William Lane Craig Temporal God

[Gorgias]

That is why the universe does not exist inside eternity instead inside time.

No. The universe exists in eternity. Time exists inside the universe. Not the other way around…

 

[STT]

No. The universe exists in eternity. Time exists inside the universe. Not the other way around…

Can something like the universe exists and exists not at an eternal point?

 

[Gorgias]

Can something like the universe exists and exists not at an eternal point?

I would say “no”.

That doesn’t imply, however, that God did not cause it to be.

 

[STT]

I would say “no”.

So, the universe can only exist in time.

That doesn’t imply, however, that God did not cause it to be.

I have an argument against the act of creation whether God is temporal or not. The act of creation causes a change. You need time to allow any change, the act of creation which could be the act of creation of time too. Therefore, you need time to create time. This is a regress.

 

[Gorgias]

So, the universe can only exist in time.

No. You asked whether the universe can simultaneously exist and not exist. The answer is “no”. It does not imply, however, that “the universe can only exist in time.”

I have an argument against the act of creation whether God is temporal or not.

I know you do. You’ve rehearsed it here, many times. It doesn’t really work.

You need time to allow any change

And that’s why your argument doesn’t work: it presumes a temporal framework. There’s no temporal framework in eternity, and therefore, your argument fails.

Therefore, you need time to create time. This is a regress.

It would be a regress if your argument held up to scrutiny. It doesn’t, so there’s no regress.

 

[AlNg]

Time exists inside the universe. Not the other way around…

Should you follow your own advice?

Please prove this assertion. All it is at this point is an opinion you’ve expressed.

 

[AlNg]

There’s no temporal framework in eternity

The universe exists in eternity.

There is a temporal framework in the universe which according to you exists in eternity?

 

[STT]

No. You asked whether the universe can simultaneously exist and not exist. The answer is “no”. It does not imply, however, that “the universe can only exist in time.”

Therefore, the universe cannot exist in eternity (since eternity is a point) but in time which is a sequence of points.

And that’s why your argument doesn’t work: it presumes a temporal framework. There’s no temporal framework in eternity, and therefore, your argument fails.

It would be a regress if your argument held up to scrutiny. It doesn’t, so there’s no regress.

You pay no attention to what I was/am saying.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Time exists inside the universe. Not the other way around…

Should you follow your own advice?

Please prove this assertion. All it is at this point is an opinion you’ve expressed.

Absolutely!

Ask yourself: what is time, really? Aristotle would assert that it is the measure of the change in physical objects.

By this definition, time only exists within a framework which contains physical objects which may be observed. I would argue, then, that the universe is precisely such a framework: within it are physical objects which change and which can be observed.

However, eternity is not such a framework; there are not “changes” or “physical objects” within it, such that a temporal dimension might be measured.

So, by this rationale, time exists within the universe, because the universe is precisely the kind of framework that supports a temporal dimension.

There is a temporal framework in the universe which according to you exists in eternity?

There is a temporal dimension within the universe, not outside of it.

Therefore, the universe cannot exist in eternity (since eternity is a point)

Eternity is not a “point”; to be a “point”, you’ve already presumed a framework (such as spacetime) which can contain points.

You pay no attention to what I was/am saying.

No, I absolutely do pay attention to it! I just reject the assertions you’re making…

 

[STT]

Eternity is not a “point”; to be a “point”, you’ve already presumed a framework (such as spacetime) which can contain points.

No. A point is the fundamental thing. You build line from it.

 

[Gorgias]

No. A point is the fundamental thing. You build line from it.

How do you construct a “line” outside of the spacetime continuum?

(You’re still invalidly extrapolating, and expecting the presumptions that hold inside the universe also hold outside of it…)

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

@Gorgias I have read the entire thread, and multiple other posts with @STT. I don’t believe there is any point in discussing things with him. This entire thread has multiple people pointing him back to other posts that he is clearly ignoring or just not taking into consideration the points brought up. All he does is extrapolate and assume things and has lots of conjecture, but all of the threads show no attempt to agree or compromise. Hardheartedness in the highest. Seems no reason to continue discussion. You have made your points very clearly, and I would dare say admirably. I think most readers would consider you as the winner in this discussion and @STT is just arguing for the sake of argue, either to out doubts into others or to get some sort of pleasure out of disagreeing.

God Bless

 

[STT]

How do you construct a “line” outside of the spacetime continuum?

