real thing that our laws of physics act upon to cause time dilation (i.e. the slowing down of time itself because of extreme gravity or extreme velocity).  This is why scientists believe that the extreme gravity within a black hole will cause time to stop completely.  Of course, gravity could never slow down time in the first place if time itself was just a matter of perception of the mind and not an actual thing that gravity could “grab hold of”, so to speak. Therefore, since spacetime is a real thing, then the time-part of spacetime must be a real thing as well. Besides, if time itself (the time-part of spacetime) was nothing more than perception, intuition, or imagination without any underlying physical cause, then the "thing" that is spacetime itself could never exist, because instead of space + time = spacetime, it would be space + perception = space. So, it is clear (at least to me) that time itself is more than just a simple perception of the mind, but that time itself is a real thing (a real entity in itself).

 

Therefore, since time itself has to be an actual thing that exists in the real world, we can now ask the following question:

“How could God have ever created time itself

from within an initially timeless realm unless

time itself already existed in that realm in order to

allow the creation of time to happen in the first place?"

Despite God being "all-powerful", there certain things that even an almighty God could never have done. For instance, God could never have created himself, for this would require God to exist (in order to do the creating) and not to exist (in order for God to still need to be created). It is logically impossible for God to exist and not exist at the same time, because such a situation would violate the Law of the Law of Non-Contradiction, which tells us (among other things) that no actual thing can exist and not exist at the same time.  And since time itself is also an actual thing, then it is also logically impossible for time to exist and not exist at the very same moment. But this means that even an all-powerful God could never have created time itself, because creating time (for the first time) would require time itself to exist and not exist at the same moment, a situation that is logically impossible. Although God can certainly manipulate time (now that time already exists), even an all-powerful God could never have created time itself to begin with.  

 

That being said, consider this proposition: 

  God could never have created time.

 

God could never have created time itself for three reasons. First, creating time requires time to exist (during the creating) but not exist (at the very same moment) in order for time to still need to be created, a scenario that violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. Therefore, creating time is a logical impossibility, even for an Almighty God. Second, if time did not yet exist, then in order for God to create time in the first place, a first moment in time must already exist during which God recognizes the need to create time; a second moment in time must already exist during which God designs a plan to create time; and a third moment in time must already exist during which God implements his plan to create time, and all this must occur precisely at a time when time does not yet exist. It should be self-evident therefore, that if God ever existed within a truly timeless realm (a realm wherein time did not yet exist), that God himself would be “frozen in time” (so to speak) and therefore God would not be able to create anything, do anything or even think anything, because even an instantaneous creation still requires a moment in time to exist during the instant of creation as well as before the instant of creation when the newly created thing did not yet exist.  This second paradox also requires time to exist and not exist at the same time and therefore also violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. Third, an eternal God couldn’t even exist before the existence of time in order for God to create time to begin with, because no matter when God would create time, a truly eternal God would have already lived an eternity of time prior to that moment, otherwise he wouldn’t be eternal. But an eternal God could never be living for millions of "years" (i.e. an eternity of time) prior to creating time, since for millions of "years" to pass, time would have to already exist.  This third paradox also requires time to exist and not exist at the same moment and therefore also violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. Accordingly, an eternal God could never have existed before the existence of time. But if God were anything less than eternal before he created time, then God would have to have a beginning.  But if God had a beginning, then since there was nothing already in existence from which God could emerge, God would have to create himself—something that even God could never do, because that would require God himself to exist and not exist at the same time, creating a fourth paradox which again violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. So, neither an eternal God nor a non-eternal God could exist even for a short time before time itself existed in order for God to create time in the first place.

 

And this unsolvable paradox doesn't disappear simply by claiming God is "outside of time", or God "transcends time", because creating time will always require time to exist and not exist at the very same moment in any truly timeless realm, in any universe, in any dimension or under any circumstances whatsoever, thereby violating the Law of Non-Contradiction. Nor does this unsolvable paradox disappear simply by claiming,

"God is all-powerful, so God can do anything.  

God can even violate the laws of logic because

God is above logic."  

 

Well, logic tells us that God could never have created himself (because that would require God to BE and NOT BE at the very same moment thus violating the Law of Non-Contradiction).  However, if God can indeed violate the laws of logic, then God could indeed have created himself too!  But since even God could never EXIST and NOT EXIST at the very same moment, then God is NOT above the laws of logic.   

