Dealing with an atheist question

I hope the rabbi is indeed right in his words…
I will write at some length the difficulties in each of the following aspects and what I mean by them.
1. A. The idea that God does not belong to the concepts of time – because time was created and God existed before creation. In any case, He did not once belong to the concepts of time, because He existed even before the existence of time.
B. The religious claim that God is above time. That is, God can observe the past, present, and future as He wishes = time does not grasp Him. Clearly, this is an absurd thought. Time is something that is created anew every moment. It is not possible to observe the future before the future exists!!!
C. Furthermore, the accepted claim that God could have acted even before the creation of time. For example, He created the Torah before the creation of the world. But this is also impossible. Because even if we assume that reality exists even without the existence of time, it in any case seems to be a reality that is “stuck”. For example, when you stop a video at the second minute, you will not be able to see any movement or change in it because the frame in the image is stopped and stuck. Of course, this is an absurd idea for God to be omnipotent. If in fact He cannot do anything… not to change anything. And certainly not to create anything.
C. You asked what I meant by being above the concepts of space –
The point is that God does not have size or dimensions. Not even infinite dimensions. He does not belong to the class of bodies that are in space. Therefore, He does not have the property of height/width or length. He is “above them” and can observe objects with these properties. And they cannot observe Him. Because He does not have an ‘image’.

2. You asked here why I make these assumptions.
So these assumptions come from experience and common sense and logic.
From experience we see that every body is subject to time and space. We cannot find an entity that does not act under these definitions. An entity whose size is 0 is synonymous with an entity that does not exist. And an entity that is not present with us in time is something that has simply passed away from the world…

From common sense, it can be understood that every entity distills size in order to exist, and how can there be a reality that does not have size?! In any case, an entity that does not have size does not exist. That is clear.
Likewise, no entity can exist when it is above time. How is it possible to exist without time? Clearly, this is not possible. Or because an entity without time is simply stuck in place - cannot act or move things.

I would be happy if the rabbi could respond, and give examples of ideas because it seems to me that the religious situation here is lost.
Eliad

Eliad,

Of course it's interesting to see how the rabbi will answer you, but from the outside, these pseudo-confusions indicate total ignorance of both classical and modern theistic literature, and it's worth looking into it a bit before you start listening to all sorts of straw arguments from the "new atheists" or people like Dawkins and Daniel Dennett and their associates.

Eliad, relax. I haven't seen such weak arguments in a long time. Really ridiculous.

1.
A. I still don't understand the phrase "it doesn't involve concepts of time". When I say "God exists now" or "is doing something now" or "did so and so in 1437" do you think this is an illegal sentence? I think so.
B. I don't know what he can expect, but this ability is not absurd in any sense. Why is there an absurdity here? Predicting the future does contradict free will, and therefore in my opinion he can only anticipate events that occur according to the laws of nature and not by our choice.
But in your opinion, if the future cannot be predicted, then he cannot predict the future. What's the problem? Similarly, it is not possible to make a round triangle because there is no such thing, so he cannot make a round triangle. Omnipotent is the one who can do everything that is defined and not what has no content and is not defined. Simply because there is no such thing, and therefore it is not correct to say that he “cannot do so and so” (there is no such thing as so and so).
C. Again, what do you mean: If it is impossible to act before there was time, then he did not act. In my opinion (and in the opinion of many) it is possible, but the description we give to this action will be in terms of time (because that is our language).
You are also not right in saying that something stops or gets stuck. It is possible to stop when there is a timeline. If there is no timeline, it only means that it is possible to move or stop, but it will be described in other terms (without using a timeline).
C (That's what you marked. Another C). A photon also fulfills all of this. There is no problem in principle here.

2. Applying your experience to God is ridiculous. You can straight up say that there is no God because in your experience you have never met him. Why go through such strange arguments?
Its size is not 0 but it has no size. That is something completely different. See the end of my words above. And also something with a size of 0 that is not true does not exist. What is the size of a photon? And what is the size of kindness? What is the size of the green color of my table?

In short, this whole discussion is just confusion and misunderstanding on a conceptual level. That's all.

Copenhagen,
As you can see from my words, this has nothing to do with theistic literature. You don't need to know anything about it to see that this is purely a conceptual confusion.

