I think that the Bible disagrees with you. If the Bible was written by an unchanging God, then it would read very differently:
On the first day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the second day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the third day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the fourth day …
An unchanging God cannot change, and so can never do anything different. Difference is change, and without change there can be no difference.
rossum
Firstly, I don’t think that the creation story in genesis should be taken as a historical or scientific account. However, even if it were to be taken as a literal account of what actually, literally happened, I don’t see how it “disagrees with [me].” Put in context:
1 **In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. **
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
The bolded text highlights the fact that, before the temporal account (first day, etc.), God creates the universe (“the heavens and the earth”). I don’t see how it is a contradictory viewpoint to hold that God creates time with the universe, and He Himself is outside of the time that he creates.
If there is no time, then a number of common words cease to have meaning. Words like “before”. In the absence of time we can no longer say, “God existed before creation”. It also becomes difficult to distinguish cause (which is before) from effect (which is after). If we cannot define either ‘before’ or ‘after’ then we cannot distinguish cause from effect. It becomes al logical to sat “time caused God,” as to say, “God caused time”. If we cannot determine which came first, then the two statements are indistinguishable.
Again, I would disagree with you; casual relationships do not need a temporal component. Proofs in mathematics provide good examples. You may show that p->q is true, but that does not mean that q->p; in fact, you might show that p->q is true while q->p is generally false. In this case, p being true makes q true, but q being true not cause p to be true. Mathematical proofs deal with the logical relationship between abstract objects that are also outside of time and cannot be changed.
God is a necessary being, and he causes time to exist. Therefore, God exists “for all time.” But then… so has time. Time and God have, in fact, existed for the same amount of “time.” However, if one takes away time, God exists; on the other hand, if one takes away God, time fails to exist. This is why I say that “God causes time” without “God temporally proceeding time.”
I also disagree with you on semantics! Before and after are
order relations, not just
temporal ones! I think any set with some kind of order can certainly have a basic notion of “before” and “after.” Take the natural numbers {1,2,3…}. Clearly 1 comes before 2 without 1 necessarily coming before two in time (I can count backwards!). Take this idea of before and after as they relate to a causal chain:
For all a, b, and c
a comes before b if a causes b
a does not come before a
if a comes before b and b comes before c then a comes before c
if a comes before b then b comes not before a
if a does not come before b and a is not the same as b then a comes after b.
This defines a
strict partial order for causal relationships without making reference to time. If we also take God as the necessary and sufficient cause for all contingent beings, then this set is also a
directed set; that is, everything that is caused comes after something else (God). [Note: other order related words can be similarly defined.]
You are correct. Any act of creation/causation is contingent on the existence of time. God alone cannot create; only God within time can create. Creation is an action within time. In the absence of time we cannot define change, and creation is, obviously, a change.
rossum
In this case, create and cause seem identical. As discussed above, I disagree that causation or any act thereof is necessarily contingent on the existence of time. God is able to cause time to exist, and this makes sense because time is contingent on God (and not the other way around.)
