Was the universe really created in time?

[Brendan]

Time is a measure of change. Isn’t it?

Yes, and a ruler is a measure of spatial dimension . But a lack of a ruler does not indicate a lack of spatial dimension, nor imply that spatial dimension could not exists without a ruler being present.

You seem to accept as an axiom that time is the ONLY measure of change, and I fail to see where you have proven that.

In short I agree with you that time is A measure of change. Where have you shown that it is the ONLY measure of change.

Carrying forward that correlation to natural philosophy (physics), there is no natural requirement that spatial dimension preexist the creation of spatial dimension. Or that which lacks spatial dimension (a singularity) could not be the natural philosophical (physical) source of spatial dimension (Big Bang).

Do you accept the conclusions of natural philosophy (science) that space ime originated from that which lacked space ime.

Is God required to be spatial in order to create space?

 

[Bahman]

Yes, and a ruler is a measure of spatial dimension . But a lack of a ruler does not indicate a lack of spatial dimension, nor imply that spatial dimension could not exists without a ruler being present.

Time is an objective thing in your system of belief since God exist outside of it. It is a measure of change as well but that doesn’t mean that it could not exist in absence of change yet no change is possible in absence of time.

You seem to accept as an axiom that time is the ONLY measure of change, and I fail to see where you have proven that.

It is not only a measure of change but no change is possible without time. Can you even verbalize a change without using a notion of time? I was there then I moved here. Etc.

In short I agree with you that time is A measure of change. Where have you shown that it is the ONLY measure of change.

No change is possible in absence of time. X changes to Y means that we have a notion of change. Moreover it implement that we have a notion of temporarily X is before Y or Y is after X.

Carrying forward that correlation to natural philosophy (physics), there is no natural requirement that spatial dimension preexist the creation of spatial dimension. Or that which lacks spatial dimension (a singularity) could not be the natural philosophical (physical) source of spatial dimension (Big Bang).

I am a physicist myself and to me the concept of Big Bang is absurd. The existence of singularity in our current models is due to the fact that our models are not complete. A theory with anomaly is victim of itself hence Big Bang theory.

Do you accept the conclusions of natural philosophy (science) that space ime originated from that which lacked space ime.

A theory in which time only explains the dynamic of the system cannot possibly explains the origin of the system since by word origin we mean an underlying dynamic, change from notion to something, which again we need the notion of time. In simple word a theory which can correctly explain the current dynamic of universe in respect to time cannot possibly explains the origin of time. In simple word, we don’t understand the problem of origin since we cannot understand time.

Is God required to be spatial in order to create space?

Time is different.

 

[Bahman]

I can not forget about God.

Man and God are quite different…more different than alike.

You cannot talk about how things happen with us here in time and then simply apply such to God.

God is not a creature in time.

---

and

Hummm-- what if I asked: Have you stopped beating your wife?

And then insisted: Yes or no?

---

See the various posts above.

Yes, you can forget the God for sake of argument but you don’t want to. I am done with you.

 

[Brendan]

Time is an objective thing in your system of belief since God exist outside of it. It is a measure of change as well but that doesn’t mean that it could not exist in absence of change yet no change is possible in absence of time.

Actually, being mostly a natural philosopher, time is an element of space ime and is a variable.

And you still have not show why the bolded part is true. You CLAIM it to be true, but have not shown it to be so.

It is not only a measure of change but no change is possible without time. Can you even verbalize a change without using a notion of time? I was there then I moved here. Etc.

That same claim without proof.

No change is possible in absence of time. X changes to Y means that we have a notion of change. Moreover it implement that we have a notion of temporarily X is before Y or Y is after X.

Repeating it does not make it true. Your example is experiential in nature, that

I am a physicist myself and to me the concept of Big Bang is absurd. The existence of singularity in our current models is due to the fact that our models are not complete. A theory with anomaly is victim of itself hence Big Bang theory.

The existence of a singlularity is due to the breakdown of many of the space ime equations where t=0 in the demnominator. Feynman density, for example, goes to infinity. That is a singlularity.

A theory in which time only explains the dynamic of the system cannot possibly explains the origin of the system since by word origin we mean an underlying dynamic, change from notion to something, which again we need the notion of time. In simple word a theory which can correctly explain the current dynamic of universe in respect to time cannot possibly explains the origin of time. In simple word, we don’t understand the problem of origin since we cannot understand time.

