Can God Create a Universe that has an infinite past?

[empther]

Could God create an infinitely long film reel?

No.

God could not create an infinite anything.

This is no restriction on his power. An infinite measurable thing is a self-contradiction and impossible.

 

[Baelor]

You assert that what I am saying is meaningless. But if there is no time before time, it is meaningless to say that something pre-dates it.

Not so, because you are constraining yourself by your own definitions and diction. If time at some point did not exist, then speak of an event pre- or post-time is intelligible because we know that time is finite. God can exist prior to time because God has always existed and time has not. This is perfectly understandable.

You are talking about qualities or natures emerging within the framework of space-time and energy.

No, not necessarily. Causality exists independent of space or time.

It is not a property of God. God is absolute. God does not change from one state into another potential state. God is timeless.

That is not the definition of timeless.

It has been adequately defined. You simply don’t like the definition.

My feeble brain is incapable of finding the definition. Please repost it for those of us who are of modest intellect.

There is no time before time.

There is causality, and the fact that time exists now means that we are capable of referencing events before the existence of time because the existence of time began at a discrete point. We simply are incapable of knowing anything about said events.

Please stop repeating the same thing; it does not make it more true.

However, there is no point in time where time does not exist, and there is no before time where time is absent and then begins to exist. Before and after is a temporal concept. God is not a temporal being.

But He is a causal being; He must be if He is a Creator, which you are saying that he is. Again, the fact that time exists now means that we can speak of events before time (with no knowledge of them whatsoever) because we are capable of referencing a period before time. We simply have no way of placing events temporally that happened before the creation of time.

Timelessness is not a physical state.

Indeed.

I don’t understand what you are talking about here. What is discrete time?

By discrete time, I mean discrete time.

Also, God does not change, and thus there is no temporal division in God’s creative act.

Not true – God’s creative act, as defined in your first post, exists in the physical universe. Yet, simultaneity is clearly not at play here. Thus, in some sense, God’s creative act as it extends to His creation does have a temporal character, since His creation passes through time.

I never said that there is no change in the Universe. I said that there is no change in God because he is not physical. God being non-physical means that he transcends all space-time, since God is neither confined or defined by physical qualities.

And yet, His creation is.

From Gods perspective, the universe does not change because God is not limited to the dimensions of space-time and thus his being is not limited to any distinct point in space-time.

Sure.

His timeless being is eternally present to all space-time, and there was never a time when he was not. However, the universe changes for us because we are in space-time.

No. That does not follow at all. If God transcends time and space, then it opens up the possibility that at some point those concepts did not exist at some point in time because there are dependent on God for its existence and He is not at all dependent on them.

Perhaps you should lay out your definitions, premises, and conclusions in a clearer format, taking a step back, and a more productive discussion could occur.

 

[ReapReason]

Not so, because you are constraining yourself by your own definitions and diction.

And you seem to enjoy making up definitions to suit yourself.

If time at some point did not exist, then speak of an event pre- or post-time is intelligible because we know that time is finite.

There is no time when time did not exist. What you are saying is meaningless. Its like saying there is a place outside of space.

God can exist prior to time because God has always existed and time has not. This is perfectly understandable.

God exists simultaneously with time; He does not exist before it since he is not a state or an event given that he is not physical. There is no before or after time, since these are temporal terms. Framing Gods creative act in terms that apply only to physical things is what makes your words sound like nonsense; and repeating it isn’t going to make your argument sound any more rational or true.

That is not the definition of timeless.

What you have said here does not fulfil the definition of a rebuttal. That is an Assertion.

My feeble brain is incapable of finding the definition.

It is not my fault that you have this difficulty. I have given the definitions and you have rejected them for no reason other than that you think it damages the case for your understanding of God.

But He is a causal being;

I never said he was not a causal being. But he is not a cause in the same respect as a physical object. Yet you keep treating God like one with talk of events before time.

By discrete time, I mean discrete time.

Thanks for showing everybody that it is in fact you that is failing to give a reasonable definition of the words you use and how they apply to the debate at hand.

Not true – God’s creative act, as defined in your first post, exists in the physical universe.

Can you give me a quote? That is not my argument.

No. That does not follow at all. If God transcends time and space, then it opens up the possibility that at some point those concepts did not exist at some point in time

Explain how. Asserting it does not make it true.

The universe does not have to have a beginning in-order to be contingent upon Gods being. Neither does there have to be an event or a time before time in order for God to be a creative cause; which I have explained in previous posts.

Perhaps you should lay out your definitions, premises, and conclusions in a clearer format, taking a step back, and a more productive discussion could occur.

