The gap between eternal and sequential act

[Bahman]

Consider the state of nonexistence as N and state of S0 as state universe at creation point. This means that there should exist a cause for this to happen so called creation act, lets call this C. This means that there exist a relation between two states, N and S, which is S0=C(N). Afterward we have the following relation for states of universe, S1=L(S0), S2=L(S1), etc where L is laws of nature or God’s causation. This means that there exist a series S={N, S0, S1, S2,…} that God knows it. The problem is that just one of these states is actual at any point so we need a reference point which points to that actual state and this changes. The problem is then that God’s mind is subjected to change. One can say that God’s act is eternal to resolve the problem. We then have another problem which is the gap between eternal and sequential act. No need to say that there exist no problem if universe changes based on law of nature. This is however against Catholic belief.

Your thought?

 

[Vico]

Consider the state of nonexistence as N and state of S0 as state universe at creation point. This means that there should exist a cause for this to happen so called creation act, lets call this C. This means that there exist a relation between two states, N and S, which is S0=C(N). Afterward we have the following relation for states of universe, S1=L(S0), S2=L(S1), etc where L is laws of nature or God’s causation. This means that there exist a series S={N, S0, S1, S2,…} that God knows it. The problem is that just one of these states is actual at any point so we need a reference point which points to that actual state and this changes. The problem is then that God’s mind is subjected to change. One can say that God’s act is eternal to resolve the problem. We then have another problem which is the gap between eternal and sequential act. No need to say that there exist no problem if universe changes based on law of nature. This is however against Catholic belief.

Your thought?

The act whereby God brings the entire substance of a thing into existence from a state of non-existence is called creation. Since there is no previous existence of subject matter, this may be said to have been educed from a state of non-existence.however “nothing” is not to be conceived of as the material out of which a thing is made.

So creation is not a transformation since that would includes an actual underlying pre-existent subject that passes from one real state to another real state, which subject creation excludes.

 

[Bahman]

The act whereby God brings the entire substance of a thing into existence from a state of non-existence is called creation. Since there is no previous existence of subject matter, this may be said to have been educed from a state of non-existence.however “nothing” is not to be conceived of as the material out of which a thing is made.

So creation is not a transformation since that would includes an actual underlying pre-existent subject that passes from one real state to another real state, which subject creation excludes.

You didn’t get my point. My question is that how one eternal act can turn into sequential acts?

 

[Vico]

You didn’t get my point. My question is that how one eternal act can turn into sequential acts?

There is only one act. God is not subject to time.

 

[ffg]

Consider the **state of nonexistence as N **and state of S0 as state universe at creation point. This means that there should exist a cause for this to happen so called creation act, lets call this C. This means that there exist a relation between two states, N and S, which is S0=C(N). Afterward we have the following relation for states of universe, S1=L(S0), S2=L(S1), etc where L is laws of nature or God’s causation. This means that there exist a series S={N, S0, S1, S2,…} that God knows it. The problem is that just one of these states is actual at any point so we need a reference point which points to that actual state and this changes. The problem is then that God’s mind is subjected to change. One can say that God’s act is eternal to resolve the problem. We then have another problem which is the gap between eternal and sequential act. No need to say that there exist no problem if universe changes based on law of nature. This is however against Catholic belief.

Your thought?

When we try to comprehend nonexistence, we apply a state and label to ‘it’. An ‘it’ that isn’t.

This is a great reminder of our limits and the freedom we have in thought.

 

[Bahman]

There is only one act. God is not subject to time.

That I understand. My question however is that how one eternal act can turns into sequential acts which is needed to sustain creation?

 

[ffg]

I think the ‘turns into’ might be the catch.

‘Time’ being an aspect of ‘the act’ means there will be consequences (acts) following ‘the act’.

That’s not ‘the act’ turning into the other acts.

**that was the most editing I’ve ever done. And having it come on a tiny post, yikes. I’m losing it.

 

[Gorgias]

That I understand. My question however is that how one eternal act can turns into sequential acts which is needed to sustain creation?

Your error here, Bahman, is that you’re switching contexts without realizing it. You’re moving from an eternal context in which time does not exist to a created context in which time can be expressed sequentially.

