A
awatkins69
Guest
If time is only applicable within the universe, then there was no moment of time where the universe did not exist. How then did God “create” the universe “ex nihilo”? There was no time where there was nothing.
- Status
J
JohnDamian
Guest
It depends what we mean by time.
If we speak very simply; and refer to time as merely the pattern of objects in motion; we can see that God initiated time by generating physical bodies.
When we say God created the universe “ex nihilo” God insigated a motion or change that then processed to have contrarity to previous states; thus creating time.
If only a cup existed in the universe; time would not exist so long as there was no change on any level for the cup. It would only be that time would exist in a practical sense if there was some alteration of the object.
It would be incorrect to say “time exists” when there is no motion or change; because time is inhered soley within change.
If we speak very simply; and refer to time as merely the pattern of objects in motion; we can see that God initiated time by generating physical bodies.
When we say God created the universe “ex nihilo” God insigated a motion or change that then processed to have contrarity to previous states; thus creating time.
If only a cup existed in the universe; time would not exist so long as there was no change on any level for the cup. It would only be that time would exist in a practical sense if there was some alteration of the object.
It would be incorrect to say “time exists” when there is no motion or change; because time is inhered soley within change.
A
awatkins69
Guest
This is precisely what I mean by time. The problem is, there were no previous states. For there to have been previous states there would have had to have been time. But before the universe existed, there was no change, and thus no time. So there was no time where the universe did not exist, and thus no time where God created the universe ex nihilo.
J
JohnDamian
Guest
There were no previous states only in regard to the objects initiated.
There was clearly a previous state for the state of God; which existed before the objects of the universe were created; but this state exists before time (viz. Motion); but also in a way above and distinct from time; enough so that we can see that some state existed before time; but the manner of that state is immuteable; and does not constitute a motion; thus timeless.
So we clearly have a state that existed before object motion; a state before; and above motion.
A
awatkins69
Guest
Are we saying God existed “ontologically” before? If so, that’s not what I am trying to understand. I’d agree with that.
What I’m trying to understand is the manner in which God created the universe. How is it that God created the universe, when there was no time at which the universe never existed. Has the universe existed eternally? Was Aristotle right? What I’m trying to understand is creation.
What I’m trying to understand is the manner in which God created the universe. How is it that God created the universe, when there was no time at which the universe never existed. Has the universe existed eternally? Was Aristotle right? What I’m trying to understand is creation.
A
Anselm33
Guest
R
reggieM
Guest
It’s a good challenge, but also some insurmountable obstacles.
For example, you’re trying to understand this manner of action …
First, imagine existing in the total present - pure existence, no past or future. That existence is eternal.
It’s a bit hard to imagine because we are “creatures of time”. We belong to time in the universe and can only think in a linear progression from past to future. We never possess the timeless present.
So, how could it be possible for you to understand the moment of Creation? That’s the first question to solve. When you can determine what it’s possible for you to know (and what is impossible) then you can take it to the next step.
Time is a measurement of creation. To say that “there was no time when the universe didn’t exist” is to say that “there was no matter before the universe existed” – so, it’s a truism.
God is not bound by time – nor is He bound by matter. He is not contained by the universe.
There is a big problem in trying to determine “when God created” since in an infinite present there is no before or after.
Also, your question on “how God created” is a problem also if we think in material terms. What method did He use? What materials did He create first? How did they appear in existence?
The angels pre-existed the universe so we’d have similar questions there. How and when did God create the spiritual universe of angelic spirits? When did the fall of Lucifer occur?
How long did the Blessed Trinity live without angels?
A
Anselm33
Guest
Here’s an interesting thought to chew on. According to the special theory of relativity, for something travelling at the speed of light, time does not pass (i.e. time moves slower and slower (relative to a stationary observer) as a particle moves faster and faster)… So a photon does not have past or present time (for us) since it moves at the speed of light…so is God “light”??? …and should we take “I am the light of the world” literally?
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
We cannot imagine the beginning of all change, but change never the less requires a cause.
Firstly, a physical change cannot come before change.
Secondly, that doesn’t mean that there are no other kinds of causes or that because we cannot understand how a cause would function in reference to the beginning of change, that therefore change has no cause, because this is the same as saying that change came from nothing; and out of nothing comes nothing. Therefore there must be different kinds of causes that are not identical in nature to physical causes.
