Dilemma of time and the act of creation

[AveOTheotokos]

But do we? Unfortunately, I think Akin has the argument wrong. He’s placing God in time such that God’s “eternal now” is somehow made up of successive moments. . . It’s one instantaneous flowering of knowledge and act from His perspective, and a sequential flowering in time from ours.

Did you finish all three articles? In that article, he is trying to show a flaw in that particular view of time. The last article brings this point home.

 

[Wesrock]

Did you finish all three articles? In that article, he is trying to show a flaw in that particular view of time. The last article brings this point home.

I read the third article just now. I still dispute his flaws; I lean towards presentism, anyway.

 

[ericc]

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.

Words in red have not been not proven by you. I think you are missing the point. Time is a change from one state of existence to another state of existence. A change in state of non-existence to a state of existence does not involve time since time did not exist in a state of non-existence.

Time is however an element of creation itself therefore the act of creation is logically impossible.

see above

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

Actually not. You are the person asserting that God needs time to do his creating and you haven’t proven that has to be the case. You jumped right into the assumption he needs to.

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

It wasn’t negative time. Time just didn’t exist. But conceptually and mathematically, you can talk about time in various modes, time before after a cut off date.

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

You need to defend your assertion first that God needs time to create.

 

[STT]

Ah Ye olde string theory plucks a lonesome flat on the road to a harmonic echo lost in the pit of antimatter.

But wait The Mighty M Theory to the island rescue. And super strings!
Or
Really STT! String is so yesterday!
And you got no problem advocating that space is made up of strings Theory, but can’t see a blast in the Big Bang…hmm.
Lots of interesting theories now. I like the one where working backwards, the universe is ripping itself apart, pre Creation

Well, the basic element of things is something. String, or whatever.

St Augustine has the last say though.

St. Augustine pondered what the Lord was doing before the first day of Genesis (wryly repeating the exasperated retort that “He was preparing Hell for those who pry too deep”)

Yes, there is no time before first day.

 

[STT]

There was never a “when there was nothing.” There was no before.

We have two scenarios: (1) The act of creation at time zero when there is no thing and (2) The act of creation at time zero when there is something, universe. (2) is meaningless since you don’t need the act of creation if you have universe therefore (1) is the only valid scenario.

 

[STT]

Words in red have not been not proven by you. I think you are missing the point. Time is a change from one state of existence to another state of existence. A change in state of non-existence to a state of existence does not involve time since time did not exist in a state of non-existence.

see above

Actually not. You are the person asserting that God needs time to do his creating and you haven’t proven that has to be the case. You jumped right into the assumption he needs to.

It wasn’t negative time. Time just didn’t exist. But conceptually and mathematically, you can talk about time in various modes, time before after a cut off date.

You need to defend your assertion first that God needs time to create.

There are two points for each act (before change and after change) otherwise the act becomes ill-defined.

 

[Aloysium]

The smallest time measurement is Planck time (10^−44 seconds), the time light takes to travel one Planck length.
Something would have happened at the beginning within the first tP.

At t=10^−37 seconds, cosmic inflation occurred.

So, at t=0, there was nothing.
From nothing something was brought into existence, within the first t=10^−44 seconds,
This was followed by the creation of space, which was expanded exponentially starting at t=10^−37, and eventually leading to the universe as we know it now.

Creation ex nihilo.

 

[STT]

The smallest time measurement is Planck time (10^−44 seconds), the time light takes to travel one Planck length.
Something would have happened at the beginning within the first tP.

At t=10^−37 seconds, cosmic inflation occurred.

So, at t=0, there was nothing.
From nothing to t=10^−44, something was brought into existence.
This was followed by the creation of space, which was expanded exponentially starting at t=10^−37, and eventually leading to the universe as we know it now.

Creation ex nihilo.

So you agree with the first scenario in post #266.

 

[Aloysium]

So you agree with the first scenario in post #266.

There was no creation at time zero. Creation has occurred since then. Creation means that something has come into being. Time zero would be hypothetical.

 

[STT]

There was no creation at time zero. Creation has occurred since then. Creation means that something has come into being. Time zero would seem to be hypothetical.

That is the problem. You need time at t=0 otherwise things wouldn’t span from t=0 to its infinitesimal vicinity.

 

[Aloysium]

That is the problem. You need time at t=0 otherwise things wouldn’t span from t=0 to its infinitesimal vicinity.

t=0 is a reference point from which we can measure time.
It does not exist; that is why it is zero.

 

[STT]

t=0 is a reference point from which we can measure time.
It does not exist; that is why it is zero.

You cannot have motion if you don’t have time at t=0.

 

[setarcos]

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.

Ah, I’m sorry. The statement you attributed to me above threw me off since I never made that statement. I fear you’ve misunderstood what I meant when you quoted the statement I didn’t make in order for you to be sarcastic. I’m far from satisfied. The proof is me spending time in these discussions.

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.

I apparently did not. But why do you resort to sarcasm? Sarcasm is the lowest form of attack on another. It is an overly defensive attempt to distract away from the issues by belittling another’s opinions. It should be beneath the Christian whose spirit of charity is of paramount importance in glorifying our God.

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.