God continues to exist eternally (and without time) even once He puts the universe into existence; time exists and can be measured sequentially within the universe, but only in that particular context.

Therefore, for God, there is no “sequence” of acts that sustains creation. Rather, there is only His eternal will, which both creates and sustains.

If you want to switch contexts and move into the realm within creation, then you perceive this eternal act of sustaining as if it exists within a sequence of moments. Yet, this perception does not mean that the “sustaining act” is sequential – it merely means that it appears to be such within this particular frame of reference.

What does a train whistle sound like? Well, that depends on one’s frame of reference: if one is on the train, it sounds like a single long note; if one is standing near the tracks, the whistle increases in pitch and then decreases, as the train approaches and then gets distant. From the tracks, you’d claim that the whistle’s pitch varies over time… but does it really? Or is it simply that this is your perception, from within your frame of reference…?

 

[Bahman]

Your error here, Bahman, is that you’re switching contexts without realizing it. You’re moving from an eternal context in which time does not exist to a created context in which time can be expressed sequentially.

That is not my error. I understand that well. Yet you didn’t answer my question though.

God continues to exist eternally (and without time) even once He puts the universe into existence; time exists and can be measured sequentially within the universe, but only in that particular context.

Do you believe that God sustain universe after creation? Or do you believe that universe can work on its own after creation.

Therefore, for God, there is no “sequence” of acts that sustains creation. Rather, there is only His eternal will, which both creates and sustains.

That I understand. The question is how one eternal act can turn into a sequential acts?

If you want to switch contexts and move into the realm within creation, then you perceive this eternal act of sustaining as if it exists within a sequence of moments. Yet, this perception does not mean that the “sustaining act” is sequential – it merely means that it appears to be such within this particular frame of reference.

I understand the concept of frame of reference yet you didn’t answer my question.

What does a train whistle sound like? Well, that depends on one’s frame of reference: if one is on the train, it sounds like a single long note; if one is standing near the tracks, the whistle increases in pitch and then decreases, as the train approaches and then gets distant. From the tracks, you’d claim that the whistle’s pitch varies over time… but does it really? Or is it simply that this is your perception, from within your frame of reference…?

I totally understand the concept of frame of reference.

 

[Bahman]

I think the ‘turns into’ might be the catch.

‘Time’ being an aspect of ‘the act’ means there will be consequences (acts) following ‘the act’.

That’s not ‘the act’ turning into the other acts.

**that was the most editing I’ve ever done. And having it come on a tiny post, yikes. I’m losing it.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[ffg]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Eternal is outside of time, no sequence.

Sequential is inside of time.

This is a great summary from Gorgias -

“Therefore, for God, there is no “sequence” of acts that sustains creation. Rather, there is only His eternal will, which both creates and sustains.”

So ‘the act’, which I was using, could be considered ‘God’s Will’.

God’s Will, due to the nature of God as loving (some of the little we know about God), is - create and sustain.

I don’t see why God would create or sustain if He did not love.

I hope this helps.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Gorgias]

That is not my error. I understand that well. Yet you didn’t answer my question though.

I know I didn’t – it’s because your question is in error: there’s no “sequence of acts to sustain creation.”

Do you believe that God sustain universe after creation?

Yes.

That I understand. The question is how one eternal act can turn into a sequential acts?

It’s not sequential. God is acting eternally, not within the frame of reference of time. You’re merely observing His eternal act of the sustaining of creation from within a frame of reference in which it appears to be a series of sequential actions.

I totally understand the concept of frame of reference.

Not if you think that God is acting ‘sequentially’, you don’t…

 

[Bahman]

Eternal is outside of time, no sequence.

Sequential is inside of time.

Time is an illusion so there is no inside and outside of time.

This is a great summary from Gorgias -

“Therefore, for God, there is no “sequence” of acts that sustains creation. Rather, there is only His eternal will, which both creates and sustains.”

So ‘the act’, which I was using, could be considered ‘God’s Will’.

God’s Will, due to the nature of God as loving (some of the little we know about God), is - create and sustain.

I don’t see why God would create or sustain if He did not love.

I hope this helps.

