William Lane Craig Temporal God

[STT]

No because again you’ve already refuted that argument by saying “ Only God exists”, you didn’t say “God and time exists” which you’re now asserting. You’ve contradicted yourself. Now you’re saying “only” doesn’t mean “only”.

No. The state of “only God exist” is the initial state. The next state is either “God and time” or “God and creation”. Introducing “God and time”, as you did and in fact I was aware of that, as I mentioned leads to regress.

 

[Aquinas11]

The state of “only God exist” is the initial state

While at same time you’re contradicting that by saying time must exist in initial state , thus you’re incoherently arguing that “only” doesn’t mean only

So we are dealing with an act consist of two points one comes after another one. This is by definition is a temporal act.

 

[HarryStotle]

Aquinas11:

No because again you’ve already refuted that argument by saying “ Only God exists”, you didn’t say “God and time exists” which you’re now asserting. You’ve contradicted yourself. Now you’re saying “only” doesn’t mean “only”.

No. The state of “only God exist” is the initial state. The next state is either “God and time” or “God and creation”. Introducing “God and time”, as you did and in fact I was aware of that, as I mentioned leads to regress.

The problem is that you are presuming a temporal framework in order to conclude a temporal framework.

So, it is true that rigidly following YOUR presumed understanding that assumes God in time to begin with, then moving (by assuming temporality) from “only God exists” to “God and creation” forces YOUR temporal paradigm onto that supposed move.

It isn’t possible to even be open to a possible eternal reality if you are forcing by presumption a temporal framework onto the possibility from the beginning.

It is called circular reasoning or begging the very question you are trying to answer. You will always win that game, but that doesn’t resolve the question for others who are not restricted by YOUR presumptions, nor convinced by them.

 

[STT]

In our universe, yes. Not outside of it where there is no time as we know it.

Please illustrate then: How does an act that doesn’t require time look like?

 

[STT]

While at same time you’re contradicting that by saying time must exist in initial state , thus you’re incoherently arguing that “only” doesn’t mean only

No, the initial state is “only God”. The next state is something, whether “time and God” (what you bring to my attention and I was aware of it) or “the universe including time and God”. Either way, We are going from the initial state to the second state. The act of creation is then temporal since the initial state always comes before the second state. This simply means that you need time for creation of everything including time. So we have God, a regress of time and then the creation including time in the universe.

 

[STT]

The problem is that you are presuming a temporal framework in order to conclude a temporal framework.

So, it is true that rigidly following YOUR presumed understanding that assumes God in time to begin with, then moving (by assuming temporality) from “only God exists” to “God and creation” forces YOUR temporal paradigm onto that supposed move .

It isn’t possible to even be open to a possible eternal reality if you are forcing by presumption a temporal framework onto the possibility from the beginning.

It is called circular reasoning or begging the very question you are trying to answer. You will always win that game, but that doesn’t resolve the question for others who are not restricted by YOUR presumptions, nor convinced by them.

No, I am starting from definition of act in the same time showing that any act, including the act of creation, is temporal. It, however, could be claimed that time is a part of creation or initial creation itself. Either way, we reach to a regress of creation of times between states “God only” and “God and something (regardless what something is)”.

 

[Aquinas11]

No, the initial state is “only God”. The next state is something, whether “time and God”

The act of creation is then temporal…you need time for creation

No because you said the first state is “only God” thus no time is in the initial state.

You’re free to argue “only” doesnt’ mean “only” but that’s proving your argument is incoherent

 

[o_mlly]

No, I am starting from definition of act in the same time showing that any act, including the act of creation, is temporal

Try thinking of “acting” rather than “acts” or “acted”. Only the present participle form of verb can be applied to the Being in eternity.

 

[STT]

No because you said the first state is “ only God” thus no time is in the initial state.

You’re free to argue “only” doesnt’ mean “only” but that’s proving your argument is incoherent

I said the first state is “God only”. Whatever the second state is you need time to go from the first state to the second one. Time could be the second state. Therefore, you need time for creation time which this is a regress.

 

[Aquinas11]

How does an act that doesn’t require time look like?

To ask what it “looks like” presumes creation of a visual sense of some sort, which itself requires time already exists.

 

[Aquinas11]

I said the first state is “God only”. Whatever the second state is you need time to go from the first state to the second one.

If “God only” exists in first state, then time can’t also exist in the first state.

Once again, your argument boils down to: “Only” doesn’t mean only

 

[STT]

Try thinking of “acting” rather than “acts” or “acted”. Only the present participle form of verb can be applied to the Being in eternity.

I am afraid that that doesn’t help at all. No mater how do you define God you cannot answer how time can be created when God needs time to create time.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The problem is that you are presuming a temporal framework in order to conclude a temporal framework.

So, it is true that rigidly following YOUR presumed understanding that assumes God in time to begin with, then moving (by assuming temporality) from “only God exists” to “God and creation” forces YOUR temporal paradigm onto that supposed move .

