Creator no, sustainer yes

[STT]

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!

Can you give me a set of things which are ordered but simultaneous?

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!

Mathematicians are disagree with you.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

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.

It means no created thing exists before creation, and this includes time which is created. Change occurs in time so no time means no change.

 

[Raxus]

There are no unchanging things.

Change is an aspect of time, and God exists outside of time; therefore, God is unchanging.

 

[Gorgias]

Can you give me a set of things which are ordered but simultaneous?

You’ve already been given at least three: God the Father / God the Son / God the Holy Spirit, the creation of the universe, and the classic Thomistic example.

Mathematicians are disagree with you.

No, not really. You’re saying that they’d say that x and f(x) cannot be simultaneous?

 

[Richca]

Yes, I would just like to add to the STT’s OP that creation is not a change. Change occurs in something that exists. What does not exist cannot change. Since creation is from nothing, there is no change from nothing to something. Aristotle defined motion or change as ‘the act of a being in potency in so far as it is in potency.’ Before creation, there was no created being in existence to be in act or potency.

 

[STT]

It means no created thing exists before creation, and this includes time which is created. Change occurs in time so no time means no change.

We have physical change when something moves for example. We also have metaphysical change when you get something out of nothing.

 

[STT]

You’ve already been given at least three: God the Father / God the Son / God the Holy Spirit, the creation of the universe, and the classic Thomistic example.

Again something which is simultaneous cannot be ordered. By order, it means that one comes after another one, etc.

No, not really. You’re saying that they’d say that x and f(x) cannot be simultaneous?

No. Consider x1 and x2 as two values of a variable which x2 comes after x1. This means that f(x1) is not equal to f(x2). When x1 and x2 are simultaneous it means that x1 is equal to x2 which means that f(x1) is equal to f(x2) also so as you can see you cannot have a mapping from one point to multiple points.

 

[STT]

Yes, I would just like to add to the STT’s OP that creation is not a change. Change occurs in something that exists. What does not exist cannot change. Since creation is from nothing, there is no change from nothing to something. Aristotle defined motion or change as ‘the act of a being in potency in so far as it is in potency.’ Before creation, there was no created being in existence to be in act or potency.

Please read my reply to Vico.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

It means no created thing exists before creation, and this includes time which is created. Change occurs in time so no time means no change.

We have physical change when something moves for example. We also have metaphysical change when you get something out of nothing.

Change is the defining feature of the natural world, that is, the created world, which includes the creation of time. God exists and creation is not made of God (there is no change in God) but by God, and not out of God (which would be emanationism).

 

[Gorgias]

Again something which is simultaneous cannot be ordered. By order, it means that one comes after another one, etc.

We’re talking about causality. And yes, that can happen outside of a chronological sequence. Your statement would be correct if you added your implicit assumption: “something which is simultaneous cannot be chronologically ordered.”

I agree with that statement. But, I’m not talking about chronological order.

No. Consider x1 and x2 as two values of a variable which x2 comes after x1. This means that f(x1) is not equal to f(x2).

You realize that your example fails on two counts, don’t you?

• I’m not talking about an ordering between f(x1) and an f(x2). I’m talking about x and f(x).
• you’ve embedded the notion of a chronological ordering in your presumption – “x2 comes after x1”. You’ve literally included your conclusion in the arguments which are meant to prove your conclusion. That’s the “begging the question” fallacy!

 

[STT]

Change is the defining feature of the natural world, that is, the created world, which includes the creation of time. God exists and creation is not made of God (there is no change in God) but by God, and not out of God (which would be emanationism).

Again, if there is no change from nothing to something then you get nothing.

 

[STT]

We’re talking about causality. And yes, that can happen outside of a chronological sequence. Your statement would be correct if you added your implicit assumption: “something which is simultaneous cannot be chronologically ordered.”

I agree with that statement. But, I’m not talking about chronological order.

How can you define order in a set of things which are simultaneous?

You realize that your example fails on two counts, don’t you?

• I’m not talking about an ordering between f(x1) and an f(x2). I’m talking about x and f(x).
• you’ve embedded the notion of a chronological ordering in your presumption – “x2 comes after x1”. You’ve literally included your conclusion in the arguments which are meant to prove your conclusion. That’s the “begging the question” fallacy!

No. In here “x” refers to a point in a-temporal framework. “f(x)” is another point in temporal framework which is related to “x”. And “f” is the function which does the mapping. You always get one temporal thing from one a-temporal thing given the definition of function. Now, you can get a proper mapping from a set of thing {“x1” and “x2”} to {“f(x1)” and “f(x2)”} where {“f(x1)” and “f(x2)”} are ordered provided that {“x1” and “x2”} are ordered. {“x1” and “x2”} cannot however be ordered since they are simultaneous. Therefore, {“f(x1)” and “f(x2)”} cannot be ordered too.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Change is the defining feature of the natural world, that is, the created world, which includes the creation of time. God exists and creation is not made of God (there is no change in God) but by God, and not out of God (which would be emanationism).

Again, if there is no change from nothing to something then you get nothing.

There is no time before time exists.

 

[Gorgias]

How can you define order in a set of things which are simultaneous?

Causally.

No. In here “x” refers to a point in a-temporal framework.

Fine. In other words, you’ve already lost the argument – your example presumes chronological ordering. If your goal is to prove that chronological ordering is all that exists, then you’ve just begged the question fallaciously.

 

[po18guy]

In your ‘created’ universe, maybe. In reality, it seems incongruent, even nonsensical. Why do so many believe that the universe - degrading through entropy, expanding into non-existence - always existed but just cannot fathom a Creator who always existed? Reminds me of my two favorite philosophers: Calvin and Hobbes.

 

[STT]

There is no time before time exists.

That is not what I am trying to say. I am saying that time is required for the creation and this leads to a regress since you need time for creating time.

 

[STT]

Causally.

What do you mean?

Fine. In other words, you’ve already lost the argument – your example presumes chronological ordering. If your goal is to prove that chronological ordering is all that exists, then you’ve just begged the question fallaciously.

It is clear for me that you didn’t understand my argument.

 

[STT]

In your ‘created’ universe, maybe. In reality, it seems incongruent, even nonsensical. Why do so many believe that the universe - degrading through entropy, expanding into non-existence - always existed but just cannot fathom a Creator who always existed? Reminds me of my two favorite philosophers: Calvin and Hobbes.

The creator cannot existed for ever. The universe has a starting.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

There is no time before time exists.

That is not what I am trying to say. I am saying that time is required for the creation and this leads to a regress since you need time for creating time.

No time is not required for creation itself from nothing, since creatures simply are and that includes time, and begins the sequence upon which change is observed.

 

[po18guy]

You are thinking as humans do. Creation is material. Creator is Spiritual and immaterial. Methinks you do not grasp the concept of the transcendent or the supernatural. Really, do look up those terms and ponder them.