Can God Create a Universe that has an infinite past?

[rossum]

Where do I speak of an apparent past? Please quote this, and quote it in context.

If the universe has an infinite past, then there can be no “before” the universe. If there is no “before” then we cannot have causation, since causation requires the cause to be present before the effect. In this context, creation is causation: the Creator is the cause and creation is the effect.

Given that if God does “Create” (your word) such a universe, then such a universe must have had a beginning, in a reversal of the usual direction of the Kalaam argument.

If the universe had a beginning, then any infinite past must be apparent, rather than real. QED.

rossum

 

[ReapReason]

No one is saying this.

Really. I could have swore somebody said it. Do you want me to quote it?

What does this mean?

Sorry. I intended to mean the “act of creating”, rather than creation itself.

What does this mean? At what time in the history of the universe did time get introduced? Or do you deny its existence even now?

If time has a beginning, it is not something that can be measured temporally. But perhaps it can be measured spatially as proceeding from a infinitely dense point.

This is impossible. Either time has always existed, in which case the universe is not infinite, or time has not always existed.

If there is an infinite regress, then it follows that there infinite regression of distinct events.

 

[ReapReason]

If the universe has an infinite past, then there can be no “before” the universe. If there is no “before” then we cannot have causation, since causation requires the cause to be present before the effect. In this context, creation is causation: the Creator is the cause and creation is the effect.

Given that if God does “Create” (your word) such a universe, then such a universe must have had a beginning, in a reversal of the usual direction of the Kalaam argument.

rossum

I see that you decided to drop that nonsense about Thursdays, and instead decided to make an argument concerning temporal restrictions. The problem is, these so-called restrictions only apply to beings that are physical and require potentiality in-order to be a cause to something. Of course, If God exists outside time, and is non-physical, then his being exists simultaneously with the universe and not before it since he is not in space and thus cannot be defined by it; and also his causality would have to be a timeless act and his will would have to be an absolute and unchanging expression of his perfect intelligence and perfectly good nature. That which is perfectly intelligent does not need to ponder over time about what is good to do; and therefore temporality is not necessary for such a being since his will timelessly expresses his perfect intellect and good nature.

 

[empther]

It amazes me that this issue is raised again. It’s been discussed before.

Every turn of the hour hand on a clock happened a finite time ago. It’s the same with the universe. Every event happened a finite time ago. There cannot have been an infinite past.

This idea is so simple, a person with below average intelligence should be able to understand it.
And yet, the A-team will forever come up with their convoluted (il)logic to argue the impossible.

 

[rossum]

I see that you decided to drop that nonsense about Thursdays, and instead decided to make an argument concerning temporal restrictions.

I used Last Thursdayism as an illustration of the concept of an apparent past. I assumed that you would be familiar with the concept.

The problem is, these so-called restrictions only apply to beings that are physical and require potentiality in-order to be a cause to something.

So, are you saying that God has no potentiality, that He is powerless?

Of course, If God exists outside time,

Then He cannot act inside time. He is present inside time as well as outside time. How can a God outside time act within time if He is not also inside time as well?

and also his causality would have to be a timeless act

This gives me big problems. A timeless act is independent of time, and the God shown in Genesis is not independent of time. A timeless God would make Genesis read rather differently: “On the first day God said, ‘Let there be light’ and on the second day God said, ‘Let there be light’ and on the third day God said, ‘Let there be light’ and on the forth day God said, ‘Let there be light’ and on the fifth day …”

rossum

 

[Catholic4Christ]

And an assertion does not amount to a rebuttal merely because it is uttered.

Calm down, I was just providing the quote associated with BCRaven05’s post. I wasn’t expressing any argumentative opinion.

 

[fred_conty]

I think God can. But only if we stop considering creation in temporal terms.
If we understand Gods creative act to be outside of time, and also that God is the very act of reality in which and through which physical essences have their being, then it would not matter if the universe has an infinite regress, since God is the reality by which all physical events are sustained in being, and therefore all physical events have an existential beginning. All potential events would be contingent upon Gods act of reality in order to exist and remain real because they have no intrinsic reality of their own. This is a form of creation. This of course would require people to understand that there is a objective distinction between the act of reality and the essence of any potential nature.

