Dilemma of time and the act of creation

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Roseeurekacross said:
What you are affirming is what we have been saying to you for many pages now.

What we are saying is this
  1. I AM ( pre Creation, pre time)
  2. I AM + His Creation. ( time now exists)
There is no suspended animation , there are no 2 co- existing points.

How can there be a dilemma?

STT is English your first language?

Here is a better question.
After Jesus returns , will there be time? Given everything is eternal.
And because everything is eternal , why would Time be needed?

Remember that this Creation will be destroyed. So is time to be destroyed along with it?
Click to expand...
I said more than that. Do you agree with those points one follows another?
 
STT said:
Yes. There are two points in act of creation: (1) Act of creation at the first point (there is nothing) and (2) the universe at the second point. These two points cannot coincide on one point since the point becomes ill-defined, you would have nothing and universe at the same point.
Click to expand...
Here is the sticky point, STT; Nothing still is nothing, even after creation. It did not change from nothing into something, but is still nothing even though there is creation (which is something), even in 2017. And since nothing does not change, the nothing that still is nothing does not notice change nor time; it cannot notice anything because it “is not”.

The “first point” you mention is still nothing, and it does not have to worry about being at a point of creation because it is “no point” and never was a point competing with a point of created being. Nothing can continue as nothing (if nothing can ‘continue’) without ever interfering with your second point.

Since it still is nothing, it is not in a line of continuum with creation.
 
John_Martin said:
Here is the sticky point, STT; Nothing still is nothing, even after creation. It did not change from nothing into something, but is still nothing even though there is creation (which is something), even in 2017. And since nothing does not change, the nothing that still is nothing does not notice change nor time; it cannot notice anything because it “is not”.

The “first point” you mention is still nothing, and it does not have to worry about being at a point of creation because it is “no point” and never was a point competing with a point of created being. Nothing can continue as nothing (if nothing can ‘continue’) without ever interfering with your second point.

Since it still is nothing, it is not in a line of continuum with creation.
Click to expand...
Lets define the act of creation as following: The action of bringing something into existence.

You bring something into existence therefore that thing did exist before or you had “no thing” in the case of creation.
 
STT said:
Lets define the act of creation as following: The action of bringing something into existence.

You bring something into existence therefore that thing did exist before or you had “no thing” in the case of creation.
Click to expand...
What is it then, when it is on the path from “no thing” into “some thing” (that would be your inter-thing time span).
So, what is creation “before it is something”, but “after it is nothing”?

If you can give a name to the post-nothing yet pre-something being, then you can measure time between nothing and something.

If you try to say it is the “absence of nothing but not yet the presence of anything”, that is still nothing, since nothing never was present so as to be able to be absent.
 
Please let me correct my sentence:
You bring something into existence therefore that thing didn’t exist before or you had “no thing” in the case of creation.
Click to expand...
John_Martin said:
What is it then, when it is on the path from “no thing” into “some thing” (that would be your inter-thing time span).

So, what is creation “before it is something”, but “after it is nothing”?

If you can give a name to the post-nothing yet pre-something being, then you can measure time between nothing and something.

If you try to say it is the “absence of nothing but not yet the presence of anything”, that is still nothing, since nothing never was present so as to be able to be absent.
Click to expand...
The act of creation is done at the point when you have nothing. So that is one event. Creation couldn’t exist at the same point therefore it has to happen in vicinity of the point after the act of creation. That is the second event, Big Bang. I needed time to formulate the act, by using term like after. You have two events which are separated from each other infinitesimally and one follows another. This is the act.
 
STT said:
Please let me correct my sentence:

The act of creation is done at the point when you have nothing. So that is one event. Creation couldn’t exist at the same point therefore it has to happen in vicinity of the point after the act of creation. That is the second event, Big Bang. I needed time to formulate the act, by using term like after. You have two events which are separated from each other infinitesimally and one follows another. This is the act.
Click to expand...
I think this is gibberish. The Big Bang is one act of creation and that’s it. There is no need to dissect the act into infinitesimally segments. Just keep it simple: a) there was no existence b) there is.

