Does time have a beginning?

[avflf]

I don’t know enough about space-time continuum to make a definitive answer. But if I hold correctly, time itself is a part of the space-time continuum itself being the 4th dimension, space being the previous 3.

Yes, space-time is an amalgamation of the three dimensions and time as related to space but each component is a measure in itself and one can use them individually i.e length, breadth, height, time. I see time as a measure for existence as well as change/movement.

 

[1holycatholic]

The answer can be found in the Summa Theologica.

Bottom line, there is no such thing as infinite past time.

Also, see “Faith and Reason” by Father Spitzer (former president of Gonzaga) which can be found on EWTN’s list of TV programs.

Vivat Jesu!

Is that a new series? I saw Fr. Spitzer’s series “New Proofs for the Existence of God” which noted the impossibility of ∞ past time. It’s a contradiction per the Hilbertian Prohibition of Achieved Infinite Sequences.

This isn’t simply a solved question in philosophy. Physical cosmologists concur that time had a beginning. I’m not certain why anyone would be arguing for infinite past time. Apparently, even the scientific method is subject to being thrown under the bus.

 

[Leela]

Is that a new series? I saw Fr. Spitzer’s series “New Proofs for the Existence of God” which noted the impossibility of ∞ past time. It’s a contradiction per the Hilbertian Prohibition of Achieved Infinite Sequences.

This isn’t simply a solved question in philosophy. Physical cosmologists concur that time had a beginning. I’m not certain why anyone would be arguing for infinite past time. Apparently, even the scientific method is subject to being thrown under the bus.

Time does not fit the model of a mathematical sequence unless you are proposing some “atomic theory of time” with a small indivisible unit of time. With time it is infinities all the way down. There are an infinite number of “nows” in an hour. There are an infinite number of instants in a minute, in a second, in a millisecond, in a …

I don’t think anyone is throwing any scientific theories under a bus. Some people here are just pointing out that this isn’t the sort of question that we can say we have a clear answer to. It’s not even clear that it is even meaningful to talk about the beginning of time since beginnings, and endings, and befores, and afters all presuppose a concept of time, so we certainly can’t use it as a premise for any proof of God’s existence. But at the same time I can’t see why one view or the other would be a problem for the hypothesis that God exists since he is supposed to exist outside of time anyway. Why is it so important for theists to insist that time must have a beginning? Why couldn’t God create an infinite universe?

 

[1holycatholic]

Time does not fit the model of a mathematical sequence unless you are proposing some “atomic theory of time” with a small indivisible unit of time. With time it is infinities all the way down. There are an infinite number of “nows” in an hour. There are an infinite number of instants in a minute, in a second, in a millisecond, in a …

I don’t think anyone is throwing any scientific theories under a bus. Some people here are just pointing out that this isn’t the sort of question that we can say we have a clear answer to. It’s not even clear that it is even meaningful to talk about the beginning of time since beginnings, and endings, and befores, and afters all presuppose a concept of time, so we certainly can’t use it as a premise for any proof of God’s existence. But at the same time I can’t see why one view or the other would be a problem for the hypothesis that God exists since he is supposed to exist outside of time anyway. Why is it so important for theists to insist that time must have a beginning? Why couldn’t God create an infinite universe?

You seem to be unaware between the difference of a potential infinity and an actual infinity. I’m certain I’ve explained it to you before on this forum.

The problem of infinite past time is an issue for those who deny that the universe had a beginning.

 

[cassini]

Here is something I have put together on time some time ago if you pardon the pun:

**True Time

‘The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son,
this day have I begotten thee. (Ps 2:7) and (Heb 5:5-6)

The philosophers and scholastics of old understood cosmic time is structured for life on earth especially that of mankind, time for us to shelter, feed and cloth ourselves, time for work, rest and sleep, time for travel and discovery, time to live and time to die. All living creatures ultimately depend on the movements, light and heat of the sun that, in their geocentric world, is related to the stars. As to the empirical credibility of such things, well they are what we observe, what we actually see and measure every day and year of our lives; what is, and is philosophically as plausible as God being able to create it all in the first place.

Dogmas held by the Catholic Church must surely need true time and space forming an absolute framework within which the material and spiritual events of the world and man run their course in imperturbable order. Such at least is demanded by the Christian intellect and is reflected in the Scriptures and in scholastic philosophy and theology. This created God time of the world is the same to every observer, in every era and every place. Accordingly, for a true Christian understanding of the creation and the measurement of time, the whole universe, from the earth to the furthest star, has to be incorporated together as a unit, that is, to serve its purpose in the order of things.
How then does the universe comply with what we shall call ‘Genesis-time’? What solitary order serves the will of God and the needs of mankind? Surely it must be that God achieved the measurement of time for us by incorporating the whole cosmos (everything and everyone) within a finite geocentric cosmic timepiece. The sun, stars and planets, as we can observe, participate together in this cosmic clock, no matter how many of them there are or how far away they are, no matter whether they can be seen by the naked eye or not. A ‘day’ then, is actually a universal day, and a year is a universal year.

