Time cannot be created

[STT]

Invalid formula. The classical (Aristotelian) definition of ‘time’ is “the measure of the change” of physical objects. In other words, without any physical objects (or system), there is no such thing as time. (Which gives rise to the old joke: “What did God do before creation?” “Nothing – he didn’t have time!” )

Where did I said that without any physical object , there is no time?

Anyway, your equation uses a variable (T) in reference to a state (S) in which the system did not exist. Essentially, you’re attempting to measure dS/d(NULL), which does not work.

That is exactly the problem that you have noticed. Time should exist in order to allow us to define changes.

Time comes into existence when S’ comes into existence. It cannot be used to measure anything before it, itself, exists!

No. Time is needed whenever you have a change. Please read my argument to another poster:

We have a change in a system therefore we have two states related to change which are different. These two states cannot be at the same point since the state of system becomes ill-defined. Therefore these two states should be placed on different points. There is also a directionality in change because one state (first state) comes before another state (second state), this is another property of change. Up to here we realize that we need to a variable with at least two points which the first point comes before the second point. There should however be a duration between these two points otherwise the second state will never take place. This variable is therefore time.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Invalid formula. The classical (Aristotelian) definition of ‘time’ is “the measure of the change” of physical objects. In other words, without any physical objects (or system), there is no such thing as time. (Which gives rise to the old joke: “What did God do before creation?” “Nothing – he didn’t have time!” )

Where did I said that without any physical object , there is no time?

You didn’t. I did, based on a classical definition of ‘change’. Time is a measure of change of physical objects. Without physical objects, there is no change, and no variable ‘time’ with which to measure change.

Anyway, your equation uses a variable (T) in reference to a state (S) in which the system did not exist. Essentially, you’re attempting to measure dS/d(NULL), which does not work.

That is exactly the problem that you have noticed. Time should exist in order to allow us to define changes.
[/quote]
No. The ‘problem’ is that you’re asking the dimension of time to pre-exist creation. This is illogical.

And, when you force time to pre-exist creation, you run into what you perceive of as a ‘problem’. It’s not a ‘problem’; it’s a logical consequence of creation ex nihilo. It doesn’t cause issues.

No. Time is needed whenever you have a change. Please read my argument to another poster:

We have a change in a system therefore we have two states related to change which are different. These two states cannot be at the same point since the state of system becomes ill-defined. Therefore these two states should be placed on different points. There is also a directionality in change because one state (first state) comes before another state (second state), this is another property of change. Up to here we realize that we need to a variable with at least two points which the first point comes before the second point. There should however be a duration between these two points otherwise the second state will never take place. This variable is therefore time.

No. Your difficulty is that you’re not grasping the metaphysics of ‘coming into being’, and are attempting to conflate ‘coming into being’ with other changes (in which already-existing objects change). Until you come to grips with ‘coming into being’, you’ll continue to fail to understand why this does not present a problem with the dimension of the universe known as ‘time’.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

LOL (at myself)

Sorry, typo. Never, not ever.

“there was never a point when only God existed”

So, God and the universe has always coexisted?

The universe has existed for a finite amount of time. There was never a mount of time when the universe did not exist.

Always is a tricky word because it’s ultimately ordered to speaking temporally. But if something has existed for “all-time” that doesn’t mean that time is infinite. The primary meaning of “God is eternal” is not that God has existed for infinite time. It’s that God is unchanging and has no cause.

How do you define creation?

This moment is as much an act of creation as the first moment of the universe. It’s not any less. God is the creator because the existence of everything is dependent upon His will that it exists. It’s not comparable to a watchmaker fashioning a clock. If you only think of creation or causation in that sense you’ll never grasp God as the creator.

 

[Gorgias]

I have shown that time is fundamental thing in reality

No. You have noted that it exists in this universe. Big difference.

 

[RandomAlias]

This argument is valid when you have change or there is an act.

“Change” and “act” are tricky concepts within the framework of eternity. That’s why I am trying to work out a broader understanding of creation as a fact, not an act.

Something exists; that is a fact. How it exists is debatable. To say it “was created” is putting it in human (time/change) terms. To say it “is created” may be closer to the fundamental truth of existence. I believe it may be understood outside the framework of time.

The reason I am trying to take time out of the picture is physics. Time is closely tied to space. In the Special and General Theories of Relativity, time and space are both flexible and to some extent interchangeable.

Most crucial to your argument, Special Relativity explains that the order of events in time – that is, which of two events precedes the other – depends on the reference frame. This does not affect causality, but it makes time look like a poor frame of reference in philosophical arguments.

 

[SMHW]

STT:

This argument is valid when you have change or there is an act.

“Change” and “act” are tricky concepts within the framework of eternity. That’s why I am trying to work out a broader understanding of creation as a fact, not an act.