I doubt a productive discussion can happen with you, since you merely assert that other peoples definitions are false, and make wild speculations about a time before time and make degrading claims about peoples education level, while failing to show that your arguments are of a higher academic value. Comments about me not quoting sources only goes further to show that you really don’t know how philosophical debates work. I only continue this discussion because I find your arguments amusing as much as being meaningless at the same time.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Yes, but I don’t think that’s what you’re looking for.
God creates beings that will live for an infinitely long life (humans, angels).
But those are “relatively infinite” things – they are infinite in the future.

Then how about he just plays the film reel in reverse?

 

[reggieM]

Then how about he just plays the film reel in reverse?

I think that’s the same thing because you have to start playing the film. Once that happens, it’s not infinite in the past but only in the future.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I think that’s the same thing because you have to start playing the film. Once that happens, it’s not infinite in the past but only in the future.

But there are two competing timelines here: God’s time and film-reel time. Sure, God could mark the beginning of the film from the moment he pushes play, but does that necessarily imply that the timeline inside the film reel has a beginning?

 

[empther]

Sure, God could mark the beginning of the film from the moment he pushes play, but does that necessarily imply that the timeline inside the film reel has a beginning?

Yes,

 

[Baelor]

There is no time when time did not exist. What you are saying is meaningless. Its like saying there is a place outside of space.

No, it is quite different. Because I am not saying that there is a place outside of space. I am saying that if time began to exist at some point, and the fact that it began to exist means that time is able to be used as a measurement, then the age of time is theoretically able to be discerned, which in turn means that we know when time began. The conception of “before time” simply means the state of nonexistence of time. I am not saying that there was time before time, nor does not my statement in any way require that assumption. It merely refers to the state of the universe as nonexistent, a state which necessarily existed in the case of a finite universe.

Note what the existence of time permits us to do: assign intelligibility to the concept of the age of the universe. This is a purely scientific issue; philosophy must subordinate itself to the realm of empirical certainty. Thus, we are able to say meaningfully that the universe was created X billion years ago.

God exists simultaneously with time; He does not exist before it since he is not a state or an event given that he is not physical.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

There is no before or after time, since these are temporal terms.

If time is finite, then there can be “outside of time.” If you prefer that term, fine.

Framing Gods creative act in terms that apply only to physical things is what makes your words sound like nonsense; and repeating it isn’t going to make your argument sound any more rational or true.

God’s creative act is physical. The universe is physical. We are physical. Time is, in a sense, part of the physical world.

It is not my fault that you have this difficulty. I have given the definitions and you have rejected them for no reason other than that you think it damages the case for your understanding of God.

Really? Please post where I stated that.

I never said he was not a causal being. But he is not a cause in the same respect as a physical object. Yet you keep treating God like one with talk of events before time.

No, he is not. And yet, his creative power extends to the creation of the physical.

Explain how. Asserting it does not make it true.

There was God. Then there was the universe.

The universe does not have to have a beginning in-order to be contingent upon Gods being.

Agreed.

Neither does there have to be an event or a time before time in order for God to be a creative cause; which I have explained in previous posts.

Not agreed. Creation necessarily involves one thing occurring causally before the other. If the universe is contingent upon God, that does not make God its creator. Creation involves some entity producing another. Something is also created at a particular point; creation is not continuous or a state of being. If God did not make the universe, he is not its creator. If the universe has always existed, then God did not make the universe. If God did not make the universe, he is not its creator. Ergo, an infinitely old universe precludes the possibility of God’s creating it.

I doubt a productive discussion can happen with you, since you merely assert that other peoples definitions are false,

ReapReason:

And you seem to enjoy making up definitions to suit yourself.

and make wild speculations about a time before time

I did no such thing.

and make degrading claims about peoples education level,

I did no such thing.

Comments about me not quoting sources only goes further to show that you really don’t know how philosophical debates work.

Gerunds take the possessive case. Also, you clearly did not read my post carefully enough. Of course citing sources is not necessary for a philosophical argument, and I never claimed it was.

Generally, if you blatantly reference someone or their line of reasoning, it can help others gain context or read more about the argument. That is all I meant.

 

[ReapReason]

No, it is quite different. Because I am not saying that there is a place outside of space. I am saying that if time began to exist at some point, and the fact that it began to exist means that time is able to be used as a measurement, then the age of time is theoretically able to be discerned, which in turn means that we know when time began. The conception of “before time” simply means the state of nonexistence of time.

Before and after is a temporal concept. There was no before time. Therefore there is no before in which time is non-existent and then proceeds into existence. There may very well be an Infinitesimal point, a singularity, from which the space-time continuum extends; you can say that this is the beginning of time and space. But there is no “before” that point.