Time is a measurement. What does it measure? Change in things.

Since there is no change in God, because he is only one complete act, his act cannot be measured by time, and therefore God does not require time. That is another way of saying he is beyond needing time and is outside of time. Therefore if God is outside of time, without ever changing, he is eternally the same in one complete act.

But time has a past, which God necessarily does not have, since he is only one existent act eternally, he could not create a universe that has a past to him or coinciding with him, infinite or not.

On the other hand, if one were to say that God is always in the present, that too is not a possibility since there is no present without time. And since God is beyond time, he does not have a present, but only one existent act eternally. Therefore since he has no present, he could not create in the past, infinite or not, since past only has meaning in relation to the present.

Just a thought.

 

[ReapReason]

I used Last Thursdayism as an illustration of the concept of an apparent past. I assumed that you would be familiar with the concept.

Why? I fail to see its relevance in this debate, yet you assumed otherwise and failed to give reason for why you thought I was speaking of such things. Lets hear no more of it.

So, are you saying that God has no potentiality, that He is powerless?

Firstly the potential to do something, and moving potentially from one state to the next, is not necessarily the same thing. Secondly you assume that power can only be a measure of temporality. Yet there is nothing to say that one cannot speak of something’s power after the fact of discovering its effect without assuming that there was an event when that power was not active.

Then He cannot act inside time. He is present inside time as well as outside time. How can a God outside time act within time if He is not also inside time as well?

A non-physical being is neither inside or outside space in a spatial sense. When I speak of God as being outside I mean simply that God is not space, or is not time. God is distinct from these things and transcends them.

This gives me big problems. A timeless act is independent of time, and the God shown in Genesis is not independent of time. A timeless God would make Genesis read rather differently: “On the first day God said, ‘Let there be light’ and on the second day God said, ‘Let there be light’ and on the third day God said, ‘Let there be light’ and on the forth day God said, ‘Let there be light’ and on the fifth day …”

rossum

This may be a problem for Christians who take a literal approach to the bible. It is not my business nor the business of this thread to defend that position.

 

[ReapReason]

It amazes me that this issue is raised again. It’s been discussed before.

Every turn of the hour hand on a clock happened a finite time ago. It’s the same with the universe. Every event happened a finite time ago. There cannot have been an infinite past.

This idea is so simple, a person with below average intelligence should be able to understand it.
And yet, the A-team will forever come up with their convoluted (il)logic to argue the impossible.

I am not really arguing that an infinite regress is possible. Rather I am trying to argue that even if it were the case that an infinite regress existed, God can still be understood as being the creator of it.

The universe does not have to have a beginning in order to have cause.

 

[Baelor]

Not if God is the act of reality in which and through which the physical essence of the universe has its continuous being.

What does that mean in terms of time? All that matters is your claim that the universe is infinite temporally. That is as much a scientific issue as a philosophical one.

Also note that your perception of God is not actually supported by Catholic teaching, only some Catholic theologian-philosophers.

Really. I could have swore somebody said it. Do you want me to quote it?

Yes please.

If time has a beginning, it is not something that can be measured temporally. But perhaps it can be measured spatially as proceeding from a infinitely dense point.

If time has a beginning, then it can be measured temporally – the point at which time began to exist. It is consequently finite.

If there is an infinite regress, then it follows that there infinite regression of distinct events.

And yet, if the universe is infinite, it is impossible that it succeeds the existence of God. At least, according to the incomplete framework you have set up.

I am not quite sure why you refuse to elaborate your argument. Perhaps because you are increasingly aware that it is self-contradictory?

Of course, If God exists outside time

What does that mean? It is easy to write those words; it is much harder to assign satisfactory meaning to them.

and is non-physical, then his being exists simultaneously with the universe and not before it since he is not in space and thus cannot be defined by it;

Space and time are connected in many ways but not synonymous.

A non-physical being is neither inside or outside space in a spatial sense.

