How does immortality of God follow?

[STT]

hat’s a horse of a different color.

So, you’ve stated your theorem. Theorems can be questioned and disputed. They are not facts simply because they are stated.

So, let’s begin.

Ok, great.

First error. (time cannot be created or be emergent)

That’s a simple claim. Time can certainly be created and be emergent and the Big Bang theory is one explanation of how it can be created or emerge.

That is the conclusion. You need to see whether it follows from the premises.

Second error. You have assumed the parameters for your dynamical theory are acceptable to everyone. They are not. Whereas, God is absolute. God is unchanging. There is nothing dynamical until God creates something. Therefore, the dynamical part of existence began when God created the universe.

Does God need the knowledge for the act of creation? I am claiming that such a knowledge, how create time, does not exist.

 

[Gorgias]

Ok, then I would change simultaneous with timeless point. Does that make sense now?

Sure, but it hurts your argument. With two events in eternity, there is no temporal order, and so, causation is possible despite the lack of temporal causality. So, your argument cannot proceed on the basis of a contradiction or paradox.

But, let’s take your next statement at face value anyway. You say that “X cannot exist at the same point as Y”. Since we’re talking about temporality, I take it to mean that you’re talking about the “same point in time.” That’s false. They can. Take the example of a series of gears. The motion of geari-1 is the cause of the motion of geari, the motion of geari-2 is the cause of the motion of geari-1, and so on. (Keep in mind that the motion of geari is not caused by geari-2 or any other gear besides geari-1.)

So, the cause of each gear’s movement is one and only one gear. However, each of the gears is moving simultaneously! So, you have a whole set of gears which are simultaneously acting as causes and effects! Therefore, your claim that “X cannot exist at the same point as Y” is demonstrably false. As are result, your conclusion that “without time, Y never happens”, is unfounded.

Glad to be of service.

Ok, can I say that reality is not timeless?

No. That flies in the face of our experience of the temporal universe.

What if uncreated becomes a part of creation upon creation. How you can show that they are separate now.

Three thoughts:

• “What-if” conjectures aren’t arguments.
• You can’t just throw out a conjecture and ask that it be treated as a fact. The burden of proof is on you, first, to prove that “the uncreated becomes a part of creation upon creation.” Then, we can look at the implications of this assertion.
• Even on its face, though, your conjecture is nonsensical. How can “uncreated” become its own “creation”? Even if it were to ‘morph’, somehow, or to live among its creation… it would still be the creator, not the created.

Time funamental entity of any dynamical theory

I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Care to re-phrase?

so it is required for creation of any thing but itself. Therefore time cannot be created.

Judeo-Christian theology asserts that God created ex nihilo. That means that time is a creation. Nihil is nihil.

Therefore, the conclusion doesn’t follow.

I agree. Your conclusion doesn’t follow.

 

[STT]

Ok, then I would change simultaneous with timeless point. Does that make sense now?

No, it doesn’t. I just misused word. I said if there is no time then two events either are in a timless point or Y never occurs.

With two events in eternity, there is no temporal order, and so, causation is possible despite the lack of temporal causality. So, your argument cannot proceed on the basis of a contradiction or paradox.

That is not our concern. There is however a problem in this world view: There is not any dynamical theory in which time is an emergent entity.

But, let’s take your next statement at face value anyway. You say that “X cannot exist at the same point as Y”. Since we’re talking about temporality, I take it to mean that you’re talking about the “same point in time.”

No. I mean, that reality that we experience is temporal and not timeless.

That’s false. They can . Take the example of a series of gears. The motion of geari-1 is the cause of the motion of geari, the motion of geari-2 is the cause of the motion of geari-1, and so on. (Keep in mind that the motion of geari is not caused by geari-2 or any other gear besides geari-1.)

What gear has to do with time?

So, the cause of each gear’s movement is one and only one gear. However, each of the gears is moving simultaneously! So, you have a whole set of gears which are simultaneously acting as causes and effects! Therefore, your claim that “X cannot exist at the same point as Y” is demonstrably false. As are result, your conclusion that “without time, Y never happens”, is unfounded.

I agree. We have three realities, timeless, simultaneous and temporal. I am talking about the third one. Do you agree that the reality that we observe is temporal?

Ok, can I say that reality is not timeless?

