Time cannot be created

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

I really did answer your question. However, the way you framed it up was in words that imply a temporal framework. I’m not gonna fall into that trap, my friend.

Yes, the universe was created. No, it did not exist eternally, as something causally prior to God.

I cannot help you if you do not want to accept the fact: There was a change if the universe was created.

I don’t need help accepting your ‘facts’; I already recognize them as erroneous.

And this is why I’m (patiently) informing you that your metaphysics are in a shambles. To equate “something->something else” with “nothing->something” is sloppy and inaccurate.

They are different but we have change in both case.

That’s like saying “a dog and a cat are different, but are both animals. Why won’t my cat bark, then?”

Not the “coming-into-existence” of the universe, though. There, we disagree, although you provide no rationale for your point of view.

Was there any change due to the act of creation? If not then the universe simply has existed from its starting. If yes then my reasoning follows.

There was a “coming-into-existence”, not a change from something into another something. No, the universe hasn’t simply existed eternally, and not, your reasoning doesn’t follow.

Again: “'change from something to something else is distinct from ‘change from nothing to something’.” Until you address this distinction, your assertions will continue to fail.

I distinguish the difference but there is a change in both case.

I would assert that you note the difference without distinguishing the distinction.

So… you think time “pre-exists” God?

I think that God and time coexist.

Do you believe God is prior to time, existentially?

You’ve got a serious philosophical problem, then: if God (who is being itself, and who is omni) does not pre-exist time, then who ‘creates’ God?

There is no problem here. There is no relation between what I am saying and what you are suggesting (bold part).

There’s a really serious problem here, if you raise ‘time’ to the level of God.

And, if time pre-exists God, then He does not fit the definition of God (all omni), so you move the goalposts and undefine God, which doesn’t hold up.

God simply lives in time. You can have all omni but omni-present in all time. By the way God decide, doesn’t He? For that you need to embed God in time.

Except that then, you’d need to describe how God is the single uncaused cause, the first mover, etc, if He does not cause ‘time’.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

JuanFlorencio:

So what!

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

You insist that you could argue that there is no change without time. In physics, it is customary to distinguish between rest and movement as two different states of motion of bodies. Obviously, if a body is at rest and then it starts moving (for whatever cause), that is a change in its state of motion. But no time is required for this change. While for any change in position, or for any change of speed, or for any change of acceleration, a finite time elapses, a change from rest to motion takes no time. Therefore, your idea that every change involves time is false.

With this, you are left without basis to argue that the change from non-existence to existence involves time.

Is there any difference between a suspended body and a body with speed of zero but free?

Yes or no, that is irrelevant for the argument. The point is that the example I have offered refutes your universal assertion that every conceivable change involves time. Your only base was such universal proposition. But being it false, I have shown the falsity of your argument without needing to discuss about God, God’s decisions and actions, eternity, relations between time and eternity, creation, etcetera.

To make things simpler, your argument was:

1. All changes involve time.
2. If the act of creation is a change or implies a change, then the act of creation involves time.
3. The creation of the universe is a change.
4. Therefore, the act of creation involves time.

My example shows with evidence that the first proposition is false. Therefore, your conclusion is false.

 

[Richca]

Time is something real and the essence of time is that there is a before and after and it is measurable. If then time is not something created it is something uncreated and therefore, time is God since whatever is and is not created is God. But God is eternal without a before or after and eternity is unmeasurable. God cannot be both at one and the same time eternal without a before and after and time with a before and after, it involves a contradiction. Consequently, God created time together with heaven and earth in the beginning.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It is possible. A few physicists believe in a cyclic universe, according to which the Big Bang occurred after a Big Crunch. In such a scenario, time would not have a beginning but extends without limit into the past and into the future

This was refuted by recent evidence about the nature of background micowaves in space. I can’t think of anyone who still promotes this hypothesis.

 

[AlNg]

This was refuted by recent evidence about the nature of background micowaves in space. I can’t think of anyone who still promotes this hypothesis.

The newer Steinhardt Turok model based on brane cosmology avoids the problems of the earlier ekpyrotic model.
Further, there are other cyclic models such as the conformal cyclic cosmological model of
Gurzadyan and Penrose

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.00554.pdf

http://www.ideasroadshow.com/issues/the-cyclic-universe-part-i
http://www.ideasroadshow.com/issues/the-cyclic-universe-part-ii
and there are the Baum Frampton model and the loop quantum cosmological model.
Also please see the article by Yi-Fu Cai, Damien A. Easson and Robert Brandenberger Toward a nonsingular bouncing cosmology which resolves the BKL instability problem and furthermore gives a consistent mechanism to explain the recent cosmic microwave background observations.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.2382.pdf

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Time is something real and the essence of time is that there is a before and after and it is measurable. If then time is not something created it is something uncreated and therefore, time is God since whatever is and is not created is God. But God is eternal without a before or after and eternity is unmeasurable. God cannot be both at one and the same time eternal without a before and after and time with a before and after, it involves a contradiction. Consequently, God created time together with heaven and earth in the beginning.

