William Lane Craig Temporal God

[whatistrue]

Which part you are not convinced?

None of it. You have only made unsupported assertions and have not laid any foundation for your claims.

Where is the hole?

It is more hole than cloth.

 

[STT]

None of it. You have only made unsupported assertions and have not laid any foundation for your claims.

I cannot help you if you cannot find error in my arguments and explain it to me.

It is more hole than cloth.

I am afraid that I cannot help you if you don’t put effort to understand what I said.

By the way, I already asked you. How does a timeless act look like?

 

[whatistrue]

I cannot help you if you cannot find error in my arguments and explain it to me.

The errors in your arguments have been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people.

I am afraid that I cannot help you if you don’t put effort to understand what I said.

I understand very well what you said, it is just incorrect and unsupported.

How does a timeless act look like?

One answer might be - look at the night sky. God is creating the universe eternally. Eternally does not mean for an infinite amount of time, it means outside of time.

 

[STT]

The errors in your arguments have been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people.

Who and where?

I understand very well what you said, it is just incorrect and unsupported.

I cannot help you if you cannot point to my error. Saying that you understand my argument means that I was clear with you. You, however, decline to help me to understand where is my error. I don’t understand why you don’t help me to understand my error.

One answer might be - look at the night sky. God is creating the universe eternally. Eternally does not mean for an infinite amount of time, it means outside of time.

That doesn’t say anything.

 

[whatistrue]

Who and where?

Please. Pretty much every post in this thread not posted by you.

I cannot help you if you cannot point to my error

I have, numerous times. So have others. If you refuse to see it, that is not my issue.

That doesn’t say anything.

And this response says everything about why this is a futile exercise.

 

[Gorgias]

In regards to this thread I only need to show that the act of creation is impossible.

…which you haven’t done.

 

[STT]

…which you haven’t done.

I did. Please read through: I am arguing that there must be two states of affair/points to make the act of creation meaningful, these points are: 1) Only God exists and 2) God and the universe exist. If you exclude (1) then God and the universe exist that means that the universe is eternal so there is no need for the act of creation. If you exclude (2) then it means that only God exists so there is no universe hence there is no act of creation. The universe exist so we cannot exclude (2) if we believe in God. (1) cannot be excluded too therefore we have two points. The act of creation also requires that (2) comes after (1) (the other combination is the act of annihilation). So we are dealing with a situation consist of two points one comes after another one. This is by definition is a temporal act. Time, however, is an element of creation. This means that you need time to create time which is a regress.

 

[Gorgias]

I did.

You said some stuff, it’s true. But, you didn’t demonstrate that your case is true. Let’s go through the refutation again:

I am arguing that there must be two states of affair/points to make the act of creation meaningful

In a temporal context? Sure. In an eternal one? No. There are no “states” in eternity, in the way that there are temporally-differentiable states inside the universe.

these points are: 1) Only God exists and 2) God and the universe exist.

You’re asserting (without foundation) a framework within eternity that does not exist.

But hey, I’ll play along: how would you differentiate these two states? What measure could you use to show that they’re distinct ‘states’? (Don’t just say “there’s one state and then there’s another”, please!)

The act of creation also requires that (2) comes after (1)

Non-existent temporal framework. Sorry, STT, you can’t have it both ways – you can’t assert that you’re talking about eternity and then claim it has a temporal dimension.

This is by definition is a temporal act.

Only because you’re asserting something that’s untrue. It’s like saying “the moon is made of blue cheese” and then attempting to support it by saying “see? blue cheese exists; the moon exists: therefore, the moon is made of blue cheese.”

Time, however, is an element of creation.

Nope. The temporal framework is an outcome of creation, and only inside of the created universe, not external to it.

 

[STT]

You said some stuff, it’s true. But, you didn’t demonstrate that your case is true. Let’s go through the refutation again:

Cool.

In a temporal context? Sure. In an eternal one? No. There are no “states” in eternity, in the way that there are temporally-differentiable states inside the universe.

So there is one state of affair in eternity? Could you please tell us how does an act in eternity look like?

You’re asserting (without foundation) a framework within eternity that does not exist.

I have no concern for eternity. You can consider God in eternity. What I am arguing is that the act of creation is temporal like any other act.

But hey, I’ll play along: how would you differentiate these two states? What measure could you use to show that they’re distinct ‘states’? (Don’t just say “there’s one state and then there’s another”, please!)

I already mentioned that there are two states of affair and argue that they are needed to make the act of creation meaningful: If you exclude (1) then God and the universe exist that means that the universe is eternal so there is no need for the act of creation. If you exclude (2) then it means that only God exists so there is no universe hence there is no act of creation. The universe exists so we cannot exclude (2) if we believe in God. (1) cannot be excluded too therefore we have two points.

Non-existent temporal framework. Sorry, STT, you can’t have it both ways – you can’t assert that you’re talking about eternity and then claim it has a temporal dimension.

I am talking about the act of creation.

Only because you’re asserting something that’s untrue. It’s like saying “the moon is made of blue cheese” and then attempting to support it by saying “see? blue cheese exists; the moon exists: therefore, the moon is made of blue cheese.”

It is not untrue.

Nope. The temporal framework is an outcome of creation, and only inside of the created universe, not external to it.

Temporal framework is needed for any act. There is no such a thing as an eternal act unless you clearly explain how an eternal act looks like.

 

[Gorgias]

So there is one state of affair in eternity?

There are no states. That’s not the same thing as saying “there is one state.”

Could you please tell us how does an act in eternity look like?