True. We are embedded in such a temporal framework. We are temporal entities.

What if uncreated becomes a part of creation upon creation. How you can show that they are separate now.

I said uncreated becomes a part of His own creation. We simply exist, so God is a part of set {God, us}.

Therefore, the conclusion doesn’t follow.

That for now is just a claim. You need to falsify my argument.

 

[Gorgias]

No, it doesn’t. I just misused word. I said if there is no time then two events either are in a timless point or Y never occurs.

Sure, it does. I get it that “simultaneous” was the wrong word. “TImeless”, though, eviscerates your argument.

There is however a problem in this world view: There is not any dynamical theory in which time is an emergent entity.

No, that’s not a problem, unless you want to assert that time is necessary. (I get it that you do want to assert this… but you have to prove that it’s necessary, and not just claim it.)

So, your construct without time works. You haven’t created a contradiction that forces us to concede that time is necessary.

No. I mean, that reality that we experience is temporal and not timeless.

OK… so, please work on your argument a little, then. Your premise is that there is no temporal dimension. Your assertion that time exists doesn’t help your argument. If that’s all you’re going to say about the matter, then leave the whole “assume time does not exist” tangent.

What gear has to do with time?

The motion of the gears is simultaneous. There is no priority in time, but there nevertheless is priority in causation. Your whole argument hinges on the premise that a cause and an effect cannot exist at the same point in time… and I’ve just given you the counter-example that refutes your argument.

I said uncreated becomes a part of His own creation. We simply exist, so God is a part of set {God, us}.

The set {God, creation} is a superset of the set “created universe.” It is not equivalent to the set “God’s own creation”. Therefore, you can’t baldly assert that God becomes part of his creation. Your math is erroneous.

That for now is just a claim. You need to falsify my argument.

I’ve been doing it, brother.

 

[STT]

No, it doesn’t. I just misused word. I said if there is no time then two events either are in a timless point or Y never occurs.

What do you mean?

There is however a problem in this world view: There is not any dynamical theory in which time is an emergent entity.

It is. Please see the question at the end of my post.

So, your construct without time works . You haven’t created a contradiction that forces us to concede that time is necessary.

Yes, there is a contradiction. Without time the reality is either timeless or you cannot reach from one event to another one. Our reality is not timeless, in another word it takes time between any two events.

No. I mean, that reality that we experience is temporal and not timeless.

Well, in such a world which time does not exist you cannot reach from one event to another one. Our reality is not like that therefore time exists.

What gear has to do with time?

If and only if you can build perfect gear which you cannot.

That for now is just a claim. You need to falsify my argument.

Ok.

You dismissed my question which is very key in our discussion: Can you write a dynamical theory without time?

 

[De_Maria]

No. I accept that God exists and He is uncaused cause. I am looking for a way to show that uncaused cause is immortal.

Ok. My mistake. I don’t use the word “immortal” to describe God. But, I looked it up and it is even used in Scripture.

Romans 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.

So, I was mistaken.

 

[Gorgias]

I really hate to be a stickler for details. But the motion of gears really isn’t an example of simultaneous action.

How so? Picture gears in motion. Aren’t they all moving? Isn’t one causing the motion of the next?

“Timeless”, though, eviscerates your argument.

What do you mean?

The form of your argument is:

• presume there is no time
  • this leads to a contradiction, so…
• we must admit that there is time
  • but… this leads to a problem, too, so…
• we must conclude that time is a causative agent

The first flaw in your argument is that the “there is no time” argument doesn’t lead to a contradiction, and therefore, we don’t have to turn to the “but if there is time…” part.

(The second flaw is that the premise in that second part doesn’t hold up, either.)

So, if neither of the contradictions in your premises is really a contradiction, then your conclusion doesn’t follow logically.

Without time the reality is either timeless or you cannot reach from one event to another one. Our reality is not timeless, in another word it takes time between any two events.

There was timelessness prior to the creation of the universe, though, so you can’t say “timelessness doesn’t work.” It does work. You can certainly say “the universe isn’t timeless”, but that doesn’t help as much as you think it does.

Well, in such a world which time does not exist you cannot reach from one event to another one.

You keep saying that. It doesn’t follow. In eternity, events are not caused temporally. That’s all that you can conclude.

If and only if you can build perfect gear which you cannot.

