Time cannot be created

[STT]

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”.

As I explained before the time elapse between two states of affair cannot be zero since the system becomes ill-defined. Let put things into equation: Suppose that you are dealing with free fall as you are interested. The change in position as I discussed is dx=a*dt^2/2. You get dx=0 if you set dt=0 or in another world dx is not zero only if dt is not zero. In simple word you cannot have dx=/=0 with dt=0.

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.

My conclusion follows if we can agree on the previous comment.

 

[STT]

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.

I think we can mathematically define such a state as we can understand it well.

Moreover, all arguments in favor of existing of God that start with this assumption are wrong too if you believe so. There is no first uncauses cause.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Not in the way that you mean.

In what way then?

Atemporally. Prior in the order of creation, but not chronologically. The assertion is philosophical, not biological / empirical.

STT:

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.

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.

It’s because I disagree with your premises that I disagree with your conclusion. If one finds a faulty premise, it’s not necessary to consider all the subsequent steps that lead to the conclusion: one may declare that the conclusion is faulty due to an error in the premise.

 

[MountCarmel]

Hmmn, I take it then that in your mind, ‘time’ and ‘infinity/eternity’ are just different names for the same state/set of dimensions?

If that is so, then how come anything that is physical and temporal can exist, given that it would take ‘infinity amount of time’ to get to it?

It also seems to me to be irrational and illogical for ‘stuff’ to pop-up from total nothingness. Things cannot be ‘partly’ acaused - to in effect have physical and temporal acausality.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

As I explained before the time elapse between two states of affair cannot be zero since the system becomes ill-defined. Let put things into equation: Suppose that you are dealing with free fall as you are interested. The change in position as I discussed is dx=a*dt^2/2. You get dx=0 if you set dt=0 or in another world dx is not zero only if dt is not zero. In simple word you cannot have dx=/=0 with dt=0.

All you say is so wrong!

A constant acceleration is defined as the first derivative of velocity with respect to time or as the second derivative of displacement with respect to time. In my example we are interested on the first definition, because I want to make you reflect on what happens when the velocity changes from a positive value (first state of motion), to 0 m/s (second state of motion), then to a negative value (third state of motion).

If you do the integral of the first derivative you will get the following equation:

v = v0 + a*t

Where
t: time
v: velocity at time t
v0: initial velocity
a: acceleration

Which is the equation of a straight line. For a body that moves vertically upwards under the influence of gravity, “a” is a negative constant. As “a” plays the role of the slope of the line in our equation, velocity “v” is always decreasing starting from its initial value “v0”. It is 0 m/s when

v0 = a*t

That is to say

v = 0 when t = v0/a

At this very instant the body is at rest (v = 0 m/s)

For any other time different from t = v0/a, no matter how close it is from this value, the body is already moving (either upwards [v > 0m/s] for a time less than “v0/a”, or downwards [v < 0m/s] for a time greater than “v0/a”).

Therefore, from a mathematical point of view, the change from a positive velocity to 0m/s, and from here to a negative velocity happens in absolutely no time.

Therefore, it is not true that “All change involves time”.

Therefore, your conclusion is false.

 

[STT]

Atemporally. Prior in the order of creation, but not chronologically. The assertion is philosophical, not biological / empirical.

What prior means here?

It’s because I disagree with your premises that I disagree with your conclusion. If one finds a faulty premise, it’s not necessary to consider all the subsequent steps that lead to the conclusion: one may declare that the conclusion is faulty due to an error in the premise.

You are doing is opposite of you should do my friend. So the conclusion and say that premises is wrong without being able to show that what is wrong in premise: There was a point that God was alone.

 

[STT]

Hmmn, I take it then that in your mind, ‘time’ and ‘infinity/eternity’ are just different names for the same state/set of dimensions?

I understand that time, infinity and eternity are different concepts.

If that is so, then how come anything that is physical and temporal can exist, given that it would take ‘infinity amount of time’ to get to it?

Time has simply a beginning. But it is not created.

It also seems to me to be irrational and illogical for ‘stuff’ to pop-up from total nothingness. Things cannot be ‘partly’ acaused - to in effect have physical and temporal acausality.

Uncause cause is strange to me too. We uncause cause any time that we decide. One might be able to create things. We also create things, such as concepts, too. What I am arguing in here is time cannot be created or be a component of creation since the act of creation by itself is temporal.

 

[STT]

All you say is so wrong!

It is not wrong. Anybody with a little knowledge of physics know that x=a*^2/2+v0t+x0. v0 is wrong for a body which start falling therefore x=at^2/2+ x0 or delta x=at^2/2. Initial time is zero in here therefore we can write delta x=a(delta t)^2/2. In the limit that delta t is small, dt, we have dx=a*dt^2/2.

