I've rewritten my response to this six times now. I'm going to try to make it as simple and straightforward as I can this time, so I don't forget where I was going in the middle of it.

My point: God must be subject to time if he exists because time is the measurement of existence.

Your point: Time is not the measurement of existence, it is movement. Therefore, God is not subject to time because he does not move.

Correct me if my representation of your point is inaccurate.

Now what this boils down to is the definition of existence and movement (and, thus, time).

Personally, I have always tied existence to movement. If one does not exist, one does not move, and if one does not move, one does not exist. Of course, in this sense, the word "move" is not being used literally, but rather as a synonym for progress (or for subjection to time). If one does not exist, one does not progress, and if one does not progress, one does not exist. If one does not exist, one is not subject to time, and if one is not subject to time, one does not exist.

Subjection to time, movement (progress), and existence, to me, are all, in essence, the same concept. Time by itself, thus, means the measurement of existence. Therefore, (to me), saying God is subject to time is the same as saying he is subject to existence. And he is subject to existence, because existence is an absolute; he cannot transcend it. He cannot not exist and still exist. So is he still all powerful?

But you disagree. To you, movement is not the same as existence, but it is the same as time. So I ask you, how can one exist without moving? How can consciousness exist without moving (is your God conscious?)?

Forgive me if there's some obvious gaping flaw in my idea of existence, movement, and the subjection to time being the same. I'm still trying to grasp that concept completely myself. I've never had to put it into words before and I've never bothered to think about it much—I always regarded it as a truth that didn't require much thought, but I now realize it very much does.

I still think the root to time=movement. Movement=progress. And under the concept of time we measure this progress and call it existence.
If god is perfect then god has no need for personal progress.
But what would existence without movement look like? We can only understand what we've experienced and observed... and utilize abstract thought. We've come across a paradox, but not an impossibility: it seems illogical for god to be subjected to time, yet it seems illogical for time to not exisit.

You haven't answered my questions...

Plus, it doesn't seem like you read the whole thing. I stated that I agree, movement/progress and time are inherently and fundamentally linked. But I also stated that I believe existence is linked to movement as well, thus why I find it difficult to understand how God could exist without moving.

You have stated that God is perfect, therefore he does not need personal progress. But personal progress is irrelevant. We're talking about movement, no? He does not need to grow to move.

And how is it illogical for God to be subject to time?

I thought I did answer your questions... I guess I'll try again, be more specific.

"So I ask you, how can one exist without moving? How can consciousness exist without moving (is your God conscious?)?"
First off, it is possible to move without consciousness. Do you think the plants are fully conscious? Or the ants? Well, we would have to define consciousness (which I would consider to be an awareness above movement; your thoughts are not confined to what you are doing at the moment. You can project them to other areas of interest, or simultaneously).
Secondly, as a Theist/Deist, I will say I don't have some religious text to give me the "answers". Thus, my beliefs are still in progress. What I have come up with, so far, concerning your question, is this paradox I mentioned: "it seems illogical for god to be subjected to time, yet it seems illogical for time to not exist."
Is the true origin of existence.. time (and not dirt/matter or deity)? But then where did that come from? I think the concept that an infinite being making the "finite" is not impossible to imagine. Yet, at the same time, we can't imagine it, because we think god is some white-beared man in the sky. We must also consider the spiritual aspect of this world--not just the physical.

"I've never had to put it into words before and I've never bothered to think about it much—I always regarded it as a truth that didn't require much thought, but I now realize it very much does."
Just curious: what "religion" or "anti-religion" do you associate yourself with?

This brings me back to the paradox I mentioned: "it seems illogical for god to be subjected to time, yet it seems illogical for time to not exisit."
We both find it difficult to imagine existing without moving. That is because WE are subjected to time. So it seems like an impossible thing to answer, but then that sounds like a lame excuse. Do you have any suggestions?

Movement involves progress. It is relevent.

Evil in gods eyes are disobeying him --- so that evil does not exist -- to you.

Evil in the sense of sci-fi -- a big black mass of darkness that turns people evil. -- no that defiantly does not exist.

But the real evil that DOES exist is intact the evil that runs this life more than love which is:

Causing unneeded pain towards innocent people or people who dont deserve it.
Because the real evil in this world is negative actions upon those who we are jealous of therefor think horrid thoughts on how to cause pain because they are lower than them.

^That's evil, understand a bit now ? Good.

But then we must ask: why? Everything has a reason.

And I would argue that love runs this life more than this "evil" you speak of. This "evil" is simply the absence of love.

Exactly

hey now. why did we all stop with the time, movement, existance conversation? i was having a hell of a time with reading all that! Really flexed my mind!!

