Why God is not only the creator?

[STT]

Ok, that’s a bit better.
God is a being who creates and God knows all abstract ideas.
Anything else?

I meant God with your terminology. I already argued that time cannot be created therefore the concept of ex nihilo is wrong.

 

[reggieM]

I meant God with your terminology. I already argued that time cannot be created therefore the concept of ex nihilo is wrong.

It doesn’t matter who’s terminology, You’re talking about God so is that all you know about who God is? Is that the only description you have?

 

[IWantGod]

I meant God with your terminology. I already argued that time cannot be created therefore the concept of ex nihilo is wrong.

If time cannot be created, where does it come from? Is it just an infinite regress of potency and act? Furthermore do you understand what time is?

 

[STT]

It doesn’t matter who’s terminology, You’re talking about God so is that all you know about who God is?

No, it is matter of terminology. God can be the mere blind unstable energy in another terminology.

Is that the only description you have?

Yes. Do you have any objection against my argument about time, time cannot be created? My argument stands unless you say that time is not part of creation. That however means that the act of creation out of nothing is wrong.

 

[IWantGod]

Why the first uncaused-cause cannot be a form of unstable energy (inflation theory) which existed before Big Bang? Why do we need all other extra attributes like omniscience, omnipresent,etc assigned to a being so called God? Isn’t the minimal model the best?

Energy is changing. If energy is a necessary being then you are talking about an infinite regress of change since by definition there cannot be a point where there is no change. If there is a point where there is no change then you are no-longer talking about a necessary being that is essentially change or time or whatever you want to call it…

If change is necessary then what sense is there to speak of a first cause?

 

[STT]

If time cannot be created, where does it come from?

Time didn’t come from somewhere. The idea of nothing then something is wrong whether you believe in God or not. Time is fundamental.

Is it just an infinite regress of potency and act?

Time is actual. It cannot be potential since it cannot be caused. I have an argument for that: Time is the fundamental variable of any dynamical theory therefore it cannot be an emergent phenomena of the same theory. This means that there exist not a dynamical theory with time as an emergent phenomena. Therefore time cannot be initiated or created. Time just has a beginning/starting point.

Furthermore do you understand what time is?

Time is a property of cosmos which dictates how the fabric of universe should change.

 

[IWantGod]

Yes. Do you have any objection against my argument about time, time cannot be created?

I have an objection with the idea of a **necessary being **that has a beginning. Its a contradiction.

 

[IWantGod]

Time is actual. It cannot be potential since it cannot be caused.

Potential has to be actualized in-order for change to occur.

 

[IWantGod]

Time is a property of cosmos which dictates how the fabric of universe should change.

Time refers to what the cosmos is doing; it is changing. Time is not a distinct ontological entity. Without energy, time is meaningless, at least in a physical sense.

 

[STT]

Energy is changing. If energy is a necessary being then you are talking about an infinite regress of change since by definition there cannot be a point where there is no change.

No there is no infinite regress involved if you have unstable energy. It was just there and burst because it was unstable. Therefore we don’t need any mover so called God.

If there is a point where there is no change then you are no-longer talking about a necessary being that is essentially change or time or whatever you want to call it…

There was no point that there was no change.

If change is necessary then what sense is there to speak of a first cause?

There is no need for the first cause if we are really dealing with unstable energy.

 

[STT]

I have an objection with the idea of a **necessary being **that has a beginning. Its a contradiction.

So what is wrong with my argument against the creation of time (Time is the fundamental variable of any dynamical theory therefore it cannot be an emergent phenomena of the same theory. This means that there exist not a dynamical theory with time as an emergent phenomena. Therefore time cannot be initiated or created. Time just has a beginning/starting point)?

 

[STT]

Potential has to be actualized in-order for change to occur.

Time as it is argued cannot be potential. We cannot have a situation without time and then time (this leads to infinite regress). Time also cannot be an emergent property of a dynamical theory.

 

[IWantGod]

So what is wrong with my argument against the creation of time (Time is the fundamental variable of any dynamical theory therefore it cannot be an emergent phenomena of the same theory. This means that there exist not a dynamical theory with time as an emergent phenomena. Therefore time cannot be initiated or created. Time just has a beginning/starting point)?

A necessary being that is necessarily changing is always changing, eternally. It is contradictory to say that it has a starting point or beginning… There is never a point where it is not changing.

 

[IWantGod]

Time as it is argued cannot be potential. We cannot have a situation without time and then time (this leads to infinite regress). Time also cannot be an emergent property of a dynamical theory.

Change by definition is a actualization of potential states. This notion of time you’re talking about is meaningless. It is neither supported by philosophy or science or reason for that matter.

 

[IWantGod]

No there is no infinite regress involved if you have unstable energy…

Energy, unstable or otherwise, is changing. If unstable energy is a necessary act of existence, then it is always changing. It does not have a beginning or starting point. The same logical implications apply.

 

[STT]

Time refers to what the cosmos is doing; it is changing.

No, time just dictates how the fabric of universe should change. It is a part of cosmos and it should change otherwise everything was static. Time allows the causality to be real. The idea of something without change which causes a change is self-contradictory since you have to strive on eternal act. You cannot have cause and effect at the same eternal point. Why there is a need for a cause at eternal point if the effect (basically things) is there?

Time is not a distinct ontological entity.

Time exists together with the fabric of universe.

Without energy, time is meaningless, at least in a physical sense.

The beginning of time and burst of unstable energy lies at the same point. You cannot get time out of nothing.

 

[STT]

A necessary being that is necessarily changing is always changing, eternally.

Not eternally if it has a beginning.

It is contradictory to say that it has a starting point or beginning.

It is not. I can conceive time which is changing and has a beginning.

There is never a point where it is not changing.

That is true.

 

[IWantGod]

Not eternally if it has a beginning.

Then it is not a necessary being…

It is not. I can conceive time which is changing and has a beginning.

Just because you can think of something does not mean that it is not contradictory.

True.

If you agree that there is never a point in its necessary existence where it is not changing, then you cannot say that change has a beginning. Its a contradiction.

 

[STT]

Change by definition is a actualization of potential states. This notion of time you’re talking about is meaningless. It is neither supported by philosophy or science or reason for that matter.

Time is fundamental variable of reality since allows that causality to be real. Therefore it should transcend causality otherwise you fall in trap of infinite regress since you need time to allows actuality of time. Time just changes with constant rate but it does not become actual from a potentiality. It just exists and not looking for something to be. It is what it is opposite to form of fabric of universe which constantly changes as a result of causality, what you like potentiality into actuality.

 

[IWantGod]

Time is fundamental variable of reality since allows that causality to be real. Therefore it should transcend causality otherwise you fall in trap of infinite regress since you need time to allows actuality of time. Time just changes with constant rate but it does not become actual from a potentiality. It just exists and not looking for something to be. It is what it is opposite to form of fabric of universe which constantly changes as a result of causality, what you like potentiality into actuality.

You are either not listening to what people are saying or you do not comprehend it. Your idea of a necessary being is self-contradictory and i have shown you why.

As far as science is concerned, physical beings have to change in order to cause something. This is true. Time refers to what physical beings are doing. Time does not exist separately from what physical beings are actually doing… Time is not ontologically distinct from what objects are doing…

Your rebuttal amounts to, well this cannot be the case because then my argument is false. But it really does not matter because your conception of an ontologically necessary time is false to begin with.