Is God "in" or "out" of time?

There are 3 possible relationships between God and time:

(1) God has always existed outside of time.

(2) God first came into being in time and then moved outside of time.
This option gives rise to other possibilities such as (2a) God existed outside of time, while time was co-eternal with God, and then he chose to enter it or (2b) God enters and leaves time at will periodically.

(3) God exists in time.

(1) and (2) assume what I will call Divine Timelessness. This is the idea that it is possible for a being to be “in time” or “outside of time”. This assumes that being “in” or “out” of time are meaningful concepts. I will argue that these concepts are meaningless which means that option (3) is the only viable explanation for God.

Argument 1
In the book A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking explains that according to the general theory of relativity, space and time are dynamic quantities:

"When a body moves or a force acts, it affects the curvature of space and time - and in turn the structure of space-time affects the way in which bodies move and forces act. Space and time not only affect but also are affected by everything that happens in the universe. Just as we cannot talk about events in the universe without the notions of space and time, so in general relativity it became meaningless to talk about space and time outside the limits of the universe."

This means that space cannot be separated from time. If God is in the universe, then He must also be in space and in time. But some people argue that God is not only outside of time, but also outside of space. This proposition, if it were true, would render God causally inert. In other words, God would be unable to cause anything to happen in the universe. Why is this so? Let me first define time. Time is a measuring system used to identify the sequence of events. We could also say that time is the relative speed of a sequence of events. If God time did not apply to God, then a sequence of events would not apply to God. If God wanted to cause something to happen in the universe, He would have to then participate in the sequence of events and therefore He would by definition be subject to the measuring system of sequences of events that we call "time". If God could withdraw himself into some state in which time did not apply, then He would be completely alone and He could not cause anything to happen in time or space.


Argument 2
Often, the imperfections of our language lead to confusion. We use the words “inside of time” and “outside of time” just like we use the words “thoughts inside our minds.” If thoughts are inside a mind then we could cut open the head and pull the thought outside of the mind. This is not what we mean by the phrase "inside of the mind". We only use these words as a figure of speech to mean, “I am thinking.” The phrase "inside of the mind" is a grammatical remark. Grammatical remarks are sentences that simply have a correct grammatical structure. Confusion occurs when grammatical remarks pretend to be empirical remarks. Empirical remarks are propositions that correspond to reality. We easily recognize that the grammatical remark, "outside of color" is not an empirical remark because that phrase cannot refer to anything in the real world. But we often get confused with phrases such as "outside of time". I argue that this phrase is meaningless as an empirical remark. I have no idea what it could possibly mean.


Conclusion: Since Divine Timelessness is a meaningless concept, we are left with option (3). Therefore, God exists in time. He has a past, a present, and a future.

Addressing possible objections to conclusion:

• A possible response is, "It is a mystery." But this is simply another way of saying, "It doesn't make sense, but I believe it anyway." This explanation does not satisfy. It is more likely that we have simply become confused in our thinking through our language, than to assume that the impossible is possible within some magical universe.

• In the scriptures, it says, "All things are before him." This has been interpreted to mean that even the future is before him. If "all things" means that the past, present, and future are before him, then time must not apply to God. But I believe that this is an incorrect interpretation since I believe that that phrase is meaningless. The phrase “all things are before” is only meaningful if we interpret it to mean that all things are before Him in the present. The past, present, and future are not things that could possibly be “before” Him (meaning “in front of” Him) nor could it be “after” Him, or “adjacent” to Him. Again, the confusion begins when we mistake grammatical remarks for empirical remarks.

• Alma 40:8 say that “all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.” This is perhaps the strongest ammunition that a believer in the LDS tradition has to justify a belief in Divine Timelessness. But does it really mean that time does not apply to God? When interpreting scripture, one must look at the context as well as all other verses to interpret correctly. If one were to interpret this scripture to mean that time does not need to apply to God, then it seems that one must ignore D&C 130:4-5 which says that God’s time is according to the planet which he resides. This verse clearly implies that time applies to God. Either these 2 verses contradict each other or Alma 40:8 does not actually support Divine Timelessness. If they contradict, then the verse in D&C 130 takes precedence since modern revelation is more trustworthy than ancient revelation (as Brigham Young suggested). It would not bother me at all if Alma 40:8 was one of those "mistakes of men." However, I do not believe that discrediting this verse is necessary. I simply believe that it cannot be interpreted to suggest Divine Timelessness. I do not think it would be difficult to create ad hoc explanations of this verse that would make it consistent with D&C 130.