Dilemma of time and the act of creation

[STT]

You first post states "How could God perform the act of creation knowing that any act is subjected to time and time is an element of universe? ". You made the assumption that God’s action is subject to time which is an element within the universe.

No, I am only focusing on time and act of creation arguing that it is logically impossible to perform the act of creation when there is no time.

I said no, because God does not need time to create, his creation started time (do you agree with this assertion? No creation means no time.)

I agree with the fact that time is an element of universe. I however don’t agree with your assertion that God does not need time to create.

and not as a pre-condition because before creation, there was no universe and therefore no time element was involved. God doesn’t know that he need time to create, you presupposes he need to. For your system to work, you require existence of time before creation. However, you will never succeed in proving that as a possibility. Cosmologists agree that time counting start with the Big Bang i.e. creation. They have been counting backwards ever since.

I don’t understand what do you mean with the read part.

When did you made the case for the second theory for existence for the universe? It wasn’t in the beginning post. Unless you are claiming that the universe has existed forever which you know is as good as siding with the flat earth theory. But if you accept that the universe didn’t exist forever in the past, you will have to accept that there was a time that the universe did not exist, and hence time did not exist. So do you agree there was a time when the universe and time did not exist? Specifically, if t=0 at the Big Bang, no universe/time exist at t= -1. If the universe came into being 15 billion years ago, 16 billion years ago it didn’t exist and neither did time.

I agree with the assertion that the universe existed at t=0 as a singularity, Big Bang. t=-1 doesn’t have any meaning to me.

So which part is not sorted out? I didn’t see you refuting my points. You have to come out and say which part you disagree and why.

I hope things are clear by now.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

STT How much physics do you have?

Time requires mass and motion for certain events to happen.
Moving your fingers to type a response for example. There are laws to describe this . I wont go into them. Suffice it to say they are human in nature and involve Time as a human construct on a scale.
But
Let’s look at spacetime.

The act of creation would be in the realm of spacetime.

So let’s look at what we might know or not know about the dimensions of spacetime.

Here is something to start with.

google.com.au/amp/s/phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.amp

STT are you a student of physics or philosophy?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

And not having read through this thread , has anyone brought up the Singularity?
So basically , the Singularity is the point of the Big Bang. The point of the act of creation of the universe.

At the instant of the Singularity , density was infinite ( yes is infinity outside time ?) . Density was infinite because all matter was packed into one point, squashed into
Itself so to speak.

And note this very important point:

At that moment. At the Singularity, all laws of physics would have been unworkable. So what happened after the Big Bang , laws of physics wise, and what happened before the Big Bang, laws of physics wise were very different. The laws regarding time would have been unworkable at the Singularity.

Stephen Hawking explains this well. And for those reading along, he has had work funded by the Catholic Church, esp work in thermal geomapping space.

Here is a link to a one of his lectures explaining Singularity and Big Bang regarding
‘The Beginning of Time’
hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

And yes God , in my book created the universe and everything in it. That universe had to hav a point of existence, a beginning.

 

[setarcos]

The verbiage I used in the first paragraph is taken directly from the Nicene Creed.

Yes, I am aware. This does not belie the fact that many attempt understanding of this creed where none is possible.

Jesus becoming man did not change His divine nature or the Godhead. A human nature was created and united to the Second Person of the Trinity, but the human nature did not change or “mix” with the divine nature.

Simply making this statement doesn’t make it any more understandable. Is Jesus the created man or is Jesus the eternal son of the Godhead? He cannot be both in the Godhead lest the man be eternal as I’ve stated previously. If he can be both on earth during a specific period of time then we must ask ourselves how do you unite something with God that wasn’t there before without changing,“mixing” with, in some way, the divine nature? The word itself “unite” indicates a change in the status of that which is being united. Otherwise you have two individual natures, related in some manner, but distinct from each other. I could say the same of any created creature and God. More word games without an understanding of process or implication.