It is an act which has no beginning and no end, but merely is.

I have no concern for eternity.

Your construct operates in eternity, however.

What I am arguing is that the act of creation is temporal like any other act.

Except that you have to argue for a temporal framework first, before you can go on to assert that there are events within that framework. You’re putting the cart before the horse.

I already mentioned that there are two states of affair and argue that they are needed to make the act of creation meaningful

I get it. Please differentiate between those states. If you were talking about states within the universe, you might say something like “this state takes place today, and that one takes place tomorrow” or “one state happens here and the other one happens there” or “this state is encapsulated by the ocean, and that state is encapsulated by deep space.”

So… how are you differentiating these “two states”? After all, if you cannot differentiate them in a meaningful way, then you’ve got a distinction without a difference.

It is not untrue.

Do we have to take your word on it?

Temporal framework is needed for any act.

OK: so, the ground of your argument is “eternity isn’t really eternity; it’s really temporally bound.”

That’s a logical contradiction. So, we can just throw out your argument before you even start.

 

[STT]

There are no states. That’s not the same thing as saying “there is one state.”

The is one state of affair in eternity, God is existence. That is a state of affair. By state, I don’t mean physical state. I mean a situation, a way of being, etc.

It is an act which has no beginning and no end, but merely is .

Any act simply is. Any act, however, deals with two states of affair, one before act and one after act. How many states of affair does the act of creation deal with? One, two, etc.? What they are?

Your construct operates in eternity, however.

I am talking about the act of creation which I show that it is temporal. I am arguing that time is required for such an act and time at the same time is an element of creation. This leads to a regress since you need time for creation of time.

Except that you have to argue for a temporal framework first, before you can go on to assert that there are events within that framework. You’re putting the cart before the horse.

No, that is how I am doing things. I first argue that there are two states of affair separated by act of creation. Then I argue that one state of affair comes before the act and another after the act. Then it follows that the act of creation is temporal. So I am following the logic well. The cart is after the horse.

I get it. Please differentiate between those states. If you were talking about states within the universe, you might say something like “this state takes place today, and that one takes place tomorrow” or “one state happens here and the other one happens there ” or “this state is encapsulated by the ocean, and that state is encapsulated by deep space.”

So… how are you differentiating these “two states”? After all, if you cannot differentiate them in a meaningful way, then you’ve got a distinction without a difference.

They are different since they are dealing with two different state of existence, 1) God only exists and 2) God and the creation exists.

OK: so, the ground of your argument is “eternity isn’t really eternity; it’s really temporally bound.”

You can keep God in eternity. Such a God however cannot create not because He is eternal but because time is needed for act of creation and in the same time is an element of creation. Time is needed for creation of time which this is a regress.

 

[Gorgias]

Any act, however, deals with two states of affair, one before act and one after act.

In the context of an act within a temporal framework? Sure. Outside of a temporal framework, though, “before” and “after” have no meaning.

I am talking about the act of creation which I show that it is temporal.

No. You are essentially presuming a temporal framework, and describing an eternal act as if it existed within such a framework. That’s why your assertions are failing.

No, that is how I am doing things.

Trust me… that’s obvious.

I first argue that there are two states of affair separated by act of creation.

And the rebuttal is:

• no states in eternity
• no completed act of creation – rather, an ongoing act

They are different since they are dealing with two different state of existence, 1) God only exists and 2) God and the creation exists.

Yeah, you’re just repeating yourself. All assertion, no substantiation. Sorry.

because time is needed for act of creation

Says you.

 

[STT]

In the context of an act within a temporal framework? Sure. Outside of a temporal framework, though, “before” and “after” have no meaning.

So give me an example of an act which deals with one state of affair.

No. You are essentially presuming a temporal framework, and describing an eternal act as if it existed within such a framework. That’s why your assertions are failing.

Could we agree that there are two states of affair separated by act of creation?

And the rebuttal is:

• no states in eternity
• no completed act of creation – rather, an ongoing act

I don’t know how many time I should repeat this. I don’t care for eternity and whether God is there or not. What I am arguing is that any act separates two states of affair from each other. There is an act, so there is a change. I think that is obvious.

Yeah, you’re just repeating yourself. All assertion, no substantiation. Sorry.

So, what does the act of creation? Please don’t tell me that it is simply is. I am looking for its functioning. What it does?

 

[whatistrue]

Could we agree that there are two states of affair separated by act of creation?

Nope. Not in eternity.

I don’t know how many time I should repeat this.

You should stop now since it is still not true even after 2+ years of asserting it.

There is an act, so there is a change. I think that is obvious.

If it were all contained within the universe, and therefore in a temporal framework, you would have a point. But we are talking about the creation of the universe, which cannot occur within the universe.

 

[STT]

Nope. Not in eternity.

So, there is one state of affair? What is it?

 

[whatistrue]

So, there is one state of affair?

No. There are zero states of affairs in eternity, as has been explained before.

 

[STT]

No. There are zero states of affairs in eternity, as has been explained before.

So there is nothing in eternity?

 

[whatistrue]

So there is nothing in eternity?

If you read that as “no thing” or “not any things” than that is my understanding.

 

[STT]

If you read that as “no thing” or “not any things” than that is my understanding.

So, I live you to Catholics. Perhaps they can convince you that God is eternal.

 

[whatistrue]

So, I live you to Catholics

Could you rephrase this please? I don’t understand what you mean here. As far as God, haven’t there been a parade of people here, including me, saying that God is eternal already? Why would I need convincing of something I have been stating all along?