CCC 32 What does it mean?

[AlbMagno]

If there is no space, can there be a point?

 

[STT]

By that reasoning, you could say “ok… here’s one point in which the universe doesn’t exist and only God exists. And, here’s another. Voila! TEMPORALITY!”

Yes, you got that. I am wondering why you deny it.

No. It doesn’t work that way.

It works. You are free to deny it.

Yep. Pretty predictable next step. See what I mean?

And my answer is: No . There’s no “point” there. There is God’s existence, but that’s all.

If everything is unchanging at eternity then we are talking about one point.

Then definitely we don’t have a point, since you’re talking about something that exists in a physical plane! There was no physical universe, so there’s no “point”.

No. A point can exist at its own. In fact, eternity is one point.

Temporal priority speaks to a temporal sequence. This morning I got up, I made coffee, I sat down at the computer. I can say that coffee was “after” waking up, and and “before” computer work.

Metaphysical priority speaks to grounding , not temporal sequence . So, God is metaphysically prior to the universe, even though there’s no temporal framework which encompasses them both such that we could directly compare the two as if they were “points” in a shared space/time context.

That doesn’t make any sense.

 

[STT]

It’s a contradiction for something to come from absolutely nothing by itself. It is evident in the fact that we are talking about nothing, and since it is nothing it cannot bring itself into reality by a power that it fundamentally lacks in the first-place.

That is not a proof.

 

[STT]

This is an assumption. You are assuming that a thing cannot be a cause without being subject to time. But we do not have to prove that it can, since existence is fundamental to any possibility and nothing is the complete absence of such. The word nothing is meaningless except in reference to what could possibly be and is not, and more importantly something is making things possible. Possibilities have no meaning at all if there is absolutely nothing since there is certainly nothing to make anything possible because it is nothing at all. Therefore it must be possible for the uncaused cause to cause time, since the alternative is ontologically impossible and meaningless

You need to find a hole in my argument first because I at least have a proof for my claim which you don’t.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, you got that. I am wondering why you deny it.

Because you’re imposing a temporal framework where one does not exist. That’s an invalid approach.

It works. You are free to deny it.

No: it is an invention of your own mind. You’re free to assert it… but that doesn’t mean it’s true.

If everything is unchanging at eternity then we are talking about one point.

Good insight! So, within the context of eternity, the universe exists as if it were an unchanging entity! The notion of “change” is only relevant inside the context of the universe, and in that context, there is a temporal framework. You don’t realize it, I suspect… but you get it!

No. A point can exist at its own. In fact, eternity is one point.

No. A point has the characteristic of spatial location, which implies a spatial framework. That isn’t descriptive of the context here.

That doesn’t make any sense.

Not quite sure how to help you out, then. Of course, if you’re convinced that God and the universe share a temporal framework, then I’d understand why an explanation of why this is not so, would be confusing for you.

 

[Gorgias]

You need to find a hole in my argument first because I at least have a proof for my claim which you don’t.

He did. God is not subject to time, as you assert. In fact, He is the cause of time (He created the universe, which is where ‘time’ exists).

 

[IWantGod]

You need to find a hole in my argument first

You’re the one making the controversial claims, it’s your responsibility to prove that they are rational claims to begin with. They are obviously not.

Once you remove possibility from absolutely nothing your argument becomes meaningless and the alternative is necessarily true. Existence ontologically precedes possibility; this is to say that you cannot have true possibilities without existence.

 

[IWantGod]

That is not a proof.

Yes it is. If you demonstrate a metaphysical contradiction in a claim like yours, the alternative is necessarily true.

 

[Tom7]

Agreed to the infinite

 

[STT]

Because you’re imposing a temporal framework where one does not exist. That’s an invalid approach.

No. I am proving that time is needed for the act of creation. There are two states of affair: only God (the creation ex nihilo means that there is a point that only God exists) and God plus the creation. One state of affair comes after another. This is a temporal process.

No: it is an invention of your own mind. You’re free to assert it… but that doesn’t mean it’s true.

That is an argument. You need to invalidate it. Of course, all arguments are inventions.

Good insight! So, within the context of eternity, the universe exists as if it were an unchanging entity! The notion of “change” is only relevant inside the context of the universe, and in that context, there is a temporal framework. You don’t realize it, I suspect… but you get it!

Yes. But an agent inside a point cannot possibly cause anything. There are two states of affair in any causation one comes after another one. This is a temporal process. You cannot possibly make it at one point.

No. A point has the characteristic of spatial location, which implies a spatial framework. That isn’t descriptive of the context here.

No. Things are made of points. You need points to define spatiality.

 

[IWantGod]

There are two states of affair: only God (the creation ex nihilo means that there is a point that only God exists)

Gorgias is right, you are imposing a temporal framwork where one is meaningless. There is not a point where only God exists. Such a concept is meaningless for a timeless entity.

 

[STT]

He did. God is not subject to time, as you assert. In fact, He is the cause of time (He created the universe, which is where ‘time’ exists).

You need time for creation of time which this leads to regress. Two states of affair are involved in this process, creation of time: no time and then time. This is a temporal process.

 

[IWantGod]

You need time for creation of time which this leads to regress.

No you don’t. You need a timeless act of creation from which time proceeds. You have yet to show a good reason why that cannot be the case. And it’s irrelevant anyway since time cannot proceed from nothing, so something must have timelessly created it whether you understand it or not.

 

[STT]

You’re the one making the controversial claims, it’s your responsibility to prove that they are rational claims to begin with. They are obviously not.

Once you remove possibility from absolutely nothing your argument becomes meaningless and the alternative is necessarily true. Existence ontologically precedes possibility; this is to say that you cannot have true possibilities without existence.

First, you need to invalidate my argument which shows that the act of creation is a temporal process.

Secondly, it is shown that the process of nothing to something is possible. This is suggested by Hawking: The negative gravitational energy can cancel out the positive energy required for creation of particles. Therefore, the net energy is absolute zero. Simply, you need energy for the creation of things. The process of nothing to something is possible since the net energy for this process is zero.

 

[STT]

Yes it is. If you demonstrate a metaphysical contradiction in a claim like yours, the alternative is necessarily true

No, I am demonstrating that any causal act requires time. The creation of time is an casual act. This however leads to regress (you need time for creation of time). Regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the act of creation which includes the creation of time is impossible.

 

[STT]

Gorgias is right, you are imposing a temporal framwork where one is meaningless. There is not a point where only God exists. Such a concept is meaningless for a timeless entity.

How do you define ex nihilo?

 

[IWantGod]

How do you define ex nihilo?

A timeless being or cause does not precede or proceed anything precisely because it’s timeless. You are imposing limitations that our meaningless when applied to something that does not exist within a temporal framework.

 

[STT]

No you don’t. You need a timeless act of creation from which time proceeds. You have yet to show a good reason why that cannot be the case. And it’s irrelevant anyway since time cannot proceed from nothing, so something must have timelessly created it whether you understand it or not.

Did you read my argument after?

 

[IWantGod]

Did you read my argument after?

Yes, but there’s really no need. A comprehension problem cannot be resolved with logical arguments.

 

[STT]

A timeless being or cause does not proceed anything precisely because it’s timeless. You are imposing limitations that our meaningless when applied to something that does not exist within a temporal framework.

That is not the definition ex nihilo.