Dilemma of time and the act of creation

[STT]

Any act has a before and after therefore you need time in order perform it, otherwise the act is ambiguous. How could God perform the act of creation knowing that any act is subjected to time and time is an element of universe?

 

[Della]

There is no before and after with God. The very fact that he created everything shows that he is outside creation itself, and not subject to the limits of time.

God doesn’t do things before and after unless he acts within time, as in the Incarnation. Again, this demonstrates that he is not limited by his own creation but is free to act within it as he sees fit.

 

[STT]

There is no before and after with God. The very fact that he created everything shows that he is outside creation itself, and not subject to the limits of time.

God doesn’t do things before and after unless he acts within time, as in the Incarnation. Again, this demonstrates that he is not limited by his own creation but is free to act within it as he sees fit.

I think we should first agree on the fact that “any act has a before and after”. Do you agree with this statement?

 

[lmelahn]

Any act has a before and after therefore you need time in order perform it, otherwise the act is ambiguous. How could God perform the act of creation knowing that any act is subjected to time and time is an element of universe?

Well, “action” is a multi-faceted term that can mean many different things, depending on who is acting.

God’s own operations are eternal (because they coincide perfect with Himself), hence they do not have a “before” or an “after.”

As regards the creation of the universe itself, it is extremely misleading to think of it as occurring at a definite moment in time. The very same act of creating both brings the universe into being and sustains it in being. In fact, there is nothing preventing God from creating a universe that is endlessly old (that is, whose time extends indefinitely into the past).

Perhaps what is causing the dilemma is that we humans have the habit of thinking of time as a sort of empty “container” in which various events are held.

In reality, this is just a projection of our own imagination. Rather, time corresponds to the real changes that occur in the things that make up the universe. For instance, if the universe were totally stagnant, there would be no flow of time.

So it is true that—at least as far as creatures are concerned—every action entails a kind of “before” and “after,” these need not be a strictly temporal “before” and “after”—as if time were a “thing” that pre-exists all of the events that take place in it.

 

[lmelahn]

I think we should first agree on the fact that “any act has a before and after”. Do you agree with this statement?

I think there is nuance even in that statement. See my previous answer.

 

[Della]

STT, this ^ is the answer.

Thank you, (name removed by moderator). :tiphat:

 

[STT]

Well, “action” is a multi-faceted term that can mean many different things, depending on who is acting.

God’s own operations are eternal (because they coincide perfect with Himself), hence they do not have a “before” or an “after.”

As regards the creation of the universe itself, it is extremely misleading to think of it as occurring at a definite moment in time. The very same act of creating both brings the universe into being and sustains it in being. In fact, there is nothing preventing God from creating a universe that is endlessly old (that is, whose time extends indefinitely into the past).

Perhaps what is causing the dilemma is that we humans have the habit of thinking of time as a sort of empty “container” in which various events are held.

In reality, this is just a projection of our own imagination. Rather, time corresponds to the real changes that occur in the things that make up the universe. For instance, if the universe were totally stagnant, there would be no flow of time.

So it is true that—at least as far as creatures are concerned—every action entails a kind of “before” and “after,” these need not be a strictly temporal “before” and “after”—as if time were a “thing” that pre-exists all of the events that take place in it.

Do you believe in two state of existence: (1) Nothing (before act of creation) and (2) Universe (after act of creation)? The act of creation by definition is a process of bringing something to existence from nothing therefore we are dealing with a before (nothing) and after (universe).

 

[STT]

That is exactly the problem. Any act has a before and after therefore you need time for it otherwise the act is ambiguous. Time is a part of creation therefore the act of creation is impossible since you need time for any act as it was mentioned.

 

[Della]

That is exactly the problem. Any act has a before and after therefore you need time for it otherwise the act is ambiguous. Time is a part of creation therefore the act of creation is impossible since you need time for any act as it was mentioned.

Simply restating your ideas doesn’t make them true or defensible. If you cannot/will not admit that eternity exists outside of time, and that God is not subject to his own creation, then you will never be satisfied with any answer that contradicts your own notions.

