William Lane Craig Temporal God

[STT]

Could you rephrase this please?

I should have written I leave you to Catholics.

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?

So God is eternal? If it is so then that is a state of affair.

Regardless, whether there is such a thing as eternity, you need to explain analytically how an act in eternity could possibly cause no change. There is only God in eternity if the act of creation causes no change.

 

[whatistrue]

you need to explain analytically how an act in eternity could possibly cause no change

Eternity does not change. Our universe came into (or more accurately if I understand correctly is coming into eternally) being, but that did not change eternity. The act of creation is, as explained previously, ongoing. It is not finished. So there is no “after”.

 

[STT]

Eternity does not change. Our universe came into (or more accurately if I understand correctly is coming into eternally) being, but that did not change eternity. The act of creation is, as explained previously, ongoing. It is not finished. So there is no “after”.

My concern is whether the act of creation which is eternal caused any change?

 

[whatistrue]

Please see the first sentence in the paragraph you quoted. There is your answer, at least as far as eternity is concerned. Our universe is a different beast entirely.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Part of the confusion here may be the idea that creation commenced at a specific moment, and time began at that moment. However, reading Aquinas, it is clear that creation is an ongoing principle which is in operation throughout every moment of existing time. If it were not for the “creation” right now, at this moment, sustaining our entire universe, it would cease.

 

[STT]

Please see the first sentence in the paragraph you quoted. There is your answer, at least as far as eternity is concerned. Our universe is a different beast entirely.

Why you evade my question? I know that eternity in your system of belief is changeless. I am asking whether the act of creation which is eternal caused any change? Yes or no?

 

[STT]

Part of the confusion here may be the idea that creation commenced at a specific moment, and time began at that moment.

There is no confusion in my side. The act of creation causes a change. You need time for change. Time is an element of creation. Therefore, we are dealing with a regress: You need time to create time.

However, reading Aquinas, it is clear that creation is an ongoing principle which is in operation throughout every moment of existing time. If it were not for the “creation” right now, at this moment, sustaining our entire universe, it would cease.

We are not talking about sustaining in here.

 

[whatistrue]

I did not evade your question, I answered it before it was asked. Why are you still stuck on trying to shoehorn eternity into the same sort of box that is our universe? It doesn’t work that way.

 

[whatistrue]

There is no confusion in my side

Sorry, but there is a lot of confusion on your side. The act of creation of this universe is eternal, as in outside of time. It is eternal, ongoing, not finished, etc. There is no before and after the act. Time is not a factor in the creation of this universe, it is only an attribute of this universe.

 

[STT]

I did not evade your question, I answered it before it was asked. Why are you still stuck on trying to shoehorn eternity into the same sort of box that is our universe? It doesn’t work that way.

I am not trying to shoehorn eternity into the same sort of box like our universe. I ask a simple question. Was there any change upon the act of creation?

 

[STT]

Sorry, but there is a lot of confusion on your side. The act of creation of this universe is eternal, as in outside of time. It is eternal, ongoing, not finished, etc. There is no before and after the act. Time is not a factor in the creation of this universe, it is only an attribute of this universe.

Again, I am not questioning the act of creation. I am asking if there was a change due to the act? And eternal cannot be ongoing by the way.

 

[Gorgias]

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

God does not exist in “one state of affair”, regardless what you say. He is stateless. I would assert that this is the condition of eternity.

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

No. Doing so would create a temporal sequence. There is no temporal dimension in eternity.

I don’t know how many time I should repeat this. I don’t care for eternity and whether God is there or not.

The problem is that you’re talking about the universe, which doesn’t exist inside itself. So, it exists outside of a temporal referent.

What I am arguing is that any act separates two states of affair from each other.

Inside of a temporal framework? Sure. The universe doesn’t exist inside a temporal framework, so you can’t argue for it as if it does.

So, what does the act of creation?

God’s act of creation continuously sustains the universe.

 

[STT]

God does not exist in “one state of affair”, regardless what you say. He is stateless. I would assert that this is the condition of eternity.

I didn’t say that God is a state of affair. I said that God existence is a state of offair. What affair/union? The union of God and existence.

No. Doing so would create a temporal sequence. There is no temporal dimension in eternity.

I didn’t question whether the act is temporal. I said that the act leads to something which is temporal.

The problem is that you’re talking about the universe, which doesn’t exist inside itself. So, it exists outside of a temporal referent.

Does the universe exist as a separate entity? I am talking about the universe that has a beginning it is changing, contingent.

God’s act of creation continuously sustains the universe.

Yeah, sure. But there is a regress there. We are not talking about sustaining though. We are talking about beginning.

 

[Gorgias]

I didn’t question whether the act is temporal. I said that the act leads to something which is temporal.

You sure about that? Let’s see:

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

Umm… you actually do say that the act of creation is temporal. Sorry, STT!

Does the universe exist as a separate entity?

Of course. Are you suggesting it is only part of some other entity?

Yeah, sure. But there is a regress there.

Not so.

We are not talking about sustaining though. We are talking about beginning.

How can an entity in eternity have a “beginning”?

 

[Freddy]

STT:

No

So you deny that nothing exists outside time

any act is temporal.

And then contradict yourself by saying every act is temporal , which can’t be true if things can exist outside time

Any change including Big Bang whether God was behind it or not requires time

Back to the question: why does time have its particular characteristics? Where did they come from?

That’s a question that makes no sense. Time doesn’t have characteristics. You might as well ask what characteristics does weight have. Time is simply a measurement of the rate of change. No change - no time.

 

[AlNg]

You also mischaracterized (1) as “ Only God exists” since you’re now saying time existed in (1) too, thus your (1) is “God and time exists”

You can have
(1) Only God exists
(1.5) God and time exist
(2) God and time and the universe exist.

 

[AlNg]

Not outside of it where there is no time as we know it.

Perhaps in the multiverse there is a universe different from ours with time as we know it.

 

[AlNg]

Einstein’s relativity demonstrates that time must obey certain mathematical relationships which include the speed of light c and velocity.

This is postulated as occurring shortly after the BB singularity. At the time of the BB singularity or even before it, this model may fail. .

Time doesn’t have characteristics.

I thought that time did have the characteristic of an arrow - an arrow of time according to which you are always moving forward and never backwards.

 

[Aquinas11]

Time doesn’t have characteristics

Time is simply a measurement of the rate of change

Just disproved your own argument

 

[Aquinas11]

You can have
(1) Only God exists
(1.5) God and time exist
(2) God and time and the universe exist.

Yes already stated

In which case your points actually are:
(0) Only God exists
(1) God and time exist
(2) Goa and time and universe exist