A human nature was created in time and a man was born, lived, and died. Because Jesus is God, it is proper to say that “God died” for us. This sounds counter-intuitive to many people because there is a misunderstanding of death. There is often an assumption of this phrase to mean God ceased to exist, but this is not true.

More games. By saying Jesus is God do you mean only Jesus the Son part in the Godhead? If you mean Jesus the man part then you can’t reference God since the two natures neither mixed with nor changed the God part and only united to the God part in time which God is outside of. What’s proper about saying God died if it was only the man part? Or if you prefer, more semantic shuffling, the man part didn’t really die, therefore neither did God, because we misunderstand death to mean an end or a ceasing of existence. However, you seem to misunderstand the implications of the label yourself. Whatever you believe the effects of death are,.i.e; ceasing to exist, going on to something else but remaining intact in some way, you’ve still changed your status. You’ve still changed. You were here in the physical realm and now you are not. If God is still everywhere, always, and his nature doesn’t change in any way ever it is meaningless to say God “died”, no matter how you define death and it’s implications.

When a human dies, they do not cease to exist; rather, their soul continues to exist and separates from their dead body.

How is it that you believe that a loss of a defining characteristic of human nature would not change that nature in some degree? If you like these semantic games…effectively making the thing you were when united with your body “die”?

Jesus is one person with both a divine nature and a human nature. Jesus died, and therefore God died, yet this did not cease His existence or change His divine nature in any way. Only the created human nature experiences change.

The person we label Jesus was created in time. Therefore the Jesus with a divine nature and a human nature “united” in the one person did not always exist. Because of this it’s meaningless to say Jesus is God unless your only referring to his divinity which existed from eternity prior to his birth. If so then you aren’t actually referring to Jesus united but only to God the Son in the Godhead without need of reference to the fully man Jesus when labeling Jesus as fully God. Reference above on God dieing…by any definition.

 

[setarcos]

Imagine if you took a rock and lashed a stick to it to create a hammer. The rock is united with the wood of the stick, yet it still remains completely unchanged as a rock, even though it has now become a hammer. If you then cut, scratched, and broke the stick, the wood handle has now changed, and the function and abilities of the hammer have changed, but the rock itself remains unchanged.

More games. The fact of the matter is the rock is a rock, the stick a stick. Each has the nature of its respective definitions. Put them together and you’ve created a new entity with the nature of the new entity, a hammer. All this we take for granted. Ask yourself then has "anything"changed in the respective entities? One thing would be the stick is no longer just a stick, the rock just a rock. Put them together and functionality has changed. Each entity has effected the others potentiality. You have effectively added potential to the one by adding the other together with it. Comparitively, what if the stick had no potential as God has no potential. The rock could no longer contribute potential to the stick in order that it might become a part of a hammer, serving a new function. The “stick” could not be a (part) of anything.

This is not meant to be analogous to the life of Christ, but only to demonstrate that being united with something to become something new doesn’t necessarily change it’s nature in any way.

Oh but it does. See above. Being a part of something which has its own nature, changes the nature of the part.

Just as a rock, by uniting with a wooden stick can “become a hammer” without changing the nature of the rock, Jesus can unite with a human nature and “become man” without changing the divine nature.

As I’ve said, you can make poetic statements till your blue in the face, it still doesn’t mean your actually expressing any understanding. We should all be brave enough to realize this and stop abusing reason for our own ends. I’ll check your link out. Hopefully I come come to the understanding everyone else thinks they have.
God bless you in all your ways.

It is not just a title, but a link to a section of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Contra Gentiles that further explains this. See the link below to read more:

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm#76

 

[STT]

STT How much physics do you have?

Some but I recall the basic only.

Time requires mass and motion for certain events to happen.

Of course you need fabric in universe to have time.

Moving your fingers to type a response for example. There are laws to describe this . I wont go into them. Suffice it to say they are human in nature and involve Time as a human construct on a scale.
But
Let’s look at spacetime.