Moving on, this triple paradox—three arguments proving an eternal God could never have created time from within an initially timeless realm unless time already existed within that realm—has a direct bearing upon the origin of God.  For once you recognize that our perception of time ultimately comes from an actual thing that obeys the laws of physics, then it is relatively easy to prove that God could never have created the actual thing that is time itself.  Hence, since time exists, and since God could never have created the thing that is time, then time itself must have always existed, which means that time itself must be Uncreated, Uncaused and naturally eternal. But if time is eternal and if God could neither have created time nor could God have even existed before time existed, then God cannot possibly be older than eternal time and so God (being younger than eternal time) had to have a beginning.  To summarize, since God could never have created time, then God had to have a beginning.  But this also means that God cannot possibly be the Uncaused First Cause of absolutely everything (because there is one thing God could never have created: time itself).  And since only the Uncaused First Cause of everything never had a beginning, then by default, everything other than the Uncaused First Cause (including God himself) must have had its beginning as an effect (or as a result) of the Uncaused First Cause.  So, since God cannot possibly be the Uncaused First Cause, then what indeed is the Uncaused First Cause?  The Uncaused First Cause must something that is uncaused, naturally eternal, that pre-existed God and that God himself could never have created—eternal time itself.  So, as incredible as this sounds, once we accept the idea that time itself is an actual thing, and that God could neither have created time, nor could God have even existed before time existed, the only possible conclusion is that God himself must have come after time and therefore God must have literally come from time. Accordingly, God must be a form of Living Time (specifically, Living Spacetime). Of course, if God's Spirit is literally Living Spacetime, then almost by definition, the Trinity must be the Living Past (the Father), the Living Present (Jehovah/Jesus) and the Living Future (the Holy Spirit).  As far as I can tell, no other possibility exists. (By the way, this does NOT mean that the Father only exists in the past or that the Holy Spirit only exists in the future.)  

 

Of course, since God could never have created time, Christ would never say, “I created the Beginning…”.  And since God could never have existed before time, Christ would never say, “I existed before the Beginning…”  But as Living Time, Christ would literally be the Beginning, so it would be only natural for Christ to say, “I AM the Beginning and the End” (Revelation 22:13), a statement that strongly suggests,​

 

“I AM [literally] the Beginning and the End"

—the Living Past and the Living Future. 

This is who and what I actually am and this is

who and what the Trinity actually is

—The Living Past, the Living Present and the

Living Future. And since time itself is naturally eternal

with no beginning, then I am likewise naturally eternal

with no beginning, because I AM Living Time itself."

 

Thus, both logic and the Bible confirm (at least to me) that somehow, an eternity ago, inanimate three-part spacetime itself (the past, present and the future) did indeed become alive as three living beings (the Living Past, the Living Present and the Living Future).

So, how do I personally answer the question:

“How could an eternal God with no beginning ever

come into existence in the first place and still be

eternal with no beginning?

 

My answer is:

  “Only a non-living entity (like time itself) that is already

naturally eternal with no beginning that transitions 

into being alive can explain the origin of a God

who is likewise naturally eternal with no beginning.”

Since this is the only possible answer to the question, then this must be how our eternal God with no beginning originally came into existence.  (Remember, Essay 2 presents the process by which this probably happened.)

 

At this point, for those who stubbornly claim that God could still have created time because God transcends time or God is outside of time”, it should be self-evident that no imaginary “transcendence” in any truly timeless realm in any universe, in any dimension, or under circumstances whatsoever can remove the requirement for our eternal God to be already living for an eternity before he creates time in the first place.  In addition, before our eternal God can create time to begin with, God must first recognize the need to create time, then design a plan to create time, and then implement his plan to create time, and all three of these events must occur when time does not yet exist. This double paradox will always require time itself to exist and not exist at the very same moment, and therefore will always violate the Law of Non-Contradiction in any universe, in any dimension, or in any circumstance whatsoever. Accordingly, there is no way for God to “transcend time” in order for God to ever create time at all, no matter what the circumstances. (He may be able manipulate time after time already exists, but he could never have created time to begin with.)  And as I said, since God could never have created time in the first place, then the only possible conclusion is that God himself must have come after time and therefore come from time, and so God must be Living Time.  This means that Jesus’ words in Revelation 22:13 should be interpreted as,

“I AM [literally] the Beginning and the End

—the Living Past and the Living Future.” 

