Time cannot be created

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
forgiveme31 said:
I’m not convinced that time is linear. If it’s not a line, it may have no beginning and no end. Let’s use space as an example: infinite. No beginning, no end, constantly expanding. More importantly though, as Catholics we believe that God always was, i.e. no beginning to His being. If God always was, then time has no beginning. Remember the word “always” is a limitless function of time.
Click to expand...
Time is linear as you defined linear but it has a beginning. Did you find anything wrong in my argument regarding that time has a beginning?
 
STT said:
40.png
JuanFlorencio:
I need to make sure that I am understanding you.
Click to expand...
I think that is the problem. The idea is very simple but I cannot verbalize it better.
Click to expand...
Is it just a “simple feeling”? Or in what sense is it an “idea”?
STT said:
40.png
JuanFlorencio:
Do you think that each one of the following terms are related to different “things”?: the car, your brain, the movement of the car, the change of your brain,
Click to expand...
These are different.
Click to expand...
Do you also think that the movement of the car is a “tihng”, and the car another “thing”, or that the “movement of the car” is just the car moving?
STT said:
40.png
JuanFlorencio:
the duration of the movement of the car, the duration of the change of your brain, the time during which the car is moving, the time during which your brain is changing…
Click to expand...
Some of these are equal such as the duration of the movement of the car and the time during which the car is moving.
Click to expand...
Ok, so, are “time” and “duration” synonymous words for the same “thing”, or “duration” is kind of an aspect of “time”?
 
JuanFlorencio said:
Is it just a “simple feeling”? Or in what sense is it an “idea”?
Click to expand...
It is an idea: There should be a duration between any couple of states of a system which is in motion. Simply you cannot reach the second state of the system given the first state otherwise.
JuanFlorencio said:
Do you also think that the movement of the car is a “tihng”, and the car another “thing”, or that the “movement of the car” is just the car moving?
Click to expand...
I think we experience motion. I however think that motion is created in our brain otherwise it should be a thing.
JuanFlorencio said:
Ok, so, are “time” and “duration” synonymous words for the same “thing”, or “duration” is kind of an aspect of “time”?
Click to expand...
Duration is a slice of time.
 
Last edited:
I do disagree with time having a beginning based upon my argument:

As Catholics we believe that God always was, i.e. no beginning to His being. If God always was, then time has no beginning. Remember the word “always” is a limitless function of time.
 
forgiveme31 said:
I do disagree with time having a beginning based upon my argument:

As Catholics we believe that God always was, i.e. no beginning to His being. If God always was, then time has no beginning. Remember the word “always” is a limitless function of time.
Click to expand...
According to Catholic teaching God is timeless which is different from what you are saying. The universe has to have a beginning otherwise the concept of creation becomes meaningless.
 
Also, if God is timeless (which of course He is), then there was no beginning of time. There was never a time without God.
 
STT said:
It is an idea: There should be a duration between any couple of states of a system which is in motion. Simply you cannot reach the second state of the system given the first state otherwise.
Click to expand...
You say that time is not an idea, but a thing; and also that you have an idea of time, not a feeling.

From what you say I guess that for you an idea is always a rational elaboration. And I guess this is how you distinguish them from feelings. Please confirm.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
I think we experience motion. I however think that motion is created in our brain otherwise it should be a thing.
Click to expand...
I am interpreting this in the sense that in your opinion motion is not objective, but subjective. Is this correct?
 
Last edited:
STT said:
Duration is a slice of time.
Click to expand...
Are you intending to be literal here, or you are intentionally using a metaphor?

I conceive slices of spatial things. Does your idea of “time” include space as one of its attributes?
 
forgiveme31 said:
Also, if God is timeless (which of course He is), then there was no beginning of time. There was never a time without God.
Click to expand...
These are three statements. Could you please tell me what do you mean with timeless?

I also argue about the fact that time has a beginning so I am afraid that I cannot help it unless you show that something is wrong with my argument: Suppose time has no beginning. This means that time existed at infinite past. It however takes infinite amount of waiting to reach from infinite past to now which this is impossible. Therefore time has a beginning.

Finally I argued that time cannot be created. This is subject OP. So please let me know what you think about OP.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
You say that time is not an idea, but a thing; and also that you have an idea of time, not a feeling.

From what you say I guess that for you an idea is always a rational elaboration. And I guess this is how you distinguish them from feelings. Please confirm.
Click to expand...
Yes. I agree with what you stated. 🙂
 
forgiveme31 said:
That’s false. Creation wasn’t the beginning of time.
Click to expand...
Umm… pardon? When, pray tell, was the “beginning of time”, then?
forgiveme31 said:
Also, if God is timeless (which of course He is), then there was no beginning of time.
Click to expand...
Your assertion doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. God, in addition to being eternal (i.e., ‘timeless’), is also ‘uncreated’. That doesn’t mean, though, that “there was no beginning of creation.” 😉

Rather, since God is eternal and uncreated, He is the one who created time and the universe.
 
Last edited:
No, the Big Bang explains how the Universe expanded, not how the Universe was created. Matter was present before the Big Bang proving that time was in existence already, otherwise the pre-Big Bang Universe existed in a timeless state.

I believe that we’ve taken this debate as far as we could. Thanks for your ideas.
 
There was no beginning of time. God has always been, He is timeless, correct? If God has always been and is timeless, then there was no beginning to his existence, thus there being no beginning of time.
 
forgiveme31 said:
There was no beginning of time. God has always been, He is timeless, correct? If God has always been and is timeless, then there was no beginning to his existence, thus there being no beginning of time.
Click to expand...
Poor foundation.

“Time” does not measure God’s existence; time measures change in physical objects. In other words, ‘time’ is a characteristic of the physical universe. Inasmuch as the physical universe had a beginning, time correspondingly had a beginning.

To say “time has a beginning” is not to say “God is measured by time.” After all, even though time now exists (in our context), would you say “God is n years old”, or “God did such-and-such yesterday and this-and-that today”? Of course not – that would be nonsensical! Therefore, time does not apply to God, and God’s eternal nature does not impinge on time within its own context. 😉
 
So tell me then, when was the beginning of time? The time that started before God? Of course that would be impossible since God, as you correctly state, is timeless. If time began at Creation, did God exist in a timeless state prior to Creation?

Follow the logic: yes God is timeless, He created all things including time, so if He always was, then time also always was. No beginning. As I said to STT, i think we’ve taken this debate as far as we can. Thanks for your ideas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top