Can’t you abstract only a single point that does not have any location? If that is difficult for you then you need to abstract the universe (by universe I mean the whole) as a thing that does not have any location. The universe is a set of forms. Forms are made of points. Points that construct the universe, therefore, do not have any location as well. What people roughly call a location of a point is in fact the distance between a point and an observer or a point of reference. So please don’t mix these two things together. The reality is that there is no absolute point of reference.

(You’re still invalidly extrapolating, and expecting the presumptions that hold inside the universe also hold outside of it…)

I am not extrapolating thing. I am taking you to the place that you realize that eternity is a point. Then we have time that is a line. etc. The universe is temporal so it by the definition cannot be eternal.

 

[STT]

@Gorgias I have read the entire thread, and multiple other posts with @STT.

I first wanted to ignore your post because it is a set of unproven claims or insults but I then change my mind since I like things clear and clean.

I don’t believe there is any point in discussing things with him.

Why?

This entire thread has multiple people pointing him back to other posts that he is clearly ignoring or just not taking into consideration the points brought up.

I am not clearly ignore any point that brought to my attention. I answered all. I would be happy if you can point to a place that I intentionally ignore a point. I challenge you.

All he does is extrapolate and assume things and has lots of conjecture, but all of the threads show no attempt to agree or compromise.

Which conjecture?

Hardheartedness in the highest. Seems no reason to continue discussion.

He would if he wishes.

You have made your points very clearly, and I would dare say admirably.

Yes, he made a point but he is wrong. Eternity neither has any dimension nor is temporal. It is a point. Therefore, the universe cannot be eternal since it is obviously temporal.

I think most readers would consider you as the winner in this discussion and @STT is just arguing for the sake of argue, either to out doubts into others or to get some sort of pleasure out of disagreeing.

That is not true. Are you reading my mind? Or you just guessing and then insult me?

 

[Gorgias]

Can’t you abstract only a single point that does not have any location?

A single point, by definition, is nothing but a location!

If that is difficult for you then you need to abstract the universe (by universe I mean the whole) as a thing that does not have any location.

In the context of eternity? I agree – there isn’t any notion of “location” in eternity.

The universe is a set of forms. Forms are made of points.

Now you’re talking about the contents of the universe! Yes, within the confines of the universe, we can talk about physical extension, and therefore, “points” within spacetime.

The reality is that there is no absolute point of reference.

Irrelevant.

I am taking you to the place that you realize that eternity is a point

We’re not gonna get there… because it isn’t.

Yes, he made a point but he is wrong.

You keep saying that, but without substantiation.

 

[STT]

A single point, by definition, is nothing but a location!

No. Location or coordinate is the distance of a point from a reference point. Point is an irreducible geometrical entity. All other geometrical entities are reducible to points. You are mixing things.

In the context of eternity? I agree – there isn’t any notion of “location” in eternity.

Neither eternity nor the universe has any location.

Irrelevant.

It is very relevant. You need to realize that in order to be able to imagine a point.

We’re not gonna get there… because it isn’t.

You have two options: 1) Eternity is a point or 2) Eternity is a set of points. There is no other logical option. Which option do you pick up as your definition of eternity?

 

[Gorgias]

No. Location or coordinate is the distance of a point from a reference point.

Fair enough. Yet, still, a ‘point’ doesn’t have any other properties aside from its location, regardless of frame of reference!

All other geometrical entities are reducible to points.

Umm… no. Other geometrical entities can be described by virtue of the points on their borders, but they’re not “points” themselves.

You have two options: 1) Eternity is a point or 2) Eternity is a set of points. There is no other logical option. Which option do you pick up as your definition of eternity?

You don’t get to define that as such. I choose a third: eternity is not describable in terms of location.

 

[STT]

Fair enough. Yet, still, a ‘point’ doesn’t have any other properties aside from its location, regardless of frame of reference!

No. For location you need a frame of reference.

Umm… no. Other geometrical entities can be described by virtue of the points on their borders, but they’re not “points” themselves.

What do you expect to find when you divide a line into pieces?

You don’t get to define that as such. I choose a third: eternity is not describable in terms of location.

When did I talk about location?

 

[Gorgias]

No. For location you need a frame of reference.

Agreed. There is no physical frame of reference in eternity, and therefore, your claims seem to fail on that assertion alone.

What do you expect to find when you divide a line into pieces?

Other lines?

 

[Hume]

I’ve enjoyed reading the discussion.

It’s clear that there’s no good theist-based answer for how we can go from 0 to 1 without some sort of temporal displacement like time.

As an aside; to the ancient Jews, their god was temporal. The influence of Greek gnossis brought us a “god” that is eternal and changeless. We have been unable to logically harmonize the two for the 2500 years after they collided.

Thanks for your contributions.