Take care,

Mike

I think that the conflict between me and you is that you believe that God’s eternal act look like sequential from our perspective and I am arguing that God’s eternal act should be turned into sequential acts.

 

[Bahman]

I know I didn’t – it’s because your question is in error: there’s no “sequence of acts to sustain creation.”

Yes.

It’s not sequential. God is acting eternally, not within the frame of reference of time. You’re merely observing His eternal act of the sustaining of creation from within a frame of reference in which it appears to be a series of sequential actions.

Not if you think that God is acting ‘sequentially’, you don’t…

I think the main problem between me and you is that you think God’s eternal act seems sequential from our perspective and I am arguing that God’s eternal should be turned into sequential first. How we could possibly receive something directly from God, he is timeless and we are temporal. Hence there exists a gap between.

 

[Gorgias]

I think the main problem between me and you is that you think God’s eternal act seems sequential from our perspective and I am arguing that God’s eternal should be turned into sequential first.

Why “should God’s eternal [act] be turned into [something] sequential”? That is, what is it about God’s timelessness that must be temporalized? You said, in your first post, “just one of these states is actual at any point,” and that seems to be the presumption upon which your argument here hinges. However, that presumption is in error: it only holds up from within the frame of reference of the created universe. In other words, to our perspective within the universe, “only one [temporal] moment is actual at any point,” but to God’s perspective which transcends the universe, all temporal moments are actual, simultaneously!

Therefore, since God sees all temporal moments immediately (that is, not through the mediation of a temporal sequence), there is no “need [for] a reference point which points to that actual state”. This implies, then, that God’s mind is not subjected to change.

With this being established, we see that your conclusions fail to hold up: there is no ‘gap’ between eternal and sequential, and there is no mutability in God.

How we could possibly receive something directly from God, he is timeless and we are temporal. Hence there exists a gap between.

We believe that God sustains all of creation. Therefore, we are continuously ‘receiving’ this sustaining will of God, directly. We also believe that we humans each have an immortal soul, which we receive immediately (that is, without mediation) from God at our creation. Again – a direct gift from God. There’s no ‘gap’.

 

[Vico]

That I understand. My question however is that how one eternal act can turns into sequential acts which is needed to sustain creation?

The eternal act does not turn into anything.

Providence is God Himself considered in that act by which in His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized.
…
Hence Providence is at once universal, immediate, efficacious, and without violence: * universal, because all things are subject to it (I, Q. xxii, a. 2; ciii, a. 5); * immediate, in that though God acts through secondary causes, yet all alike postulate Divine concurrence and receive their powers of operation from Him (I, Q. xxii, a. 3; Q. ciii, a. 6); * efficacious, in that all things minister to God’s final purpose, a purpose which cannot be frustrated (Contra Gent., III, xciv); * without violence (suavis), because it violates no natural law, but rather effects its purpose through these laws (I, Q. ciii, a. 8).

Walker, L. (1911). Divine Providence. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm

 

[Bahman]

Why “should God’s eternal [act] be turned into [something] sequential”?

Why not? Because eternal act is different from sequential/temporal acts hence there is a gap between therefore God eternal act must turn into sequential act so we can live within.

That is, what is it about God’s timelessness that must be temporalized?

His eternal act should be temporalized so we can live within. How? I don’t know.

You said, in your first post, “just one of these states is actual at any point,” and that seems to be the presumption upon which your argument here hinges. However, that presumption is in error: it only holds up from within the frame of reference of the created universe. In other words, to our perspective within the universe, “only one [temporal] moment is actual at any point,” but to God’s perspective which transcends the universe, all temporal moments are actual, simultaneously!

So here we have another problem in our hands. How all state of creation could be actual in God’s framework and only one is actual in our framework? There exists a gap here too.

Therefore, since God sees all temporal moments immediately (that is, not through the mediation of a temporal sequence), there is no “need [for] a reference point which points to that actual state”. This implies, then, that God’s mind is not subjected to change.

We need a reference point in our universe otherwise we cannot have proper motion.

With this being established, we see that your conclusions fail to hold up: there is no ‘gap’ between eternal and sequential, and there is no mutability in God.

There is a gap.

