Special Asymptotic Theory of Time

[Love4All]

http://images.4chan.org/sci/src/1364922222410.jpg

For the General Theory, we apply the same principle that exists between the Special and General Theories of Relativity. Essentially, there are other factors that can skew the above hyperbolic curve to any Guassian isomorphism.

 

[GEddie]

http://images.4chan.org/sci/src/1364922222410.jpg

For the General Theory, we apply the same principle that exists between the Special and General Theories of Relativity. Essentially, there are other factors that can skew the above hyperbolic curve to any Guassian isomorphism.

Very nice!

What does the negative branch of the curve represent?

 

[georget]

Interesting! Please explain.

 

[Love4All]

Very nice!

What does the negative branch of the curve represent?

Eternity before Creation. The graph I used is the graph of the function, y = 1/x. The left-hand curve doesn’t represent anything accessible to us, it is not intended to be part of the explanation of this universe. For those who really dig symmetry theories, it could represent a negative “mirror” universe going backward in time, but it’s not really necessary to the theory.

 

[Love4All]

Interesting! Please explain.

Well, Stephen Hawking has this idea, that seemed incoherent to me, of a “no boundary condition.” The way I’ve heard it explained is that going backwards in time is like traveling to the North Pole. Once you get there, you don’t necessarily stop, you just start going South. As if to say that going backwards in time, you would eventually start going forward again. He uses this idea to support his contention that a Creator is not necessary to bring the universe into existence, because Time Itself came into existence with the Universe, thus making the question of “before” the beginning of the universe incoherent.

Obviously, that is a bunch of sophistical B.S. designed to justify his maintaining atheism.

What I have done is to reconcile two views of time, namely, the physical view of time, which is what scientists would be looking at, and the eternal view of time, which is what we read about in Genesis. Creation began at t=0, which is the beginning of physical time, but not eternal time. For God, it was the moment when He began to create the universe. For the universe, it was the coming into existence of time and space.

So it reconciles two opposing views, namely that the universe had a beginning in time and that the universe is eternal. By using the complex plane, it illustrates how it is possible to go back in time “forever,” to the Singularity, while at the same time only going back 13-1/2 billion years to the Big Bang.

This is also consistent, as far as I know, with what we already understand about the relativistic effect of gravity on time. Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity says that acceleration slows time down, and acceleration of c² stops it. The General Theory says that gravity and acceleration have the same effect, and are in fact indistinguishable.

So as we go back in time toward the singularity, since all mass is increasingly in a smaller and smaller space, consequently gravity increases, and thus time slows down. At t=0, physical time would stop. But for an observer within the universe, it would continue to recede to infinity.

 

[jbeck43]

Stephen Hawking uses imaginary numbers (denoted by the lower case “I”) to achieve this result. By using imaginary numbers, it allows him to smooth a concrete starting point in time to a cone-shaped geometry, thereby avoiding a concrete starting point. No physicists believe that it actually describes physical reality without significant problems, including I believe Hawking himself. At Hawking’s 65th birthday party, Alan Guth presented his paper refuting Hawkings, which has not been significantly challenged in the scientific community. Happy Birthday, Steve…

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Well, Stephen Hawking has this idea, that seemed incoherent to me, of a “no boundary condition.” The way I’ve heard it explained is that going backwards in time is like traveling to the North Pole. Once you get there, you don’t necessarily stop, you just start going South. As if to say that going backwards in time, you would eventually start going forward again. He uses this idea to support his contention that a Creator is not necessary to bring the universe into existence, because Time Itself came into existence with the Universe, thus making the question of “before” the beginning of the universe incoherent.

Obviously, that is a bunch of sophistical B.S. designed to justify his maintaining atheism.

What I have done is to reconcile two views of time, namely, the physical view of time, which is what scientists would be looking at, and the eternal view of time, which is what we read about in Genesis. Creation began at t=0, which is the beginning of physical time, but not eternal time. For God, it was the moment when He began to create the universe. For the universe, it was the coming into existence of time and space.

