Nothing to something

[STT]

Your generalization that all act requires time is not sound, because causality metaphysically only entails a relation of causing and being caused . Causality only entails temporal considerations if we are dealing with time-bound substances and events.

Is there a before and an after for any change?

 

[Pattylt]

I wish you would explain a little further as your answers are contradictory.

We need time to create time…so since we have time, we obviously either have always had it (to which you say no) or, it started with the BB (which you also say no, I think?)

Is there a third choice I’m missing?

 

[Veritas6]

I mean that any act requires time since there is a before and after for any act. How could you reach from before to after if there is no time?

Creation is not an event: there is no pre-existing object upon which God acts, hence there is no “before”. God is doing everything eternally, so we cannot attach a before or an after to His creation.

 

[STT]

I wish you would explain a little further as your answers are contradictory.

There is no contradiction in here.

We need time to create time…so since we have time, we obviously either have always had it (to which you say no) or, it started with the BB (which you also say no, I think?)

It started at BB.

Is there a third choice I’m missing?

Yes, there is. There was either nothing at BB or some material and time. In first case, you could have two times, one positive time and another negative time which they cancel each other at BB so you have nothing (that is true since time is a substance, it curves). The situation is clear in the second case.

 

[STT]

Creation is not an event: there is no pre-existing object upon which God acts, hence there is no “before”. God is doing everything eternally, so we cannot attach a before or an after to His creation.

If there is no before the act of creation then the universe exists since T=0 and there is no need for God.

 

[Veritas6]

If there is no before the act of creation then the universe exists since T=0 and there is no need for God.

Are you saying the universe must exist before time begins or has always existed? Even if that is true, that doesn’t change anything about God or what He can do. Do you deny that God can act all at once in one eternal present?

Even if contingent realities existed eternally into the past (within an eternal universe), there still must be a final cause that explains not just the past existence of those things, but even their current existence, which is something a Big Bang singularity cannot do.

 

[STT]

Are you saying the universe must exist before time begins or has always existed?

No, I am talking about T=0, T=0 is the beginning of time and universe.

Even if that is true, that doesn’t change anything about God or what He can do.

All I am saying is that if the universe exists at T=0 then there is obviously no need for God. You can eliminate God from the equation using Occam’s razor.

Do you deny that God can act all at once in one eternal present?

We all act at present. God, if there is any, acts on one eternal present. I am talking about creation rather than act of creation in here. There is a before and after for creation, namely a point that there was no universe whereas another point that there was the universe. Are you denying this?

 

[STT]

Even if contingent realities existed eternally into the past (within an eternal universe), there still must be a final cause that explains not just the past existence of those things, but even their current existence, which is something a Big Bang singularity cannot do.

How about this? The universe is sustained by higher minds but there is no creator.

 

[Veritas6]

All I am saying is that if the universe exists at T=0 then there is obviously no need for God. You can eliminate God from the equation using Occam’s razor.

Your consequent does not follow.

There is a before and after for creation, namely a point that there was no universe whereas another point that there was the universe. Are you denying this?

There was no point in time that there was no universe, God has eternally acted on everything instantaneously.

The universe is sustained by higher minds but there is no creator.

Aristotle and Aquinas both thought that we cannot philosophically prove the beginning of the universe. Aristotle believed in an eternal universe and Aquinas accepted Revelation, but that still doesn’t change anything about how God acts.

If the universe always existed, a regress doesn’t explain why change happens right now! If we can agree God sustains the universe right now, it won’t take much more effort to believe in scientific discoveries of the beginning of the universe or to accept Revelation

But also, God is able to eternally create an eternally existing universe if He wanted to, but saying that the universe wasn’t created doesn’t make much sense if you believe God sustains it right now.

 

[STT]

Your consequent does not follow.

It does follow.

There was no point in time that there was no universe,

I am asking whether there was a point that universe didn’t exist. I am not asking about a point in time.

God has eternally acted on everything instantaneously.

I am not asking about God’s act. I am asking about creation.

 

[Veritas6]

It does follow.

Good argument.

I am asking whether there was a point that universe didn’t exist. I am not asking about a point in time.

There was never a “point” that the universe didn’t exist (if God creates eternally). If you say “points” we are inherently using time as a relation.

I am not asking about God’s act. I am asking about creation.

There was no “point” before creation if God acts eternally.

 

[AlNg]

God created something out of nothing.

Nothing “external” to God is not nothing in an absolute sense, since God is there. IOW
Let 0 be nothing.
Then God + 0 is not nothing.
God used His existence and His Being to create something when there was nothing “external” to Him.

 

[Abrosz]

“Timeless action” is analogous to “ongoing action”.