Thank you very much for your response, but I didn't understand much of what you said. I will ask in the order of the answers. And I would be happy if you could clarify things.
1. A. You wrote that concepts of time now exist in God and hence it is proven that He exists, but this does not excuse anything because concepts of time did not belong to God before creation… so what does it help if they now belong to Him?
B. I will rephrase the question: How is there the ability to anticipate the future if the future has not yet been created. Or in the past if the past has already been and is not now? It is possible to /*remember*/ the past but not /*expect*/ the past…. There is no such “place” where the past is stored just as “the future” does not yet exist. There is only the present.
C. I did not understand what you were trying to explain in my opinion, because if He could not act before time was created, then how was the world created? And I did not understand your answer further – You wrote there in a reality where the dimension of time does not exist, however, the description we give to this action will be in terms of time, but if our description is only an illusion, then it only shows you that this is an illogical and illusory situation that is eager to introduce more illusions.
D. You did correct me correctly, later I refer to:

2. We do not learn everything from experience, otherwise we will never stand on the unknown. We can only learn the principles from experience and project them on the unknown.
You gave a dog to events without magnitude, such as kindness or the color green. But we must remember that these are situations in our minds, not actual reality. In any case, these examples are problematic.

Everything was explained well and I have the impression that you didn't really read what I wrote. I'll try again, and if it's not understood, we'll part as friends.

1.
A. I didn't write a word of any of this. I asked you why you meant that the concepts of time don't belong in it. I offered you a few sentences and asked whether you think they are legal sentences or not. You didn't answer me.
B. I answered. I don't see a problem with predicting the future even if it hasn't been created yet. For example, I can predict the future when I kick a ball. I know it will fly. Although the idea I wrote about human actions is that it can't anyway because of free will. And in general, I added that even if you think it's impossible for some reason to predict the future (which is of course not true, but let's say for the sake of discussion), then it really can't. What's so hard about that?
C. I didn't say that he can't act before time. That's what you said. What I wrote later is that if there was no time before the creation of the world, that doesn't mean that actions couldn't have been performed then. At most, our description of these actions was temporary, even though there really was no time then. This is not an illusion, but a use of language. For example, I can describe in English what happened before the English language was invented.

2. I also gave the example of a photon. And by the way, the color green is not a property of our soul, but something that exists. Our thoughts also exist.

I have read the things many times and I will complete the questions you asked. I do think that there is a lot of progress even if it does not seem so to the Rabbi. I only have a few misunderstandings here. I would be happy if you could complete them.
1. A. You asked whether these sentences are legal, so in my opinion they are indeed so. But they still do not help my question. Because my question is regarding the existence of God before time was created… how could there be a reality without a time dimension.
B. I probably did not understand your words and you did not understand mine, indeed I accept that there is no problem for God /*to foresee*/ the future and to remember the past. After all, in a deterministic reality it is only about calculating calculations.
But the prevalent religious claim is that the entire dimension of time is spread out before Him and He can /*to anticipate*/ the future as He anticipates the present. Not in the sense of prediction and calculation but in the sense of observation-seeing-and-looking. Like the idea that we see things in the present with our eyes. This is the usual meaning of the concept of “G-d above time” = that he looks “above” the timeline and sees all moments of time.
C. Why is it possible to do actions when there is no time? I am willing to accept that we can describe things in time even without time, but if this is not clear how can changes be made without time?!
Perhaps I will ask in a different way – Assuming that time is now stuck at 8:00 PM, does the Rabbi understand in this case that anyone who is subject to time cannot do anything because all of reality is “stuck”? Is this equivalent to a reality in which there is no time?
I think so. But it seems from your words that it is not. Why?

2.
Does the dimension of size not belong to a photon? Earlier you claimed that its size is 0, but the dimension of size belongs to it.
Green is a state of a certain thought, it is not a property but a temporary state. The thought exists in my mind, as we know. It can be described as a certain size, although I don't know how to calculate it.

This is a strange question. “How is there a reality without a time dimension?” It is possible! What is the problem? How do you want the Rabbi to explain such a thing? To make it difficult, you first need to define precisely what reality is and what time is.

Since God does not “see” with his eyes but simply knows what is happening, from his perspective the present and the (deterministic) future are equal. If you disagree, what do you care what the prevailing religious argument says? Then don't accept it. It doesn't refute anything and doesn't matter at all.

Eliad,

I mentioned a simple fact earlier that you can probably admit, namely that you have little knowledge of theistic literature, past or present, and to that it should be added that the “logical refutation, perhaps among the strongest, of one of the atheists on the Internet” (I don’t know who he is exactly) only makes a mockery of the atheist enterprise in my opinion.

