Creator no, sustainer yes

[STT]

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.

You cannot have change in a-temporal framework. Change is only possible in temporal framework in which you need time for it.

 

[STT]

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.

What is eternity?

 

[STT]

If there is no change, there is no time anymore. The definition of time is change.

That is not correct.

 

[Gorgias]

You cannot have change in a-temporal framework.

True – you cannot have temporal priority (i.e., ti followed by ti+1).

However, you can have metaphysical priority – “God the Son proceeds from God the Father” (or, more to the point in this thread: “the universe proceeds from God as Creator”).

The implication is that there is change, but not change that proceeds in a chronological fashion. Therefore, God → God & Universe. The “coming into being” change actually instantiates the temporal framework of the universe. Therefore, no regress (as you’ve claimed), and as a result, no conclusion of “God as Sustainer but not Creator”.

 

[STT]

True – you cannot have temporal priority (i.e., t i followed by t i+1 ).

However, you can have metaphysical priority – “God the Son proceeds from God the Father” (or, more to the point in this thread: “the universe proceeds from God as Creator”).

What is metaphysical priority and how it is related to our discussion?

The implication is that there is change, but not change that proceeds in a chronological fashion. Therefore, God → God & Universe. The “coming into being” change actually instantiates the temporal framework of the universe. Therefore, no regress (as you’ve claimed), and as a result, no conclusion of “God as Sustainer but not Creator”.

I cannot follow you here. Are you talking about eternity?

 

[Gorgias]

What is metaphysical priority and how it is related to our discussion?

An ordering that is not chronological in nature, but speaks to metaphysical dependance in a set of causes and effects. It’s relevant because it allows us to admit that – even in the absence of temporal / chronological chains – there can be a dependance (that is, a metaphysical priority) between two or more events / entities.

I cannot follow you here. Are you talking about eternity?

I’m saying that, in an atemporal context (yes, such as ‘eternity’!), there are still dependance relationships that are present. The creation of the universe is one good such example. Once we pause to consider the implications, we see that your assertions fail to hold up to logical scrutiny.

 

[STT]

An ordering that is not chronological in nature, but speaks to metaphysical dependance in a set of causes and effects. It’s relevant because it allows us to admit that – even in the absence of temporal / chronological chains – there can be a dependance (that is, a metaphysical priority) between two or more events / entities.

Could you please demonstrate how a set of cause and effect can be ordered in a-temporal framework?

I’m saying that, in an atemporal context (yes, such as ‘eternity’!), there are still dependance relationships that are present. The creation of the universe is one good such example. Once we pause to consider the implications, we see that your assertions fail to hold up to logical scrutiny.

What is eternity?

 

[Gorgias]

Could you please demonstrate how a set of cause and effect can be ordered in a-temporal framework?

As a non-temporal cause to an effect:

• Jesus, the Second Person of God, proceeds from the Father.
• The Holy Spirit, the Third Person of God, proceeds from the Father and the Son.
• The universe is created by God.
  The ordering is clear. More to the point, there isn’t a temporal ordering, but only a metaphysical ordering of causes and effects.

 

[Gorgias]

What is eternity?

Not sure what you’re asking: it’s the non-temporal construct that’s “outside” (so to speak) of the universe.

Other than that, I’m not sure what to tell you – but, from here to there, there’s one heck of a kissing scene on a tropical beach!

 

[STT]

As a non-temporal cause to an effect:

• Jesus, the Second Person of God, proceeds from the Father.
• The Holy Spirit, the Third Person of God, proceeds from the Father and the Son.
• The universe is created by God.
  The ordering is clear. More to the point, there isn’t a temporal ordering, but only a metaphysical ordering of causes and effects.

That is not what I meant. Consider two causes and effects, CE1 and CE2, which CE1 is before CE2 in temporal framework. Now demonstrate how CE1 and CE2 could be ordered in a a-temporal framework.

 

[STT]

Other than that, I’m not sure what to tell you – but, from here to there, there’s one heck of a kissing scene on a tropical beach!