Thirdly , this is a purely linguistic problem, since we often order things in reference to time since we build are concepts upon our time-bound experiences. However, we can also understand that things can be ordered in reference to necessity. For instance a table top needs legs in order to stand, or, another example, you require a brain to think. Neither of these requires time in order to be true. They are facts about what things require in order to function properly in time. Another example would be to say that, in some context, it is a timeless truth that 2 + 2 = 4; one does not require a construction of that truth in time in order for it to be true. Thus there is no reason to think that something cannot be necessarily first in the ontological order without reference to time; and this something would be that which is most fundamental to the existence of reality. When somebody says before, in reference to the creation of time, they mean that there had to be a timeless being through which time has a beginning, because change is the realization of some potential end and a potential end cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. The beginning of time is the realization of some potential end that did not exist. Change is the quantifiable nature that exists between two non identical points. Change in virtue of being finite, quantifiable, and potential cannot be the cause of its self because physical causes are dynamic and there was no change before change; since there was no before. Thus something has to explain the existence of change, and that something is a timeless non-physical being with a perfect mind and will; existing simultaneously to the existence of change.
The fact is, time does necessarily have a beginning since it is finite; even if we cannot comprehend it. The problem occurs that we cannot imagine the universe ever beginning because we are speaking about the beginning of change within the context of change. But we do understand that things have beginnings and cannot come out of nothing. There is a point beyond which there is no change, but its quite simply fallacious to claim that therefore there is no “being” besides that which is changing, since there is nothing that precludes the possibility of a timeless being, and in fact such a being is necessary in order to account for the existence of change.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
The finiteness of the universe doesn’t change the fact that it is eternal in some sense. In fact, the universe has always existed with God. The universe has never not existed in Gods presence, because that which is timeless is forever present to all time. However the universe does have a beginning in the sense that it is contingent upon God for its existence. So Aristotle was correct, but only within a specific context.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Awatkins:
We must understand what ex nihilo means to the church. It means, "God creates something where nothing existed before."
God bless,
jd
T
The_Exodus
Guest
This is an excellent question. There are two things I think you should read over and ponder very carefully: Summa I I Questions 44 - 49 and St. Thomas on The Eternity of the World dhspriory.org/thomas/DeEternitateMundi.htm
The answer to at what “time” did God create the beginning of the universe is a bit misleading. You are trying to imagine a temporal “before” before time itself, which is impossible. You are still thinking of creation as a temporal cause which gives rise to a temporal effect.
Imagine, however, a footprint in the sand. Do not think of how it currently got there, but only that it is, presently, there in the sand. The causal relationship that exists now between the footprint and the sand is a simultaneous one, not a temporal one. The sand is simultaneously sinking because the foot is simultaneously causing it to sink. We see here in this example that there is a certain hierarchy of causality which is independent of time. Another example: suppose you are sitting in a chair. It is true that the relationship between you and the chair is simultaneous, yet there is a causal order. You are sitting because the chair is holding you up. Without the chair, you could not be sitting, though the chair could still be there. The chair, in this example, causes your sitting in a certain way, since, if it were lacking, it would not be possible for you to be sitting in a chair.
Now, the creation of the first moment of time is the same. There is no temporal moment before it. Rather, the effect of time is *simultaneous with *the cause of God giving rise to it. It is true, there is no temporal moment in which time does not exist. Yet there is a “logical” or “causal” moment, since their is an “order of nature” (as some philosophers say) in the relationship between God causing time and time existing.
Hope this helps.
R
reggieM
Guest
How about this?
The thoughts of God flow simultaneously. God can select a thought, but this does not happen before or after anything. God’s decision to create did not happen before or after anything else, although the universe did not always exist in temporal time.
God created the concept of a linear string of events. For us there is a before and after, but for God the beginning of that string is the same time as the end.
… it made more sense when I first started typing it.
T
The_Exodus
Guest
I think when discussing God’s nature, or how he operates in himself in eternity, it is helpful to make a distinction between causal relations in time, and causal relations in nature.
In eternity, it could not be the case that events preceded one another temporally. Yet it could be the case that they are related logically or by nature. As, for example, if a foot was eternally in the sand, there would be an eternal, yet ordered relationship between the foot and the sand.
J
JDaniel
Guest
I view God’s act of creation as one continuous event. It is continuous, in that it proceeds from “a to z” without interruption. It is one, since it is a singular exigency. It is an event since it is non-stop and neither its past or its future compenetrate one another. It is as the Now is for humans.
Time has two parts: a before and, an after. The “now” must be thought of as the exteriority of the end of the past, and, the exteriority of the beginning of the future for time to remain a continuity. Like “place,” which is defined as the innermost surface of a surrounding body, the Now is merely a brief kind of separation between the term of the past and the beginning of the future, but, without breaking the seal, so to speak. As it must be, for a Being of Infinite Magnitude.
I view God as engulfing “time,” just as the exterior darkness engulfs the light of the universe. The Universe, to a Being of infinite magnitude, must be but a Now. It is finite. It is but a grain of salt by comparison.