Friend, we all have been taught one thing or another from others. The duty of a student is to try and see if what is taught is true and the teacher worthy of being one. I did not say you cannot understand what is “above”. I said what is above cannot be made understandable by using the methods and tools of what is “below”. The bible makes it explicitly clear. God cannot be made to be understood with human language. Those things seen can be passed on to others with reason and proof. Those things unseen and of the spirit cannot. They must be taken on faith. The disciples believed by faith. It is one thing to describe a miracle. What took place. The man had an incurable disease, then his disease was cured. These things are of the seen and readily understood and capable of being passed on to others so that they may be made to understand what happened. This can take place using the methods of the “below”. How the miracle took place, by what process did it happen, are things from above. These things may be understood in the spirit but they can not be passed on to others so that they may understand as well, except by direct impression upon the spirit by the power and authority of him who is “above”. The “below” method uses tools such as language to carry information to another. The “above” method does not. Knowing in the spirit is not received through tools carrying information. It is impressed upon your soul directly by God.
You would do well to not be so quick to judge a person’s well-meaning intentions as unworthy of your charity. You should welcome me first as your spiritual brother then attempt to correct me if I’m wrong. Even though you feel I have insulted you, your door should always be open to those who have considered you their brother.

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.

The creed is poetry. I do not understand it, I believe it by faith through the spirit. You speak as if I’m against poetry. I love poetry. I fear you’ve rushed to judgment of my post without seeking to understand my meaning first.
May all be well and blessed in your life

 

[Aloysium]

You cannot have motion if you don’t have time at t=0.

That is what is meant by creating ex nihilo. God brings something into existence, from nothing and it changes. You seem to believe otherwise.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Well, the basic element of things is something. String, or whatever.

Yes, there is no time before first day.

Exactly! We are all trying to tell you this!

Now you understand. So therefore, God created the universe, and before our Lord and Master created the universe. There was Himself, the Word, the Holy Ghost

But

NO TIME

And please , before advocating a theory, listen to others who may know a bit more about it, rather then blindly arguing a point., We are all guilty of doing that at some point.

( resists pun about density at the point of Singularity)

 

[ericc]

There are two points for each act (before change and after change) otherwise the act becomes ill-defined.

Even if it is an ill-defined act, it doesn’t support your contention. This statement assumes you are operating in an environment with time running. There was no “time” before Creation. Hence there was no time prior to the Big Bang. Prior to the Big Bang, there was no existence hence there i s nothing to change per se. Hence, you can’t force fit your rules into a timeless state. Therefore, you are misapplying your rules (in an inappropriate environment) and jumping into wrong conclusions. God being timeless, can operate in any state.

Nevertheless, you have not supported your assertion that God requires time to create. Stating a few premises on how it leads to that conclusion would be helpful for a start. But I don’ t think that will be coming from you since I have asked you several times for the proof and you are still stalling. But as the OP aren’t you suppose to defend your assertion rather than avoiding direct queries on your premises? Otherwise that makes a poor exchange of ideas if you are not willing to defend it beyond stating what you think it is.

 

[STT]

That is what is meant by creating ex nihilo. God brings something into existence, from nothing and it changes. You seem to believe otherwise.

No, I don’t think otherwise. What I said, second option in post #266, is that there is act of creation and no thing at time t=0. After that we have the universe in infinitesimal vicinity of t=0. These two points (nothing to something) define the act of creation. We have to note that there is a infinitesimal time interval between these two points. Therefore you need time for the act of creation.

 

[STT]

Exactly! We are all trying to tell you this!

Now you understand. So therefore, God created the universe, and before our Lord and Master created the universe. There was Himself, the Word, the Holy Ghost

But

NO TIME

And please , before advocating a theory, listen to others who may know a bit more about it, rather then blindly arguing a point., We are all guilty of doing that at some point.

( resists pun about density at the point of Singularity)

I think you misunderstood me. Please read post #278.

 

[STT]

Even if it is an ill-defined act, it doesn’t support your contention. This statement assumes you are operating in an environment with time running. There was no “time” before Creation. Hence there was no time prior to the Big Bang. Prior to the Big Bang, there was no existence hence there i s nothing to change per se. Hence, you can’t force fit your rules into a timeless state. Therefore, you are misapplying your rules (in an inappropriate environment) and jumping into wrong conclusions. God being timeless, can operate in any state.

Nevertheless, you have not supported your assertion that God requires time to create. Stating a few premises on how it leads to that conclusion would be helpful for a start. But I don’ t think that will be coming from you since I have asked you several times for the proof and you are still stalling. But as the OP aren’t you suppose to defend your assertion rather than avoiding direct queries on your premises? Otherwise that makes a poor exchange of ideas if you are not willing to defend it beyond stating what you think it is.

My position, second option in post #266, is that there is act of creation and no thing at time t=0. After that we have the universe in infinitesimal vicinity of t=0. These two points (related nothing to something) define the act of creation. We have to note that there is a infinitesimal time interval between these two points. Therefore you need time for the act of creation.

 

[Aloysium]

No, I don’t think otherwise. What I said, second option in post #266, is that there is act of creation and no thing at time t=0. After that we have the universe in infinitesimal vicinity of t=0. These two points (nothing to something) define the act of creation. We have to note that there is a infinitesimal time interval between these two points. Therefore you need time for the act of creation.

Creation begins.
Creation is in a perpetual state of change and therefore involves time.
Creation is exists - something as opposed to nothing/nonexistence.
There can be no infinitesimal vicinity between creation and nothing, because nothing is nothing, not something. There is nothing to get close to.
You are getting stuck on the analogy of a timeline, which contains something called the zero point. There is no zero point with respect to creation.