By definitional of physicality, yes. And yet, such entities play a role in each of our lives – we each have souls, inextricably linked to yet at the same time separate from our bodies.

When I speak of God as being outside I mean simply that God is not space, or is not time.

Why should we accept that he is not

This may be a problem for Christians who take a literal approach to the bible. It is not my business nor the business of this thread to defend that position.

You must set your parameters more carefully, then.

I am not really arguing that an infinite regress is possible. Rather I am trying to argue that even if it were the case that an infinite regress existed, God can still be understood as being the creator of it.

Then this is a semantic issue worthy of undergraduate philosophy students and not anyone at a more developed level.

I am not an expert in Hebrew, but for the record, the Latin definition of “creo/creator” is relatively unambiguous.

The universe does not have to have a beginning in order to have cause.

Yes, it does. Whence did the universe come? This is, as noted, a scientific issue. We are past the age of intellectual deliberation; empiricism must be coupled with it.

 

[empther]

I am not really arguing that an infinite regress is possible.

But you did in post 1. This is blatant fence sitting.

Rather I am trying to argue that even if it were the case that an infinite regress existed, God can still be understood as being the creator of it.

If there were an infinite regress than there would be no creator. The universe would be self-existent. But this is impossible.

The universe does not have to have a beginning in order to have cause.

Yes it does. Nothing in the natural order can exist without an Omnipotent Creator.
But the universe did have a beginning, because it is analagous to the clock, as I indicated above. It changes, therefore it’s temporal, therefore it has not existed since an infinite past because time is a measure of change.

 

[Baelor]

If there were an infinite regress than there would be no creator. The universe would be self-existent. But this is impossible.

My understanding is that the OP is forwarding the idea – also forwarded by some Catholic theologians – that “creation” can be defined as the relationship of dependence. For example, a fire produces a flicker on a wall; the flicker is consequently “created” by the fire. Now imagine the fire were infinitely old. I am not saying that it is a good illustration, but that is the idea.

The OP simply asserts this, and then asks whether it follows that the universe can be infinite. Why we should make all the assumptions he makes in the OP is a better question.

 

[Viviphilia]

If the universe has an infinite past, then there can be no “before” the universe. If there is no “before” then we cannot have causation, since causation requires the cause to be present before the effect. In this context, creation is causation: the Creator is the cause and creation is the effect.

Given that if God does “Create” (your word) such a universe, then such a universe must have had a beginning, in a reversal of the usual direction of the Kalaam argument.

If the universe had a beginning, then any infinite past must be apparent, rather than real. QED.

rossum

“Retrocausality is any of several hypothetical phenomena or processes that reverse causality, allowing an effect to occur before its cause.”

 

[Viviphilia]

Also note that your perception of God is not actually supported by Catholic teaching, only some Catholic theologian-philosophers.

… Then this is a semantic issue worthy of undergraduate philosophy students and not anyone at a more developed level.

Hi Baelor,

Sorry, I’m a little confused here. Do you consider the argument on the undergraduate level or the “Catholic theologian-philosopher” level?

My understanding is that the OP is forwarding the idea – also forwarded by some Catholic theologians – that “creation” can be defined as the relationship of dependence. For example, a fire produces a flicker on a wall; the flicker is consequently “created” by the fire. Now imagine the fire were infinitely old. I am not saying that it is a good illustration, but that is the idea.

The OP simply asserts this, and then asks whether it follows that the universe can be infinite. Why we should make all the assumptions he makes in the OP is a better question.

On another thread, if I understand correctly, ReapReason made it clear that she was exploring pro-deistic arguments in order to oppose atheistic arguments. Some have argued naively that the universe has always existed, and thus there is no need for a creator. I can see that in this thread she’s exploring a line of argumentation which could potentially counter that naive infinite universe argument.

I thought it was an interesting approach because I enjoy thought experiments which challenge assumptions about temporality and causality.

 

[Baelor]

Sorry, I’m a little confused here. Do you consider the argument on the undergraduate level or the “Catholic theologian-philosopher” level?