Not interested in some analogies. Let’s see how timeless is different from “static”? Precisely, please, not analogically! Besides, ongoing action also presupposes “time”. Ongoing, from one instance to the next…

Christian theology asserts that God is pure act; moreover, He doesn’t merely exist , but rather is existence itself . He is literally one, integral, eternal act.

Does it not disturb you that I am arguing against this concept? But even if I would accept it, then God would act to create and sustain the ever-changing physical reality. And change implies a before and an after, which is just another way to speak about time.

It is not an opinion that action is not the same as non-action. It is a basic principle. It is not an opinion that change is not the same as no-change. It is also a basic principle.

This is the issue we’ve been dancing around, in this thread: the difference between the viewpoints of the universe from within its temporal framework and from without , where there is no temporal framework.

Since STEM - space-time-energy-matter cannot be defined outside the universe, there cannot be an a-temporal or a-spatial framework (except in a fantasy land). Modern physics, which is superior to some speculative metaphysics, denies the a-temporal and a-spatial approach.

Before and after, in-front-of and behind, and also next-to, above and below are not “opinions”, these are basic relationships.

If you wish to argue that these are only valid in a temporal and spatial reality, and they are meaningless in an a-temporal and a-spatial reality, then present some evidence that such a reality actually exists. You could also argue that causation is only defined in reality which has causal relationships, and it is inapplicable in an a-causal reality, and you are welcome to show that such a reality actually exists. If you wish to argue that the laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle) are only applicable in a logically coherent reality, you are welcome to say so… IF you can bring up an example of an illogically established reality.

But to say that the Catholic theology is different is not an argument.

It is possible to fantasize about some a-temporal, a-spatial, a-rational reality. It is possible to fantasize about seven-headed, fire-breathing dragons, about all the imaginary ghosts, gods, demons, angels, and so on… as long as you do it “for amusement only” as the old pinball machines declared.

I suspect that you will keep on bringing up some irrational non-argument, as you always do. But as long as you don’t do it based upon the known, physical, temporal, spatial, logical reality, you are irrational. It is also a fact that this post was not directed to you, your (name removed by moderator)ut was just a convenient à-propos to present it. I hope that some time I will meet some rational believer, and then we can have a fruitful conversation.

 

[STT]

Good argument.

There was never a “point” that the universe didn’t exist (if God creates eternally). If you say “points” we are inherently using time as a relation.

There was no “point” before creation if God acts eternally.

If there was no point that universe didn’t exist then the universe also exists eternally.

 

[Freddy]

Yes, there is. There was either nothing at BB or some material and time. In first case, you could have two times, one positive time and another negative time which they cancel each other at BB so you have nothing (that is true since time is a substance, it curves). The situation is clear in the second case.

I think you’ve reached a point where you’re making this up as you go.

 

[AlNg]

Modern physics, which is superior…

Modern physics creates models to describe the workings of the universe. Sometimes the models are wrong. For example, in the case of the aether and in the case of geocentrism modeled by cycles within cycles. Even with string theory, said by many to be the best chance for the TOE, has been criticized by many top physicists as overreliant on higher level math and underreliant on experiments or observations. AFAIK, the solutions given to explaining high temperature superconductivity remain controversial and there are many questions which need to be answered.

Before and after, in-front-of and behind, and also next-to, above and below are not “opinions”, these are basic relationships .

I don’t think that " in-front-of and behind " OR “above and below” are basic relationships. I think that there can be wide disagreement on who is above and who is below. For example is Argentina below the equator? You would think so according to everything you read. But it would be just as easy to turn things upside down with Argentina above the equator and Canada below the equator. It is not a basic relationship IMHO. It is an arbitrary decision to put Canada above the equator and Argentina below the equator.

 

[Abrosz]

I think that there can be wide disagreement on who is above and who is below.

Indeed the position of the observer is also important. The same applies to all the relationships which are contingent upon the observer. But that is of secondary importance. The same applies to in front of and behind… what of it? How about next to? Some relationships are also contingent upon the position of the observer.

Yet, none of these are “opinions”…

 

[Gorgias]

Not interested in some analogies

Yes, it seems that – unless it comes from your own keyboard – you’re generally uninterested.

Abrosz:

Let’s see how timeless is different from “static”? Precisely, please, not analogically!

Let’s see what the dictionary has to say…

timeless – not affected by the passage of time

static – lacking in movement, action, or change, especially in a way viewed as undesirable or uninteresting

Yep! God is “unaffected by the passage of time”, alright! After all, ‘time’ exists within the context of the universe, and God is not bounded by the universe. Therefore, He’s unaffected by our temporal dimension

And, again, God is not affected “in a way undesirable” with respect to movement, action, or change! That’s true, too!