So it reconciles two opposing views, namely that the universe had a beginning in time and that the universe is eternal. By using the complex plane, it illustrates how it is possible to go back in time “forever,” to the Singularity, while at the same time only going back 13-1/2 billion years to the Big Bang.

This is also consistent, as far as I know, with what we already understand about the relativistic effect of gravity on time. Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity says that acceleration slows time down, and acceleration of c² stops it. The General Theory says that gravity and acceleration have the same effect, and are in fact indistinguishable.

So as we go back in time toward the singularity, since all mass is increasingly in a smaller and smaller space, consequently gravity increases, and thus time slows down. At t=0, physical time would stop. But for an observer within the universe, it would continue to recede to infinity.

It’s nice to see someone else reach that conclusion on their own. It’s the one I’ve held for a while now, but I’d never heard anyone else articulate it. It is nice to see that it is not limited to my head ^^ That is a very nice explanation as well.

 

[jbeck43]

Stephen Hawking uses imaginary numbers (denoted by the lower case “I”) to achieve this result. By using imaginary numbers, it allows him to smooth a concrete starting point in time to a cone-shaped geometry, thereby avoiding a concrete starting point. No physicists believe that it actually describes physical reality without significant problems, including I believe Hawking himself. At Hawking’s 65th birthday party, Alan Guth presented his paper refuting Hawkings, which has not been significantly challenged in the scientific community. Happy Birthday, Steve…

 

[Love4All]

Stephen Hawking uses imaginary numbers (denoted by the lower case “I”) to achieve this result.

So did I, if you noticed.

By using imaginary numbers, it allows him to smooth a concrete starting point in time to a cone-shaped geometry, thereby avoiding a concrete starting point. No physicists believe that it actually describes physical reality without significant problems, including I believe Hawking himself. At Hawking’s 65th birthday party, Alan Guth presented his paper refuting Hawkings, which has not been significantly challenged in the scientific community. Happy Birthday, Steve…

Just because Hawking was fundamentally incorrect doesn’t mean this is.

 

[jbeck43]

It’s an interesting proposition you’re making.* I wasn’t suggesting that because Stephen Hawking was wrong based on his use of imaginary numbers, that by implication you must be wrong too because you use them.* I do however think that some of your premises are incorrect.* The first is the idea that t=0 suggests a point of infinite gravity.* The second is the suggestion that t=0 suggests infinite time.*

In your first premise, you suggest that infinite gravity is perhaps the result of infinite density.* I think the assumption here is just incorrect.* T=0 rather suggests a point of no density, nor gravity.* Physicists simply assume a quantum singularity, but they really have no example and no idea what a singularity is, how it got there, and what existed before it so that it resulted in a singularity that caused the big bang.* There are no examples of an infinity of anything physical at any point in a finite universe.* It is therefore illogical to assume that the first instance of space and time were infinite in density.* There is also the problem of attribution.* If the universe were in some way truly infinite in its existence, even in a small way (with the suggestion of infinite density), if only in it’s first instance, then it suggests that the universe is somehow self-sustaining, or self-sufficient, or self-containing, which removes the essence of existence from God–where it belongs, and attributes that essence to the universe–where it doesn’t.*

