Was there a point that only God existed?

[STT]

It’s a poorly worded proposition.

It is not. You apparently partially understand it.

It could have been worded: If God has existed eternally and creation had a beginning, can we conceive of a context in which only God existed?

Yes.

@STT wants to say “yes – and therefore, ‘time’ pre-exists (and encompasses) God”.

No. I want to say that in each case, answer to question (yes or no), we are dealing with a problem. If yes then God is subjected to time and time is eternal. If not then there is no act of creation or the act of creation is impossible.

He also wants to say “if you say ‘no’, then the ‘act of creation’ – which I claim requires ‘time’ as a prerequisite – could never have occurred. It did occur, so therefore, it must also pre-exist and encompass God.”

No, I didn’t want to say that but good line of thought.

However, he’s not taking into account that ‘time’ could have been created, and could have pre-existed the ‘universe’, per se, without pre-existing God.

No. That leads to infinite regress since any act of creation including creation of time itself requires time.

Not for the ‘act’ of creation. Perhaps as a dimension within which the universe exists, but that doesn’t mean that ‘time’, itself, isn’t created.

How so?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

It’s a poorly worded proposition.

It is not. You apparently partially understand it.

You’re mistaking “fully reject” with “partially understand”.

@STT wants to say “yes – and therefore, ‘time’ pre-exists (and encompasses) God”.

No. I want to say that in each case, answer to question (yes or no), we are dealing with a problem. If yes then God is subjected to time and time is eternal. If not then there is no act of creation or the act of creation is impossible.

And I address that in the next paragraph.

Nevertheless, I still reject it. God is neither subject to time nor is “the act of creation” impossible.

However, he’s not taking into account that ‘time’ could have been created, and could have pre-existed the ‘universe’, per se, without pre-existing God.

No. That leads to infinite regress since any act of creation including creation of time itself requires time.

And… that’s the source of your error, right there!

No, it’s not true that “any act of creation” requires a pre-existent temporal framework. The “act of creation” creates the temporal framework.

Not for the ‘act’ of creation. Perhaps as a dimension within which the universe exists, but that doesn’t mean that ‘time’, itself, isn’t created.

How so?

You’re making the argument from within the frame of reference of the created universe. And, within that frame of reference, you’re correct: changes within the universe unfold in time.

However, you’re invalidly extrapolating by saying, “events outside the frame of reference of the created universe require time.” They do not. Time does not exist outside of the created universe, and therefore, it does not govern events outside of its frame of reference. You keep missing this point, somehow…

 

[STT]

You are not offering any argument.

 

[Gorgias]

You are not offering any argument.

If you say so.

 

[STT]

If you say so.

Let’s put it this way. God sees all events at once. This means that God sees the state at which there is no universe and there is a universe at His eternal now. This means that there was no point (eternal point) at which God only existed from God’s perspective. That is problematic.

 

[Gorgias]

This means that there was no point (eternal point) at which God only existed from God’s perspective. That is problematic.

Your first sentence, quoted here, is insightful. Your second is puzzling. Why do you see this as ‘problematic’?

 

[STT]

our first sentence, quoted here, is insightful. Your second is puzzling. Why do you see this as ‘problematic’?

That means that God is no point that only God exist from God’s perspective. The answer to the question of this thread is therefore yes. How do you define the act of creation then?

 

[Gorgias]

How do you define the act of creation then?

It’s an act outside of time, which creates a universe that contains time (and space)!

 

[STT]

There is always a before and after in an act otherwise there is no change.

 

[Gorgias]

There is always a before and after in an act otherwise there is no change.

“There is always a before and after in an act which happens in the universe otherwise there is no change.”

There. Fixed that for ya.

You’re invalidly extrapolating from the universe to eternity. That’s why you’re having all these problems. It’s the same dynamic as if you grew up around dogs all your life and are now wondering why your girlfriend’s cat doesn’t want to play ‘fetch’…

 

[STT]

So there was no change in God perspective? That is incoherent when you define God as creator since God did nothing from His perspective.

 

[Gorgias]

So there was no change in God perspective?

Yes, there was creation, and God did it. In eternity. If it had been change “in a temporal framework”, then there would have been a ‘before’ and an ‘after’. There’s not time in the sense we know it here on earth, so there’s not a ‘before’ and ‘after’ like we know it on earth.

 

[AlNg]

I think that God must be in spacetime because Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. Catholics proclaim this as an article of faith as they recite the Nicene Creed. Spacetime is needed if you are going to sit at someone’s right hand.

 

[gborbely]

I find it helpful, though imperfectly, to imagine God always living in the NOW, that is, the always present, while all things involved with change or time surround Him where he can (imperfectly speaking) see all things simultaneously happening in front of Him. It also helps to think of history or time as a tight series of frames, all lined up in a row. God can simply choose one or more of those time-frames and bring it into the NOW where Christ would not have to be in time to enter time so to speak. Time goes to Him within the NOW giving us the appearance and illusion that He is actually entering time. It is only in His Human nature that He allows Himself to be manipulated and restricted by time brought into and only through the NOW.

 

[Gorgias]

I think that God must be in spacetime because Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. Catholics proclaim this as an article of faith as they recite the Nicene Creed. Spacetime is needed if you are going to sit at someone’s right hand.

Figure of speech.

Do you think God the Father really has a hand, too?

 

[AlNg]

Figure of speech.

I thought it was an article of faith that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. It is part of the Nicene Creed. Do you say that this is a fairy tale and is not true? If it is not a fairy tale and Jesus does sit at the right hand of the Father as is declared in the Nicene Creed, there has to be spacetime for this to occur. You cannot sit at someone’s right hand if there is no space time. Someone cannot have a right hand if there is no spacetime to distinguish between the right and the left. Of course Protestants (and non-believers) will say that the Catholics have it wrong and these things are figures of speech. For example, the Eucharist is just a symbolic representation of the Last Supper, a memorial of sorts, and is not meant to be taken literally according to the figure of speech theory advocated by non-believers.

 

[Fauken]

Catholics do not take everything in the Bible as literal. Context is key. One of Jesus’ titles is the “Root of Jesse”. Is He a literal root because root is in there? No.

It is also a matter of Faith that the Father is a spirit. Spirits do not occupy space. Therefore, it is impossible for Jesus to be at His literal right side, as He has no right side.

 

[AlNg]

It is also a matter of Faith that the Father is a spirit. Spirits do not occupy space. Therefore, it is impossible for Jesus to be at His literal right side, as He has no right side.

So the Nicene Creed is false according to you?
" Catholic belief is succinctly expressed in the profession of faith or credo called the Nicene Creed :"

The Nicene Creed​

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.…"
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/

Do you say that Jesus is NOT seated at the right hand of the Father?

 

[Fauken]

So the Nicene Creed is false according to you?
" Catholic belief is succinctly expressed in the profession of faith or credo called the Nicene Creed :"

Of course it’s true! I never said it wasn’t!

Do you say that Jesus is NOT seated at the right hand of the Father?

I do say so. But this isn’t in the literal sense as you claim it is. And Catholic doctrine does not say this is literal either: quite the opposite, in fact.

 

[Dovekin]

So there was no change in God perspective? That is incoherent when you define God as creator since God did nothing from His perspective.

Actually, God does everything, all at once, from His perspective. There is no change from His perspective, but he is still doing all.