You declare: “Every existing entity is subject to the laws of time and space,” but this is a baseless assertion. It is true that every entity *that we perceive with our senses* is in time and space, but it cannot be concluded from this that *every possible entity* requires being in time and space. The concept of existence in itself does not force anything regarding space and time. Regarding such realities, we will have to let the evidence lead us. If there is evidence for their existence, then they exist (and the fact that we do not perceive them is because there is no reason why we can perceive with our senses things that the senses are not intended to perceive in the first place). And indeed, this is what happens. It has been proven (through the cosmological argument) that it is necessary that the concepts of time and space do not apply to it, which is the necessary condition for the existence of all contingent beings. Hence, there is a being that is not in time and space. There is no shortage of Platonic philosophers and scientists who, for philosophical reasons, have come to believe in the existence of entities such as the number 7, Fermat's theorem, or the shape of a cat in the world of non-space-time ideas - among them are avowed atheists. The debate between them and the Aristotles in general is not about some problem with the concept of non-space-time reality, precisely because of this reason - which is a weak "problem".

Your claim about God's knowledge tries to rely on the fact that "the future is created anew at every moment", but this contradicts the view of a significant part, if not most, of philosophers and physicists, who adopt one version or another of what is called the B Theory of Time (you can search the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online for a brief explanation). The point is that time, like space, exists as a block - past-present-future. You do see a very narrow section of the total space of the universe, but this does not mean that the space you do not see does not exist. You experience only the present, but this does not mean that the past and future do not exist. If the future exists, there is no reason why God cannot "observe" it. Either way, it seems that God knows the future not because He "observes" it, but because He knows Himself, He also knows what He creates. For him, creation is not something that happened in the past but the perpetual causal dependence of the universe on its existence. He created the past in the same act in which he creates the future.

All the supposed conflicts between fixed and unfixed reality are irrelevant, since in the classical theistic view, no change has ever occurred in God and there is no “before” and ”after” – but there is a universe that depends on the reality of God, and in which before-after relationships occur. Think of the Big Bang. You don't have to be able to imagine what happened before the Big Bang (nothing happened because there was nothing, not even time, and the term “before” has no meaning) to think that the theory is correct. Now think that there is a *reason* for the Big Bang. This is a perfectly coherent thought. But naturally, the reason why there is such a thing as “space-time” at all cannot be in space-time. Because in principle, the concept of time does not play a role at all in the very basic concept of cause and effect but only the meaning “if not for A’, B’ would not have happened”, which reflects a dependency in Counterfactual terms (i.e. the ”if not for’ sentence) between objects or events.

You say there is no experience, etc. However, you have no experience of many things. For example, you have never had any experience of any psychological entity beyond your own self. Would you conclude from this that the only self that exists in the world is you? In addition, have you ever experienced a decision in the present that affects a decision that happened billions of years ago? But this is precisely the conclusion that follows from Wheeler's thought experiment, which was confirmed in experiments (search for Delayed choice quantum eraser).

I have already answered everything, and Copenhagen also added from Delia.
You are repeating things I have already answered. If you do not understand something or do not agree, that is perfectly fine, then ask something new. But there is no point in repeating the same thing over and over again.

1. A. If these sentences are valid, then I return to the question of what does it mean that God is above time? This was my first question and there is no need to mix points from the following sections here. By the way, I have already explained in them how there was a reality without a time dimension, so why repeat the same question again?
B. Regarding widespread religious claims, it is worth asking those who claim them. Beyond that, I have already explained to you that if something seems absurd to me logically, then indeed God does not fulfill it either. Therefore, what is your point? There is no problem here with the widespread claims either. At most, they are incorrect (and this is of course just an unfounded assumption of yours, but I repeat that there is no problem either).
C. I have already explained at least twice that time is a language for describing changes and not a condition for their occurrence. And I also explained that the absence of time and stuck time are two completely different states. What is the connection between these two?

2.
A photon has no size (if anything, its size is infinite and not 0), and neither do my thoughts. Thought does not exist in my mind but is created by my mind. What exists in my mind are electrical currents. But we are grinding water, there is no problem with beings who do not have size because the concept of size does not apply to them. I have given several examples, and that is enough.

I will not answer any more if there are no new questions.

Thank you very much, I think I understood question 2 about existence without space, and parts of question 1.
I would just be happy if the Rabbi would try to explain one last time the idea of why when there is no time, does that not mean that time is stuck? I will explain why I think things overlap.