Could God exist a priori to the Act of Creation? Will He exist a posteriori to the end of the Universe. He has indicated that He did, c.f., the Angels and the Fall of some of them, then the Creation. But, we are to be Eternal, surviving past the End of the life of the Universe. I Pray to be where He is.
(Yes; it did make more sense when I was thinking it through, before writing it!)
God bless,
jd
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
I think there are only 3 possibilities. I tell I lie. There is a fourth possibility, but its too science fiction to mention.Could God exist a priori to the Act of Creation? Will He exist a posteriori to the end of the Universe. He has indicated that He did, c.f., the Angels and the Fall of some of them, then the Creation. But, we are to be Eternal, surviving past the End of the life of the Universe. I Pray to be where He is.
(Yes; it did make more sense when I was thinking it through, before writing it!)
God bless,
jd
- The first is compatible with either a young or old earth creationism. The creation and the fall of the Lucifer happened simultaneously with the creation of the universe. I would say that this is consistent with Aquinas’ view on angels.
- The universe is really 13.7 billion years old, the Bible isn’t a science book, and the creation and the fall of Lucifer happens some time between the beginning of the universe and the creation of the planet earth.
- There was some kind of one-dimensional pre-time, in which angels were created, before the Big-Bang event.
- The creation of the angels and the genesis events instead took place in a parallel universe. After the universe was purged of all life, Noar and his family were sent on a gigantic Starship, called the “Ark”. Assisted by a group of beings called the “Grays”, Noar and his family were taken to another parallel universe (which is our present universe), and were commanded to never speak of this technology ever again.Therefore they covered it all up by writing a different story in which there was a great flood instead. This fourth interpretation is derived from an ancient bolony text, and is rendered according to Pseudo-Scriptures of Saint M.O.M.
R
reggieM
Guest
I like that concept - or mental image.
Maybe for us it’s like trying to capture and hold a moment from the present-tense. We know what “now” is but it’s not really now. The past is fixed and there’s always a fixed concept of the future.
J
JDaniel
Guest
I think there are only 3 possibilities. I tell I lie. There is a fourth possibility, but its too science fiction to mention.
OK. Let’s see:
MoM:
Don’t give them any ideas!
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
Reg:
I did too, when I was originally thinking about it.
The Now is so minute that there’s no way to “hold” on to it. Consider even starting to try to hold it!
Since time is the measure of motion, then, the Universe is, to God, His precipitation of that measuring… And, He allows unworthy us to participate.
I have been thinking quite a bit, lately, about His immensity. An Infinite immensity. No edge in sight. In fact, no edge! We can’t help but think of Him as only slightly larger than us, or, at least than our universe. But, His immensity is beyond conception, how big the difference is.
There could be multiple universes, engulfed by Him. But, this isn’t about puny humans; it’s about our souls! It’s about our participation with Him in His Universe - which is Boundless. It’s boggling to the mind, Reggie.
Isn’t this the way philosophy should be handled and discussed, instead of the continual bickering with the “Fool(s)?” Adding the human dynamic and, possible human expression to viewing God’s Universe.
I can see Him now. Smiling knowingly that "We haven’t seen anything yet!’
God bless,
jd
T
The_Exodus
Guest
Very interesting remarks.I view God’s act of creation as one continuous event. It is continuous, in that it proceeds from “a to z” without interruption. It is one, since it is a singular exigency. It is an event since it is non-stop and neither its past or its future compenetrate one another. It is as the Now is for humans.
Time has two parts: a before and, an after. The “now” must be thought of as the exteriority of the end of the past, and, the exteriority of the beginning of the future for time to remain a continuity. Like “place,” which is defined as the innermost surface of a surrounding body, the Now is merely a brief kind of separation between the term of the past and the beginning of the future, but, without breaking the seal, so to speak. As it must be, for a Being of Infinite Magnitude.
I view God as engulfing “time,” just as the exterior darkness engulfs the light of the universe. The Universe, to a Being of infinite magnitude, must be but a Now. It is finite. It is but a grain of salt by comparison.
Could God exist a priori to the Act of Creation? Will He exist a posteriori to the end of the Universe. He has indicated that He did, c.f., the Angels and the Fall of some of them, then the Creation. But, we are to be Eternal, surviving past the End of the life of the Universe. I Pray to be where He is.
(Yes; it did make more sense when I was thinking it through, before writing it!)
God bless,
jd
I tend to try to imagine some sort of causal relationship, i.e. viewing a line on a piece of paper, and thinking of the paper as God and the line, moving linearly left to right, as time.
- Status