Time cannot be created

[Richca]

I am curious, Richca. When you say that time is real, what kind of reality do you attribute to it. Is it real as a rock is real? Does it have the kind of reality that actions have? Or thoughts? Or is it an interaction between things?

Good question Juan. Just off the top of my head, time is one of the nine accidents of Aristotle’s ten categories of being. The accidents are accidental forms and time is called an extrinsic accident. Accidents don’t exist by themselves like the substance such as a rock but only in a substance. The accidents are predications of a substance.

 

[STT]

Really, though… no, not in a chronological sense. We cannot say “at this point in time, only God existed, but then at this later point, both God and creation existed.”

God experiences all things simultaneously and eternally. However, he created the universe (which means that he created time itself), and one of the features of his creation is that it has a temporal dimension.

We need to agree that there was a point that only God exists. Could we agree on that? If yes, the there was another point that God+creation exists. This is however a change which we can agree on it. But a change is not possible without time, I already argue that .

 

[MountCarmel]

STT - true that ‘we’ cannot create time - in fact, in our physical temporal mode ‘we’ are part of time-line existence. BUT the physical-temporal time-line is not infinite, and thus cannot even support itself in existence - what it requires for this is something which lies outside of its defined and limited lineal ‘box’. It requires in effect ‘other’ state/states, and creative power - infinity is and has no time - it is an eternity of IS - God IS, as expressed in Yaweh/‘I AM’.

 

[STT]

I will accept the possibility that at some "point’’ only God existed. But I think it more likely that such a statement is meaningless.

If God exists outside of the then there is no need for God to have ever been “alone”. God would still be the source of all creation.

Ok you agree that there is a point that only God existed. I think we can agree that there is another point that God and creation exist. This is however a change and I can prove that change is not possible without time. Therefore time cannot be a component of creation.

 

[STT]

You might want to study an introductory book on Calculus. That way you could (or could not, who knows?) see the error in your interpretation. Meanwhile, do you mean that between the two states of motion of the body (rest and moving downwards) there is a very small interval of time? What is the state of motion of the body during that interval? Is it at rest or is it moving downwards already?

What is constant is acceleration in a free fall. Acceleration is defined as a=dv/dt when dt tend to zero, where dv=(v2-v1) and dt=(t2-t1). The particle is however at rest at highest point but the change in velocity requires time no matter how small is dv. If you which you can set dv=0 which this leads to dt=0 too. In another word the change in speed cannot be achieved in zero time interval.

 

[STT]

STT - true that ‘we’ cannot create time - in fact, in our physical temporal mode ‘we’ are part of time-line existence. BUT the physical-temporal time-line is not infinite, and thus cannot even support itself in existence - what it requires for this is something which lies outside of its defined and limited lineal ‘box’. It requires in effect ‘other’ state/states, and creative power - infinity is and has no time - it is an eternity of IS - God IS, as expressed in Yaweh/‘I AM’.

What I am arguing is that time cannot be created at all. Do you want that we discuss OP? If you wish you need to let me know if you have problem with it.

 

[MountCarmel]

STT - If you are in effect claiming that time as we know and understand it has no beginning, and by inference, no end, then sure, I would have great problems with such an assertion. The very first question is - how come anything can exist - since there must first be an ‘infinity’ of time having ‘passed’ before it comes to any particular physical-temporal existence/stuff.

 

[STT]

STT - If you are in effect claiming that time as we know and understand it has no beginning, and by inference, no end, then sure, I would have great problems with such an assertion. The very first question is - how come anything can exist - since there must first be an ‘infinity’ of time having ‘passed’ before it comes to any particular physical-temporal existence/stuff.

I am claiming that time has a beginning but it cannot be created. You are right with your observation. Time cannot be eternal.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

What is constant is acceleration in a free fall. Acceleration is defined as a=dv/dt when dt tend to zero, where dv=(v2-v1) and dt=(t2-t1). The particle is however at rest at highest point but the change in velocity requires time no matter how small is dv. If you which you can set dv=0 which this leads to dt=0 too. In another word the change in speed cannot be achieved in zero time interval.

Nobody is talking about what is constant, nor about changes in velocity; but about the change in the state of motion of a body: from rest to movement. You simply have been looking for ways to evade the question (what is the time elapsed for this change?). Nevertheless, you go on repeating your same promises: “I can prove…”, “I can prove…”

Ok you agree that there is a point that only God existed. I think we can agree that there is another point that God and creation exist. This is however a change and I can prove that change is not possible without time. Therefore time cannot be a component of creation.

All you have proved so far is that you are unable to prove anything.

 

[Gorgias]

We need to agree that there was a point that only God exists. Could we agree on that?

No.

If you think about it, since there is no ‘time’ in eternity, then there’s no “point in time” in which only God exists and another “point in time” in which both God and time exist.