But the biggest problem I have is with the suggestion of infinite time.* T=0 I think you’ve suggested represents infinite time.* I think the correct suggestion is rather that it represents no time, or the point at which time began to exist.* I understand that you’re making the suggestion that as the clock, or time’s arrow moves backwards for an observer captive in the universe, it “feels” like infinity, or in some way, really is an infinite amount of time for the observer when the clock strikes “0”.* My question here is, is this simply a perception of time moving slower or is it a reality that time is actually slower for the observer in the universe?** If it is only perception, then that is one thing, but if it truly is moving slower for the observer, then certain contradictions once again arise when you try and introduce an infinite “something”, in this case–time, into a finite “something”, in this case–a universe.* When t truly is equal to zero, does that mean truly that the observer is experiencing infinite time?* What happens to the observer at t=-1?* For the observer, the point is moot because time is infinite, but for the actual universe, it means an absence of existence, meaning time wouldn’t exist either.* It also violates Aquinas’ third way.* Here Aquinas suggests that if time truly existed infinitely in the past, and that because all things corrupt, and all possibilities become probabilities, even certainties, then all things must have corrupted to nothingness (which Aquinas called "pure-matter“, or the complete absence of form–leaving nothing) at some time in the past simultaneously.* And while Aquinas doesn’t suggest that infinite time isn’t possible (since he uses this to suggest that if anything exists at all right now, then it must be because God caused it to exist), I think the implication is unavoidable.* If anything existed at all during that “instance” of infinite time in the first real moment of the existence of the universe, it would have perished with it too.* But because we’re here making the observation, the suggestion of infinite time must be false.* But your suggestion of infinite, or eternal time outside of the universe as you put it, is a premise that Aquinas (or most theologians) wouldn’t accept either because this places eternal time and God on the same plane of existence, in that, God did not create nor does he sustain eternal time, but* simply lives within its boundaries.* Therefore this kind of time finds God unnecessary at least to its own existence.* And since by definition, God’s essence contains all existence, the existence of time outside of God is incongruous to His nature.*

Classic Christian thought is that before the creation of the universe, there was an absence of all things, including time, space and everything, and that God sustains all things immediately, including time.* In our finite thinking, we cannot understand how God exists outside time, or space.* In fact I think the concept of the absence of existence is such a mind blogging one that one cannot fully comprehend what it really means.* But in no space, nor time, nor causes, there can be no effect which effects the creation of the universe.* Therefore God is true, and must exist, because the universe does.

It’s a fascinating discussion and I thank you for putting it up on the forums!** Best regaeds.

 

[jbeck43]

What happens to the observer at t=-1? For the observer, the point is moot because time is infinite, but for the actual universe, it means an absence of existence, meaning time wouldn’t exist either.*

sorry. just reading over my comments I made at three in the morning, I see I’ve made an incorrect assumption. If time doesn’t exist, then there can be no t=-1. I think the point I was trying to make was that if an infinite time exists in a finite moment, then what happens at the next moment in time if infinity has already passed. it seems that a contradiction is the result.

 

[Love4All]

My apologies, I wrongly assumed the photo would stay on the server I originally posted it to. Apparently they don’t. This one should stay.

 

[Love4All]

Here is a wiki article of a timeline of the Big Bang.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

It is interesting to note that the “Photon Epoch” includes the time from one hour to a thousand years. The First Day, God said, “let there be light,” and behold! Light!

Now, the physicists’ view of the world carries certain assumptions, one of which is a constancy of physical laws, even though it includes a projection back in time to a time when our current physical laws were as yet undifferentiated. I will state simply that, “'tain’t necessarily so.” The physicists’ view in general does not include a Creator.

There are two possibilities regarding the laws of physics. Either, they are set by God as they are in order to form the universe as it is, or, they follow logically from first principles. If the former, then God can change them, if the latter, then He can’t for the same reason He can’t cease to be omnipotent, i.e. different physical laws would be a logical contradiction. The latter appeals to me for the same reason the immutability of the laws of physics appeals to scientists. In the very first beginnings of all things, literature and mathematics are One. “Perfect logic comes from perfect Love.” Either God chose the laws we see from among logical alternates, or, perfect logic produces the laws we see, without any alternatives.

Either way, the laws are what they are, and scientists cannot assume any Creator to change them at any point in Natural History. So scientists have no other alternative but to extrapolate from observable principles, backwards in time, to a “Big Bang.”

The moment of the Big Bang is the theological equivalent of God’s pronouncement, “Let there be light.” After that, evening came and morning followed, the First Day. All of what cosmologists present us in these timelines of the Big Bang, it would appear, took place that First Day, or possibly within the First and Second Days. Thus the First Day, in particular, has to include several billion years. To cram that much real time into a single day is absurd from a perspective that does not treat time as complex, but perfectly sensible if we allow time to have an imaginary component.

Do not think of “imaginary” as fictitious. The imaginary numbers are not in any sense fictitious. They are, rather, concepts that have usefulness and application in the physical world.