The act of creation would be in the realm of spacetime.

So let’s look at what we might know or not know about the dimensions of spacetime.

Here is something to start with.

google.com.au/amp/s/phys.org/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.amp

I don’t agree with them. Without time all motions elapse in an instant. There is something , so called timed, which makes that the fabric of universe changes in steady way.

STT are you a student of physics or philosophy?

I studied both for a while.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Some but I recall the basic only.

. Ok, I feel perhaps your struggle is with basic laws of Physics.

Of course you need fabric in universe to have time.
STT
Can you explain what fabric of the universe is? And how time is dependent on it please.

I don’t agree with them. Without time all motions elapse in an instant. There is something , so called timed, which makes that the fabric of universe changes in steady way.

STT , with respect, with only a basic understanding of the Laws of Physics, and without having studied their theory, how can you make a value judgement?
Can you put forth your reasons, for discounting their physics? And again define this term ’ fabric of the universe’

I studied both for a while.

STT as for the Singularity at the instant of the Big Bang, and its effect and affect on Matter and time, can you see how Time cannot exist under those conditions? Its the biggest accepted argument in opposition to yours. And its physics is pretty weighty.

What say you to the Singularity ?

 

[po18guy]

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.

This thread may now be closed.

 

[ericc]

No, I am only focusing on time and act of creation arguing that it is logically impossible to perform the act of creation when there is no time.

I agree with the fact that time is an element of universe. I however don’t agree with your assertion that God does not need time to create.

Then you have to make your case to explain your position other than making a statement that God need time to create and disagreeing when others refute that requirement.

When you say time is an element of the universe, you need to understand that Time is not something that you make physically as in the universe. You can’t make this “Time” thing first followed by the Universe after “Time” was created. Time is also not something that is physically created at the point of creation. It is merely an attribute of matter. It is like you can’t make a blue colored ball by making “blue” first and followed by the ball. Blue is not a thing. Putting words like time before creation is as nonsensical as making blue before ball.

I don’t understand what do you mean with the read part.

I thought that was obvious from your statement “How could God perform the act of creation knowing that any act is subjected to time” . God doesn’t know his act of creation is subject to time. And we are waiting for your explanation why God couldn’t do it since you said it is illogical for God to act in that manner.

I agree with the assertion that the universe existed at t=0 as a singularity, Big Bang. t=-1 doesn’t have any meaning to me.

Before creation there was no time. At the Big Bang , time starts, around 15 billion years ago. So when t=-1 , i.e. before the benchmark 15 billion years, just say 16 billion years ago for argument sake, there was no universe, no existence, no time. Do you agree? Why do you remain silent on this point? Yet you choose to argue elsewhere on disagreeing that time is eternal. But when the argument changes to no time exist prior to creation, your silence is deafening. We need to know your position on time so that you can shed some light on your views on time and hence God’s inability to create in the absence of it as what you postulate.

I hope things are clear by now.

I am still as clueless as to how you substantiate your position that God need time for creation.

 

[setarcos]

The state of universe is not a quantum state, it was long time ago at Big Bang. Moreover we are talking about two state of existence (“no thing” and “something”) rather than two state of being (dead or alive).

STT is it, read my earlier posts… quantum mechanics and electrodynamics have apparently proven the universe IS governed by a quantum state of continuing “being”. The big bang, for reasons too lengthy to state and hard to understand…by me anyway, may be itself a quantum fluctuation in an otherwise empty initial state of reality. This in itself does not eliminate the unexplained origins of the quantum fluctuation itself however. The point of bringing up shrodinger’s cat was to show that it is indeed possible for a thing to be in two different states at once. It doesn’t matter the entity being discussed. The cat exists in both or neither states at the same moment. Only upon collapse of the “quantum wave” into a single state upon observation, either alive or dead. It could still apply to either existance or non existance. It may, in an expanded sense, apply to creation itself. The universe may be said to neither exist nor not exist but be in a simultaneous potentiality equally until the wave collapses into one or the other exclusive states, Existence or non existance. Time is in no way a factor here. They are simultaneous moments of potentiality until the wave collapses upon observation or some othe form of interaction. Who or what collapses the wave? I’ll leave that up to you to discover. I have my own opinions though. I’ll say one thing though, if you believe God exists then there never was, with or without time involved, (no thing). The quantum states would only apply to creation. Not God. God would be the ultimate collapsed wave. Creation the penultimate collapsed wave.