False Time

Now consider Einstein’s assertion that to look at the stars is to look back billions of years in time. If however, as is revealed in Genesis, God created all the stars visible to man at the beginning, then this space-time does not exist. Moreover, how on earth can the Gospel be read according to space-time?

‘And there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth distress of nations bewildered by the roaring of the sea and waves; men fainting for fear and for expectation of the things that are coming on the world; for the powers of heaven (stars) will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming upon a cloud with great power and majesty. But when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up your heads, because your redemption is at hand,’ -(Luke: 21:25)

This prophecy complies only with a finite geocentric cosmos, and it alone unites all creatures to one time frame or order as God intended. And this is what true wisdom, Catholic truth has to recognise, adhere to, for even starlight must be accounted for in any accurate measurement of time in our lives. If such is not true, then Christ’s prophesy is rendered metaphorical, making little sense at all.**

 

[warpspeedpetey]

can anyone give me a cup of time? can you tell me where time comes from or where time went?

there is no evidence for the existence of “time” anymore than there exists a kilometer, pound, or an inch.

these are all just conventions of convenience. with the kilometer or the inch we measure distance, the the pound, we measure weight. with “time” we measure change. none of these things actual exist.

things that do not exist have no beginning or end.

its like we are all standing around arguing about a yardstick that nobody has ever seen.

 

[avflf]

can anyone give me a cup of time? can you tell me where time comes from or where time went?

there is no evidence for the existence of “time” anymore than there exists a kilometer, pound, or an inch.

these are all just conventions of convenience. with the kilometer or the inch we measure distance, the the pound, we measure weight. with “time” we measure change. none of these things actual exist.

things that do not exist have no beginning or end.

its like we are all standing around arguing about a yardstick that nobody has ever seen.

In the same vein can you get a cup of God?

 

[James_S_Saint]

In the same vein can you get a cup of God?

Holy Grail?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

In the same vein can you get a cup of God?

yes.

at every Mass.

 

[1holycatholic]

yes.

at every Mass.

Zing!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Zing!

too bad i cant really take credit for it, saints “Holy Grail” was the inspiration:blush:

 

[Plato34]

To understand time as a number line is illogical, but I understand why it would seem logical to think of it that way. While I was thinking about time as a number line, it occurred to me why I originally thought that such an analogy made sense. You were thinking based on a point on that number line, which is entirely relative. Basically, what you did was you made yourself the beginning of time and made it go off infinitely into the past and infinitely into the future. Though you thought you were thinking of a time as a line, you were actually thinking of time as two rays going in opposite directions.

It is impossible for movement to actually occur on a line (in its full infinite length) because there is no beginning. Movement, I venture, requires a beginning. Without one there is no movement. Without movement there is no time. I tried, just now, to envision a man on a bike riding on a line for infinity, but I, but I can’t. From my own limited view I always conceive of him as beginning at some point. If you could conceive a whole line (infinity basically), you would understand that movement is not possible. We always conceive time as beginning at zero. It is impossible not to. If there was never a beginning, never a zero, there could be know change in time. It is impossible, in a certain sense, to start time at say, 4.5 s. It is impossible to conceive of actual time past the point of 0 s. In other words time must be greater than or equal to zero. Therefore it does have a starting point. I think I’m getting on to St. Thomas Aquinas’ idea that time must have a beginning because infinite regression is impossible.

Now that leaves two understandings of time left: a segment (the Christian understanding) or a ray.

I don’t think i explained correctly or maybe i am misunderstanding you but i don’t think that time had a beginning. It didn’t start with me it’s just that I am like a single ticker that is moving along time as it stays still. I began somewhere along time, which had been around before me. I was born; that was were I began. And beginning from birth I moved along the timeline. I mean its not that hard to imagine a man picking up a bike and riding down a street which is infinitely long and then getting off. Time is the street itself; it doesn’t move, and it goes on to infinity both in front of and behind the rider.

Of course a line wouldn’t perfectly model time, they are two different things, but I think the parallels are legitimate especially in the context of Individuals and our perception of time.