I consider this thread at the undergraduate level; the OP is simply restating what some theologian-philosophers have been saying for hundreds of years with no variation, addition, or any differentiation whatsoever, and also without acknowledging the sources of the argument.

On another thread, if I understand correctly, ReapReason made it clear that she was exploring pro-deistic arguments in order to oppose atheistic arguments. Some have argued naively that the universe has always existed, and thus there is no need for a creator.

There are, of course, several ways to approach this:

1. Contest the claim that the universe has always existed
2. Contest the claim that lack of need implies lack of existence
3. Contest the claim that the universe does not need a creator if by creator we mean “one on whom everything depends.”

I can see that in this thread she’s exploring a line of argumentation which could potentially counter that naive infinite universe argument.

In what way?

 

[ReapReason]

My understanding is that the OP is forwarding the idea – also forwarded by some Catholic theologians – that “creation” can be defined as the relationship of dependence.

Nice conspiracy theory. On the other hand, I could just be expressing what I feel to be logical. That it happens to be what some Catholic has said is irrelevant to this debate.

…and then asks whether it follows that the universe can be infinite.

I don’t think that you have been following this thread properly because you are attributing things to me that I have not said. This is typical of unreasonable people.

Why we should make all the assumptions he makes in the OP is a better question.

Why you don’t stick to the topic of the OP is beyond me. I explained several times that my intentions is not to prove or disprove the existence of an infinite regress in time. My intentions was to show that an infinite regress does not discount the need for a creator or a cause.

 

[ReapReason]

I consider this thread at the undergraduate level; the OP is simply restating what some theologian-philosophers have been saying for hundreds of years with no variation, addition, or any differentiation whatsoever, and also without acknowledging the sources of the argument.

What exactly is your problem? What would it matter if everything I said could be attributed to some past philosopher? This is a debate; not a history of philosophy. Do you want to debate or not?

Or are you more interested in making Ad hominem attacks and straw-men.

 

[Baelor]

I don’t think that you have been following this thread properly because you are attributing things to me that I have not said. This is typical of unreasonable people.

Title of thread: “Can God Create a Universe that has an infinite past?”

I do not think I am attributing anything falsely.

My intentions was to show that an infinite regress does not discount the need for a creator or a cause.

Your definitions of “creator” and “cause” must be accepted before the discussion of infinite regress is even able to begin. They have not, and you have not explained why they ought to be.

Let me help: Infinite regress of the universe is incompatible with the idea of God preexisting the universe. Discuss the viability of this claim.

The reason that the temporal predating is relevant is that the term “creation” involves fabrication; something that does not exist cannot create. Furthermore, it cannot create something that existed before it or that has existed simultaneously with it, because these things, of course, cannot have been fabricated by it. If you are interested in altering the definition of “creation” and “creator,” then that is fine, but this then becomes an issue of settling upon those definitions and not about whether God’s potentiality extends to infinite temporal regression.

 

[ReapReason]

Title of thread: “Can God Create a Universe that has an infinite past?”.

I do not think I am attributing anything falsely.

Lets not play games. You said that i ask whether it follows that the universe can be infinite; but i did not say any such thing, nor do I conclude as an arguement that the universe is infinite. You can make all the straw-men you like if you are just reading the title of the thread and ignoring the content of my Posts.

…and then asks whether it follows that the universe can be infinite.

 

[empther]

Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
If there were an infinite regress than there would be no creator. The universe would be self-existent. But this is impossible.

My understanding is that the OP is forwarding the idea – also forwarded by some Catholic theologians – that “creation” can be defined as the relationship of dependence. For example, a fire produces a flicker on a wall; the flicker is consequently “created” by the fire. Now imagine the fire were infinitely old. I am not saying that it is a good illustration, but that is the idea.

You can say the flicker was created by the fire, but the fire was not created.

God cannot be compared to this “infinitely old fire”. The fire must cause a flicker on the wall. God doesn’t have to do anything.

Furthermore, if the fire has existed from an infinite past, it must necessarily exist and would not be created, but fire changes in time and could not exist necessarily.

We could go on along this line, but I think you can see this relationship idea doesn’t explain the universe.