The moment of the Big Bang is a hard scientific boundary. It is impossible to project back to a “time” before the Big Bang.

But the fundamental error of atheistic cosmologists is to assume that because there was no physical time before the Big Bang, consequently, there was Nothing.

There was not “Nothing.” There was no physical universe, no time and space, but there was never “Nothing,” since, if there ever was really Nothing, there would still be Nothing now, and we can see that that isn’t the case.

Time is a dimension like the dimensions of space. As such, it can be mapped to a system of Cartesian co-ordinates. The Cartesian co-ordinate system is familiar to anyone who has taken high-school algebra. It involves, quite simply, a point called the Origin that is common to all axes, and lines called axes that extend infinitely out from the Origin. Conceptually, then, the Real Number Line begins at 0 and extends to infinity in both the positive and negative direction. An eternal universe would have Time extending infinitely from the present, NOW, as 0, to an infinite future and an infinite past. But we (used to) run into a conceptual difficulty with regard to the Big Bang and the Creation of Time. If NOW is the Origin, how can we also treat the Big Bang as t=0?

I submit, the solution of this dilemma is presented in this Asymptotic Theory of Time. Thus, this is a means of uniting, in a non-contradictory fashion, the sciences of Theology, Mathematics, and Physics.

 

[Love4All]

What happens to the observer at t=-1? For the observer, the point is moot because time is infinite, but for the actual universe, it means an absence of existence, meaning time wouldn’t exist either.*

sorry. just reading over my comments I made at three in the morning, I see I’ve made an incorrect assumption. If time doesn’t exist, then there can be no t=-1. I think the point I was trying to make was that if an infinite time exists in a finite moment, then what happens at the next moment in time if infinity has already passed. it seems that a contradiction is the result.

The resolution of this contradiction is given by extending the backwards arrow of time in the Imaginary rather than the Real direction, as shown.

God can do anything, and, God is Infinite. It is coherent for God to produce the Universe from His Infinity, with infinite time extending into the past, in a single Day. This theory shows “how” that is possible, and coherent.

 

[GEddie]

What happens to the observer at t=-1? For the observer, the point is moot because time is infinite, but for the actual universe, it means an absence of existence, meaning time wouldn’t exist either.*

sorry. just reading over my comments I made at three in the morning, I see I’ve made an incorrect assumption. If time doesn’t exist, then there can be no t=-1. I think the point I was trying to make was that if an infinite time exists in a finite moment, then what happens at the next moment in time if infinity has already passed. it seems that a contradiction is the result.

If I am understanding your graph correctly, there is no t = -1 along the curve which is the universe, because minus one is not in its domain.

However, it indeed exists for someone on the axis, and they would see our universe telescoping away from them.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Love4All]

It’s an interesting proposition you’re making.* I wasn’t suggesting that because Stephen Hawking was wrong based on his use of imaginary numbers, that by implication you must be wrong too because you use them.* I do however think that some of your premises are incorrect.* The first is the idea that t=0 suggests a point of infinite gravity.* The second is the suggestion that t=0 suggests infinite time.*

If God can place His Infinite Self into the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and into a wafer the size of the Eucharist, I don’t see why it would be difficult for Him to put infinite Time into the First Day or to have a Singularity of infinite density at the First Moment.

In your first premise, you suggest that infinite gravity is perhaps the result of infinite density.* I think the assumption here is just incorrect.* T=0 rather suggests a point of no density, nor gravity.*

Why?

Physicists simply assume a quantum singularity, but they really have no example and no idea what a singularity is, how it got there, and what existed before it so that it resulted in a singularity that caused the big bang.*

But the Church, does have an idea.

There are no examples of an infinity of anything physical at any point in a finite universe.*

I disagree. Infinite density exists in a black hole. This is because there is mass with no spatial extension.

It is therefore illogical to assume that the first instance of space and time were infinite in density.*

Physicists already treat black holes as infinitely dense. So it doesn’t seem there is anything illogical about a point of infinite density. We have such points in our universe, they are black holes.