So what is time anyway? To my understanding, time is a condition for changes and movement to occur. In a reality without time, everything would remain stuck and standing still. To my understanding, the idea of ‘time’ can be translated as a kind of momentary “renewal” of the world.
It is not an axis that is parallel to the existence of reality and in any case to which it is convenient for us to attach the various events as a relation, (and it would be possible to survive even without it). Rather, time is the ‘force’ that enables the existence of the events themselves. When a second passes, it supposedly shows that the world is renewed in the following second. Just as in a movie, another image and another image create a sense of continuity for us. Even though it involves a lot of momentary points.
Anyway, where there is no time, I don't understand why it's not fundamentally different from frozen time (for example, at 8:00 PM). In such a situation, the image will “freeze” and nothing can be done. After all, if there is no time, there is no renewal and continuation. How can changes be caused – like the creation of the world?!?

Copenhagen,
I am willing to accept the idea that not every entity is in space. But yes, every entity must exist under the concept of time, since in a place where there is no time, it cannot act at all. (I explained this in the response above)
In any case, when we are in a paradox of explaining how an entity can act without time, then we will have to give up one of the assumptions. (And why not the cosmological view? …)

You later contradicted your words, at first you gave an exaggerated theory of time that all times also exist now (and the future is not created), and then you wrote: ”He created the past in the same action in which he creates the future.” This means that there is indeed creation in the future as well, and the entire box of time does not exist at once. But then, again, how can creation be done without time?…
You wrote that the concept of time does not play a role in the basic concept of cause and effect, but only the meaning. I did not understand this. Do you mean a conditional sentence? So time is indeed a condition for causality.

I accept the last paragraph for the sake of change. (NB. Please note that I did not make it difficult for space, but only for time.)

In stuck time there is time. But the length of the time axis is 0. When there is no time, it is not stuck, but it is not a relevant parameter at all. For example (borrowed), the length of a point is not 0. A point has no length at all because length indicates a property of lines and not of points.
Another example. The claim that the good measure is triangular is not a false claim but a meaningless one. The reason for this is that the shape of a triangle is not in the semantic field of the good measure. It is neither triangular nor not triangular. Triangularity is irrelevant to it. Therefore, it does not have a zero degree of triangularity, but rather it does not belong to the question of triangularity at all.
Perhaps it will be easier for you to think about this if you take into account Kant's view that space and time are forms of our observation of reality and not parameters in reality itself. So if there are beings who are not endowed with this form of observation, they will use a different language to describe it. But it could still be the same reality itself.
By the way, I think you can refine the point more if you read my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%95-%D7%A9%D7%9C-% D7%96%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%95%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%AA1/
There I explain exactly the difference between movement as a collection of photographs and real movement. It will also illustrate to you the forms of observation as a language.

Eliad,
The concept of causal dependence does not include any conditional sentence about the past, but what is called the Counterfactual: if it were not for fact (or object) A, there would not be fact (or object) B. (“would” not in the temporal sense but in the sense of possibility, the way the world might be – wouldn’t have been). This can express both temporal relations (such as if it were not for the father's activity, the son would not have been born) and hierarchical “permanent” timeless relations (such as if it were not for the necessary present, there would be no contingent world). Try to imagine a chandelier hanging on the wall in a frame where time is “stuck”. The dependence still exists and does not require time. The example does not reflect the principle, although it helps to illustrate. In any case, in both cases the sentences are remarkably coherent.

I raised the B Theory of Time as a serious intellectual possibility for understanding the concept of time. Many scientifically inclined philosophers are inclined to it, there are strong scientific and philosophical arguments in its favor, and it is very popular among contemporary analytic philosophers, including many atheists. According to this view, your entire question is self-evident, since from its point of view the future actually exists like the present and the past. In any case, this view shows that philosophers have no problem with the very claim that the universe itself does not exist as an unchanging whole (contrary to what we see as the ”passage of time”). If the universe can be thought of as such, then certainly it can be thought of as something immaterial – that is the necessary existence.

I did not contradict myself. The act of creation in the classical theological sense has a technical meaning that is not necessarily the meaning atheists give it – Causal dependence of the principle of existence of contingent objects on the necessary existence. Again, the principle of dependence is expressed in the aforementioned Counterfactual, in which the concept of time has no role.