Yes! We see acts as points in time. Creation is maybe better understood as a relationship than as an act.

I think a lot of us grew up with an image of the Three Persons of the Trinity ‘sitting around’ surrounded by nothing and then suddenly saying, “Huh! Wouldn’t it be cool if We created some stuff! Let’s start now.”

But that’s just our projection onto ‘eternity’. We have no reason to suggest that God was ‘ever’ not creating. God creates. This isn’t an act in time; it’s the nature of the relationship.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

We know that the act of creation is defined as a change in state of existence, S → S’ where S is state of existence when there is nothing and S’ is the state of existence when the universe exists. S however follow by S’ meaning that we need a variable to take care of this change. This variable is nothing but time. This means that we can write dS/dt=A(S) where A is act of creation. The problem with this equation is that S’ contains time since act of creation creates time too. This is a contradiction since you need time to explain the act of creation while time is an emergent variable of act of creation.

What you call the “contradiction” only shows that your “model” is useless, STT. If you provided the first steps of your… reasoning, perhaps you would understand why (but I am not sure):

You needed to proceed like this:

At a given time t0, the “state of existence” of the universe is S. At another time t1 it is S’.

Then you needed to think of a kind of average rate of change of such “state of existence” (whatever that means), like this:

R = (S’ - S)/ (t1 - t0)

The time interval could be as short as you want. That way, you could think on an instantaneous rate of change at the time t0 (for example). You just needed to take the limit of the average rate of change when the time interval tends to 0. That would be the definition of your derivative dS/dt.

Then you think, “what if the time t0 is the “moment when there was” no time” (crazy idea!, but anyhow, who cares!). That would be the “moment” of creation A(S), right?

However, every rate of change involves time! And here you get confused (which could be a good sign!, but not always), and instead of concluding “I am making no sense!”, you prefer to announce: “Here, I am demonstrating that time cannot be created!”

Did you pretend to look smart and elegant using mathematical symbols, STT?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

We know that the act of creation is defined as a change in state of existence

I think your definition of “creation” is too narrow. It has other connotations. For instance, the Law of Conservation of Energy contrasts “creation” with “change” when it asserts that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather it can only be changed from one form to another. Yet, even within this connotation, the context is physics, whereas when God creates, it is ex nihilo, which is necessarily beyond-physics.

I think creation is more commonly defined as “bringing something into existence.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Moreover, “time” can also be seen as an ambiguous term that can have different connotations. The ancient Greeks, for example, had two words for “time.”. Chronos is quantitative and means linear, chronological time. Kairos is qualitative and means an opportune moment.

In the New Testament, “kairos” means “the appointed time in the purpose of God”, the time when God acts (e.g. Mark 1:15: the kairos is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand).

God created from nothing, even before chronos existed, at the opportune moment, i.e. kairos.

 

[JamesATyler]

The universe has existed for a finite amount of time. There was never a mount of time when the universe did not exist.

Always is a tricky word because it’s ultimately ordered to speaking temporally. But if something has existed for “all-time” that doesn’t mean that time is infinite. The primary meaning of “God is eternal” is not that God has existed for infinite time. It’s that God is unchanging and has no cause.

Maybe his creation is unchanging to him as well. We are temporal so things come and go and things change. Maybe for God it is different, seeing the whole of his creation from beginning to end. For us, because of when we exist in the creation, it appears incomplete and maybe even in jeopardy. Yet, since there is only one Almighty God, he creates what he wills.

 

[STT]

You didn’t. I did, based on a classical definition of ‘change’. Time is a measure of change of physical objects. Without physical objects, there is no change, and no variable ‘time’ with which to measure change.

I don’t accept that definition (bold part) of time. Time is a thing which allows change.

No. The ‘problem’ is that you’re asking the dimension of time to pre-exist creation. This is illogical.

It has to and it is not illogical, otherwise you cannot define changes.

No. Your difficulty is that you’re not grasping the metaphysics of ‘coming into being’, and are attempting to conflate ‘coming into being’ with other changes (in which already-existing objects change). Until you come to grips with ‘coming into being’, you’ll continue to fail to understand why this does not present a problem with the dimension of the universe known as ‘time’.

The reality is the creation is also a change in state of existence.

 

[STT]

The universe has existed for a finite amount of time. There was never a mount of time when the universe did not exist.

Always is a tricky word because it’s ultimately ordered to speaking temporally. But if something has existed for “all-time” that doesn’t mean that time is infinite. The primary meaning of “God is eternal” is not that God has existed for infinite time. It’s that God is unchanging and has no cause.