I am not saying that there was time before time, nor does not my statement in any way require that assumption.

You evidently spoke of “events” before time. There is only one way one can interpret that since you are using temporal language. If you want me to understand something different, then it is up to you to explain.

Note what the existence of time permits us to do: assign intelligibility to the concept of the age of the universe. This is a purely scientific issue; philosophy must subordinate itself to the realm of empirical certainty. Thus, we are able to say meaningfully that the universe was created X billion years ago.

What’s that got to do with the subject of this thread?

This makes no sense whatsoever.

I disagree. Notice that I tend to explain why your posts don’t make sense, rather than simply assert things.

If time is finite, then there can be “outside of time.” If you prefer that term, fine.

First of all that depends on what you mean by outside. Gods nature is fundamentally distinct from physical reality (space-time and energy) and in that sense he transcends it, but he is not in another space and time outside space and time. Secondly, its irrelevant whether or not time has a beginning because God is non-physical and therefore God is not confined by the laws of physical reality.

God’s creative act is physical.

Wrong. Gods created “effect” is physical.

 

[ReapReason]

Not agreed. Creation necessarily involves one thing occurring causally before the other.

False. Physical beings, in terms of causality, involves one thing spatially and temporally coming before the other. God is non-physical; therefore Gods existence and his creative act is simultaneous with the existence of the entire universe. No time transpires between Gods act and the beginning of time; and all of time exists all at once from God’s perspective. There is no experience of time for God, for he is not a physical object.

 

[Ohana]

What a ridiculous thing to say on a philosophy forum

A.K.A., Cutting to the chase.

 

[Baelor]

Before and after is a temporal concept. There was no before time.

There was causality before time.

Therefore there is no before in which time is non-existent and then proceeds into existence.

There is causality.

There may very well be an Infinitesimal point, a singularity, from which the space-time continuum extends; you can say that this is the beginning of time and space. But there is no “before” that point.

Correct.

You evidently spoke of “events” before time. There is only one way one can interpret that since you are using temporal language. If you want me to understand something different, then it is up to you to explain.

I did. I retracted my former statements – which you rightly pointed were erroneous – and replaced them with better terminology, i.e. “periods” of nonexistence.

What’s that got to do with the subject of this thread?

Is theory better than reality? If so, nothing. If not, then everything.

First of all that depends on what you mean by outside. Gods nature is fundamentally distinct from physical reality (space-time and energy) and in that sense he transcends it, but he is not in another space and time outside space and time.

Indeed; he transcends it.

Secondly, its irrelevant whether or not time has a beginning because God is non-physical and therefore God is not confined by the laws of physical reality.

Correct. But God cannot have created something that has always existed, by definition of creation.

Wrong. Gods created “effect” is physical.

Then what is the act?

God is non-physical; therefore Gods existence and his creative act is simultaneous with the existence of the entire universe.

You have not defined “creative act.” Please do so precisely and clearly. And I have already checked through the entire thread, so please do not tell me that it has already been defined.

No time transpires between Gods act and the beginning of time; and all of time exists all at once from God’s perspective. There is no experience of time for God, for he is not a physical object.

Not quite. First, even if that were true, it would not preclude the possibility of God existing alone, and then God and the universe existing. At the same time, there is no reason to believe that time is not intelligible to God – if you believe that the Mass happens every Sunday, then you believe that God is capable of understanding time because the consecration, which occurs by the intercession of the Holy Spirit, occurs at a particular time. So too was Jesus fully human, which means that time certainly was intelligible to God.

 

[ReapReason]

There was causality before time.

No. God is non-physical. I have explained what that entails in contrast to physical things. Gods act and being is simultaneous with time.

i.e. “periods” of nonexistence.

Periods of non-existence? What does that mean when applied to the beginning of time? Its meaningless.

God cannot have created something that has always existed, by definition of creation.

By your definition of creation. You keep treating God like a physical object by applying a physical sense of causality to his Creative act. You assume that there cannot be any other definition of creativity. The definition I will provide at the end of this post.

Then what is the act?

God

You have not defined “creative act.” Please do so precisely and clearly. And I have already checked through the entire thread, so please do not tell me that it has already been defined.

A creative act is the activity of Gods will to create. When you paint something, you are engaging in a creative act. The art you end up with clearly is not the same thing as the creative act; but rather the effect is the Art that we are left with.

