I showed that the point is on time since the act of creation minimally needs two points one following another. Therefore, the act of creation is temporal.
For the argument I don’t need a period of time. Two points are enough. Two point cannot lay on the same point. Therefore they should exist on different points and one has to come after another.
No – the act of creation actually creates a temporal framework, in the context of the created universe. This framework doesn’t exist prior to our outside of that context.
Yeah… and that argument was pretty thoroughly shot down.
YOU might need energy to create things… but it doesn’t thereby follow that God does.
Yes, the act of creation creates time too if the universe is temporal. What I am arguing is that you need time for the act of creation. This leads to regress. Since you need time for creation time.
With whom?Yeah… and that argument was pretty thoroughly shot down.
How do you know? Do you have an argument that proves that God doesn’t need that?YOU might need energy to create things… but it doesn’t thereby follow that God does.
I did. I invite you to read my posts.
Except that you don’t need time for creation. Your “one point, two point” argument doesn’t hold up, since there isn’t physical extension outside the universe, so there aren’t points (either physical or temporal). The argument fails, because it invalidly extrapolates features inside the universe as if they existed outside the universe.
The teaching of the Church is that God created ex nihilo. Literally “from nothing.” There was no prior material (or energy) from whence He created the universe. He willed it into existence… and it was created!
So it is clear to me that you didn’t understand my argument.
Two points are needed to make causation meaningful. Cause and effect cannot exist at the same point, the creation cannot exist and exist not at the same point.
I am afraid that that doesn’t cut in the philosophy forum.
Can the universe exist and exist not at a point? That is what you are suggesting. Of course I cannot imagine this since it is logically impossible.
What does that mean. Can a universe exist and not exist at the same time? No, but what has that got to do with anything.
No it’s not what i am suggesting. We are saying that the first cause is necessarily a timeless or non-temporal act. You are asserting that this is impossible because you cannot imagine a non-temporal cause. That is not a rebuttal.
It is related to non-temporal act. Cause and effect cannot lay at the same point. The universe shouldn’t exist if it is supposed to be created. That is one state of affair. The universe is caused and comes to existence. That is another state of affair. You are suggesting that the act of creation is not temporal. This means that these two states of affair must lay at the same point which means that the universe exists and exists not at the same point.
A temporal cause cannot lay at the same temporal point as a temporal effect. But you cannot apply that limitation to a non-physical non-temporal cause that does not have an extension in space-time regardless of whether that argument is true or not. It is meaningless to say that there is a contradiction because temporal limitations do not apply. You keep creating the same fallacy and expecting everybody to agree.
I think I am done here. I cannot help it anymore.
and then, two sentences later:
Which is it? If you need energy to create something, then you aren’t showing something coming from nothing, you are showing something coming from something. The net energy being zero, or not changing, is not the same as nothingness. The fact that you have two energies to offset shows there is something. The fact that there is energy to not change shows that there is something. Hawking’s ‘proof’ is embarrassingly weak, and the only thing interesting about it is how an otherwise intelligent man could come up with something so laughable.
Nope. A “coming into being” change doesn’t need “two points.”
You can see that you’re extrapolating invalidly, right?
Yep. When you can no longer find a toehold to even claim that your argument is remotely plausible, then it looks like it’s over.