It isn’t possible to even be open to a possible eternal reality if you are forcing by presumption a temporal framework onto the possibility from the beginning.

It is called circular reasoning or begging the very question you are trying to answer. You will always win that game, but that doesn’t resolve the question for others who are not restricted by YOUR presumptions, nor convinced by them.

No, I am starting from definition of act in the same time showing that any act, including the act of creation, is temporal. It, however, could be claimed that time is a part of creation or initial creation itself. Either way, we reach to a regress of creation of times between states “God only” and “God and something (regardless what something is)”.

What you are claiming here about time could apply ceteris paribus to space.

If you want to claim the space time universe had to be created within time constraints such that God had to act within a timeframe to create the universe, then the same could be claimed about space.

In other words, if the space time universe had to come to be within a timeframe that constrained even God, then God had to be, likewise, acting within space constraints.

Ergo, there must be a space dimension outside of the universe such that the space that universe takes up must be taken up within a greater space dimension outside of the space-time of the universe.

So is that your claim? Not only the universe, but God also, must exist within and be constrained by a necessary time reality beyond God and the universe, and furthermore, not only the universe but God also must exist within and be constrained by necessary space dimension that exists outside of the space-time of the universe.

So, the question then becomes, “Why would we be required to assume that space-time operates outside the universe?” Might it not be true that merely because our experience of existence within the universe is framed by space-time, there is NO logical requirement that all of reality requires space-time?

In other words, merely because you cannot imagine an immaterial, non-spacial, eternal reality, that does not mean it CANNOT exist, but merely that you cannot imagine it. Your capacity to imagine something does not impose logical constraints on reality, although it might be a limitation for you.

 

[STT]

If “God only ” exists in first state, then time can’t also exist in the first state.

True, but that is no my only point. My next point is that time must exist in the next state. The act of creation, is a temporal process therefore we fall in a dilemma, God needs time to create time.

Once again, your argument boils down to: “Only” doesn’t mean only

No. I fail how do you reach to such a conclusion. You need to point to an error in my argument as it is stated in the last comment.

 

[Gorgias]

True. If the universe is eternal then it doesn’t have any creator.

Let’s see the argument for that assertion, please.

 

[Aquinas11]

My next point is that time must exist in the next state

No your next point is time must exist in both the initial state and next state, since

you need time to go from the first state to the second one

but now you’ve conceded time does not exist in the initial state, thus the incoherent contradiction

time can’t also exist in the first state.

True

 

[STT]

What you are claiming here about time could apply ceteris paribus to space.

The knowledge is structured. What God experience, His knowledge, has form. So yes, any mind including God is subject to space too. Thoughts appears in an specific space. Thoughts must have forms since we distinguish them from each other.

If you want to claim the space time universe had to be created within time constraints such that God had to act within a timeframe to create the universe, then the same could be claimed about space.

In other words, if the space time universe had to come to be within a timeframe that constrained even God, then God had to be, likewise, acting within space constraints.

Ergo, there must be a space dimension outside of the universe such that the space that universe takes up must be taken up within a greater space dimension outside of the space-time of the universe.

So is that your claim? Not only the universe, but God also, must exist within and be constrained by a necessary time reality beyond God and the universe, and furthermore, not only the universe but God also must exist within and be constrained by necessary space dimension that exists outside of the space-time of the universe.

You got it. The act of creation requires a regress of space-time that God Himself is bounded within. Therefore, the act of creation is impossible.

So, the question then becomes, “Why would we be required to assume that space-time operates outside the universe?” Might it not be true that merely because our experience of existence within the universe is framed by space-time, there is NO logical requirement that all of reality requires space-time?

God in the eternal state cannot create. All acts are temporal.

In other words, merely because you cannot imagine an immaterial, non-spacial, eternal reality, that does not mean it CANNOT exist, but merely that you cannot imagine it. Your capacity to imagine something does not impose logical constraints on reality, although it might be a limitation for you.

We have proper capacity to understand when something is logically possible and when some other thing is logically impossible. Any act is temporal.

 

[Aquinas11]

The act of creation requires a regress of space-time that God Himself is bounded within.

Ok then your “god” is not actually God, which by definition is unbounded by space/time.

The actual God created your “god” , where the actual God transcends the space/time your “god” is bound by.

 

[STT]

No your next point is time must exist in both the initial state and next state , since

No. Time by definition does not exist in the state of “only God”. I don’t understand where did you get that from. I said that time is needed for going from first state to the second state. This is problematic since time does not exist in the initial state. It is problematic since God requires time for any act including the act of creation of time. This is a regress.

but now you’ve conceded time does not exist in the initial state, thus the incoherent contradiction

No, time does not exist in the initial state. I don’t understand why there is a problem in my argument. We obviously face with a dilemma.

 

[Aquinas11]

It is problematic since God requires time for any act

If “god” requires time to act, is not actual God (big G). Your “god” is constrained by time and thus requires a prior cause (to create time) and thus cannot be actual God (big G).