 

[sidbrown]

This prophecy complies only with a finite geocentric cosmos, and it alone unites all creatures to one time frame or order as God intended.]

Are you claiming then here a geocentric cosmos, so that all of the stars revolve about the earth which is the center of the universe, in your view?

 

[Image_of_God]

I don’t think i explained correctly or maybe i am misunderstanding you but i don’t think that time had a beginning. It didn’t start with me it’s just that I am like a single ticker that is moving along time as it stays still. I began somewhere along time, which had been around before me. I was born; that was were I began. And beginning from birth I moved along the timeline. I mean its not that hard to imagine a man picking up a bike and riding down a street which is infinitely long and then getting off. Time is the street itself; it doesn’t move, and it goes on to infinity both in front of and behind the rider.

Of course a line wouldn’t perfectly model time, they are two different things, but I think the parallels are legitimate especially in the context of Individuals and our perception of time.

I understand that that you thought that time didn’t have a beginning, which is what I was arguing against.

Let me ask you this: How exactly do you *move *along the timeline if time has no beginning? How do you know you are moving on a timeline?

To follow your analogy, that man on the infinitely long street (for the record, infinite distance is a logical contradiction) is moving as you say and suddenly gets off the street. If we look at the street as a whole and not in a limited perspective, then that man has not moved anywhere. That would be the equivalent of being frozen in time. You cannot move anywhere on an infinite timeline. To move anywhere, you *must * have a beginning point. Your argument that time is infinite and that people move on a timeline does not suffice. If you did, you would not be moving anywhere on that timeline at all.

I think the important thing to note is that its impossible to picture an infinitely long street. We will always envision some beginning and end.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I understand that that you thought that time didn’t have a beginning, which is what I was arguing against.

Let me ask you this: How exactly do you *move *along the timeline if time has no beginning? How do you know you are moving on a timeline?

To follow your analogy, that man on the infinitely long street (for the record, infinite distance is a logical contradiction) is moving as you say and suddenly gets off the street. If we look at the street as a whole and not in a limited perspective, then that man has not moved anywhere. That would be the equivalent of being frozen in time. You cannot move anywhere on an infinite timeline. To move anywhere, you *must * have a beginning point. Your argument that time is infinite and that people move on a timeline does not suffice. If you did, you would not be moving anywhere on that timeline at all.

I think the important thing to note is that its impossible to picture an infinitely long street. We will always envision some beginning and end.

Can you accurately envision God? If not God doesn’t exist?

Image, you are taking up the same argument you were a few days ago yet you never responded to my explanation to your argument. That is at least impolite, if not covertly evasive.

 

[cassini]

Are you claiming then here a geocentric cosmos, so that all of the stars revolve about the earth which is the center of the universe, in your view?

Yes Sid. And isn’t that what we all see every day. I got fed up living in a mathematical world compiled for us by Copernicus to Pope Pius XII (Big Bang and the Creation lark). Then when I discovered NASA use a geocentric framework for all its calculations I said what is good enough for NASA is good enough for me. Then I discovered in 1616 the Catholic Church defined that the Scriptures reveal a world that has the earth at its centre, I said again, that’s it, you can keep your mind games, I am no longer going to cancel out what is reality to us all and replace it with a metaphysical assumption.
Oh, here is a little more on time:
*And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of the heaven,
to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons,
and for days and years. *(Gen. 1:14)

**Time is defined, after Aristotle, as ‘the numbering of motion according to the before and after.’ Time then is the duration of motion or change in which all things happen. It therefore came into being with matter. True empirical science admits that all matter is in a process in its existence (the law of entropy-decay – the Second law of thermodynamics), everything in the whole universe is undergoing energy breakdown, from the stars to the earth and all things on it. Now a process in motion is something changing, and change needs time to run its course.

The very existence of ‘time’ then, shows there was a beginning, and not so long ago, for, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates, if everything was here forever, all would be burned out by now, yes?
Measuring time is of course not time itself. We measure time according to God’s plan, the ordained movement of the cosmos, but specifically the daily and yearly cycle of the sun, stars and seasons. Thus the first object of astronomy was measuring time, begun, we know, by the first people to inhabit the earth. Every measurement - from the watch on your hand to the calendar on your wall - is but a division of the cosmic day and the cosmic year. Of crucial importance in any sane and rational concept of time is that it has to be universal, that is, all time must be the same for everyone. When we relate to the past, present and future, it should go without saying we must all have the same understanding of it. Fortunately, for most of us, apart from the space-time relativists that is, this is how it is, has always been, and always will be.**

 

[Image_of_God]

Can you accurately envision God? If not God doesn’t exist?