It is important to note that when I use the word activity, that I use it analogously when I apply it to God. Firstly Gods creative act is different from physical activity in the important respect that God is the esse of created essences. Physical causes are analogous to Gods creative act, but they differ in the important respect that physical objects received their power to give rise to other things from God; but they are never the esse of any essence or power. The act of existence is not an intrinsic aspect of their nature; they do not produce existence. The causality of physical things is temporal, a medium, and purely functional in nature - moving from one state into another potential state. God does not move into potential states of activity.

Not quite. First, even if that were true, it would not preclude the possibility of God existing alone, and then God and the universe existing.

This is wrong, as that would require God to move from one state of being into another potential state of being; one state where time does not exist into another state where he is bringing time into existence. Since God is not physical, and is pure-actuality (perfect being and act), it is meaningless and impossible to attribute numerous states of being to Gods intrinsic nature. That which perfectly exists cannot take on more existence; for it is existence perfectly.

At the same time, there is no reason to believe that time is not intelligible to God – if you believe that the Mass happens every Sunday, then you believe that God is capable of understanding time because the consecration, which occurs by the intercession of the Holy Spirit, occurs at a particular time. So too was Jesus fully human, which means that time certainly was intelligible to God.

Firstly, Jesus is a theological belief and you cannot logically prove anything that you have said here in regards to Jesus. Such is a matter of faith and history. You cannot use Jesus as an argument to prove your position.

Secondly I am talking about physical experience as we experience it. I was not talking about intelligibility. God knows that time exists; but he does not experience a progression of potential mental states; that would be an imperfection in Gods nature. Again God is not a physical being. God is a perfect non-physical being intrinsically distinct from temporal activity. He does not experience one state where time does not exist, and then another where it does exist.
I don’t know why you have such a hard time understanding that.

The universe has always existed in Gods eternal presence. However that does not change the fact that the entire universe is a collection of states that are contingent upon God in order to be “real”. If God is the esse of all physical essences, then it does not matter whether or not the universe has an infinite past. The universe cannot be **real ** with out God because physical things by themselves have no reality; they produce no reality or power by their own intrinsic nature.

It is in this sense that God is the creator of the universe, because in terms of existence and power no part of the universe is a product of its own making.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

False. Physical beings, in terms of causality, involves one thing spatially and temporally coming before the other. God is non-physical; therefore Gods existence and his creative act is simultaneous with the existence of the entire universe. No time transpires between Gods act and the beginning of time; and all of time exists all at once from God’s perspective. There is no experience of time for God, for he is not a physical object.

Then, necessarily, time is an illusion. There is no such thing as change. Our entire universe is a fixed statue carved instantaneously by God.

 

[ReapReason]

Then, necessarily, time is an illusion. There is no such thing as change. Our entire universe is a fixed statue carved instantaneously by God.

I don’t see why. That which is absolutely non-physical transcends all temporal events. That is why God is simultaneous with the Universe. To speak of a non-physical entity as having a particular position in space-time is meaningless, just like saying there is a place outside of space. That does not mean that change does not exist. It just doesn’t effect beings that are not physical and therefore not subordinate to the laws of physics.

.

 

[Baelor]

No. God is non-physical. I have explained what that entails in contrast to physical things. Gods act and being is simultaneous with time.

God’s act and being cannot be simultaneous with time, since God transcends time and simultaneity is a temporal term.

Periods of non-existence? What does that mean when applied to the beginning of time? Its meaningless.

Not at all. If time is finite, then there are “periods” during which time did not exist.

By your definition of creation.

See below for why my definition of creation is the credible one.

You keep treating God like a physical object by applying a physical sense of causality to his Creative act.

His creation is physical. What has he created that is not physical or has place in the physical universe?

You assume that there cannot be any other definition of creativity.

The entire discussion hinges on the definition of creativity. It should have been explicitly laid out up front. The closest we have come to is as follows: “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 was in the original post. God as Creator has meaning only insofar as people agree on the definition of creator and creation.

From the OED:

1the action or process of bringing something into existence: creation of a coalition government job creation
[count noun] a thing which has been made or invented, especially something showing artistic talent: she treats fictional creations as if they were real people

2 **(the Creation) the creating of the universe, especially when regarded as an act of God**: the big bang was the moment of the Creation, and therefore the work of God
[mass noun] everything created; the universe: our alienation from the rest of Creation

I fail to see why you would label what you are saying is creation as creation. There is little point. Unless you can demonstrate that the meaning you assign to the word was meant by our predecessors when referring to God, then there seems little point in this exercise other than to demonstrate that words are symbols representing concepts.

This is wrong, as that would require God to move from one state of being into another potential state of being; one state where time does not exist into another state where he is bringing time into existence.