 

[setarcos]

The sooner men believe that the brain is the place of knowing, the sooner…; oh, it has already happened: they become satisfied with scientists, actors, and protestors, pretending they are philosophers and theologians.

Um…ok. The brain may be the “place” of knowing, as you call it, but it’s ability to know, if by know you mean understand, is still limited. On the other hand, I know what you’ve said but that doesn’t mean I understand it.

If the human brain hasn’t the circuitry, it is a good thing that my human intellect and will is in my soul and not part of the material of creation, but animating it to do what it cannot do of itself, making it alive and having thoughts as if ‘out of nowhere’, knowing what a brain cannot know, yet now intelligible apprehension in consciousness.

This being an example of my above statement. Could you simplify this for me as to why or how what your saying is in answer to what I’ve said?

You, however, have believed your teachers and have become like them, thinking you cannot understand what is above; and the words of Jesus to Nicodemus have found place in you.
You have “understood the heavenly things” of your teachers, who tell you that the “heavenly things” cannot be understood.

My spiritual brother, I can only understand what God allows me to. Anything understood by my spiritual self (the mark impressed upon my heart by God) of the “heavenly things” but not expressible by my intellectual self with the language of men I must keep silent on.

But there is a teacher, who told heavenly things to his own and sent them to tell us, and our living apostles have told us both the earthly things and the heavenly things.

Yes and it is when the heavenly things the spirit gives us to understand only spiritually is given to us with earthly methods of expression it is then that satan exploits our weaknesses. Christ gave us heavenly knowledge to be understood only by the spirit and earthly knowledge that we might live under the law and with reason. Where men try to enlighten the heavenly with the earthly satan slips in to cause discord.
May God bless your efforts in everything you accomplish

 

[setarcos]

Since when did God need time to create? Before creation, there was nothing, no space-time, only -non-existence. If you contend God need time in order to create, you haven’t provided any evidence to support it. Your starting point would be from non-existence.

Without meaning to split hairs here I simply meant our creation requires time to exist as it is. Therefore it is a necessary ingredient for God to create this existence. Without it God could not have created this existence. With this caveat, time may not exist at all. It may merely be a delusion enforced by God with no reality outside the mind.

Time starts with the Big Bang where we start our time counting. We are actually counting backwards, extrapolating convergence to time zero. So if time is needed in your model, where exactly does your time starts and when creation starts. You’ll end up both at time zero. Time is not a pre-condition for God to create but as a result of it.

I’m not sure I understand your counting backwards to time zero statement. I will state though that I believe time, if it exists in the way you believe, is not a product of creation but an inherent part of the nature of its existance. The two events, the so called big bang and the beginning of time are actually one event. Each being a characteristic of the whole which we call creation.

God has several qualities. I mentioned 2 only. One to design and the other to create.

This goes without saying. I concur

Science can contend nothing because science can not calculate how non-existence became existence. Science can guestimate how much energy resulted from the Big Bang, but it can not tell you how these energies came from non-existence or what caused them to Bang.

Firstly, neither can religion. I will say science has come mathematically, and observationally as close to an answer as anything faith has to offer. So this is a mute point as of this moment…Christ may return tomorrow and settle everything. Secondly, there are competing none religeous theories which have yet to be proven false. The question remains at least for now, possibly eventually answerable.

