Paradox of the beginning of creation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Glassjester said:
You’ve asked two separate questions. I’ll give two separate answers.
  1. Can we reason that time and space began with the big bang? Yes.
  2. Can we reason that the big bang was uncaused? No.
So we’re left with a finite, physical, temporal universe, the cause of which must be nonphysical and atemporal (immaterial and eternal).
Click to expand...
Causality is a concept that we observe it in current sate of universe. All physical laws however break down in the big bang point. Hence we cannot discuss about causality at big bang point.
 
Bahman said:
You didn’t get my point. The question is that how our universe have a specific age if God is it outside of time? Our universe could be younger or older. This means that there should exist a point reference in God’s mind about the time of creation but how this point could exist and be reached if God is timeless.
Click to expand...
But isn’t time as we know it just something that humans have constructed?
 
Bahman said:
I know special relatively because I have a PhD in physics. I don’t understand how this topic is related to the paradox presented in OP.
Click to expand...
I quoted what it relates to… your specific comment and question are contained in the post.

If the light is both straight and diagnol but you were only capable of seeing/knowing one you would be at a disadvantage. So if you were Amber but had no way of communicatiing with the guy in the ship… had no concept of relativity etc… you would believe that the diagnol light was the absolute end all be all of truth.

So your question of the perception of time is you symbolically being Amber swearing that everyone everywhere ever sees a diagnol light… but they don’t.
 
Bahman said:
I could be both. That why we know about special relativity.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you deny an alternate verion of time. This is where I say you are limiting time to the observations of JUST Amber. In this case Bahman can only see time one way so he says that is how time is. But that does not mean it is necessarily true. It is metaphorical, light in place of time and Bahman in place of Amber. Your entire “proof” against God is that you see the diagnol light and proport it cannot be straight… but to God it may be.
 
LethalMouse said:
Yes, but you deny an alternate verion of time. This is where I say you are limiting time to the observations of JUST Amber. In this case Bahman can only see time one way so he says that is how time is. But that does not mean it is necessarily true. It is metaphorical, light in place of time and Bahman in place of Amber. Your entire “proof” against God is that you see the diagnol light and proport it cannot be straight… but to God it may be.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how your comment is related to OP?
 
Timeless God: Timeless means that God is not subject to the time. This means that there exist not any time point of reference that God decide to create. The problem however is why then universe has a specific age.
Click to expand...
The problem is how a timeless God can decide about the act of creation with a specific age when He is timeless? This is something that temporal God can do but that God can not exist as it is illustrated in OP.
Click to expand...
I’m confused exactly what’s causing you difficulty in understanding this. Can you spell it out more carefully (ideally in some formal language)? As far as I can gather you are saying something along the lines of:
These premises are not consistent:
(1) God is eternal.
(2) God created the universe.
(3) The universe was created at a finite point in time.
Click to expand...
But these seem to be consistent so I’ll wait for clarification before responding.
 
Bahman said:
I don’t understand how your comment is related to OP?
Click to expand...
The ENTIRE OP IS UNEQUIVOCALLY based solely on the observations of the metaphorical Amber. THAT is the point, everything no matter the arguement is said by you “But I, ME, BAHMAN(Amber) See the light move diagnol therefore it is true” …

:banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
Basically Bahman if Bahman(Amber)'s diagnol perception is not the end all be all then perhaps the myriad of posts like #2 could have merit? Could they be stating the perception of the light beam from inside the ship? Or the perception of a ship going the speed of light looking at both Amber and the half speed of light ship?
 
Bahman said:
… The question is that how our universe have a specific age if God is it outside of time? … This means that there should exist a point reference in God’s mind about the time of creation but how this point could exist and be reached if God is timeless.
Click to expand...
I think Fr. Ernan McMullin’s perspective is interesting. He writes:

“Our notions of teleology, of purpose, of plan, are conditioned by the temporality of our world, in which plans gradually unfold and processes regularly come to term. In such a world, purpose depends on foreknowledge, and foreknowledge in turn depends on the predictability of the processes involved. Lacking such predictability, there cannot be reliable foreknowledge, and without foreknowledge purpose is ineffective. But a Creator who brings everything to be in a single action from which the entirety of temporal process issues, does not rely on the regularity of process to know the future condition of the creature or to attain ends. The notion of “purpose” must itself be reinterpreted in such a case. God’s knowledge of how a situation will develop over time is not discursive; God does not infer from a prior knowledge of how situations of the sort ordinarily work out. … Terms like “plan” and “purpose” obviously shift meaning when the element of time is absent. For God to plan is for the outcome to occur. There is no interval between decision and completion. Thus the character of the process that, from our perspective, separates initiation and accomplishment is of no relevance to whether or not a plan or purpose on the part of the Creator is involved.”

Maybe I’m missing something, but I think of time as an aspect of the creation.

Creatures like ourselves are part of that creation, so we certainly have some sense of time.

I think God does too, but I don’t see “reference in God’s mind about the time of creation” as necessarily providing an answer to the question of whether God is in some sense also “in time.”

I suppose according to a panentheistic (note: not pantheistic) view - wherein the created world is part (and only part) of God - God would be both within and outside/beyond time, the former thanks to the created world being in God, the latter thanks to God being more than the created world.

I think McMullin takes a more traditional, classical view of God, one in which God is “simple” in the philosophical sense of not having multiple parts (just multiple persons, the Trinity), so God is timeless and not at all within time. Still, I think McMullin would envision the timeless God as perfectly able to have a “reference in God’s mind about the time of creation.”
 
Eternity expression the succession of God’s divinity.

Time expresses the divinity of God in the hidden language of truth.

Space expresses the divine understanding that leads to its realization.
 
Just dropping by to marvel at another Bahman thread, beginning its inexorable descent into non sequitur, tangents, and grammatical mysteries. 🍿🍿
 
Bahman said:
Causality is a concept that we observe it in current sate of universe. All physical laws however break down in the big bang point. Hence we cannot discuss about causality at big bang point.
Click to expand...
For a physical universe to exist, even as a single point, time and space must exist. Is that right?
 
dahbeegs said:
Just dropping by to marvel at another Bahman thread, beginning its inexorable descent into non sequitur, tangents, and grammatical mysteries. 🍿🍿
Click to expand...
Bc it doesn’t matter what anyone says… it ends with “I don’t understand” or “that doesn’t conform to my rules” and some of us can’t not keep trying LOL. I gave up on grammar a few years back typing on video games.
 
LethalMouse said:
Basically Bahman if Bahman(Amber)'s diagnol perception is not the end all be all then perhaps the myriad of posts like #2 could have merit? Could they be stating the perception of the light beam from inside the ship? Or the perception of a ship going the speed of light looking at both Amber and the half speed of light ship?
Click to expand...
So are you saying that OP cannot be correct because I am not a good observer like God?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top