God is not defined by His creation. He transcends His creation, i.a. time and space. Changes in the physical universe do not affect the nature of God. His interaction with us in our temporal terms does not affect Him. This makes no sense whatsoever unless you believe that time does not exist at all.

Since God is not physical, and is pure-actuality (perfect being and act), it is meaningless and impossible to attribute numerous states of being to Gods intrinsic nature. That which perfectly exists cannot take on more existence; for it is existence perfectly.

But since he transcends space and time, the fact that the physical universe is finite does not mean that its generation affects God; He was complete and this is independent of the development of His creation, which He transcends absolutely and totally.

Firstly, Jesus is a theological belief and you cannot logically prove anything that you have said here in regards to Jesus.

So? Pick any other example you wish. You have not proven that it is impossible for God to interact with the world in any way, so I see no reason not to consider the consequences of such a potentiality.

Such is a matter of faith and history. You cannot use Jesus as an argument to prove your position.

I am not. I am assuming it and then considering what consequences they would have.

Again, until you establish the impossibility of interaction between God and the world, I am certainly able to bring it up in order to prompt a resolution of that issue.

God knows that time exists; but he does not experience a progression of potential mental states; that would be an imperfection in Gods nature. Again God is not a physical being. God is a perfect non-physical being intrinsically distinct from temporal activity. He does not experience one state where time does not exist, and then another where it does exist.

If he transcends space and time, then the introduction of time and space would not affect his state anyway because he transcends both of them. Apply your own compelling reasoning about “before” and “after” time to your own argument: the existence of space and time does not affect God’s state because neither is necessary for him and he falls outside both of them.

I don’t know why you have such a hard time understanding that.

Because it is internally inconsistent, and very obviously so.

The universe has always existed in Gods eternal presence.

False!

However that does not change the fact that the entire universe is a collection of states that are contingent upon God in order to be “real”.

In what way? How does this contingency manifest itself?

If God is the esse of all physical essences, then it does not matter whether or not the universe has an infinite past.

The question is whether it does. And God cannot have created that which is perpetual; he can only maintain.

The universe cannot be **real ** with out God because physical things by themselves have no reality; they produce no reality or power by their own intrinsic nature.

How does this manifest itself physically?

It is in this sense that God is the creator of the universe, because in terms of existence and power no part of the universe is a product of its own making.

Yet it did not come out from God, since it has always existed. It may rest on God, but this is not creation, this is dependance.

 

[ReapReason]

Where going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I haven’t got the energy to explain it any further.

 

[ReapReason]

God’s act and being cannot be simultaneous with time, since God transcends time and simultaneity is a temporal term.

Simultaneity is being used analogously in so far as i apply it to God. Simultaneity is something happening at the same time. Ontologically speaking, the entire universe, all time and space, is with God in his eternity. I use simultaneity analogously in order to help you understand that fact. The Following proves my point.

1. There is no time before time.
2. God is timeless/non-physical, and so it is meaningless to speak of him as being in a state of change.
3. God can not have potential mental states or experience change as humans do.
4. God’s being does not change or evolve with the universe
5. Given these obvious facts you cannot say that Gods being is confined to any particular moment in the universe.
6. Therefore he is timelessly (without change) present to all moments that have ever and will ever occur in the universe.
7. Because God is timeless, this is also true of Gods creative act.

Conclusion. Your wrong. I’m right.

I am sure you will deny this argument; but this is my position, and I don’t think your arguments have successfully refuted them.

Good debate. Goodbye.

 

[Baelor]

Simultaneity is being used analogously in so far as i apply it to God. Simultaneity is something happening at the same time.

It is then contingent, not simultaneous. Because God transcends time, and temporal adjectives cannot appropriately be applied to his existence.

Ontologically speaking, the entire universe, all time and space, is with God in his eternity.

This is the desired conclusion, yes.

1. There is no time before time.

Correct.

1. God is timeless/non-physical, and so it is meaningless to speak of him as being in a state of change.

Correct. It is meaningless to speak of God changing.

1. God can not have potential mental states or experience change as humans do.

Correct, from 2).

1. God’s being does not change or evolve with the universe

Correct, from 2).

1. Given these obvious facts you cannot say that Gods being is confined to any particular moment in the universe.

Correct, from 2).

1. Therefore he is timelessly (without change) present to all moments that have ever and will ever occur in the universe.

Correct, from 2).

1. Because God is timeless, this is also true of Gods creative act.

Correct, in the sense that God’s creative act has no temporal dimension.

This does not establish that the universe is eternal, nor does it address the issue of the definition of God as Creator.

 

[johnnyjones]

He can do whatever He wants, even if it “violates” the laws of nature.