Was the universe really created in time?

[Bahman]

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.

So you don’t believe in causality. Do you?

 

[Bahman]

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

Do we have any change?

 

[Brendan]

Do we have any change?

Change in the contradiction, you tell me, you were the one who proposed a contradiction. Your premise was meaningless , like discussing a square circle, or an even prime number.

 

[Bahman]

Change in the contradiction, you tell me, you were the one who proposed a contradiction. Your premise was meaningless , like discussing a square circle, or an even prime number.

That was not an answer to my question and I don’t know what you are talking about!

 

[Brendan]

That was not an answer to my question and I don’t know what you are talking about!

Are you going to remove the contradiction (an existant non existence) from your premise.

 

[Aloysium]

So you don’t believe in causality. Do you?

I’m not sure how you derived that from my post, which was meant to address and assumption that the does exist as a point x or y in time and space outside of the relationship that exists between it and a rational human mind. I do not believe it exists as such in the mind of God.

I think it to be in bad form to tell another what they believe, btw.

 

[Bookcat]

Time is part of creation and thus began with creation.

 

[Bahman]

Are you going to remove the contradiction (an existant non existence) from your premise.

Contradiction in my promise? That is your premise not mine: God is outside of time hence time must objectively exist. The act creation is a change hence there is a before and after which are attached to the objective time. This means that objective time cannot be part of creation since situation is paradoxical.

 

[Bahman]

I’m not sure how you derived that from my post, which was meant to address and assumption that the does exist as a point x or y in time and space outside of the relationship that exists between it and a rational human mind. I do not believe it exists as such in the mind of God.

I think it to be in bad form to tell another what they believe, btw.

You mentioned that is a big assumption and I ask whether you believe in causality since what I argue was not more than causality happening in time.

 

[Brendan]

**Contradiction in my promise? That is your premise not mine: God is outside of time hence time must objectively exist. **

Once again, WHERE did I declare that to be a premise?

The act creation is a change hence there is a before and after which are attached to the objective time.

Why should I accept that statement as valid?

This means that objective time cannot be part of creation since situation is paradoxical.

See above, you have not shown your premise to be true.

Instead, you have offered contradictions like

You just need to consider non-existence as a state of existence which is empty.

What would you say to a Mathematics professor who told you to just consider 64 to be a Prime number, or a circle to be a "round square’ for computing area.

 

[Bahman]

Once again, WHERE did I declare that to be a premise?

God is outside time or not? Is time objective or not?

Why should I accept that statement as valid?

Well then we discuss it. Lets see what is your answer to last questions.

See above, you have not shown your premise to be true.

Lets discuss the above question first.

Instead, you have offered contradictions like

There is no contradiction. The act creation deals with a change.

 

[Bookcat]

The act creation deals with a change.

One cannot change that which does not exist.

Change is ONLY in regards to that which exists.

One must have “something” to change - for there to be change.

Rather not a thing existed. No time, no a thing to change.

Creation is ex nihil -

The creation of “all sorts of somethings” that yes then change.

No time, no change until creation. Time is part of creation.

 

[Bookcat]

What would you say to a Mathematics professor who told you to just consider 64 to be a Prime number, or a circle to be a "round square’ for computing area.

I would have to ask for my money back…

 

[Bookcat]

The act creation deals with a change.

One cannot change that which does not exist.

Change is ONLY in regards to that which exists.

One must have “something” to change - for there to be change.

Rather not a thing existed. No time, no a thing to change.

Creation is ex nihil –

The creation of “all sorts of somethings” that yes then change.

No time until creation. Time is part of creation.

 

[Brendan]

God is outside time or not? Is time objective or not?

Unknown, how are you defining the objectivity of time.

Well then we discuss it. Lets see what is your answer to last questions.

We can certainly discuss your reasons for believing it to be true.

There is no contradiction. The act creation deals with a change.

Yes, there is a contradiction. How can non-existence have existence? The definition of ‘non-existance’ precludes it from having existence.

The analogy of an square circle is a valid comparison.

 

[Bahman]

One cannot change that which does not exist.

Nothing to something is a change otherwise we were not here discussing.

Change is ONLY in regards to that which exists.

The act creation then impossible in your view.

One must have “something” to change - for there to be change.

The act creation is then impossible.

Rather not a thing existed. No time, no a thing to change.

How do you know that time cannot exist if there is noting but time?

Creation is ex nihil –

Well.

The creation of “all sorts of somethings” that yes then change.

The act creation deals with a change.

No time until creation. Time is part of creation.

What do you mean with until?

 

[Aloysium]

You mentioned that is a big assumption and I ask whether you believe in causality since what I argue was not more than causality happening in time.

I was attempting to address the mystery of time as it pertains to the totality of the universe.

:twocents:

Change takes place having a history and future, a source and a destination.
Imagining the universe at point X in time as different from that at point Y, occurs within the relationship that exists between creation and a rational human mind of which it is a part.

What I am suggesting is simply that X and Y are mental concepts, reflecting this relationship.
Because we can only experience X or Y and not both, does not mean that they are actually distinct and that the totality is not formed by intertwined events, processes and components - very huge moments over-arching and very, very small ones within our own.

We see a slice of space-time in Hubble images, formed by the light of events long gone, from different times, some near the beginning of time.
It is, in effect, a distortion of what is; and, what is, is only truly known by God.

I have been writing from my phone which has resulted a certain number of typos and semicoherent statements. Sorry.

 

[Bahman]

Unknown, how are you defining the objectivity of time.

That is you who should provide a definition for objective time because you believe that God is outside time. But anyhow, time exists separated from our mind and we can experience it. That is my definition what is yours?

We can certainly discuss your reasons for believing it to be true.

Cool.

Yes, there is a contradiction. How can non-existence have existence? The definition of ‘non-existance’ precludes it from having existence.

I didn’t say that non-existence could have existence. I said nothing to something is a change hence time must exist separate from creation to allow this change. Otherwise how you could abstract the state of existence where only God exist and then God plus creation.

The analogy of an square circle is a valid comparison.

What?

 

[Bookcat]

Nothing to something is a change otherwise we were not here discussing.

Nothing is something?

hum…

(no need to respond to the rest…we can stop right there…just ponder that for a bit )

 

[Bookcat]

Nothing to something is a change otherwise we were not here discussing.

Nothing is not a something.

You need “something” to change that “something” from “one something” to “another something”.

There was not a thing to change. At all. Nothing. No- thing.

Nothing cannot change to something. For there is nothing to change.

Rather there is creation.

Difficult for our “time-creation-bound- language -frame of reference” to express.