Think about gears already in motion. (Granted, there’s some slippage in the beginning of the motion.) But, when they are in motion, there is simultaneous causation. (Naturally, there’s some loss of energy, but that’s not the point here.)

You dismissed my question which is very key in our discussion: Can you write a dynamical theory without time?

It’s not key in this discussion. Dynamical theories are mathematical models. They depend on time (although they seek states that don’t change over time!). Nevertheless, you can’t prove a philosophical point by arguing that your model of the world doesn’t work without time. That’s kinda like pointing to a model airplane and saying “aerodynamics must work like this, because if they don’t, my model isn’t accurate.” Doesn’t work that way.

Besides which, this is a philosophy forum, so you might want to argue from philosophical premises.

 

[STT]

What do you mean?

Yes. I am saying that.

• we must admit that there is time
  • but… this leads to a problem, too, so…

Yes, but the problem is related to beginning of time rather than time itself.

• we must conclude that time is a causative agent

I am not making such a conclusion. I am saying that time allows motion.

The first flaw in your argument is that the “there is no time” argument doesn’t lead to a contradiction, and therefore, we don’t have to turn to the “but if there is time…” part.

It does follow. Reality is timeless or temporal. Our reality for sure is temporal. We are talking about our reality rather than timeless reality. Now consider two events in temporal reality. These two events either are simultaneous or not simultaneous, lets call this continuous. The last case is our case when it takes time to reach from one event to another one. If there is no time events are neither simultaneous or continuous (we excluded timeless since it is not for sure our reality). This means that we cannot reach from one event to another.

(The second flaw is that the premise in that second part doesn’t hold up, either.)

I have already provide the argument.

So, if neither of the contradictions in your premises is really a contradiction, then your conclusion doesn’t follow logically.

There is a contradiction if there is no time. You cannot have change.

Without time the reality is either timeless or you cannot reach from one event to another one.
… but that doesn’t help as much as you think it does.

That is not our concern now. I am talking about our reality, not God’s reality.

Well, in such a world which time does not exist you cannot reach from one event to another one.
You keep saying that. It doesn’t follow . In eternity, events are not caused temporally. That’s all that you can conclude.

We are not talking about eternity. We are talking about our reality.

You dismissed my question which is very key in our discussion: Can you write a dynamical theory without time?

This is related to philosophy of science.

It is however great that you agreed that any dynamical system depends on time. Here is the problem now: Can you have a dynamical theory with time as a emergent property? This knowledge is required if one wants to created time.

 

[Gorgias]

I am not making such a conclusion. I am saying that time allows motion.

If you say that change cannot happen without time, then you’re identifying time as a causative agent.

Our reality for sure is temporal.

No… our reality includes a temporal dimension.

If we don’t claim that the physical universe is itself eternal, then that means that it must have proceeded from something that is eternal. If this is true, then the eternal reality must still exist (after all, it’s eternal). Therefore, there are both eternal and temporal aspects to reality. (We live in and experience the temporal reality personally, of course.)

If there is no time events are neither simultaneous or continuous

I showed you a counter-example of events, within the physical universe, which exhibit simultaneous causation. So, your argument fails. Don’t keep skipping over that part. When someone provides a counter-example to your argument, it refutes your argument.

We are not talking about eternity. We are talking about our reality.

Then you can’t make the claims that you’re making. You’re saying “X doesn’t exist”… but it does!

It is however great that you agreed that any dynamical system depends on time.

This doesn’t help you in the way you think it does.

You’ve raised the question of a particular mathematical model. Great.

I can make all sorts of mathematical models which are internally consistent, but which don’t really model reality. For instance, I can make a really complicated yet consistent model which treats the motions in the solar system as if it were geocentric. The model works. It’s internally consistent. However, you can’t use that model to ‘prove’ that reality is geocentric rather than heliocentric! That’s what you’re doing here – you’re taking one particular mathematical model and attempting to extrapolate from it a description of reality. It doesn’t work that way – you have to first demonstrate that reality is what you say it is … and then you can talk about how well your model represents that reality. You can’t just say “I’ve got a really nice model, so this is what reality must be.”

