Creator no, sustainer yes

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

STT

Guest
We know that things change. Anything which is subject to change is contingent (this is argued in An argument for mind). Therefore, there is at least one sustainer.

Time is needed for any change. The creation is a change of something from nothing. Time is an element of creation. This leads to regress (since you need time for the creation of time). Therefore, there is no creator.
 
Did I miss the part where you tried to hypothesize that God changes?

Because He doesn’t.

He is.

Yesterday, today, and tomorrow – He is. And He is the same; He does not change.

PS you don’t need time to exist ‘before’ time is created. I understand that from within time we’d tend to try to conceptualize it that way, but there is indeed a creator of time who is outside time.
 
Last edited:
MNathaniel said:
Did I miss the part where you tried to hypothesize that God changes?

Because He doesn’t.

He is.

Yesterday, today, and tomorrow – He is. And He is the same; He does not change.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that the sustainer is changing. That leads to regress if you assume otherwise. Moreover, one has to show that there is one only one sustainer to argue in favor of God.
MNathaniel said:
PS you don’t need time to exist ‘before’ time is created. I understand that from within time we’d tend to try to conceptualize it that way, but there is indeed a creator of time who is outside time.
Click to expand...
Was there a point that only God existed? If the answer to the question is yes, then there is a creator but no time. This as I discussed leads to a regress in time which is not acceptable therefore there is no creator. If the answer to the question is no, then there is obviously no creator, creator being an agent that bring something out of nothing.
 
Change is a characteristic of all observable things. It requires no explanation of ‘how it started’. Same with the things themselves.
 
Your argument has a fatal flaw in its presentation. Namely that change requires Time. It is understandable when one does not grasp what Time actually is. Namely that it is but one of the 4 Dimensions of our Universe.
Which was created out of nothing.
So Time was NOT necessary for its creation since Time was created together WITH the Universe.
No regress. And hence there is 1 Creator.

Peace!
 
STT said:
We know that things change
Click to expand...
According to scientists, the universe will stop expanding, everything will come to a grinding halt and therefore time will cease to exist. So no, we don’t know that things will ALWAYS change.
 
JerryZ said:
Your argument has a fatal flaw in its presentation. Namely that change requires Time. It is understandable when one does not grasp what Time actually is. Namely that it is but one of the 4 Dimensions of our Universe.
Which was created out of nothing.
So Time was NOT necessary for its creation since Time was created together WITH the Universe.
No regress. And hence there is 1 Creator.

Peace!
Click to expand...
Time indeed is needed for any change. Consider a change, X to Y. X and Y cannot coexist at the same point sine you could not have change. This means that they are laying on two different points of a variable. There must be a duration that we go from one point on the variable to another one otherwise change does not take place. This variable is called time.
 
Dan_Defender said:
According to scientists, the universe will stop expanding, everything will come to a grinding halt and therefore time will cease to exist. So no, we don’t know that things will ALWAYS change.
Click to expand...
I am talking about the current state of affair. Time even exist in heat death but there would be no change.
 
Wesrock said:
There was no change from only God to God and creation.
Click to expand...
What do you mean? Do you mean that the creation has existed since the beginning of time? If yes, then there is no creator but only a sustainer.
 
STT said:
40.png
FiveLinden:
Change is a characteristic of all observable things. It requires no explanation of ‘how it started’. Same with the things themselves.
Click to expand...
Then you need to read my argument here: An argument for mind .
Click to expand...
Done that. Repeating what I said. No amount of hypothetical philosophising changes (see what I did there?) the fact that everything is constantly changing. There are no unchanging things. You can imagine one just as you can imagine an infinitely thin thing. But that doesn’t mean there is one someplace, or that there could be. Change is what things do. It is part of what makes them things.
 
STT said:
The creation is a change of something from nothing. Time is an element of creation. This leads to regress (since you need time for the creation of time). Therefore, there is no creator.
Click to expand...
Your conclusion fails because you extrapolate invalidly. Time is needed for any change within the temporal frame of reference (that is, within the universe). Once you recognize that your extrapolation is false, it’s clear that your presumed regress falls apart.
 
STT said:
Do you mean that the creation has existed since the beginning of time? If yes, then there is no creator but only a sustainer.
Click to expand...
This comes down to the creation of time. Was time created? Is time part of creation? Is every creation within time?

Creation is ex nihilo, out of nothing. Nothing, not even time, existed “before” Creation. There was nothing, and then there were things that change. We inevitably imagine that change as happening within time, because it is change.

The mystery of Creation is that it is the border between time and eternity. We see it as change, but God sees it in eternity.
 
FiveLinden said:
Done that. Repeating what I said. No amount of hypothetical philosophising changes (see what I did there?) the fact that everything is constantly changing. There are no unchanging things. You can imagine one just as you can imagine an infinitely thin thing. But that doesn’t mean there is one someplace, or that there could be. Change is what things do. It is part of what makes them things.
Click to expand...
There should be at least one unchanging being otherwise we have to deal with a chain of regress which is not acceptable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top