Correction: “There is no problem with the very claim that the universe itself *exists* as an unmanifest totality’ (and not “does not exist”)

Rabbi,
I read, but I didn't understand. Do you accept my idea here that time describes the flow of the world? Of course, if you describe time as only a subjective attribute in our consciousness, then the question is essentially irrelevant.
But! If time is indeed synonymous with the continued flow of existence of the world (sort of what Copenhagen calls Theory A, and you mentioned it in the article), then the disadvantage that exists in a world without time is a fundamental disadvantage in the ability to change. Because time is the basis and condition for changes.
So your example of a good measure as a triangle is fundamentally different, because there we are talking about two unrelated issues. But with us, time is the attribute in the world that allows for changes and without it everything is stuck.

Maybe the Rabbi can explain what is meant by “time”? And in any case, it will be easy to distinguish whether we are attaching changes to the timeline, or whether the timeline is the condition and basis for changes.

Thank you very much for the help so far!

Copenhagen,
Let's put aside for a moment the questions about knowing the future and Theory B, etc.
We will focus only on whether there can be a cause that exists without time and affects entities that exist under time.

As I understand it, you are arguing here that a relationship of dependence does not always require time, but if so, you agree of course that sometimes such a relationship does indeed occur under time and sometimes even requires it.
But with all this, even according to your theory, all the cases in which a relationship of dependence can be explained in a reality that occurs without time are possible only for two types of reality:
1. Realities that are not under time at all.
2. Ancient realities.

But these explanations do not belong to explaining a world /*that was created*/, because a world that was created indirectly says that there was a period in which it disappeared and did not exist. A factor that occurs in a dimension without time cannot act and create a reality in which time occurs and time in which it is not ancient.
Also, your explanation still doesn't explain how there can be /*change*/ in a dimension without time. For example, according to you, it is not possible for God to do X, “and then” do Y.

Eliad,
Even according to ”atheistic” physics, the world was created and the timeline was created with the bang. Therefore, your words are not related to the question of belief in God. It is simply a mistake.
Time describes the flow but is not a condition for it. Certainly if time is our way of looking at it,
but even if time is in the world itself, you have to admit that things happen “before” it remains, but their happening is in a different meaning (ours as those who are within perceptions of time are difficult to understand and describe).
The examples I gave show you that there are things that are not relevant to any properties, and therefore even if you think there is a difference between them for our discussion, it does not matter. You cannot make it difficult by assuming that everything must take place within time when there is a possibility that it is not. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim and not on the one who comes to settle.
And I will say again that it is not true that without it everything is stuck”. Without it, everything looks different and is done differently and described differently. That's all.
As far as I'm concerned, we've achieved our goal.

Thank you
Indeed, the Rabbi is right that time was also created in the explosion, but the Rabbi should remember that the atheistic approach claims that it was created out of nothing. The Rabbi will be able to see in the Weizmann Institute video (I understand this is what they claimed) and in the summary of their video: https://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/online/maagarmada/astrophysics/%D7%9E%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%A4%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%A5-%D7%94%D7%92%D7%93%D7%95%D7%9C-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%94-%D7%92%D7%A8%D7%9D-%D7%9C%D7%95
“It is possible, as also suggested in the last part of the video, that the problem is simply in logic And in human biology, which tries to find a reason for every process because that is how the phenomena in the universe in which we live proceed, while ”before” the Big Bang did not even exist causality.”

In any case, if time describes the flow and is not the flow itself, then indeed your words are understandable - that there is no dependence between things.
But what is not clear then is “where” is that time… and where do we encounter it if not through the flow itself… and if we encounter it in the flow itself, then it is not clear why to separate the concepts.
I did not understand why you claim that even if time exists in the world, I should admit that things happen before it was created? After all, the option of something out of nothing is the preferred option, as scientists agree.

———————————————-
Thank you Rabbi,
I thought about the things and I think I understood most of them except for a few relatively small questions.
I also looked at another discussion that took place on the site about a year ago called – ” A Cosmological View in the Shadow of the Bang Without Time ”
In any case, in my understanding the Rabbi distinguishes between time and change.
If time is some abstract axis, then change is a process that things go through.
And we simply attach and describe changes to time. Hence, in a world where there is no time, there is no reason to assume that there will be no changes.

But the questions that remain unclear to me are:
1. If time is not inherent in matter and symbolizes the flow of reality. So where is it located “and progresses”? (In some Platonic dimension?) And how do we recognize it? (By intuition?, and what about the claim that time is relative?)
But if we encounter time in ’flow’ itself, then it is not clear why to separate the concepts and not unite them?