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?

 

[STT]

I don’t need help accepting your ‘facts’; I already recognize them as erroneous.

So there was not a change!? The universe then has existed since the beginning of time, which is apparently is finite time ago. Are you sure of what you are suggesting?

That’s like saying “a dog and a cat are different, but are both animals. Why won’t my cat bark, then?”

Yes, that is what I am saying.

There was a “coming-into-existence”, not a change from something into another something. No, the universe hasn’t simply existed eternally, and not, your reasoning doesn’t follow.

Could we agree that there was a point that only God existed? That might help to realize that there was a change in existence since there was the universe and God once God decided to create.

I would assert that you note the difference without distinguishing the distinction.

What is the distinction?

Do you believe God is prior to time, existentially?

That is meaningless phrase/question. Prior has a meaning when you are embedded in time.

There’s a really serious problem here, if you raise ‘time’ to the level of God.

I don’t raise time to the level of God. I just claim that God is subjected to time. But that is a different issue and we can set it aside since we are talking about time cannot be created on this thread.

Except that then, you’d need to describe how God is the single uncaused cause, the first mover, etc, if He does not cause ‘time’.

Assuming that God is single uncaused cause put limitation on God. God of course can cause as many as He wants.

 

[STT]

Yes or no, that is irrelevant for the argument.

It is not irrelevant at all. There is a significant difference between these two cases. One can suspend a body for so long as he wants. A body is at rest only for an instant when it is falling under gravitational force.

The point is that the example I have offered refutes your universal assertion that every conceivable change involves time. Your only base was such universal proposition. But being it false, I have shown the falsity of your argument without needing to discuss about God, God’s decisions and actions, eternity, relations between time and eternity, creation, etcetera.

To make things simpler, your argument was:

All changes involve time.

If the act of creation is a change or implies a change, then the act of creation involves time.

The creation of the universe is a change.

Therefore, the act of creation involves time.

My example shows with evidence that the first proposition is false. Therefore, your conclusion is false.

I am glad that you recognize my argument. The first proposition however is true as it was discussed in the previous comment so my argument follows.

 

[STT]

Time is something real and the essence of time is that there is a before and after and it is measurable. If then time is not something created it is something uncreated and therefore, time is God since whatever is and is not created is God. But God is eternal without a before or after and eternity is unmeasurable. God cannot be both at one and the same time eternal without a before and after and time with a before and after, it involves a contradiction. Consequently, God created time together with heaven and earth in the beginning.

Is there a difference in God before deciding to create and after deciding to create? Are you suggesting that God cannot decide?

 

[SMHW]

Could we agree that there was a point that only God existed? That might help to realize that there was a change in existence since there was the universe and God once God decided to create.

Do we have to agree to this? It seems to me that this is actually the point you have been trying to argue in the first place.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

I don’t need help accepting your ‘facts’; I already recognize them as erroneous.

So there was not a change!? The universe then has existed since the beginning of time, which is apparently is finite time ago.

No. I’m simply saying that a “coming-into-being” change is distinct from other kinds of changes, and that you aren’t taking into account this difference.

Are you sure of what you are suggesting?

I am. I’m suggesting that your assertion is in error.

That’s like saying “a dog and a cat are different, but are both animals. Why won’t my cat bark, then?”

Yes, that is what I am saying.

Glad you agree, 'cause you really are making an error of category.

Could we agree that there was a point that only God existed?

As long as your assertion of a ‘point’ isn’t an assertion of a ‘point in time.’

I would assert that you note the difference without distinguishing the distinction.

What is the distinction?

Please familiarize yourself with Aristotle’s Physics, especially his discussion of the difference between ‘accidental’ and ‘substantial’ change.

Do you believe God is prior to time, existentially?

That is meaningless phrase/question. Prior has a meaning when you are embedded in time.

That’s why I specified that ‘prior’ speaks existentially, not chronologically…

There’s a really serious problem here, if you raise ‘time’ to the level of God.

I don’t raise time to the level of God. I just claim that God is subjected to time.

If God is ‘subjected’ to time, then God does not have power over time. That would mean that God is not omnipotent. But, that’s part of the definition of ‘God’. Therefore, your assertions contradict the definition of God; subsequently, we reject your argument, since it contradicts the definitions from which it starts.

Except that then, you’d need to describe how God is the single uncaused cause, the first mover, etc, if He does not cause ‘time’.

Assuming that God is single uncaused cause put limitation on God. God of course can cause as many as He wants.

Pardon? It seems you misunderstand. God is the single (i.e., only) uncaused cause.

 

[HarryStotle]

Assuming that God is single uncaused cause put limitation on God. God of course can cause as many as He wants.

Wait just a minute…

Are you saying "God can cause as many… uncaused causes… as He wants?

You do realize that if God CAUSES uncaused causes they are not, then, UNcaused?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

JuanFlorencio:

Yes or no, that is irrelevant for the argument.