We believe that God sustains all of creation. Therefore, we are continuously ‘receiving’ this sustaining will of God, directly. We also believe that we humans each have an immortal soul, which we receive immediately (that is, without mediation) from God at our creation. Again – a direct gift from God. There’s no ‘gap’.

Why you don’t accept that universe can sustain itself based on laws of nature so we get ride of the gap problem?

 

[Gorgias]

Why not? Because eternal act is different from sequential/temporal acts

Correct. An eternal act is different than an act that takes place within the context of a temporal universe.

So, tell me, then… is God’s existence temporal? That makes no sense, because he pre-existed the temporal universe and His existence transcends time and the creation that gives rise to a temporal framework.

So… do you experience God temporally or eternally? Since we are part of this temporal framework, our only experience is temporal, and therefore, we perceive all things as if they were within the temporal framework. However, that does not mean that our perception is reality. In other words, God’s act is not temporal, but eternal – even if, from our perception, it seems to be temporal and sequential. Therefore, no gap, and no sequentiality in God’s act of sustaining creation.

His eternal act should be temporalized so we can live within. How? I don’t know.

Why should it be temporalized? I’ve already provided an explanation that describes why it’s not temporal. If you want to assert that His eternal action must be ‘temporalized’, then you’ll need to explain why this is so.

So here we have another problem in our hands. How all state of creation could be actual in God’s framework and only one is actual in our framework?

Not a problem at all. Take, for example, a movie reel. To the characters inside the movie, only one frame is ‘actual’ at any time; in the original Star Wars movie, the character Han Solo has no idea what will happen to him in the next movie or even in the next moment. However, for us, who exist outside that framework, all the frames are ‘actual’ at any instant. For example, the director of the movies know not only what’s happening to Han Solo at 33:57 of the movie, but also at 33:58, 33:59, 34:00, and in fact, throughout the entire movie… all at once. No problem.

We need a reference point in our universe otherwise we cannot have proper motion.

Thank you. Yes, we need a reference point. However, God does not. You’ve finally reached the point we’ve been trying to explain to you: your objection concerns only humans and our ability to perceive. It does not reflect back on God. Glad we could explain that for you.

Why you don’t accept that universe can sustain itself based on laws of nature so we get ride of the gap problem?

The universe doesn’t sustain itself. Ever heard of the law of nature named ‘entropy’?

 

[Bahman]

The eternal act does not turn into anything.

Providence is God Himself considered in that act by which in His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized.
…
Hence Providence is at once universal, immediate, efficacious, and without violence: * universal, because all things are subject to it (I, Q. xxii, a. 2; ciii, a. 5); * immediate, in that though God acts through secondary causes, yet all alike postulate Divine concurrence and receive their powers of operation from Him (I, Q. xxii, a. 3; Q. ciii, a. 6); * efficacious, in that all things minister to God’s final purpose, a purpose which cannot be frustrated (Contra Gent., III, xciv); * without violence (suavis), because it violates no natural law, but rather effects its purpose through these laws (I, Q. ciii, a. 8).

Walker, L. (1911). Divine Providence. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm

How the universe could be real and have proper motion if eternal act doesn’t turn into sequential acts?

 

[ffg]

Time is an illusion so there is no inside and outside of time.

I think that the conflict between me and you is that you believe that God’s eternal act look like sequential from our perspective and I am arguing that God’s eternal act should be turned into sequential acts.

Time is an illusion? Can I use that for an excused absence to save vacation ‘time’?

Yet time is ‘always’ and apparently all inclusive, God within it?

So a constant uncreated illusion, of which all things (illusions?) are subject to and use?

We do have an agreement here - If there is a God, He does live in His Creation. So I’ll share the thought that He is in time, but in a different way than finding Him on Google maps.

God is also outside time because, well we go back to the earlier answer - create and sustain. That which is required to exist for time to ‘be’ would fit into God’s plans and ability for those two items.

I think the conflict is that I’m interested in what is true, though I do appreciate imagination.

I like analyzing the thoughts on this site.

Even if the thought has a mathematical inconsistency, like one being more than one, or ‘turned into’ more than one because it ‘should’ per an anonymous person on a website.

Have a great rest of the week!

Take care,

Mike