Creator no, sustainer yes

[CRM_Brother]

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

You are correct, a creator cannot exist forever. That is not, however, how Catholics view a Creator. Catholics view a creator as extra-temporal. You may think that these are the same thing, but Physics actually supports the pre-existence of an immaterial thing with regard to time. It relies upon Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity and quantum theory.

It was theorized by Einstein that while time is the forth dimension of space, it is also affected by gravity. High concentrations of gravity actually slow time down. This has been proven. Time has been observed as going faster in orbit on the ISS and requires regular clock synchronization.

If you are correct and the universe does have a starting point (which I agree with you on) and expanded in the big bang theory, then the further back in time you go and the closer you approach the big bang, the stronger the gravity. The stronger the gravity, the slower the time. Time slows to a halt at the initiation of the Big Bang. I am not even speaking of the instant before the Big Bang.

I’m speaking of the Planck epoch, everything before the first 10^-46 of a second of the universe. The so called “time” of the Planck epoch is theoretical as there was neither space, gravity nor any quantum particle for time to be dependent upon. 10^-46 seconds simply denotes a quantum change. It is only after this quantum movement acted upon already-existing energy that the universe expanded and time sprang forward.

Physics already orders the the causality of events within the Big Bang which precede chronology. Why can we not speak of Creator which also causally precedes the quantum change that started it all. Your argument from contingency states that that quantum movement must be contingent on something else. There is nothing else present which can cause the change as the only thing which existed was pure, dense and unmoving energy. We call that illusive cause which caused the quantum shift and set space, time, and the quantum forces accelerating outward our Creator.

 

[Gorgias]

What do you mean?

I’m not going to say “simultaneous”, since that presumes a temporal framework. But, I’ll say “non-sequential causality”.

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

I do understand it. I just reject it, that’s all.

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

Immaterial. The creator of the universe has to precede the universe, or else he cannot create it.
(Again, we’re dealing in non-temporal contexts, though.)

 

[C.Ray]

Hold on now, that’s a theory not borne out by observation. Let’s just wait and see.

 

[STT]

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.

Time is needed for creation from nothing since time is needed for any change and nothing to creation is a change.

 

[STT]

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.

There is nothing that we cannot understand.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

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.

Time is needed for creation from nothing since time is needed for any change and nothing to creation is a change.

Time is created.

 

[STT]

You are correct, a creator cannot exist forever. That is not, however, how Catholics view a Creator. Catholics view a creator as extra-temporal. You may think that these are the same thing, but Physics actually supports the pre-existence of an immaterial thing with regard to time. It relies upon Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity and quantum theory.

It was theorized by Einstein that while time is the forth dimension of space, it is also affected by gravity. High concentrations of gravity actually slow time down. This has been proven. Time has been observed as going faster in orbit on the ISS and requires regular clock synchronization.

If you are correct and the universe does have a starting point (which I agree with you on) and expanded in the big bang theory, then the further back in time you go and the closer you approach the big bang, the stronger the gravity. The stronger the gravity, the slower the time. Time slows to a halt at the initiation of the Big Bang. I am not even speaking of the instant before the Big Bang.

In here, I am talking about the point before Big Bang when there was nothing but God. This point should exist otherwise the concept of creation is problematic.

I’m speaking of the Planck epoch, everything before the first 10^-46 of a second of the universe. The so called “time” of the Planck epoch is theoretical as there was neither space, gravity nor any quantum particle for time to be dependent upon. 10^-46 seconds simply denotes a quantum change. It is only after this quantum movement acted upon already-existing energy that the universe expanded and time sprang forward.

Physics already orders the the causality of events within the Big Bang which precede chronology. Why can we not speak of Creator which also causally precedes the quantum change that started it all. Your argument from contingency states that that quantum movement must be contingent on something else. There is nothing else present which can cause the change as the only thing which existed was pure, dense and unmoving energy. We call that illusive cause which caused the quantum shift and set space, time, and the quantum forces accelerating outward our Creator.

I agree that that something that changes is contingent so there is a need for a sustainer. Another part of my argument is about the creator which as I argued is problematic.

 

[STT]

I’m not going to say “simultaneous”, since that presumes a temporal framework. But, I’ll say “non-sequential causality”.

Could you please elaborate by an example that what do you mean with non-sequential causality?

I do understand it. I just reject it, that’s all.

Could you please tell me what I am arguing?

 

[STT]

Time is created.

Well, that cannot be true since creation of time from nothing is a change and you need time for any change which means that we are dealing with a regress when it comes to creation of time.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Time is created.

Well, that cannot be true since creation of time from nothing is a change and you need time for any change which means that we are dealing with a regress when it comes to creation of time.

There is no change is what does not exist.

 

[STT]

There is no change is what does not exist.

I am not talking about when nothing exist. I am talking about the process of getting something, time for example, from nothing.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

There is no change is what does not exist.

I am not talking about when nothing exist. I am talking about the process of getting something, time for example, from nothing.

Process is “a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.” For series time exists so there is no series possible without the creation of time ex nihilo.

 

[po18guy]

Oh yeah? So, why am I so frequently misunderstood? And God - is your understanding complete?

Impressive!

 

[Gorgias]

Could you please elaborate by an example that what do you mean with non-sequential causality?

Asked and answered. Twice.

Could you please tell me what I am arguing?

Sure. In an attempt to prove that there is only chronological ordering, you define two range variables (f(x1) and f(x2)) and two domain variables (x1 and x2). You posit that your domain variables are atemporal but your range variables are temporal.

Can’t you see the problem here? Your construct requires a temporal ordering, but you’re using it in an attempt to discuss metaphysical priority (and demonstrate that it doesn’t exist). You’re literally forcing temporality into the example, in an attempt to prove that there must be temporality.

That’s called “begging the question”, friend.

 

[STT]

Process is “a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.” For series time exists so there is no series possible without the creation of time ex nihilo.

That I agree. But there is no time at the point that only exist. God needs time for the creation of time. That is a regress. Regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the creation of time is not possible.

 

[STT]

Asked and answered. Twice.

I cannot disagree with concept of Trinity any more as you present it. You are free to believe it.

Sure. In an attempt to prove that there is only chronological ordering, you define two range variables (f(x1) and f(x2)) and two domain variables (x1 and x2). You posit that your domain variables are atemporal but your range variables are temporal.

Can’t you see the problem here? Your construct requires a temporal ordering, but you’re using it in an attempt to discuss metaphysical priority (and demonstrate that it doesn’t exist). You’re literally forcing temporality into the example, in an attempt to prove that there must be temporality.

That’s called “begging the question”, friend.

No, I am saying that you cannot take temporal range variables from from atemporal range domains. That is true that you cannot have ordering in atemporal range domains.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Process is “a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.” For series time exists so there is no series possible without the creation of time ex nihilo.

That I agree. But there is no time at the point that only exist. God needs time for the creation of time. That is a regress. Regress is not acceptable. Therefore, the creation of time is not possible.

Study space-time to see that space and time exist together from the start.

 

[Gorgias]

I cannot disagree with concept of Trinity any more as you present it. You are free to believe it.

OK. Fair enough. Please just recognize that it’s the doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church, and therefore, it’s the normative perspective you’ll encounter on a Catholic forum.

No, I am saying that you cannot take temporal range variables from from atemporal range domains.

Ahh… but if you provide an atemporal “wrapper” for the range, you can have an atemporal domain and an atemporal range…