There is also the problem of attribution.* If the universe were in some way truly infinite in its existence, even in a small way (with the suggestion of infinite density), if only in it’s first instance, then it suggests that the universe is somehow self-sustaining, or self-sufficient, or self-containing, which removes the essence of existence from God–where it belongs, and attributes that essence to the universe–where it doesn’t.*

I don’t see how. Infinite extension in time and space does not imply self-sufficiency. Why would it?

But the biggest problem I have is with the suggestion of infinite time.* T=0 I think you’ve suggested represents infinite time.*

Extended along the Imaginary axis.

I think the correct suggestion is rather that it represents no time, or the point at which time began to exist.*

There is no contradistinction between, (a) infinite past time extended along the Imaginary axis, and (b) the beginning of time on the Real axis.

That is, in fact, the entire point of this theory, in a nutshell.

I understand that you’re making the suggestion that as the clock, or time’s arrow moves backwards for an observer captive in the universe, it “feels” like infinity, or in some way, really is an infinite amount of time for the observer when the clock strikes “0”.*

Exactly.

My question here is, is this simply a perception of time moving slower or is it a reality that time is actually slower for the observer in the universe?**

This idea of “actual” time seems incoherent according the Theory of Relativity. Time is not absolute, but relative.

But what I have called “real” time, is, if you will, God’s perspective. You might want to call it “meta”-time or something like that. The Creation narrative found in Genesis is not a fairy tale. It is not a philosophical device for explaining to humans that God created everything. It is, rather, the Word of God. It has meaning. Whether we can capably discern the meaning is another question, but the fact remains, it has meaning. It is what the Witnesses witnessed, as they watched God create His Creation.

 

[Love4All]

If it is only perception, then that is one thing, but if it truly is moving slower for the observer, then certain contradictions once again arise when you try and introduce an infinite “something”, in this case–time, into a finite “something”, in this case–a universe.*

There is theological precedent for this in God inserting His Infinity into the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary and into the elements of the Eucharist.

When t truly is equal to zero, does that mean truly that the observer is experiencing infinite time?*

There is no human observer, humans didn’t exist until the Sixth Day. The Witnesses experienced it as the First Day, so, no, they did not experience the infinity of time extended into the past. However, the Witnesses were created in Eternity before God created His Creation. It is a Mystery. Just because we cannot comprehend it, does not mean it is not real. You are asking, essentially, what was it like to experience the First Day? Genesis does not tell us much. But God can certainly place the Infinite within the Finite. That is a miracle, no doubt, but miracles are possible for God.

What happens to the observer at t=-1?* For the observer, the point is moot because time is infinite, but for the actual universe, it means an absence of existence, meaning time wouldn’t exist either.*

According to the theory, time in the universe extends infinitely backwards within what, in Creation, is the First Day. So, t=-1 does not exist for an observer within the universe. For a Witness of Creation, all negative t is eternity before God created His Creation.

It also violates Aquinas’ third way.*

How?

Here Aquinas suggests that if time truly existed infinitely in the past, and that because all things corrupt, and all possibilities become probabilities, even certainties, then all things must have corrupted to nothingness (which Aquinas called "pure-matter“, or the complete absence of form–leaving nothing) at some time in the past simultaneously.*

Genesis in fact states plainly, “the Earth was formless.”

And while Aquinas doesn’t suggest that infinite time isn’t possible (since he uses this to suggest that if anything exists at all right now, then it must be because God caused it to exist), I think the implication is unavoidable.* If anything existed at all during that “instance” of infinite time in the first real moment of the existence of the universe, it would have perished with it too.*

Scripture also states, in the Book of Wisdom, “God did not make death.” You seem to be implying that death and decay are built in to whatever God created, but that contradicts Scripture.

We live in a fallen world, where everything degenerates. But it seems, if Scripture is consistent (i.e., “cannot be broken”), the world described in Genesis 1 was not like that.