Image, you are taking up the same argument you were a few days ago yet you never responded to my explanation to your argument. That is at least impolite, if not covertly evasive.

I am sorry if I seem to be evading you, that was not my intent.

My point in bringing up “envisioning” infinite distances was not to prove that they don’t exist. It was to prove that *actual * movement on them does not exist. The human mind always arbitrarily imposes beginnings and ends when we envision any kind of movement. The nonexistence of infinite distances comes by acknowledging the fact that a distance is a length between two points and if “infinite distances” has no beginning or end, such a thing cannot physically exist.

To answer your question in a more direct manner, no, God cannot be envisioned accurately (if by accurately you mean in totality). But that doesn’t prove that God doesn’t exists.

 

[sidbrown]

Yes Sid. And isn’t that what we all see every day. I got fed up living in a mathematical world compiled for us by Copernicus to Pope Pius XII (Big Bang and the Creation lark). Then when I discovered NASA use a geocentric framework for all its calculations I said what is good enough for NASA is good enough for me. Then I discovered in 1616 the Catholic Church defined that the Scriptures reveal a world that has the earth at its centre, I said again, that’s it, you can keep your mind games, I am no longer going to cancel out what is reality to us all and replace it with a metaphysical assumption.
Oh, here is a little more on time:
*And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of the heaven,
to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons,
and for days and years. *(Gen. 1:14)

**Time is defined, after Aristotle, as ‘the numbering of motion according to the before and after.’ Time then is the duration of motion or change in which all things happen. It therefore came into being with matter. True empirical science admits that all matter is in a process in its existence (the law of entropy-decay – the Second law of thermodynamics), everything in the whole universe is undergoing energy breakdown, from the stars to the earth and all things on it. Now a process in motion is something changing, and change needs time to run its course.

The very existence of ‘time’ then, shows there was a beginning, and not so long ago, for, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates, if everything was here forever, all would be burned out by now, yes?
Measuring time is of course not time itself. We measure time according to God’s plan, the ordained movement of the cosmos, but specifically the daily and yearly cycle of the sun, stars and seasons. Thus the first object of astronomy was measuring time, begun, we know, by the first people to inhabit the earth. Every measurement - from the watch on your hand to the calendar on your wall - is but a division of the cosmic day and the cosmic year. Of crucial importance in any sane and rational concept of time is that it has to be universal, that is, all time must be the same for everyone. When we relate to the past, present and future, it should go without saying we must all have the same understanding of it. Fortunately, for most of us, apart from the space-time relativists that is, this is how it is, has always been, and always will be.**

How do you explain the forces according to the geocentric point of view. For example, the sun is supposedly moving about the earth, and then what about all the other planets, are they moving about the earth or are they moving about the sun. And wouldn’t it take a lot of energy for the whole universe to rotate about the earth in a 24 hour period?
Further, how do you explain the motion of the Foucault pendulum?
Have you ever heard of Newton’s law of gravity and laws of motion? And Kepler’s laws? Why do you discard them? And would you say that it is a heresy to claim that the earth revolves about the sun.
Regardless, I don’t think you are going to find many physicists who agree with your geocentric view on this.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I am sorry if I seem to be evading you, that was not my intent.

My point in bringing up “envisioning” infinite distances was not to prove that they don’t exist. It was to prove that *actual * movement on them does not exist. The human mind always arbitrarily imposes beginnings and ends when we envision any kind of movement. The nonexistence of infinite distances comes by acknowledging the fact that a distance is a length between two points and if “infinite distances” has no beginning or end, such a thing cannot physically exist.

To answer your question in a more direct manner, no, God cannot be envisioned accurately (if by accurately you mean in totality). But that doesn’t prove that God doesn’t exists.

This might connect to why letting another person know about God is so difficult. God is infinite – picture an infinite line – and so reference to any “part” of God is indistinguishable from reference to any other part. The entry point is arbitrary, and when you get there (as if you could fathom the mind of God!), you don’t know where you are and where you aren’t. It is hardly surprising that mysticism is so very mystifying.

If time has no beginning, it is because God has no beginning. That’s all I’m willing to stick my neck out for.

 

[Image_of_God]

This might connect to why letting another person know about God is so difficult. God is infinite – picture an infinite line – and so reference to any “part” of God is indistinguishable from reference to any other part. The entry point is arbitrary, and when you get there (as if you could fathom the mind of God!), you don’t know where you are and where you aren’t. It is hardly surprising that mysticism is so very mystifying.

If time has no beginning, it is because God has no beginning. That’s all I’m willing to stick my neck out for.

That’s a very good observation.