2. If time is not related to the state of affairs in the world, and changes can occur even without it, then it seems that even when we stop time at a certain point (for example, 8:00 PM), then changes can still occur. But here, surely, reality is frozen..?

1. In our language, changes are described along the time axis. But this is our description of the changes. Therefore, even when using another language (or in a world without time) there are changes, but they will be described in a different language.

The question of what the meaning of the flow of time itself is is a philosophical question that is not related to our discussion. The question is not where it is located (what does the question “Where is the time axis located?” mean?) but rather over what it progresses. There are claims (which I share) that it flows along another, more fundamental time axis (in the theory of relativity it has the notation – Tau). I expanded on this in the fourth book in the Talmudic Logic series (on the perception of time in the Talmud). You can also see this in Avshalom Elitzur's book “Time and Consciousness”, in Uni’ The broadcast (his doctorate with Larry Horowitz at Tel Aviv University dealt with the development of physics when two timelines are assumed. The philosophical justification for this is exactly your question. But as mentioned, none of this is specifically relevant to our discussion. This is a general question about the flow of time). You can see it briefly in column 33 here.

2. When time is stuck, it is something that does not allow for changes because in such a situation there is time and it does not flow. It is not like a situation without time.

Thanks,
1. Thanks, but what does it help to assume that timeline 1 advances over timeline 2 unless you explain how axis 2 itself advances… (so either you reach an infinite regression, or you claim that time is the power to advance [perhaps God moves it? As a kind of Descartes' idea]) Anyway, how do I recognize it? Through intuition?

2. What does it matter that the timeline does not advance but is stuck? After all, the changes do not necessarily have to occur following the timeline.
Do you mean that only a relationship between circumstances and time can be described and for one point in time only one state of affairs in the world can exist and no more (otherwise we reach paradoxes)? Compared to a state for which there is no time at all, there is no problem with there being several different states of affairs as is happening?
Did I understand correctly?
The rabbi has some dogma to bring to this rather abstract idea :).

1. See my words in the sources I referenced. The basic axis is not advancing.
2. When I say in English that nothing happens, then nothing happens even if I speak Hebrew. When in terms of time nothing happens (and this is the meaning of stuck time) then nothing happens in any sense. But when there is no time then I did not say that nothing happens, but that what happens is not described in terms of time.
I am already quite exhausted because we keep repeating the same point over and over again. I think we have exhausted ourselves.

1. I didn't see this in column 33, it may be in your other references. Is the fixed timeline infinite? Or finite. If it is finite, then can we compare it to a hand moving on a clock? And if it is infinite, isn't there a problem of infinite regression here?
2. I do understand this, but it's still not 100% clear to me…

Anyway, thank you very much for your help, for your effort and for everything, and especially for dedicating your time to the subject ;).
I will summarize the discussion as I saw its main points. So that anyone who encounters this question can find a summary of the things. [The summary includes the great help of all the participants and myself, and in particular the Rabbi and Copenhagen (I also added many things here that I remember from the outside, as well as Moshe Rat).
The question is divided into two (and according to certain interpretations into one) Every entity is subject to the laws of time and space, we encounter this from experience and common sense. In any case, how can a reality exist other than this.
Subjection to space:
The main question lies in our familiarity from experience only with spatial bodies, and therefore it tries to deduce a map to all other bodies in the world that are also subject to space.
The problems:
1. The question attacks only those who deny realization, but not those who do not deny realization.
2. The concept of existence in itself does not force anything regarding space and time. From the assumption of the scepter that every entity *that we perceive with the senses* is in time and space, it cannot be deduced from it that *every possible entity* requires existence in time and space. Regarding such realities, we will have to let the evidence lead us anyway. If there is evidence for their existence, then they exist.
3. Even from an analogical perspective (apart from the difficulties that the analogy itself entails), there is no reason to make such an analogy from the familiar to such an extreme rule about the unfamiliar. Certainly when one does not see a paradox or logical contradiction in the matter. The burden of proof in such a case falls on the one who denies this possibility and not on the rationalist.
4. Even according to physics, there are objects that have no size, not because it is 0, but because it does not have this dimension at all, for example, the photon.
5. There is no shortage of Platonic philosophers and scientists who, through philosophical considerations, have come to believe in the existence of entities such as the number 7, Fermat's theorem, or the shape of a cat in the world of non-space-time ideas – among them are avowed atheists. The debate between them and the Aristotles in general is not about any problem with the concept of 'non-space-time reality', precisely because of this reason – which is a weak "problem".
6. We have no experience of many things and yet we assume that they exist. For example, we have never had any experience of any psychological entity beyond your own self (problem of other minds). Would you conclude from this that the only self that exists in the world is you?
7. The claim that experience teaches that all entities we know are subject to space is not at all true. For example, 1. The self (as defined by Descartes as the thinking entity as opposed to the expanding entity). 2. Emotions. 3. Senses “color” “smell”. For example, what is the size of the color green?
[Of course, all of this is according to the dualistic and certainly idealistic interpretation, but even those who advocate materialism cannot conclude from this that all realities in the world are subject to matter and space and the burden of vision on it (2,3) certainly when human understanding accepts these concepts easily and lightly].
8. If we always insist on the known, we will never be able to discover unknown phenomena. As a problem of the philosophy of science.