But because we’re here making the observation, the suggestion of infinite time must be false.* But your suggestion of infinite, or eternal time outside of the universe as you put it, is a premise that Aquinas (or most theologians) wouldn’t accept either because this places eternal time and God on the same plane of existence, in that, God did not create nor does he sustain eternal time, but* simply lives within its boundaries.* Therefore this kind of time finds God unnecessary at least to its own existence.* And since by definition, God’s essence contains all existence, the existence of time outside of God is incongruous to His nature.*

God is the Origin. You are mistaken if you thought that I was implying that anything apart from God is the Source of all of this.

Classic Christian thought is that before the creation of the universe, there was an absence of all things, including time, space and everything, and that God sustains all things immediately, including time.*

Before the Creation of the universe, God created Wisdom.

In our finite thinking, we cannot understand how God exists outside time, or space.* In fact I think the concept of the absence of existence is such a mind blogging one that one cannot fully comprehend what it really means.*

There is no such thing as “absence of existence” in general. There is absence of the existence of particular things, but, God’s essence is existence, so there is never general absence of existence.

Thus the concept, “absence of existence,” is incoherent. I wouldn’t waste too much time considering it or trying to comprehend it. There is nothing to comprehend, it is nonsense.

But in no space, nor time, nor causes, there can be no effect which effects the creation of the universe.* Therefore God is true, and must exist, because the universe does.

It’s a fascinating discussion and I thank you for putting it up on the forums!** Best regaeds.

Thanks! Same to you!

 

[Love4All]

If I am understanding your graph correctly, there is no t = -1 along the curve which is the universe, because minus one is not in its domain.

However, it indeed exists for someone on the axis, and they would see our universe telescoping away from them.

ICXC NIKA

I think it is also possible that a condition exists in this conceptualization similar to the condition that exists mathematically with regard to the Imaginary Numbers. It is a mathematical fact, that i and -i are indistinguishable.

I submit that every begins at the Origin, and extending time infinitely backwards prior to the Origin is nothing more or less than a reflection. One could conceptualize a “mirror universe,” going backwards in time, having begun at the same Origin that ours did. But such a thing would be, I think, merely a conceptualization, not a necessary existence.

 

[ioasaka87]

Bán li?n k? T?ng c?c 5 Tân Tri?u

Bán li?n k? T?ng c?c 5 Tân Tri?u: LK12-4 Di?n tÃch 66,6m2, xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng Dông B?c, m?t du?ng 24m, giá 4 t?
Bán li?n k? T?ng c?c 5 Tân Tri?u: LK3-36 Di?n tÃch 60m2, xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng Tây Nam, du?ng 13m, giá 3,6 t?
Bán nhÃ* li?n k? T?ng c?c 5 Tân Tri?u: LK6-23 Di?n tÃch 60,5m2, xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng Dông Nam, du?ng 13m, giá 3,7 t?
Bán nhà li?n k? T?ng c?c 5 B? công an: LK7-9 Di?n tÃch 60m2, xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng Tây B?c, du?ng 13m, giá 3,7 t?
Bán li?n k? T?ng c?c 5 B? công an: LK 14-23 Di?n tÃch 68m2, xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng Tây Nam, du?ng 13m, giá 3,3 t?
Bán li?n k? T?ng c?c 5: LK13-16 Di?n tÃ*ch 60m2, xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng B?c, du?ng 13m, giá 3,3 t?

Giá trên DÃ bao g?m t?t c?: ti?n thu? s? d?ng d?t, ti?n d?u tu vÃo d?t và ti?n xây thô

Bán nhÃ* vu?n T?ng c?c 5 Tân Tri?u:

Bán nhÃ* vu?n T?ng c?c 5 Tân Tri?u: NV3-5 Di?n tÃch 100m2, xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng Dông B?c, du?ng 17m, giá 4,4 t?
Bán nhà vu?n T?ng c?c 5: NV5-21 Di?n tÃch 103m2, xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng Dông Nam, m?t ti?n 10m, du?ng 13m, giá 4,7 t?
Bán nhà vu?n T?ng c?c 5 B? công an: NV5-29 Di?n tÃch 100m2 xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng Tây Nam, du?ng 13m, giá 4,7 t?
Bán nhà vu?n T?ng c?c 5 B? công an: NV8-9 Di?n tÃch 100m2 xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng Dông Nam, du?ng 13m, giá 4,7 t?
Bán nhà vu?n T?ng c?c 5 Tân Tri?u: NV3-22 Di?n tÃch 100m2m xây thô 4 t?ng, hu?ng Tây Nam, du?ng 13m nhìn vÃo vu?n hoa, giá 4,8 t?
Bán nhÃ* vu?n T?ng c?c 5: NV4-37 Di?n tÃch 100m2, hu?ng Tây B?c, m?t ti?n 5m, du?ng 13m, giá 4,8 t?
Giá trên DÃ bao g?m t?t c?: ti?n thu? s? d?ng d?t, ti?n d?u tu vÃo d?t vÃ* ti?n xây thô