This moment is as much an act of creation as the first moment of the universe. It’s not any less. God is the creator because the existence of everything is dependent upon His will that it exists. It’s not comparable to a watchmaker fashioning a clock. If you only think of creation or causation in that sense you’ll never grasp God as the creator.

These I understand and there is a problem within. I first said that there was a point that God was alone and you said no. Then I ask what is the act of creation then and you answer accordingly. The reality is the the concept of the act of creation is not coherent if God was not alone before.

 

[STT]

“Change” and “act” are tricky concepts within the framework of eternity. That’s why I am trying to work out a broader understanding of creation as a fact, not an act.

Something exists; that is a fact. How it exists is debatable. To say it “was created” is putting it in human (time/change) terms. To say it “is created” may be closer to the fundamental truth of existence. I believe it may be understood outside the framework of time.

The reason I am trying to take time out of the picture is physics. Time is closely tied to space. In the Special and General Theories of Relativity, time and space are both flexible and to some extent interchangeable.

Most crucial to your argument, Special Relativity explains that the order of events in time – that is, which of two events precedes the other – depends on the reference frame. This does not affect causality, but it makes time look like a poor frame of reference in philosophical arguments.

Do you have any problem with my argumen?

 

[STT]

What you call the “contradiction” only shows that your “model” is useless, STT. If you provided the first steps of your… reasoning, perhaps you would understand why (but I am not sure):

You needed to proceed like this:

At a given time t0, the “state of existence” of the universe is S. At another time t1 it is S’.

Then you needed to think of a kind of average rate of change of such “state of existence” (whatever that means), like this:

R = (S’ - S)/ (t1 - t0)

The time interval could be as short as you want. That way, you could think on an instantaneous rate of change at the time t0 (for example). You just needed to take the limit of the average rate of change when the time interval tends to 0. That would be the definition of your derivative dS/dt.

Then you think, “what if the time t0 is the “moment when there was” no time” (crazy idea!, but anyhow, who cares!). That would be the “moment” of creation A(S), right?

However, every rate of change involves time! And here you get confused (which could be a good sign!, but not always), and instead of concluding “I am making no sense!”, you prefer to announce: “Here, I am demonstrating that time cannot be created!”

Did you pretend to look smart and elegant using mathematical symbols, STT?

Well, let me provide you another another form of the argument that I don’t use the formula in that:

Could you have change without time? No (we can discuss this if you are interested). Do we have a change when the universe is created? Yes (we have nothing and then something). This means that we need time for act of creation therefore time cannot be a part of creation otherwise we end up into a contradiction.

 

[STT]

I think your definition of “creation” is too narrow. It has other connotations. For instance, the Law of Conservation of Energy contrasts “creation” with “change” when it asserts that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather it can only be changed from one form to another. Yet, even within this connotation, the context is physics, whereas when God creates, it is ex nihilo, which is necessarily beyond-physics.

I think creation is more commonly defined as “bringing something into existence.”

I think my definition of the act of creation is proper. You had nothing then something. That the meaning creation ex nihilo. That is a change in state of existence caused by act of creation.

 

[Benadam]

I mighty be way off but aren’t acts in the temporal realm a process that requires time, and acts in eternity not a process and so not requiring time?

 

[mythbuster1]

Time is a dimension. The universe consists of three spacial dimensions and one temporal dimension. Time differs from the spacial dimensions in that particles with mass can only travel in one direction in time but can travel in both directions in spacial dimensions. Time differs from spacial dimensions by a factor of the imaginary unit. The result is that events can be defined according to their separation in spacetime: those with a timelike interval have a clearly defined sequence, and there exists a reference frame where both events occur in the same place but no reference frame where they occur at the same time. Events with a spacelike interval do not have a defined sequence, and there exists a reference frame where both events occur at the same time, but not one where they occur at the same place. Lastly, there are events separated by a lightlike interval, where a ray from one event intersects the other event. Creation occurs in the finite past of every event, though different observers may disagree about how much time has elapsed since Creation.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Well, let me provide you another another form of the argument that I don’t use the formula in that:

Could you have change without time? No (we can discuss this if you are interested). Do we have a change when the universe is created? Yes (we have nothing and then something). This means that we need time for act of creation therefore time cannot be a part of creation otherwise we end up into a contradiction.

Let’s discuss it then. Take this example: you have a body at rest. Then, suddenly it starts moving vertically, in free fall, under the attraction of the Earth. Obviously there is a change in its state of movement: first it is not moving, then it is moving. What is the time elapsed between those two states?

 

[Wesrock]

Incorrect. You are continuing to think of God’s act of creation in the wrong terms.

 

[Wesrock]

I think my definition of the act of creation is proper. You had nothing then something. That the meaning creation ex nihilo.

The second and third statements are not correct.

This moment in time is as much an act of creation as the first instant was.