The state of non-existence is not an act, it is not a thing. The “points” that you are trying to carve out are merely mental placeholders to distinguish between the 2 states. It does not entail going through a process to get from one point to another. It is a thought, a will of God for something to exist. And it did. End of story.
 
ericc said:
I think this is gibberish. The Big Bang is one act of creation and that’s it. There is no need to dissect the act into infinitesimally segments. Just keep it simple: a) there was no existence b) there is.
Click to expand...
Things exist at the Big Bang therefore the act of creation cannot be at this point.
ericc said:
The state of non-existence is not an act, it is not a thing. The “points” that you are trying to carve out are merely mental placeholders to distinguish between the 2 states. It does not entail going through a process to get from one point to another. It is a thought, a will of God for something to exist. And it did. End of story.
Click to expand...
The act of creation is at (a). So that is an important event. You have two events one follows another. There is something which separate these two points from each other, time.
 
STT said:
Things exist at the Big Bang therefore the act of creation cannot be at this point.

The act of creation is at (a). So that is an important event. You have two events one follows another. There is something which separate these two points from each other, time.
Click to expand...
Definition time, since this is philosophical interchange, okay? If we are going to use a word together, let’s try to understand it together.

Many of us are using the word “Act” (i.e., the Act of creation).
For me, the meaning of Act is, “anything which is currently happening” (not something that potentially might be happening).
So, “the act of creation” for me equals “creation in its operation”.

I suspect some may mean by “the act of creation” that It is “The operation of the creator to make creaturely objects come into being”,
Two parallels might be:
The act of building equaling “the standing structure” (currently this matter of its makeup is existing with doors and windows and rooms and roof - the matter is ‘happening’ in this makeup)
or
The act of building can be seen as movement by carpenters happening, with the matter of their movement in potential to be the above first statement, “the act of building” (the happening finished structure, which, while it stands is a happening finished structure or Act).

The trouble with God is, when he is in his carpenter act, the house is complete simultaneously. - two Acts with no distinguishing of beginning, or one prior to the other in time.
While you need God as the carpenter, there is no pre-complete-house stage, like there is with earthly carpenters - and they step away from the house when an earthly house stands.
And yet, there is no complete house and no pre-complete-house without God thinking or speaking as the carpenter.

Even now he is my carpenter, and yours, in the act of creation and simultaneously we are acts of creation.
 
John_Martin said:
Definition time, since this is philosophical interchange, okay? If we are going to use a word together, let’s try to understand it together.

Many of us are using the word “Act” (i.e., the Act of creation).
For me, the meaning of Act is, “anything which is currently happening” (not something that potentially might be happening).
So, “the act of creation” for me equals “creation in its operation”.

I suspect some may mean by “the act of creation” that It is “The operation of the creator to make creaturely objects come into being”,
Two parallels might be:
The act of building equaling “the standing structure” (currently this matter of its makeup is existing with doors and windows and rooms and roof - the matter is ‘happening’ in this makeup)
or
The act of building can be seen as movement by carpenters happening, with the matter of their movement in potential to be the above first statement, “the act of building” (the happening finished structure, which, while it stands is a happening finished structure or Act).

The trouble with God is, when he is in his carpenter act, the house is complete simultaneously. - two Acts with no distinguishing of beginning, or one prior to the other in time.
While you need God as the carpenter, there is no pre-complete-house stage, like there is with earthly carpenters - and they step away from the house when an earthly house stands.
And yet, there is no complete house and no pre-complete-house without God thinking or speaking as the carpenter.

Even now he is my carpenter, and yours, in the act of creation and simultaneously we are acts of creation.
Click to expand...
Could we agree that God create when there is no thing?
 
STT said:
Could we agree that God create when there is no thing?
Click to expand...
No. There can be no “when” if there is nothing. But, thinking “nothing” can lead one astray.
God is greater than all that exists, beyond all time and space that He brings into being.
So, there is God, encompassing all moments as their Source.
As an expression of His infinite creativity, this finite universe is brought into existence.
There is no before or after the beginning and end within the infinite fullness of God, the Ground of all being.
It’s something like that anyway
 
Aloysium said:
No. There can be no “when” if there is nothing. But, thinking “nothing” can lead one astray.
God is greater than all that exists, beyond all time and space that He brings into being.
So, there is God, encompassing all moments as their Source.
As an expression of His infinite creativity, this finite universe is brought into existence.
There is no before or after the beginning and end within the infinite fullness of God, the Ground of all being.
It’s something like that anyway
Click to expand...
Could you please tell me whether God can decide to create or not? What do you call the case in which God does not create? Nothing!? It is up to Him. Isn’t it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top