I meant how you could have ordering in eternity?

 

[quaestio45]

That is not what I meant. Consider two causes and effects, CE1 and CE2, which CE1 is before CE2 in temporal framework. Now demonstrate how CE1 and CE2 could be ordered in a a-temporal framework.

I’d presume they would be ordered in the exact same manner, with the caveat being that it all occurs without beginning or end, but instead is done all simultaneously. Consider a man who has a stick in his hand, and in his moving of his hand he simultaneously moves the stick; now consider if this stick, simultaneous to itself being moved by the hand, moves another; we would have multiple point all moving simultaneously while one point being the decisive causal start of the others. Sure, its not a-temporal in any way, but it illustrates the idea of ontological priority in causal relationships without the inherent need for one thing to start before another starts, like when I hit one billiard ball which, after a set of amount of time, moves another.

 

[Gorgias]

Consider two causes and effects, CE1 and CE2, which CE1 is before CE2 in temporal framework. Now demonstrate how CE1 and CE2 could be ordered in a a-temporal framework.

Irrelevant, and invalid extrapolation. We’re not talking about a temporal framework, so asking for a temporal cause-and-effect relation to be described in atemporal terms is an error of category.

I meant how you could have ordering in eternity?

As cause-and-effect, and not as a chronological relation. Aquinas discusses it. I might refer you to his discussion. @quaestio45 explains the dynamic well.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Creation ex nihilo means creation out of nothing, so there is no change of something.

Yes, I know that. But nothing to something is a change.

Time is a creation itself and necessary for change.

 

[STT]

I’d presume they would be ordered in the exact same manner, with the caveat being that it all occurs without beginning or end, but instead is done all simultaneously. Consider a man who has a stick in his hand, and in his moving of his hand he simultaneously moves the stick; now consider if this stick, simultaneous to itself being moved by the hand, moves another; we would have multiple point all moving simultaneously while one point being the decisive causal start of the others. Sure, its not a-temporal in any way, but it illustrates the idea of ontological priority in causal relationships without the inherent need for one thing to start before another starts, like when I hit one billiard ball which, after a set of amount of time, moves another.

I understand what you are trying to say but I am afraid that you cannot have ordering when a set of things, causes and effects for example, are simultaneous. In fact there is no function or map between a point and a set of points, read it this way, you cannot get set of temporal acts from a single act.

 

[STT]

Irrelevant, and invalid extrapolation. We’re not talking about a temporal framework, so asking for a temporal cause-and-effect relation to be described in atemporal terms is an error of category.

It is very relevant. Isn’t God’s act is eternal/a-temporal? Isn’t manifestation of this act is temporal. the creation?

 

[STT]

Time is a creation itself and necessary for change.

Great. Now this leads to regress if time is needed for change and time is an element of creation and the creation is a change.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Time is a creation itself and necessary for change.

Great. Now this leads to regress if time is needed for change and time is an element of creation and the creation is a change.

If a particular thing was made from a pre-existing thing or things then there would be some change, however this is not the case with creation ex nihilo.

 

[Gorgias]

I understand what you are trying to say but I am afraid that you cannot have ordering when a set of things, causes and effects for example, are simultaneous.

It’s an “order” in cause and effect, and not one of a chronological nature. I understand what you are trying to say, but it seems that you’re stuck in a context which requires chronology!

In fact there is no function or map between a point and a set of points

Of course there is! We’ve identified a few functions / mappings! “Proceeds”, “moves” – these are mapping functions which we’ve shown to be not chronological in a strict sense!

Isn’t God’s act is eternal/a-temporal? Isn’t manifestation of this act is temporal. the creation?

The manifestation of the act (that is, the universe which comes into being through creation ex nihilo) is itself atemporal. However, the universe itself – when considered as its own context – exists internally within a temporal framework.

 

[STT]

If a particular thing was made from a pre-existing thing or things then there would be some change, however this is not the case with creation ex nihilo .

If nothing to something was not a change then you would get nothing. There is a difference between nothing to nothing when there is no change and nothing to something when there is a change.