Quý khách có nhu c?u xin liên h? tr?c ti?p d? du?c tu v?n: Mr Son 0909858789 - 0979858789

www.chovo.vn

 

[jbeck43]

Thanks for your responses, and please know that in my disagreements, I really appreciate your kind demeanor.* It comes through in your posts, and I hope I project the same.*

I guess my uneasiness comes from your use of the phrase, eternal time.* To me, it suggests a contradiction in terms.* If something exists in time, then it is changeable–since time is how change is measured.* But.to God, who does not change, time is irrelevant.* Eternal time, it seems, is unnecessary.* I think the reason why you’re suggesting it is because to us, time is necessary for everything we do.* So our conception of God creating the universe in our imagination has God “doing” something too, like tinkering in a toy shop, or working under the hood of an imaginary car.* But the metaphysics goes deeper than our imaginations sometimes initially takes us.*

First, God is described by great theologians.like Thomas Aquinas as being ontologically simple.* What this means is that God has no “moving part“.* Let me explain. In my previous post, I mentioned that for anything to move from potential to actual, an outside substance that is actual must act upon it.* Here’s an example that Doctor Edward Feser uses in his excellent book on the metaphysics of Saint Thomas Aquinas:* if you take a rubber ball, you see that it has two states or substances, the actual form of a rubber ball, and the potential form of a pile of goo when it’s melted in an oven.* But in order for it to actually become a pile of goo, an actual substance namely heat, must act upon the ball to move it from being only potential goo, to actual goo.* Something actual (heat), causes something potential (goo), to move from its potentiality to its actuality.*

And so this is the great domino-like construction that Aquinas builds his universe upon.* The epiphany here is that if all the universe and everything in it runs from its potential to its actual substance only when an actual substance “moves" it there–that every substance is helpless so to speak to do so on its own, then there must be a prime mover, an initial “actual“ that at every turn and every moment causes each potential substance to move from its potentiality to its actuality.* Something must initiate it all. And that something must, once again be actual.* The first domino has to be pushed over.* To Aquinas, that “pusher” is God.* And God therefore must be purely actual, with no “moving” parts (because movement implies potentiality, not actuality–since movement from one place to another would show that God lacks omnipresence.* And since God lacks nothing, He must be omnipresent, and therefore doesn’t need to "move“). God then, acts upon every moment of existence, moving every potential form to its actual form, without Himself moving, since as God, every actual perfection is realized, and no potential perfection is absent, so therefore God need not move toward anything, even in the act of creation.* It is certainly a mystery to be sure, but this circles around to my problem with eternal time.*

Time implies movement.* It is the measuring stick of change.* If God, who is the unmoved mover, exists in time/eternal time, then He becomes the “moved” mover as it were, and this misrepresents the ontological nature of God as being simple, all actual, and with no moving parts.* God is reduced, I’m afraid, to the mundane tinkerer, working in the toy shop, building a universe with his hands until at some time it is finished.*

God is greater than this.* And His creation is more profound.* (One note here:* when God therefore is said to create the world in six days and rested on the seventh, this is an anthropomorphism–a construct of “humanness,” if you will, to understand the actions of a God that has no human antecedent.* God strictly speaking, needs no rest, because he doesn’t have a body to get tired.)

You have opened up a very interesting discussion, and I’m glad you introduced your supposition.* Thanks again for a lively and kind exchange.* Best regards.