Glad I could help you look up the terms and distinguish them for you!

(My sense of it, though, is that you wish to capitalize on the negative connotations of ‘static’ – as if God is incapable of actualizing His will.)

Abrosz:

Does it not disturb you that I am arguing against this concept?

Not at all. Hardly surprised, in fact.

Abrosz:

there cannot be an a-temporal or a-spatial framework (except in a fantasy land).

Who said there was? Please re-read my assertion: I’m talking about considering the universe from outside of it, “where there is no temporal framework.” I’m not claiming that there is “an atemporal or aspatial framework”, as you mischaracterized it. Rather, I’m only asserting the absence of any such frameworks.

If you wish to argue that these … are meaningless in an a-temporal and a-spatial reality, then present some evidence that such a reality actually exists.

Ahh, yes. The seemingly reasonable “present some evidence, please” request! Here’s the problem, though: I’ll ask you “what kind of evidence?” and you’ll reply “empirical, of course! what other kind is there?” and I’ll respond “but that’s a request in bad faith, since – a priori – we know we’re talking about a context that has no physical extension which might be observed empirically!”. Then, depending on your mood, you’ll either declare victory or act indignant. (There we go – I just saved us a couple of days of futility. )

It is possible to fantasize about some a-temporal, a-spatial, a-rational reality.

“Fantasize”? No… this is a forum for philosophy – what we do here isn’t “fantasize”, it’s “rationalize”. It’s sad if you think the two are the same thing.

Abrosz:

But as long as you don’t do it based upon the known, physical, temporal, spatial, logical reality, you are irrational.

And, there we go: “I’m a materialist, so therefore you must argue from my belief system.” No thanks, friend!

Abrosz:

I hope that some time I will meet some rational believer, and then we can have a fruitful conversation.

Why do I get the feeling that you consider “rational believer” to be in the same class as “married bachelor”?

 

[Abrosz]

Who said there was? Please re-read my assertion: I’m talking about considering the universe from outside of it, “where there is no temporal framework.”

Outside the universe is exactly as nonsensical as talking about something to the north of the North Pole or the reverse side of the Mobius strip. The universe is everything that exists, therefore there can be nothing “outside” or “prior to”.

Here’s the problem, though: I’ll ask you “what kind of evidence?”

That is YOUR problem, not mine. By the way, not everything can be observed empirically, nothing below the event horizon, or outside the light cone can be observed empirically, yet their existence can be deduced from the known laws of physics and the universe.

So either direct observaiton, or indirect demonstration would be fine.

“Fantasize”? No… this is a forum for philosophy – what we do here isn’t “fantasize”, it’s “rationalize”.

“Rationalize” would be to try to lend rationality to something irrational. Fantasy is to contemplate some artificial realm, which has fantastic elements in it. And we all know which elements are fantastic. Moreover we do not try to assert that they are real.

And, there we go: “I’m a materialist, so therefore you must argue from my belief system.”

As usual, you misunderstand. You must START from the shared belief - namely that the physical universe exists. Also you must START from the existing laws of physics. But you do not have to “end” there.

I explicitly said: “based upon”, but you are free to extend the realm if you can substantiate that such an extension is rational. Pay attention next time.

Why do I get the feeling that you consider “rational believer” to be in the same class as “married bachelor”?

I am open to the possibility. As soon as you can rationally demonstrate the existence of the “supernatural”, your belief will be accepted as rational. And unfortunately for you, the existence of the supernatural could be demonstrated rationally - due to the fact that there is an (alleged) interface between the two realms. Too bad for you that every attempt came back with a negative result. But, who knows? Maybe the next attempt will be successful.

I am a rational believer concerning the inside of the black holes, or the events outside the light cone, even though none of them can be demonstrated directly.

I am also skeptical about the existence of the paranormal. But as soon as it could be demonstrated, I would admit that my skepticism was incorrect. The same applies to the supernatural. This is how rational skepticism works. Are you open to the possibility that there is no such thing as “supernatural”?

And you STILL did not explain what a “timeless action” would be. And how does it differ from a timeless “inaction”? Any chance of that? Or will you just continue to deflect? I will not hold my breath.

 

[Abrosz]

Adding due to the character limitation:

You are welcome to assert that the universe is composed of two parts, a physical and a spiritual and assert that the spiritual is primary, while the existence of the physical needs to be explained by stipulating the spiritual part - that could be a rational approach - if you could have an argument for it. You are welcome to try.

Repeating:

And you STILL did not explain what a “timeless action” would be. And how does it differ from a timeless “inaction”? Any chance of that? Or will you just continue to deflect? I will not hold my breath.