 

Of course, most people who hear such an idea will simply dismiss it out of hand without creating a well-thought-out rebuttal.  But dismissing an idea without providing an actual rebuttal is not a refutation. Whenever you deliberately dismiss your opponent’s proposition without a rebuttal in order to come to a conclusion that avoids the influence of your opponent’s evidence, you are actually committing a logical fallacy, specifically a Fallacy of Exclusionimportant evidence that would refute an argument is deliberately excluded from consideration.  In this case, it is the important evidence that completely refutes the traditional Christian belief (that God created time) that is deliberately excluded from consideration without any actual refutation—a classic Fallacy of Exclusion.  And by definition, a logical fallacy is an instance of incorrect reasoning that creates an invalid form of argument.  So, if you disagree with my conclusion that God is Living Time (specifically, Living Spacetime), but you still would like to refute my idea without simply dismissing my idea and committing a logical Fallacy of Exclusion, then you must create a well-thought-out rebuttal (even if it’s just in your own mind).

 

Of course, any attempt to refute my conclusion (even in your own mind) will still require you to directly address each of my particular premises or conclusions you believe is false and explain why it is false (even if you are only explaining it to yourself).  So, to assist you with the task of refuting my argument, I have created the following syllogism in Essay 1b that divides my entire argument into separate premises and conclusions to give you an easier chance of identifying exactly which of my premises or conclusions you imagine to be incorrect.  Then you can aim your rebuttal at that particular faulty premise or conclusion.  Good luck with that.  You may find that task more difficult than you anticipate.

But before you read the syllogism, you must remember these three things.  First, any challenger who acknowledges that time itself is a real thing that must exist in the real world in order for gravity to be able to "grab hold of time" to slow it down, cannot simultaneously claim that time is nothing more than perception of the mind and is therefore not a real thing. Such a challenger has embraced a double standard for their understanding of time—one standard for daily life (where time is an actual "thing" that allows gravity to slow it down), and an entirely opposite standard for his theology about God (where time is not an actual "thing" but is just perception of the mind, and therefore gravity should NOT be able to slow down time. This double standard is a logical fallacy, particularly a Fallacy of Inconsistencyapplying rules and criteria to one argument, belief, claim, or position but not to others.  And remember, by definition, a logical fallacy is an instance of incorrect reasoning that creates an invalid form of argument. So, if you already agree that gravity can slow down time and that the laws of physics require time to exist as a real thing in order for natural processes to function at all, then if the essence of your rebuttal to my argument is still based upon your mistaken belief that time is only a matter of perception and not a real thing, then your rebuttal is a double standard, a logical Fallacy of Inconsistency, an instance of incorrect reasoning and an invalid form of argument.  So, you may as well keep that particular rebuttal to yourself.  But in addition, you must now explain (even if only to yourself) how gravity can slow down time if time is only a perception of the mind and not a real thing that gravity can “grab hold of” (so to speak).

 

Second, any attempted rebuttal claiming, “God transcends time” or “God is outside of time” must explain the actual mechanism by which God’s transcendence of time in any timeless universe, in any timeless dimension or under any timeless circumstances whatsoever can remove the requirement for an eternal God to be living for an eternity BEFORE he creates time in the first place, while he also has the time to design a plan to create time for the first time and also has the time to implement that plan to create time precisely during a moment when time does not yet exist.  Otherwise, you are merely claiming my argument is wrong simply because of your imagined definition of “transcendence” without offering any further explanation. You must also explain how your reasoning does not force time to exist and not exist at the same moment in whatever timeless realm you imagine God exists, a situation that will always violate the Law of Non-Contradiction in any timeless realm. And, since the Law of Non-Contradiction naturally applies to all things in daily life, then if you then fail to apply the Law of Non-Contradiction to the thing that is time (just so you can sidestep my proof that “God could never have created time”), you have adopted a double standard for applying the Law of Non-Contradictionone way for daily life, and an entirely opposite way for your theologya double standard that is also a Fallacy of Inconsistencyapplying rules and criteria to one argument, belief, claim or position, but not to others.  And as I said, a logical fallacy is an instance of incorrect reasoning that creates an invalid form of argument.  So, if the essence of your rebuttal to my argument is based upon your mistaken belief that “God transcends time” or “God is outside of time”, then your rebuttal violates the Law of Non-Contradiction, is a double standard, a logical Fallacy of Inconsistency, an instance of incorrect reasoning and an invalid form of argument.  So, you may as well keep that particular rebuttal to yourself.