Subjection to time:
The main question claims that there cannot be a reality without time, either from experience or from the fact that a reality without time is a stuck and frozen reality, unchanging, etc.
In addition, the Big Bang theory claims that the entire world was created, and so was the time in it.
The problems:
Regarding the part from experience, see the previous section.
Regarding the part about explosions and changes:
1. It must be defined in advance what is meant by the fact that God does not belong to the concepts of time (is the sentence “God did so and so in the year 1437” an illegal sentence? )
2. Even assuming that a reality without time is a frozen reality that cannot change, there is no difficulty with theistic concepts that no change occurs in God and that He has no “before” and “after.”
However, God can be the cause of existence. In a relationship of dependence / a relationship of cause and effect. Sometimes such a relationship indeed operates under the reality of time (as if it were not for the father's activity, the son would not have been born), but sometimes it also operates without it (as if it were not for the necessary being, there would be no contingent world). An idea of something can be thought of as a picture in which a chandelier hangs from the ceiling in a frame where time is "stuck". The dependence between the chandelier and the ceiling still exists and yet does not require time.
The same idea can also exist in the case of the Big Bang, although there is a reason for the Big Bang. The reason is not required to be within the boundaries of time.
3. The equation that the complex assumes (time = change) is nonsense. There is no identity between these two. Time is some abstract axis, as opposed to change being a process that things go through.
But what? Time is the axis on the basis of which we describe changes (and not that time is the change). Hence, in a world in which there is no time, there is no reason to assume that there will not be changes in it. What is more, the inhabitants of such a world will simply describe the changes differently (they will not use time terms). One can think of a being who is not endowed with a perception of time or space. From his point of view, would the world not exist? It would exist but would be described in a different system of concepts.
It is possible that even in a reality without time, we would describe reality in temporal terms. As a use of language. For example, I can describe in English what happened before the English language was invented.
4. If this is the case, the question arises: what is the difference between time that stopped at 8:00 PM, for example, and a reality with no time at all? Rather, we seem to understand the idea that for time t (as an independent variable) there is only a *single* state of affairs that occurs (see column 33). On the other hand, in a place where there is no time at all, it is not true that there is only one state of affairs that occurs, but rather we do not attribute and link the attribute and parameter ‘time’ to the ’state of affairs’ in this reality.

A few examples of this idea – that in stuck time there is time. But the length of the time axis is 0. When there is no time it is not stuck but it is not a relevant parameter at all:
A. The length of a point is not 0. A point has no length at all because length indicates a property of lines and not of points.
B. The claim that ”the good measure” is “triangular” is not a false claim but rather meaningless. The reason for this is that the shape of a triangle is not in the semantic field of “the good measure”. It is neither triangular nor not triangular. Triangularity is irrelevant to it. Therefore it does not have a zero degree of triangularity either, but it does not belong to the question of triangularity at all.

Another idea to understand section 4 is that when I say in English that nothing happens, then nothing happens even if I speak Hebrew. When in terms of time nothing happens (and this is the meaning of stuck time) then nothing happens in any sense. But when there is no time then I did not say that nothing happens but that what happens is not described in terms of time.
5. After these introductions, the questioner cannot make a problem based on the assumption that everything must take place within time when there is a possibility that it is not. The onus of proof is on the questioner and not on the one who comes to solve the problem.
6. It is not clear that time is indeed found in reality, for example Kant believed that space and time are only our forms of observation and not things that exist in the objective world per se. By way of analogy, just as a person who thinks with rose-colored glasses will see all of reality in pink, even though in the reality outside of him there is really no pink. Similarly, someone who does not wear glasses cannot see, but that does not mean that there is nothing to see.
In any case, in these perceptions the question is basically moot.