Please elaborate on that, you are beginning to see the error in your axiom, a lack of understanding on what is meant by ‘time’

I see that you recognize that time cannot be used to describe the beginning of time, but yet that is what you are trying to do.

Time is different.

As a physicist you should understand that time is really not separable from space ime. But yet you are trying to do it, why?

Are you attempting to describe something OTHER than physical time?

 

[Bahman]

Actually, being mostly a natural philosopher, time is an element of space ime and is a variable.

And you still have not show why the bolded part is true. You CLAIM it to be true, but have not shown it to be so.

You cannot believe time as a variable if you believe that God is outside the time. Time must exist objectively and changes are not possible in absence of time, hence the burden of proof is on you and not me since I don’t believe that time is objective.

That same claim without proof.

Well, the burden of proof is on you.

Repeating it does not make it true. Your example is experiential in nature, that

Well, the burden of proof is on you since that is you who believe that God is outside of time believing that time is objective.

The existence of a singlularity is due to the breakdown of many of the space ime equations where t=0 in the demnominator. Feynman density, for example, goes to infinity. That is a singlularity.

There are theory with singularity which are regularizable and renormalizable, meaning that singularities can be removed from the theory by adjusting the parameters, if not the theory is ill-defined.

Please elaborate on that, you are beginning to see the error in your axiom, a lack of understanding on what is meant by ‘time’

I meant that you cannot possibly resolve the problem of beginning if you stick to the fact that time is objectively real. By objectively real, I mean that time exist and events are attached to it.

I see that you recognize that time cannot be used to describe the beginning of time, but yet that is what you are trying to do.

All I am saying is that if time is objectively real and events are attached to it then you cannot possibly resolve the problem of beginning when there was no time and there was since that is an event by itself.

As a physicist you should understand that time is really not separable from space ime. But yet you are trying to do it, why?

Because general and special relativity are not theory that we can apply them to beginning since time is objectively real in both theories.

Are you attempting to describe something OTHER than physical time?

Well, I do believe that time is an illusion whether we call physical, biological or psychological.

 

[davidv]

You cannot believe time as a variable if you believe that God is outside the time. Time must exist objectively and changes are not possible in absence of time, hence the burden of proof is on you and not me since I don’t believe that time is objective.

Please explain in detail why this must be true. For now, I do not believe you.

Well, the burden of proof is on you.

Why?

Well, the burden of proof is on you since that is you who believe that God is outside of time believing that time is objective.

There are theory with singularity which are regularizable and renormalizable, meaning that singularities can be removed from the theory by adjusting the parameters, if not the theory is ill-defined.

I meant that you cannot possibly resolve the problem of beginning if you stick to the fact that time is objectively real. By objectively real, I mean that time exist and events are attached to it.

All I am saying is that if time is objectively real and events are attached to it then you cannot possibly resolve the problem of beginning when there was no time and there was since that is an event by itself.

Because general and special relativity are not theory that we can apply them to beginning since time is objectively real in both theories.

Well, I do believe that time is an illusion whether we call physical, biological or psychological.

 

[Bahman]

Please explain in detail why this must be true. For now, I do not believe you.

The very meaning of God is outside time is that time objectively exists hence God can be outside of it. God cannot be timeless or outside time if time is a subjective concept constructed by our mind. Moreover, we/our minds are also timeless if time is a subjective concept constructed in mind which is against your point view. Hence, time is either objective or subjective. You need time to be objective make a difference between God and creature since the creature is attached to time and experiences events within time but God does not since it is outside time. We are going to have a problem with objective time since it cannot explain the dilemma of beginning since time is a objective things which allows that events occurs yet the beginning is an event by itself which requires time. Hence we have serious problem with objective time.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, you can forget the God for sake of argument but you don’t want to…

No for then your discussing some created reality …not God.

And that is the point. That is key.

You keep seeking to discuss God as if God was not God but a creature in time. God is not a creature in time. One must approach God as God.

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism:

God is infinitely greater than all his works: “You have set your glory above the heavens.” Indeed, God’s “greatness is unsearchable”. But because he is the free and sovereign Creator, the first cause of all that exists, God is present to his creatures’ inmost being: “In him we live and move and have our being.” In the words of St. Augustine, God is “higher than my highest and more inward than my innermost self”. (300)

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

 

[Brendan]

You cannot believe time as a variable if you believe that God is outside the time. Time must exist objectively and changes are not possible in absence of time, hence the burden of proof is on you and not me since I don’t believe that time is objective.

YOU are the one making that claim that change is not possible without time.