Science can not tell you why the laws of nature must be such, it can only report what has been created with what kind of properties. Having a “basket” of energies does not necessary lead to a world. It needs to be put together and “cooked” a certain way. Only the Designer knows how that is done because that requires information. The universe simply can not make itself. It possesses no information on how to do it. Even if it does, it only kicks the bucket further as to how it got there in the first place. Information does not self-arise from non-information.

I roughly agree with you. Science does not. Many of the greatest brains on the planet believe the problem of where the bang came from and how is solvable without religion. Some think they’ve already done it. I can only point out that your last sentence has only restated the problem of infinite regress applied to God. Simply stating God is the first prime mover of everything else is a statement about God but not a proof of its own validity. God made creation, the cause of which eventually had the effect of making my parents which was the cause of the effect of my birth which was the cause of…etc. Reversed we go back to God as the prime cause but this does not invalidate the question of what cause is God the effect of? Only by making a statement which itself is unprovable can we answer the question. This is hardly a proof of anything.
God bless you a d your wisdom on these matters

 

[setarcos]

What I am trying to say here is that the act of creation is logically impossible therefore God cannot perform that. Why it is impossible? Because you need time for any act, time is element of creation therefore the act of creation is impossible.

Reverse the question. How much time does it take for a thing to pop out of existence, like during the meeting of antimatter and matter? You can count the time it takes up to contact but at contact the process becomes instantaneous. It takes no time. A thing has went from something to nothing and during this action no time elapsed. The action itself required no time. We may define the before and after of this instantaneous action by relating it to a measurable time of before and after in a relational capacity to the action itself but this before and after does not define the action itself. The action is not dependant on this relational time because it itself is not measurable by time, it being instant. Say there was only one atom in existence. It pops from existence to non existence as quantum mechanics says they do occasionally. If this action is instantanious what need have we of time? To what do we refer to to measure its moment in existence? The only action it could take it took instantaneously, that is it took no time to do. An action took place with no time involved.

 

[John_Martin]

Um…ok. The brain may be the “place” of knowing, as you call it, but it’s ability to know, if by know you mean understand, is still limited. On the other hand, I know what you’ve said but that doesn’t mean I understand it.

This being an example of my above statement. Could you simplify this for me as to why or how what your saying is in answer to what I’ve said?

My spiritual brother, I can only understand what God allows me to. Anything understood by my spiritual self (the mark impressed upon my heart by God) of the “heavenly things” but not expressible by my intellectual self with the language of men I must keep silent on.

Yes and it is when the heavenly things the spirit gives us to understand only spiritually is given to us with earthly methods of expression it is then that satan exploits our weaknesses. Christ gave us heavenly knowledge to be understood only by the spirit and earthly knowledge that we might live under the law and with reason. Where men try to enlighten the heavenly with the earthly satan slips in to cause discord.
May God bless your efforts in everything you accomplish

It is with sarcasm that I copied your statement that “as soon as men believe the brain is the place of knowing…” - you have become satisfied with scientists, actors, and protestors explanations of knowing being seated in the brain. It is not.
Then in the second continued sarcasm, I stated that the soul, not the brain, is the actual place of knowing, but you did not pick up on that.

You have been taught by your teachers that you cannot understand what is above, showing you have not listened to teachers who will tell you that Jesus gave them understanding to pass on, and that they could understand all the mysteries. To the crowds who did not believe in him Jesus spoke in parables, but “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given." His disciples believed him and still do believe him, so you see, you are not my spiritual brother because you do not subject yourself to the same teacher who will teach you all the mysteries.

As for speaking poetically, as in the Creed, which you say you do not understand, you use poetry yourself when you speak of satan, whom you cannot experience materially, and of living under the law with reason, and having some “mark impressed upon (your) heart by God”. You use those words, contrary to your own complaint about the Words used by the Church.

 

[ericc]

Without meaning to split hairs here I simply meant our creation requires time to exist as it is. Therefore it is a necessary ingredient for God to create this existence. Without it God could not have created this existence. With this caveat, time may not exist at all. It may merely be a delusion enforced by God with no reality outside the mind.