 

[sevenswords]

Hi hope your well
Quantum theory is looking at atoms and how they work and how they move, an Atom can’t move unless it has a point to move too. So an atom can not move from A to B unless B exists so when ever an atom moves it needs a point to exist, so if you go back to the beginning before A existed B had to exist also. so the cause had to exist at the same time or before the caused.
At some point an uncaused cause had to exist or nothing would exist, because A can not move unless B is there so it seems likely that the cause caused all things at the one moment, the opposite of evolution.
Take care

 

[STT]

I am not making such a conclusion. I am saying that time allows motion.

No. Time is stronger than that. Without it any causative agent cannot cause.

Our reality for sure is temporal.

No, an agent with ability to cause is enough. Eternality doesn’t follow here.

If this is true, then the eternal reality must still exist (after all, it’s eternal ). Therefore, there are both eternal and temporal aspects to reality. (We live in and experience the temporal reality personally, of course.)

This then doesn’t follow.

If there is no time events are neither simultaneous or continuous

I am afraid I don’t recall this. Could you please provide the topic and the your objection to it?

We are not talking about eternity. We are talking about our reality.

No. I say assuming that X exists but you cannot reach to Y without time.

It is however great that you agreed that any dynamical system depends on time.

All, you said is irrelevant to the question I asked: Does a dynamical theory which time is an emergent entity in it exist?

 

[Gorgias]

No. Time is stronger than that. Without it any causative agent cannot cause.

God caused the universe to be created. That didn’t take a temporal framework. (Note: that’s a counter-example that shows your claim to be incorrect.)

No, an agent with ability to cause is enough. Eternality doesn’t follow here.

No, you’re missing the point. If the universe itself is not eternal, then something must have created it. That something – given that it exists outside of the universe and its temporal framework – is not conditioned temporally. In other words, it is eternal.

I am afraid I don’t recall this. Could you please provide the topic and the your objection to it?

Go back to my example of the gears, in this thread.

All, you said is irrelevant to the question I asked

No… what I asserted is that your question itself is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[STT]

No… what I asserted is that your question itself is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is very relevant to discussion. God should know how to create time. Isn’t it? The act of creation is logically wrong if we accept that there exists not any dynamical theory with time as an emergent property. So here is the question: Does a dynamical theory which time is an emergent entity in it exist?

 

[Gorgias]

The act of creation is logically wrong if we accept that there exists not any dynamical theory with time as an emergent property.

Why?

(p.s., if time is an emergent property, then it doesn’t cause – rather, it is caused.)

 

[STT]

Why?

Because time cannot be the emergent entity and the fundamental entity at the same time.

 

[Gorgias]

Because time cannot be the emergent entity and the fundamental entity at the same time.

It’s not a “fundamental entity”, as I understand you to mean it. It’s a means of measuring change.

 

[STT]

It’s not a “fundamental entity”, as I understand you to mean it. It’s a means of measuring change.

Any theory describes an aspect of reality. You have timeless theory, static theory and dynamical theory. There was no need for time in a dynamical theory if time was not an entity. The reality would be timeless if all you have are changes.

 

[STT]

Once again I’m going to point out that the motion of gears is NOT an example of simultaneous action. A hand pushing a stick, pushing a rock is NOT an example of simultaneous action. An engine pulling a train is NOT an example of simultaneous action.

Now you can continue to repeat this assertion if you like, but it’s wrong.

You are right. He thinks that cause and effect are at the same time. The basic interaction between gears in his example are mainly electromagnetic field which this is a dynamical filed and moves at the speed of light which is not infinite.

 

[Gorgias]

Once again I’m going to point out that the motion of gears is NOT an example of simultaneous action.

How would you describe it, then?

(And, just for the sake of clarity, it’s simultaneous causation that we’re showing here, not just simultaneous action. If you and I are walking down the street, that’s simultaneous action. It’s not simultaneous causation, though.)

Now you can continue to repeat this assertion if you like, but it’s wrong.

Show me how I’m wrong, please.

He thinks that cause and effect are at the same time. The basic interaction between gears in his example are mainly electromagnetic field

Huh?
Picture a hand crank on a gear. Turn the crank. No electromagnetic field.

And oh… show me how the cause and effect are happening at different times, please…

 

[STT]

Huh?
Picture a hand crank on a gear. Turn the crank. No electromagnetic field.

And oh… show me how the cause and effect are happening at different times, please…

The gears interact because their atoms interact. Atoms interact through electromagnetic field.