It is not irrelevant at all. There is a significant difference between these two cases. One can suspend a body for so long as he wants. A body is at rest only for an instant when it is falling under gravitational force.

Precisely STT, “instant” is a word we use to mean “in no time”. The state of motion of the body changes from moving upwards to rest and then to moving downwards in an instant, that is to say, in no time. Which refutes you.

JuanFlorencio:

The point is that the example I have offered refutes your universal assertion that every conceivable change involves time. Your only base was such universal proposition. But being it false, I have shown the falsity of your argument without needing to discuss about God, God’s decisions and actions, eternity, relations between time and eternity, creation, etcetera.

To make things simpler, your argument was:

All changes involve time.

If the act of creation is a change or implies a change, then the act of creation involves time.

The creation of the universe is a change.

Therefore, the act of creation involves time.

My example shows with evidence that the first proposition is false. Therefore, your conclusion is false.

I am glad that you recognize my argument. The first proposition however is true as it was discussed in the previous comment so my argument follows.

As I explain above, your first proposition is false; therefore, your conclusion doesn’t follow.

 

[STT]

Do we have to agree to this? It seems to me that this is actually the point you have been trying to argue in the first place.

Yes. Do you have a problem with this? We can discuss it in details.

 

[STT]

No. I’m simply saying that a “coming-into-being” change is distinct from other kinds of changes, and that you aren’t taking into account this difference.

We recognize that there is a difference.

Glad you agree, 'cause you really are making an error of category.

Yes. I am glad that we both agree on that. No need to say that there was no point in entering in discussion of two mode of changes.

As long as your assertion of a ‘point’ isn’t an assertion of a ‘point in time.’

I prove that in the next step. So we agree that there was a point that only God existed and we have a change?

That’s why I specified that ‘prior’ speaks existentially, not chronologically…

So you need to explain what do you mean with each.

If God is ‘subjected’ to time, then God does not have power over time. That would mean that God is not omnipotent. But, that’s part of the definition of ‘God’. Therefore, your assertions contradict the definition of God; subsequently, we reject your argument, since it contradicts the definitions from which it starts.

Yes, God of course cannot do illogical thing. He is bounded to certain things one of them is time.

Pardon? It seems you misunderstand. God is the single (i.e., only) uncaused cause.

Single act could be wrong as soon as you realize that God is subject to time. To me that is putting limitation to God.

 

[STT]

Precisely STT, “instant” is a word we use to mean “in no time”. The state of motion of the body changes from moving upwards to rest and then to moving downwards in an instant, that is to say, in no time. Which refutes you.

No instant does mean in no time. It means an interval of time, dt, when dt tend to zero but never is zero.

As I explain above, your first proposition is false; therefore, your conclusion doesn’t follow.

So my argument follows considering the previous comment.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

As long as your assertion of a ‘point’ isn’t an assertion of a ‘point in time.’

I prove that in the next step. So we agree that there was a point that only God existed and we have a change?

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.

That’s why I specified that ‘prior’ speaks existentially, not chronologically…

So you need to explain what do you mean with each.

God created the universe. Another way of saying this is to say that his existence is ‘prior’ to the universe. This doesn’t mean that his existence is chronologically before that of the universe (since time is a feature of the universe itself), but only that he created the universe (and therefore, the universe does not precede him or is created along with him).

If God is ‘subjected’ to time, then God does not have power over time. That would mean that God is not omnipotent. But, that’s part of the definition of ‘God’. Therefore, your assertions contradict the definition of God; subsequently, we reject your argument, since it contradicts the definitions from which it starts.

Yes, God of course cannot do illogical thing. He is bounded to certain things one of them is time.

No. God is not bound by time. He created it.

Pardon? It seems you misunderstand. God is the single (i.e., only) uncaused cause.

Single act could be wrong as soon as you realize that God is subject to time. To me that is putting limitation to God.

So, if we disagree with your assertion that “God is subject to time”, then we don’t have a problem with him being the ‘uncaused cause’? OK… I’m good with that: God isn’t subject to time, and is the sole uncaused cause. Cool.

 

[SMHW]

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.

 

[Richca]

Is there a difference in God before deciding to create and after deciding to create? Are you suggesting that God cannot decide?

God is eternal. We can’t speak of a before and after in reference to God at all. In God, there is no before deciding to create and after deciding to create. From all eternity, God chose to create the world though he did not will or choose that the world should be eternal. God created the world when from all eternity he had decided to create it.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

JuanFlorencio:

Precisely STT, “instant” is a word we use to mean “in no time”. The state of motion of the body changes from moving upwards to rest and then to moving downwards in an instant, that is to say, in no time. Which refutes you.

No instant does mean in no time. It means an interval of time, dt, when dt tend to zero but never is zero.

As I explain above, your first proposition is false; therefore, your conclusion doesn’t follow.

So my argument follows considering the previous comment.

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?