The words in red , I’d disagree as time is not a requirement of creation but as a result of creation. It is a necessary result.

I’m not sure I understand your counting backwards to time zero statement. I will state though that I believe time, if it exists in the way you believe, is not a product of creation but an inherent part of the nature of its existance. The two events, the so called big bang and the beginning of time are actually one event. Each being a characteristic of the whole which we call creation.

You got the creation/time bundle right. With creation time arises. Pre-creation, non-existence, non-time. The time counting backwards is to find out when did the Big Bang(BB) occur. We use our definition of time, we see the universe expanding at a certain rate and extrapolate backwards to arrive at the instance when the BB happened. That is at time = 0. After all, time is nothing more than a measure of change with respect to the BB. One may say, an object if placed in a vacuum /container etc doesn’t experience change and therefore time for the object didn’t exist. Unfortunately, everything in the universe is subject to time, whether at rest, unchanged or not. Because the universe even now is still expanding. A second ago, a stationary object is nearer to the BB point of origin than a second after. But still time is not a created thing but an attribute of creation.

Firstly, neither can religion. I will say science has come mathematically, and observationally as close to an answer as anything faith has to offer. Secondly, there are competing none religeous theories which have yet to be proven false. The question remains at least for now, possibly eventually answerable.

But religion does offer an answer as to why there is existence. It doesn’t do the maths and there is no necessity to do so for its purpose. Even before Scientific Knowledge became mainstream, thousands of years ago a nomadic tribe already had that explanation. They do not know whether that is in fact true or not, but they were convinced that it is so. We can dispute whether the Abrahamic God is the being responsible for it, but one can not deny that there is a need for a First Cause to explain the chain of events. We therefore infer the attributes of such a First Cause that is capable of causing Creation. Science look for proof that a theory is right, not for proof that a theory is wrong because that would be an open-ended task.

I roughly agree with you. Science does not. Many of the greatest brains on the planet believe the problem of where the bang came from and how is solvable without religion. Some think they’ve already done it. I can only point out that your last sentence has only restated the problem of infinite regress applied to God. Simply stating God is the first prime mover of everything else is a statement about God but not a proof of its own validity. God made creation, the cause of which eventually had the effect of making my parents which was the cause of the effect of my birth which was the cause of…etc. Reversed we go back to God as the prime cause but this does not invalidate the question of what cause is God the effect of? Only by making a statement which itself is unprovable can we answer the question. This is hardly a proof of anything.
God bless you a d your wisdom on these matters

Probably as many brains think God must be the cause. It doesn’t matter because God didn’t say use democracy to decide truth. Science does agree a First Cause is required, a First Mover doesn’t it? Whether to breath life into its equations, start the ball rolling etc. They just don’t want to call that First Cause God. Yet, they are willing to accept ETs as possible explanations. And kick the bucket further down the road. In my mind, that is not good science because when we fall back to infinity/large numbers to explain something, it is not science. If someone were to ask where multiverses come from and if the answer is more multiverses, yep, that would be a joke and not science. I didn’t understand your statement “what cause is God the effect of?”. If you meant, what caused God, it simply has to be nothing because to stop the absurdity of infinite regress there must be a final “thing” that is uncaused. Call it any names you wish but it is a must to have an Uncaused Mover. Science will do all it can to de-personalise this Uncaused Mover.

No, they haven’t have a convincing scientific answer on how the Big Bang arose. Many theories, but science stands on evidence. Neither does science have an answer on how life originated from dead matter, where the information from dead matter to cause life comes from, where the technology to actualize life from the information required come about, where the information for that technology comes from, how lifeless matter became conscious all within 15 billion years of time resource. Very simple questions but look at the acrobatics/contortions to make up a plausible answer when statistics is no longer a friend.