A constant acceleration is defined as the first derivative of velocity with respect to time or as the second derivative of displacement with respect to time. In my example we are interested on the first definition, because I want to make you reflect on what happens when the velocity changes from a positive value (first state of motion), to 0 m/s (second state of motion), then to a negative value (third state of motion).

If you do the integral of the first derivative you will get the following equation:

v = v0 + a*t

Where

t: time

v: velocity at time t

v0: initial velocity

a: acceleration

Which is the equation of a straight line. For a body that moves vertically upwards under the influence of gravity, “a” is a negative constant. As “a” plays the role of the slope of the line in our equation, velocity “v” is always decreasing starting from its initial value “v0”. It is 0 m/s when

v0 = a*t

That is to say

v = 0 when t = v0/a

At this very instant the body is at rest (v = 0 m/s)

For any other time different from t = v0/a, no matter how close it is from this value, the body is already moving (either upwards [v > 0m/s] for a time less than “v0/a”, or downwards [v < 0m/s] for a time greater than “v0/a”).

Therefore, from a mathematical point of view, the change from a positive velocity to 0m/s, and from here to a negative velocity happens in absolutely no time.

Therefore, it is not true that “All change involves time”.

You forget that v0 and t in the equation, t = v0/a, are time respect to initial time, t=t-0=t-t0=delta t, and v0=v0-v=deltat v where v is zero. One can write your equation as dv=a*dt for any instant. It is obvious that dv=0 when dt=0.

Therefore, your conclusion is false.

Therefore my conclusion follows.

 

[omgriley]

Are you assuming that “nothing” is a state in reality, or that it’s part of existence? If so this is not how philosophy defines “nothing”

“Nothing” is not merely an empty black-holish void, rather it’s the total lack or absence of anything, thus completely unobservable. It can’t change because there’s no thing to be changed.

Time isn’t needed here because nothing is changing because there is nothing to change. God, Who is transcendent Being Itself, is able to cause nothing to become something and out of that comes change.

“Eternity moved and said to time: ‘Begin.’ Omnipotence moved and said to nothingness: ‘Be.’ Light moved and said to darkness: ‘Be Light.’ Out from the finger-tips of God there tumbled planets and worlds.” —Fulton J. Sheen

 

[MountCarmel]

STT - You claim that time has a beginning, but is not created - if that was/is so, do you literally mean out of, and by means of, nothing? If not by means of nothing - then by what means?

Uncaused cause - is not only strange, but appears to be nonsensical - that opens up a whole can of legalistic worms just for starters - it also causes to question not only cause, but the why of ‘effect’, and the why of ‘laws’.

We cannot ‘create’ concepts, the emergence of ‘concepts’ are part and parcel of, and reliant upon previous caused effects - PLUS to my mind the (name removed by moderator)uts of that singular acaused ‘ENTITY’, that I AM, referred to as God.

 

[STT]

Are you assuming that “nothing” is a state in reality, or that it’s part of existence? If so this is not how philosophy defines “nothing”.

I am arguing that nothing is state of being otherwise the act of creation is meaningless. The act of creation is related to a change. We know that the universe is outcome of act creation. The question is outcome from what? Of course nothingness. No change no creation, as plain as that.

“Nothing” is not merely an empty black-holish void, rather it’s the total lack or absence of anything, thus completely unobservable. It can’t change because there’s no thing to be changed.

Yes, nothing cannot change but that is not what we are arguing about.

Time isn’t needed here because nothing is changing because there is nothing to change. God, Who is transcendent Being Itself, is able to cause nothing to become something and out of that comes change.

I can argue that time is needed for any change. But that is the second step. The first step is to answer to the first question that whether creation is about a change?

“Eternity moved and said to time: ‘Begin.’ Omnipotence moved and said to nothingness: ‘Be.’ Light moved and said to darkness: ‘Be Light.’ Out from the finger-tips of God there tumbled planets and worlds.” —Fulton J. Sheen

You are using time to explain the act of creation in the same time claiming that time is part of creation.

 

[STT]

STT - You claim that time has a beginning, but is not created - if that was/is so, do you literally mean out of, and by means of, nothing? If not by means of nothing - then by what means?

No, I am not saying that there was nothing then time. I am saying what we are trying to define as act of creation requires time still insisting that time is a part of creation. That is clearly a contradiction. What I am arguing is that time cannot be created at all. Time however has a beginning. As plain as that.

Uncaused cause - is not only strange, but appears to be nonsensical - that opens up a whole can of legalistic worms just for starters - it also causes to question not only cause, but the why of ‘effect’, and the why of ‘laws’.

Well, I am amused with the eternal uncaused cause act of creation. How a timeless act can manifest itself to temporal acts? I think people who accept this don’t understand the implication of their claim. The burden to show that such a thing is possible is of course on their shoulders.

We cannot ‘create’ concepts, the emergence of ‘concepts’ are part and parcel of, and reliant upon previous caused effects - PLUS to my mind the (name removed by moderator)uts of that singular acaused ‘ENTITY’, that I AM, referred to as God.