 

Third, for any reader who mistakenly believes in evolutionary cosmology, any attempted rebuttal claiming that time itself did not always exist because the Big Bang created time, will be automatically disqualified for three reasons.  First, since the laws of physics require time to already exist in order for any energy changes to occur in the universe, then time must also have pre-existed the first events of Big Bang itself in order for those events to occur as well, otherwise the very first moment of the Big Bang would literally "never have the time" to take place. Reasoning otherwise is a double standard for understanding how the laws of physics require time to already exist in order for any natural processes to work (i.e. one standard for daily life that requires time to pre-exist anything that happens, and an entirely opposite standard for the Big Bang that does NOT require time to pre-exist the events of the Big Bang).  Of course, once again, a double standard is a logical Fallacy of Inconsistencyapplying rules and criteria to one argument, belief, claim or position, but not to others.  Therefore, since the imagined Big Bang could only have occurred after time already existed, then the Big Bang could never have created time itself. Second, for the same reason, time cannot possibly be the natural consequence of the existence of matter, as some claim, since matter could not come into existence until after the Big Bang, and the Big Bang could not have happened until after time already existed. Reasoning otherwise involves the same double standard mentioned above and therefore involves the same logical Fallacy of Inconsistency mentioned above. Besides, one cannot believe that time stops in the ABSENCE of mass/energy (i.e. before the universe was created) and only begins with the PRESENCE of gigantic mass/energy (i.e. when the universe began)  while at the same time having documented proof of just the opposite, that time actually stops in the PRESENCE of extreme mass/energy (such as within a black hole) and resumes its normal speed in the relative ABSENCE of mass/energy (such as between galaxies in outer space). This would also mean that at the beginning of the big bang (when all the universe's mass/energy came into existence into one primordial black hole) that this same primordial black hole would stop time in its tracks, preventing the inflation stage of the big bang from ever happening. Third, according to evolutionary cosmologists, although energy can not create itself out of nothing today because of the Law of Energy Conservation, evidently billions of years ago during the fictitious singularity required by the Big Bang theory in order to make it work, energy did create itself out of nothing despite the Law of Energy Conservation. But reasoning this way is still a double standard for applying the laws of physics—one way for daily life and an entirely opposite way billions of years ago during the fictitious singularity of the Big Bang, otherwise the Big Bang theory won’t work.  But again, a double standard is a logical Fallacy of Inconsistencyapplying rules and criteria to one argument, belief, claim or position (i.e. daily life), but not to others (i.e. billions of years ago during the fictitious “singularity”).  And as I said, a logical fallacy is an instance of incorrect reasoning that creates an invalid form of argument.  So, if the essence of your rebuttal to my argument is based upon your mistaken belief that time itself did not always exist because the Big Bang created time, then your argument is a double standard, a logical Fallacy of Inconsistency, an instance of incorrect reasoning and an invalid form of argument.  So, you may as well keep that particular rebuttal to yourself.

Please notice that all 9 parts of the syllogism below give the same answer—that God is Living Time, specifically, Living Spacetime—and since all nine parts give the same answer, this provides additional support that the final answer is indeed correct.)

 

[Remember, if you disagree with any of my premises or conclusions, please do your best to identify which premise(s) or conclusion(s) you imagine are incorrect and then attempt to explain why they are incorrect (even if your explanations are just in your own mind).  You owe that to yourself, especially if you intend to hold on the standard Church teaching concerning the eternality of God, because this standard Church teaching still requires God to create time itself—an argument that is actually impossible to defend.]

 

That being said, the 9-part syllogism that follows on the next page will hopefully prove all the following points:

 

    “Time itself is an actual thing that can be slowed 

down by gravity.  However, since God could neither 

     have created the thing that is time nor could an eternal God have even existed before time existed, then time itself must have existed before God existed and so

time itself must be naturally eternal.  Therefore, since an eternal God could never have existed before time existed, then God must have come into existence after time existed.  But if God came after time, then by default, God must

have come from time, which means that

God must be Living Time

specifically, God's Spirit must be composed of 

four-dimensional Living Spacetime.  

After all, only a non-living entity (like time itself) that is

naturally eternal with no beginning that transitions

into being alive can explain the origin of a God who

is likewise naturally eternal with no beginning.  

Accordingly, the Trinity must be the Living Past,

the Living Present, and the Living Future. 

No other possibility exists.” 

COPYRIGHT 2017