But yeah, i agree with the last post on it. i believe that time is a creation. And it is a concept that you cannot grasp until you are outside of it, as God is. If you think about it, what is time, exactly? let's play that game. before we start delving into the concept of how time works, lets threshold by defining it...

Time is kind of an illusion. I mean, it's not absolute and is therefore hard to comprehend. Time exists to us because we age, because we progress (movement); but does time exist because we do? I dont think so. I believe existance is possible without time. So basically, the existance of time can only be in place with the ingredients of movement/progress, a cyclic or linear scheme, and a finite existance of things.

a finite existance of things....

you know, in many religions, the afterlife is eternal....eternal bliss, eternal darkness, eternal recycling (reincarnation), etc...

It seems as though the afterlife reeks of infinaty, removing key ingredients of time, thus removing time altogether. Perhaps . . . God lives outside of time!!!!!!

That was a knock it out of the ball park discussion regarding time, movement and existence. Which brings me to some alternative thoughts. Will we really grasp the concept of time in the hereafter, when our journey has finished on this earth? Will our burning desire for more knowledge finally be quenched? If so, will we be given the same knowledge and wisdom that our all knowing creator has? As I can not see our knowledge to be equal to the creator's. Will all learning and thirst for knowledge terminate once we pass on

I really like this point.

Lets define the "universe" as all encompassing. It might be God, or it might not.

Either way, if the "universe" was not infinite then God would not have infinite knowledge. Serious draw-back. So the "universe" is infinite.

If we have volition, God is one of two things. First option. God is not the "universe." Our free will is separate from God, in the Garden we are separate from God. God is not all things, but God is infinite and is inside the "universe."

A simple analogy is an infinite collection of shoes. You can have an infinite number left and and infinite number of right, both, inside of an infinite collection of shoes. But you may have only pair of green shoes in the whole collection, that's us.

Now, lets say you have an infinite number of socks. I hope this is not tedious. They look the same, but you can divide them into left and right pairs, you will have infinite pairs of socks. You could divide the socks again and again and again and again and still you would have infinite socks. The number of times they can be divided into infinite groupings is boundless.

In the real constraints of our physical existence we cannot interact with infinite things, but we can theorize on the content of the "universe." In the "universe" you have a tricky mixture of two things.
A. a finite number of infinite things, in which the universe will end some day
B. a infinite number of finite things, an endless puzzle the universe itself is forever

Under certain limitations of A the universe may not ultimately be destroyed. Christianity contend this finite number of infinite things is ONE, and this limitation will bring endless days.

They contend that "reality" is something inside the "universe" and the "universe" minus "reality" is "God."

I visual this relationship as a black mass, floating freely in a Blue expanse. "Reality" is this bubbling black mass, the blue expanse is "God."

This "reality" is made of finite forms of infinite shapes. In other words, you have a ball of clay but it can be anything. "God" is (a single) finite shape in infinite form. Like a big blue sky without any real form. Now when "God" enters "reality" it can have a shape and a form. But "reality" is really the only thing that can make this happen, God is static.

And now the "universe" is not seen as existing. "God" and "reality" together take the place of the "universe"

God is the only thing going on outside of our "reality" and our reality is not infinite in form. God knows God so his knowledge is infinite. Now, this knowledge contains a shadow of reality, since reality interacts with God along the edges. Scholars are confused in thinking God knows all reality, not true, God knows only the limits of reality, they also believe we are made of God, this is not necessarily true. God loses all human characteristic. But another disturbing idea is which is really doing all the moving and which is staying still, the form inside or the shape outside?

If being boundless is God's thing, this is cannot be known by anything but itself. "God" would not be seen as moving because the edges of infinity do not allow any movement or any imperfections. Infinity be just that.

The only imperfection in "God" is the impeding shape of "reality" in the midst of "God." If you remove reality you are left with "universe." And "God" disappears.

God is not perfect. The "universe" by itself is nothing, and nothing is perfect (a play on words but also the truth>) and anything that exists can infinitely be divided, so is infinite.

If we choose this difficult path of reasoning with the idea of God. There are many things we need to discuss.
Are all things infinite?
Is it possible to have something ALL which is beyond the scope of infinity, which contains all infinities?
Does nothing exist? (difficult to avoid the play on words) I mean does a finite or infinite amount of nothing exist?
Is it possible for reality to be limited in one sense, but not in another sense? (forms v.s. shapes)
Is it possible a perfect all knowing God for reasons we could not possibly deduce decided to become imperfect and self limiting?

damn. this is the reason why i drink haha.
id rather not worry about this stuff. it is what it is and if it isnt it aint.