Ergo, the burden of proof is on you.

How can you prove to us that what you claim “changes are not possible in absence of time” is true.

Do you not believe your own statement, can you not offer the reasons that brought you to the conclusion.

 

[davidv]

The very meaning of God is outside time is that time objectively exists hence God can be outside of it. God cannot be timeless or outside time if time is a subjective concept constructed by our mind. Moreover, we/our minds are also timeless if time is a subjective concept constructed in mind which is against your point view. Hence, time is either objective or subjective. You need time to be objective make a difference between God and creature since the creature is attached to time and experiences events within time but God does not since it is outside time. We are going to have a problem with objective time since it cannot explain the dilemma of beginning since time is a objective things which allows that events occurs yet the beginning is an event by itself which requires time. Hence we have serious problem with objective time.

Repeating your claims do not make them any more believable.
Please prove that time is an object. Then we can deal with rest of your illogic.

 

[yppop]

Here is the dogma of the Catholic Church concerning the question.

The world had a beginning in time. de fide

Yppop

 

[Bahman]

YOU are the one making that claim that change is not possible without time.

You are the one who is making the claim that God is outside of time which means that time must be objective.

Ergo, the burden of proof is on you.

All right. This is what you believe but anyhow I try to prove it. Consider universe in a give state X and this state cause another state Y. Both states X and Y however exist. We however can only experience X or Y and not both. This means that we need objective time to assign each state at a given moment to allow that both states to exist and allow change.

How can you prove to us that what you claim “changes are not possible in absence of time” is true.

Please read previous comment.

Do you not believe your own statement, can you not offer the reasons that brought you to the conclusion.

I am done with my argument. Time is objective and it is necessary for any change.

 

[Bahman]

Repeating your claims do not make them any more believable.
Please prove that time is an object. Then we can deal with rest of your illogic.

This is the prove that time is objective: Consider universe in a give state X and this state cause another state Y. Both states X and Y however exist. We however can only experience X or Y and not both. This means that we need objective time to assign each state at a given moment to allow that both states to exist and allow change.

 

[Brendan]

You are the one who is making the claim that God is outside of time which means that time must be objective.

Actually, go back through this thread and point quote me where I made this claim.

And then we will discuss whatever it is I actually claimed

All right. This is what you believe but anyhow I try to prove it.

What post number did I make that claim at? Where EXACTLY did I make such a statement?

I am done with my argument. Time is objective and it is necessary for any change.

So you claim, but have not proven

 

[Bahman]

Actually, go back through this thread and point quote me where I made this claim.

And then we will discuss whatever it is I actually claimed

What post number did I make that claim at? Where EXACTLY did I make such a statement?

So you claim, but have not proven

Prove was provided: Consider universe in a give state X and this state cause another state Y. Both states X and Y however exist. We however can only experience X or Y and not both. This means that we need objective time to assign each state at a given moment to allow that both states to exist, allow change and allow experience at the moment, now.

 

[Brendan]

You made an claim about what I beleved, Where did I state what you claim that I stated?

Prove was provided: Consider universe in a give state X and this state cause another state Y. Both states X and Y however exist. We however can only experience X or Y and not both. This means that we need objective time to assign each state at a given moment to allow that both states to exist, allow change and allow experience at the moment, now.

Question re your premise. The discussion is non-existence to existence.

But your premise involves existence → existence. And is contingent upon both states preexisting AND residing the same universe.

Was that your intent with this premise.

 

[Bahman]

Question re your premise. The discussion is non-existence to existence.

Well, then you need God to cause non-existence to existence the latter comes after former hence you have a change hence you need time again. You just need to consider non-existence as a state of existence which is empty.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Consider universe in a give state X and this state cause another state Y. . .

This is a big assumption.
Consider that if we look deep enough into space, we perceive what occurred around its beginnings.
It is all interwoven.
“Now” exists as part of the relationship we, as rational souls, have with the world that includes ourselves.

All one can say for sure is that in the moment, we exist in relation to what is.
Within this relationship, the past is gone; here we are, always undergoing change.

I will say that at its Foundation, this relationship is with God, who in each moment, is with us as the Cause of our existence as participants in the world, and as our Guide in the journey back to Him.

 

[Brendan]

Well, then you need God to cause non-existence to existence the latter comes after former hence you have a change hence you need time again. You just need to consider non-existence as a state of existence which is empty.

That is a contradiction. Non- existence, by definition, is not existence, in any form, empty or not.