Think of it this way: how is the basic unit of time defined? (Then, ask yourself this question: if the way we know what is the basic unit of time doesn’t itself exist, how can time exist?)

But a change is not possible without time, I already argue that .

I know you argue it. But, that’s where we note that this is a “coming-into-being” change, which has fundamental differences than other types of changes. Have you read up on Aristotle yet, in order to begin understanding the distinction?

 

[STT]

Nobody is talking about what is constant, nor about changes in velocity; but about the change in the state of motion of a body: from rest to movement. You simply have been looking for ways to evade the question (what is the time elapsed for this change?). Nevertheless, you go on repeating your same promises: “I can prove…”, “I can prove…”

You are talking about change from zero. How much is that change? The time elapsed for that change is not zero if the change is not zero. In simple word, dy=a*dt^2/2 where dy is the change and a is acceleration and dt is the time elapse.

All you have proved so far is that you are unable to prove anything.

I am afraid that I cannot help the discussion if you do not tell me what is your problem with my argument. I claim that time is required for any change: 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 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.

 

[STT]

No.

If you think about it, since there is no ‘time’ in eternity, then there’s no “point in time” in which only God exists and another “point in time” in which both God and time exist.

Think of it this way: how is the basic unit of time defined? (Then, ask yourself this question: if the way we know what is the basic unit of time doesn’t itself exist, how can time exist?)

I am not talking about time at this moment. I am asking whether there is a point that only God exists. Your answer was yes before but it is no now. I cannot really help this.

I know you argue it. But, that’s where we note that this is a “coming-into-being” change, which has fundamental differences than other types of changes. Have you read up on Aristotle yet, in order to begin understanding the distinction?

I don’t really need that since I understand coming-into-being change.

 

[Gorgias]

I am not talking about time at this moment. I am asking whether there is a point that only God exists. Your answer was yes before but it is no now.

That’s because, when someone agrees that there is an atemporal point in which only God exists, then you say “a-ha! then that means there was a time in which he existed and another time in which both he and creation existed! therefore, time pre-exists!”

You just played out that game with @SMHW. I’ll pass on playing that game.

 

[STT]

That’s because, when someone agrees that there is an atemporal point in which only God exists, then you say “a-ha! then that means there was a time in which he existed and another time in which both he and creation existed! therefore, time pre-exists!”

You just played out that game with @SMHW. I’ll pass on playing that game.

So you don’t agree that there was a point that only God existed? I rest my case since to me the whole concept of creation is meaningless if your answer to this question is no.

 

[Gorgias]

So you don’t agree that there was a point that only God existed?

Not in the way that you mean.

I rest my case since to me the whole concept of creation is meaningless if your answer to this question is no.

My answer is “there is not a point in time in which only God existed, and a separate point in time in which both God and creation existed.”

That’s not the kind of framing up of the answer that you want. I get it. But, since it’s phrased carefully and precisely, it doesn’t allow you to get away with the particular illogic that you wish to pursue.

Blessings,
G.

 

[MountCarmel]

STT - Then how in your perception did ‘time’ come about? -Also can ‘time’ exist within ‘nothingness’, or without ‘stuff’?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I am afraid that I cannot help the discussion if you do not tell me what is your problem with my argument. I claim that time is required for any change

Once more: a body is at rest. That is a state of motion. Then it starts moving: that is another state of motion. The second state of motion is different from the first state of motion. Therefore, there is a change in the state of motion of the body. So, in general there is a change. However, there is no time elapsed for this change (and this example is much more simple to think about than thinking about creation, eternity and God. Aren’t you able to understand such a simple thing?). This particular case refutes your implicit universal proposition “All change involves time”.

When you say that creation is a change in the state of being of the universe (first the universe does not exist; then it exists), you use your implicit universal proposition to conclude, first, that creation involves time (because it is a change, you say), and then to conclude that time was not created. But as your universal proposition is false; your conclusions are false as well.

 

[SMHW]

Ok you agree that there is a point that only God existed.

I think I said it might be possible that at some point only God existed. I didn’t say I agreed it was the case.

I think it more likely that “God being alone” is simply undefined, mathematically speaking.

 

[STT]

Not in the way that you mean.

In what way then?

My answer is “there is not a point in time in which only God existed, and a separate point in time in which both God and creation existed.”

That’s not the kind of framing up of the answer that you want. I get it. But, since it’s phrased carefully and precisely, it doesn’t allow you to get away with the particular illogic that you wish to pursue.

Blessings,

G.

I don’t understand why do you jump into conclusion saying that you don’t agree with it without considering the step which we reach to that conclusion.

 

[STT]

STT - Then how in your perception did ‘time’ come about?

I don’t think that if we can perceive time. We just deduce its existence from changes. I have an argument for that: 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 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.

-Also can ‘time’ exist within ‘nothingness’, or without ‘stuff’?

Yes, to my understanding.