Whatever the case, logic demands something that is uncaused, powerful and intelligent to Create to stop the absurdity of infinite regress. When logic arrives at such a conclusion, there are probably 2 answers frequently cited:

1. Something uncaused, powerful and smart did it. That one is my God( slot in your religion)
2. I can not accept 1) but in the future I will know. That is science.

 

[STT]

STT as for the Singularity at the instant of the Big Bang, and its effect and affect on Matter and time, can you see how Time cannot exist under those conditions?

I think we should have time at the singularity otherwise we could not have any motion or expansion. I am not sure about matter.

Its the biggest accepted argument in opposition to yours. And its physics is pretty weighty.

I don’t think that we have any theory for the singularity yet.

What say you to the Singularity?

A point at which the laws of physics break down. The density is infinite at that point therefore to me you could not have any theory which deals with change in infinity.

 

[STT]

Then you have to make your case to explain your position other than making a statement that God need time to create and disagreeing when others refute that requirement.

When you say time is an element of the universe, you need to understand that Time is not something that you make physically as in the universe. You can’t make this “Time” thing first followed by the Universe after “Time” was created. Time is also not something that is physically created at the point of creation. It is merely an attribute of matter. It is like you can’t make a blue colored ball by making “blue” first and followed by the ball. Blue is not a thing. Putting words like time before creation is as nonsensical as making blue before ball.

The problem as it was illustrated is that the creation by definition is a process of bringing something from nothing (ex nihilo). Therefore we are dealing with a change in state of existence (nothing to something) which means that we need time. Time is however an element of creation itself therefore the act of creation is logically impossible.

Moreover the burden of proving that God does not need time in order to create is on you.

I thought that was obvious from your statement “How could God perform the act of creation knowing that any act is subjected to time” . God doesn’t know his act of creation is subject to time. And we are waiting for your explanation why God couldn’t do it since you said it is illogical for God to act in that manner.

Before creation there was no time. At the Big Bang , time starts, around 15 billion years ago. So when t=-1 , i.e. before the benchmark 15 billion years, just say 16 billion years ago for argument sake, there was no universe, no existence, no time. Do you agree? Why do you remain silent on this point? Yet you choose to argue elsewhere on disagreeing that time is eternal. But when the argument changes to no time exist prior to creation, your silence is deafening. We need to know your position on time so that you can shed some light on your views on time and hence God’s inability to create in the absence of it as what you postulate.

I don’t agree with negative time. Things has started at time zero.

I am still as clueless as to how you substantiate your position that God need time for creation.

This is illustrated in the first comment. Please let me know if things is unclear.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . A point at which the laws of physics break down. . .

This is how it is commonly stated, probably because our vision of what was is developed by going backwards in time. Actually, at the beginning there were no laws of physics. They came to be as the universe gradually came into being and took the form that we now know.

 

[STT]

Reverse the question. How much time does it take for a thing to pop out of existence, like during the meeting of antimatter and matter? You can count the time it takes up to contact but at contact the process becomes instantaneous. It takes no time. A thing has went from something to nothing and during this action no time elapsed. The action itself required no time. We may define the before and after of this instantaneous action by relating it to a measurable time of before and after in a relational capacity to the action itself but this before and after does not define the action itself. The action is not dependant on this relational time because it itself is not measurable by time, it being instant. Say there was only one atom in existence. It pops from existence to non existence as quantum mechanics says they do occasionally. If this action is instantanious what need have we of time? To what do we refer to to measure its moment in existence? The only action it could take it took instantaneously, that is it took no time to do. An action took place with no time involved.

The state at the annihilation point of a pair of matter and antimatter is ill-defined if the process instantaneous. You have something and nothing at an instant.

 

[STT]

This is how it is commonly stated, probably because our vision of what was is developed by going backwards in time. Actually, at the beginning there were no laws of physics. They came to be as the universe gradually came into being and took the form that we now know.

I think we are dealing with an anomaly at the Big Bang. In one hand we know that there is no theory which can explain changes in infinity. In another hand we have a change from singularity to regularity which means a theory for corresponding change should exist.