Eliad. Regarding your original and short question.
Of course, God is not an existing entity.
After all, even when we talk about the created world, we say that it was created “from nothing”. That is, God is ”nothing” in this expression.

And in another way, if you and I exist, then of course you cannot say that God exists. God is not like me and you.

Everyone else just uses words like magic, they believe that by using words they create worlds.

Eliad,

You are repeating an incorrect claim that you made earlier, according to which a created world indirectly means that there was a period in which it did not exist. But I have already argued that the concept of creation that you use is not the concept that theists used to use in the current context. For Maimonides, creation is a timeless dependence of a contingent world on God, and not something that happened “before” the beginning of the universe. Maimonides emphasized in his words that time itself is a contingent attribute that accompanies motion and that apart from moving bodies there is no time (hence, there is no time that preceded the universe and in general the use of the term “before” the universe, in the temporal sense, is incorrect).

In any case, the existence of God as the Creator of the world is proven from his perspective regardless of whether the material universe exists infinitely back in time (as Aristotle tended to think) or is limited in time in the past (as modern science and biblical simplifications suggest). To illustrate, think of a train of cars traveling at a constant speed while overcoming friction so that each car transfers this property to the car behind it. Suppose you are watching the cars passing by and have no idea whether there are a finite or infinite number of cars. You can still conclude with certainty that there must be some engine that gives the cars the property that prevents them from immediately slowing to a complete stop, because otherwise there is no possibility that such a contingent property could persist for even a single moment in any of the cars - except for the engine, for which this is a capability that arises from its very nature as an engine. The existence of the universe is similar, and it has no relevance to the question of whether it is a universe that goes back infinitely in time or has a beginning.

You complain: “Also, your explanation still does not explain how there can be a *change* in a dimension without time. For example, in your opinion it is impossible for God to do X, “and then” do Y.” True. In my opinion it is impossible (and it has always been so in the eyes of most classical theistic thinkers who did not hesitate to cite supporting biblical verses). Still, in colloquial language there is no need to avoid formulating “God brought Israel out of Egypt and then brought them into the land”, but the point is only that the causal connection between providence and the world resulted in different results in the timeline than it is for us.

Point
If God doesn't exist, why worship Him at all?
Your words stem from a very exaggerated and illogical negation of positive adjectives (“I exist, and God cannot be like me, so He doesn't exist”)

Point,
I simply understand that creation from nothing does not mean that God is nothing. Rather, He is something that created reality despite nothingness.
If there is an absolute nothingness, then no being can come out of it.

Kaponhagen, then you are thus eliminating free choice from God because changing the will entails a certain change. And erasing parts of providence and the meaning of prayers, unless you create a robot that accepts prayers according to different parameters. Or we change following prayer. And so on for providence. For state X, robot Y will operate.
Also, the physico-theological argument contradicts your words, because if there is an entity that is obligated to do something, then this entity refines a reason for itself.
Anyway, I did not understand the cosmological argument you present, why does every contingent entity refine an explanation? It sounds too philosophical and unnecessary.

You raise beginner's questions with abysmal seriousness as if in a moment you were going to collapse the whole theory. The fact that God is unchangeable is one of the central motifs among theologians in all monotheistic religions. Do you think it never occurred to them that there is a revealed God who also watches over and answers prayers? Immutability has nothing to do with robotics, but again, I will not present the explanations here because this is a basic reading of literature on the subject.

I did not understand how you claim the physio-theological argument contradicts things.

Every actual and positive contingent *property* that does not express a relation but a state in itself requires that the cause that connects it to the entity persist in the act of connection or fusion, otherwise the entity will lose the property. The example I gave dealt with resistance to frictional forces in train cars (but you can think of any other contingent property, given the aforementioned caveats) and it was not intended to explain the cosmological view but to show that the question of whether the universe began in time is irrelevant.

I thought we usually refer to sources… (if it's a big book then at the section/chapter level) then you can refer to sources. 🙂

I don't have time right now to explain the objection to the physico-theological argument.

Why can't we say that objects are endowed with the property of preserving them from the ravages of time..? And I didn't understand what the evidence shows with that, that there is an entity that creates or preserves objects and is its own cause? So why don't you claim that the universe is its own cause with respect to this property.