God creating the universe would mean he is not eternal?

[STT]

Agreed. If order cannot be defined, then it is impossible to say which is cause and which is effect. Did creation cause the creator? After all, a creator who has not created anything is not a creator. Any creator of X is dependent on the existence of at least one X, which she/he/it/they have created.

rossum

I think you almost get what do I mean. You cannot say that cause precedes effect if there is no space/dimension, such as time, between two.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I’m not understanding what the statement is supposed to mean.

 

[anon65111186]

By space I mean a dimension.

Dimension implies width, height, depth, which is space.

 

[rossum]

Dimension implies width, height, depth, which is space.

Or time. In Einsteinian physics we live in a four dimensional manifold: three dimensions of space and one of time. Various cosmological theories go up to eleven dimensions; cosmology can get very strange.

rossum

 

[anon65111186]

Right, but even time or other dimensions all imply a plane which has material substance.

All material is created. So, any dimension comes after God creating it.

 

[rossum]

Right, but even time or other dimensions all imply a plane which has material substance.

All material is created. So, any dimension comes after God creating it.

That depends how you define “material”. Given E = mc2 then all material/matter (m) can be converted into energy (E), so “material” becomes mass-energy rather than the purely material.

In the absence of a time dimension the word “after” becomes meaningless, since “after” is measured in terms of time.

rossum

 

[anon65111186]

In the absence of a time dimension the word “after” becomes meaningless, since “after” is measured in terms of time.

Thus the problem of explaining a state in which nothing exists but God, it is not before, because before implies time.

 

[rossum]

Thus the problem of explaining a state in which nothing exists but God, it is not before, because before implies time.

Agreed. We are so used to living with time, that it is difficult to imagine living without it. For example, for us, the cause must come before (even by a very short time) the effect. That is how we can tell them apart. In the absence of time, and so with no “before”, we have great difficulty distinguishing cause from effect.

rossum

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Therefore for a non-eternal universe with an eternal creator to exist, the creator must have changed at around the time of creation. There is a necessary change from non-acting to acting and (presumably) back again.

However, an eternal entity cannot change. An eternal entity exists at all times. The active-creator entity does not exist at all times, it only exists at the time of creation. The inactive-creator entity does not exist for all times either, since it does not exist at the time of creation, before and after the act of creation, but not during.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. I exist and have an inactive state where I lay on the couch and an active state where I get up and go create a snack in the kitchen. I don’t somehow morph into a different entity and have my previous self cease to exist when I go from inactive to active and back to inactive when I finish the snack and lay back down on the couch.

 

[rossum]

This makes absolutely no sense to me. I exist and have an inactive state where I lay on the couch and an active state where I get up and go create a snack in the kitchen.

You change from an inactive state to an active state. You will also note that you are not eternal. Your limbs and muscles are in different positions and you heart rate has increased slightly due to the exertion. You have burned a little energy raising yourself upright.

I don’t somehow morph into a different entity and have my previous self cease to exist when I go from inactive to active and back to inactive when I finish the snack and lay back down on the couch.

You are different. You are older for one thing. There is a little more wear on your teeth for another. You are no longer the you you were a minute ago. I agree that the difference are very small, but those differences do exist.

Are you the same you as when you were born? Obviously not. Newborn you could not speak English and could not operate a computer.

The conglomeration of things that make up the compound entity “you” changes constantly.

rossum

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I accept that some schools of thought use this argument, but changing a state to me does not change my existence. It’s like saying H20 ceased to exist because it froze, melted or turned into a cloud.

Furthermore, we’re discussing physical things, like my physical self and a physical unit of H2O. These things are by nature limited. God’s not at all limited, so whatever argument we come up with about bodies and water, he’s still able to transcend them, and this whole train of thought is completely pointless.

 

[rossum]

and this whole train of thought is completely pointless.

No it is not. You still have to explain why the universe is not as old as God. If God is eternal and the universe is not, then something happened to switch God from “not creating” to “creating”, and that brings in many difficult philosophical problems for an eternal entity. As well as the problem of what that “something happened” was.

rossum

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m happy to let you “win” this argument which is as I said, in my opinion completely pointless.

Peace out…

 

[STT]

Dimension implies width, height, depth, which is space.

No, by space or dimension I mean something which separate two states.

 

[Gorgias]

There is no before creation unless God is subject the time.

There is no temporal ‘before’, in the context of creation; however, there is causal priority.

An eternal creator must have existed back then, so he/she/it/they was inactive at that point.

Since the universe exists today, and arguendo had an eternal creator, then that creator must have changed from inactive to active. From “I will not create now” to “I will create now.”

This argument presumes that the Creator is subject to the constraints of time. It says that there was a temporal ‘before’ that ‘existed’ prior to creation. Given that there was not, there is not a change from ‘inactive’ to ‘active’; rather, there is eternity, and within the context of eternity, God creates.

To posit such a claim implies is an error of category: it attempts to take the temporal framework of the universe and impose it outside of that framework.

Anything which changes cannot be eternal because change necessitates difference over time.

One observation: this implies that the universe cannot be eternal. Cool.

However, inasmuch as this is true, it implies (contra @STT), that God’s will was always to create. We cannot place the creation within the context of a pseudo-chronology in eternity, however… and this is where the argument breaks down.

 

[Gorgias]

If God is eternal and the universe is not, then something happened to switch God from “not creating” to “creating”, and that brings in many difficult philosophical problems for an eternal entity.

It really doesn’t. It means that the universe – although not eternal itself, and although created – was created within the framework of eternity. By God. Who did not ever change, but is always willing the creation and sustaining of the universe.

 

[rossum]

This argument presumes that the Creator is subject to the constraints of time.

Any creator must create (i.e. cause) something in order to be a creator. If I claim to be, “Rossum the great, creator of universes”, then you will rightly laugh at me because I have not created any universes.

Since causation involves action in time, then any creator must act in time. We already know that God acts in time, as with parting the Red Sea. The same argument about change applies there. The sea was not parted in Abraham’s time. It was parted in Moses’ time. It was not parted in David’s time.

That smaller act of causation has a similar logical effect. The cause of that parting changed from inactive to active and back to inactive again. As before, anything that changes cannot be eternal.

rossum

 

[anon65111186]

No, the sum is ill-defined if there is no space between two states

By space I mean a dimension.

No, by space or dimension I mean something which separate two states.

Okay, all of our words rely on the physical world as analogies. Separation implies physical space, state implies how physical material stands in a particular configuration.

There is no dimension or space in between cause and effect. The other one begins where the other ends.

 

[STT]

Okay, all of our words rely on the physical world as analogies. Separation implies physical space, state implies how physical material stands in a particular configuration.

There is no dimension or space in between cause and effect. The other one begins where the other ends.

There is a separation between cause and effect otherwise cause and effect lie at the same point which this makes the state of affair ill-defined.

 

[Gorgias]

Since causation involves action in time, then any creator must act in time.

This is where your argument goes south.

Time exists within the framework of the created universe, not outside of it. Therefore, causation – vis-a-vis the universe – does not “involve action in time.”

You are correct in asserting that causation within the framework of the created universe involves time:

, as with parting the Red Sea. The same argument about change applies there. The sea was not parted in Abraham’s time. It was parted in Moses’ time. It was not parted in David’s time.

Correct. Change within the physical universe is change in time.

We already know that God acts in time

Yes, we do. However, this does not imply that God acts solely in time. The creation of the universe is an example of the atemporal will of God.