 

[Wesrock]

Do you believe in two state of existence: (1) Nothing (before act of creation) and (2) Universe (after act of creation)? The act of creation by definition is a process of bringing something to existence from nothing therefore we are dealing with a before (nothing) and after (universe).

There was no before creation. There was never a temporally prior state of being. God didn’t use “nothing” as if it were a material from which to craft the universe. It simply means that everything that is not God came to be because it was God’s will. It’s to distinguish between the idea that God came upon pre-existing matter or chaos and made order out of it, that God found clay which God did not cause, and then created a model out of that clay. All things are “caused” by God.

 

[Wesrock]

Also, the universe is not after the act of creation, as if that act stopped.

 

[PJH_74]

I tend to go with what science tells about creation, I’m certainly not a creationist. That said however I think what science tells us and the general thrust of this discussion are in basic agreement. We won’t know what the universe exists in, We can calculate about when the “big bang” was, but we don’t know what proceeded it if anything…and I don’t think we’ll ever know. Time is indeed relative due to the speed of light. The stars you look up to in the night may no longer exist. The we have black holes and all of the rest of it. Why would I believe in God? There’s really nothing else to explain the universe.

 

[STT]

Simply restating your ideas doesn’t make them true or defensible. If you cannot/will not admit that eternity exists outside of time, and that God is not subject to his own creation, then you will never be satisfied with any answer that contradicts your own notions.

I am not talking about God but act of creation.

 

[STT]

There was no before creation. There was never a temporally prior state of being. God didn’t use “nothing” as if it were a material from which to craft the universe. It simply means that everything that is not God came to be because it was God’s will. It’s to distinguish between the idea that God came upon pre-existing matter or chaos and made order out of it, that God found clay which God did not cause, and then created a model out of that clay. All things are “caused” by God.

How do you define the act of creation? Do you agree with this definition?: The process of bringing something from nothing.

 

[John_Martin]

Any act has a before and after therefore you need time in order perform it, otherwise the act is ambiguous. How could God perform the act of creation knowing that any act is subjected to time and time is an element of universe?

JMJ
An object In Act is a perfect (complete) object, matching its form.
An object In Act can either be a motionless, dead, finished object, or it can be an object that is only matching its form when it is “operating”, which is what a perfect, complete, finished, living being does - operation is its Actuality, which growing to the point where it would finally be able to operate is TIME.
But when it is operating, it is not in time (other than accidental temporal features of the operation do participate Time).

God, the LORD, also known in English as ‘I AM’, is eternal Act in operation, as his Son stated about him always working.

 

[Wesrock]

How do you define the act of creation? Do you agree with this definition?: The process of bringing something from nothing.

No. It’s not a process such as that.

Just off the top of my head, I might phrase it as something coming to be from no pre-existing material. Or more simply, to cause.

 

[STT]

JMJ
An object In Act is a perfect (complete) object, matching its form.
An object In Act can either be a motionless, dead, finished object, or it can be an object that is only matching its form when it is “operating”, which is what a perfect, complete, finished, living being does - operation is its Actuality, which growing to the point where it would finally be able to operate is TIME.
But when it is operating, it is not in time (other than accidental temporal features of the operation do participate Time).

God, the LORD, also known in English as ‘I AM’, is eternal Act in operation, as his Son stated about him always working.

I am sorry but I don’t understand you.

 

[STT]

No. It’s not a process such as that.

Just off the top of my head, I might phrase it as something coming to be from no pre-existing material. Or more simply, to cause.

What is no pre-existing material? Isn’t no pre-existing material nothing?

 

[Wesrock]

What is no pre-existing material? Isn’t no pre-existing material nothing?

Correct.

But it’s not a state that ever was. It just means no thing. Language is difficult when talking about “nothing”, as we often can’t help but speak as if it’s something by using “to be” words and tensed words.

 

[STT]

Correct.

But it’s not a state that ever was. It just means no thing. Language is difficult when talking about “nothing”, as we often can’t help but speak as if it’s something by using “to be” words and tensed words.

Great. Therefore we are dealing with a process of “no thing” to “something”. This means that there exist a before and after of the act of creation.