So God puts things inside our mouth? I don’t think so.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Atemporally. Prior in the order of creation, but not chronologically. The assertion is philosophical, not biological / empirical.

What prior means here?

It means that God creates. It means that He creates atemporally (since the dimension of ‘time’ doesn’t exist until creation exists). So, if you want to claim that God is subject to time, you have to make an argument that is metaphysically coherent, and is nuanced beyond a simplistic understanding of ‘time’ that is bound to our human experience within the framework of space-time.

STT:

It’s because I disagree with your premises that I disagree with your conclusion. If one finds a faulty premise, it’s not necessary to consider all the subsequent steps that lead to the conclusion: one may declare that the conclusion is faulty due to an error in the premise.

You are doing is opposite of you should do my friend. So the conclusion and say that premises is wrong without being able to show that what is wrong in premise: There was a point that God was alone.

No – I agree with your premise, as stated. However, I disagree with the implication that you’re attempting to foist upon us: that is, that in saying ‘point’, we mean ‘point in time’. We do not agree with you in that assertion.

So, what I’m doing isn’t opposite, but is consistent with good logic: I’m demonstrating to you that your premise is in error – that is, that God is constrained by His creation (namely, ‘time’).

 

[AlNg]

what is the time elapsed when the state of motion of the body changes from rest to movement?

If the body is at rest at t1 = 0 and the body moves at t = t2, then the time elapsed is t2 - t1 or just t2 in this case.

 

[AlNg]

If God is ‘subjected’ to time, then God does not have power over time. That would mean that God is not omnipotent.

Not necessarily. If there is a contradiction in the assumption, then it does not destroy omnipotence of God. for example, it is wrong to say that God is not omnipotent because He cannot create a perfectly round square.

 

[AlNg]

We need to agree that there was a point that only God exists.

That may or may not be true. For example, if the universe is cyclical, with consecutive Big Bangs and subsequent Big Crunches, then there would not be a time when the universe did not exist.

 

[AlNg]

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.

Generally speaking you are right. there is a limiting value, but the function may not be defined at the point of interest. Take for example the function y(x) = (x^2 - 1)/ (x-1). There is no value of y for x = 1. I.e., y(1) does not exist. However, the limit as x ->1 of y(x) does exist and equals 2.

 

[AlNg]

As I explained before the time elapse between two states of affair cannot be zero since the system becomes ill-defined. Let put things into equation: Suppose that you are dealing with free fall as you are interested. The change in position as I discussed is dx=a*dt^2/2. You get dx=0 if you set dt=0 or in another world dx is not zero only if dt is not zero. In simple word you cannot have dx=/=0 with dt=0.

Yes. That is correct.

 

[the_universal]

Time is nothing more than a human derived measurement to help assist us make some sense of the universe and our purpose within it. Trying to explain creation by using a measurement of time anthropomorphizes God IMO and is something we won’t figure out in this life

 

[JuanFlorencio]

JuanFlorencio:

what is the time elapsed when the state of motion of the body changes from rest to movement?

If the body is at rest at t1 = 0 and the body moves at t = t2, then the time elapsed is t2 - t1 or just t2 in this case.

Look how I am not asking how long does it take for a body to move from one position to another. Of course, no matter how fast the body is, or how short the distance, the change in position will take a finite time.

Also, I am not asking how long does it take for a body to increase its velocity from an initial value to a final one. Of course, no matter how great the acceleration is, or how small the difference between the initial and final velocity, the change in velocity will take a finite time.

What I am asking is how long does it take for a body at rest to start moving. This is a change in the state of motion of a body. And I am proposing as a context the example of a body that suffers a vertical shot (with an initial velocity v0): it moves upwards (positive velocity) and as it is under the influence of gravity (acceleration “g”), the magnitude of its velocity decreases until it is 0m/s. Then it starts moving downwards (negative velocity) at increasing speeds. So, a question considering this example would be: How long does it take for the body to change its velocity from positive to negative. And the answer is “it takes no time!”, because for any time you conceive less than “v0/g” (no matter how close it is to this value) it still has a positive velocity; and for any time greater than “v0/g” (no matter how close it is to this value) it already has a negative velocity.

There is nothing strange in the example. Actually, there is nothing as common as this: whatever body which is at rest and starts moving, the change in its state of motion from “rest” to “moving” happens in no time.

This is a parallel to what STT says: First the universe is not; then, as a consequence of the act of creation, it becomes. He says, “there is a change in the “state of existence” of the universe: first it is not, then it is; therefore time is involved”. As this is not obvious, he wants to support his conclusion saying that “all change involves time”. So, if the act of creation is a change in the “state of existence” it involves time. Then he concludes: “time was already there at the act of creation; therefore time was not created”. This is sophistry (and funny).

Continues…