God and Time

[zippy2006]

...it can be said that the universe can't change from nothing to something without time already existing.

Creatio ex nihilo is not a change. When a tree dies a change occurs. When something comes into being from absolute non-being a change has not occurred. Change presupposes something that undergoes the change.

 

[D2wing]

I bolded the parts of your quote that I find interesting. You're saying that there is some kind of time that is eternal, and there is some kind of location that is eternal. But they are different from our time and our space? Why? If God can just manipulate them how he pleases, what reason is there that these "other" time and space need to be any different from our own?

God and infinity existed before time and are not totally within our concept of time. God is not limited to our chronology. He exists outside of it as well as within it. As far as location. I did not say there is an eternal location. Just that God created some things to be eternal, meaning things like his word and our souls. I am not sure that any part of physical creation is eternal.
I am thinking that to God is it like a projection on a wall that he could turn off if he liked. Instead of a wall is is chronological time which is artificial in itself. It is just that we and material creation are part of it and bound in it, unlike God.

 

[D2wing]

I did look into a Augustine and Aquinas' theology, and I disagree wholeheartedly. But that would be the topic of a different thread, so I'm not going to get into it here.

If something is outside of time, then it doesn't change. If it changes, but does not change over time, then it is creating a logical contradiction. If A = B, and then later A = C, then it changed, as long as B =/= C. If time doesn't exist, then you would have to say A = B and A = C even if B =/= C.

So even if God doesn't change somehow from being someone who did not create anything to someone who did create something, it can be said that the universe can't change from nothing to something without time already existing.

That is in our sense of time, that it has to chronological. God doesn't have such a limitation. You have a point that there may have been no measurement of time and everything was in an instant. At least to us. We really cannot comprehend God's time, eternity, time without beginning, measurement or end or human chronology.

 

[Achilles6129]

I'm not derailing my thread going into everything that is wrong with every one of WLC's arguments. If you have one specific argument that you think is the best and that it applies directly to this thread, share it, and we can discuss it.

Explain why God being timeless without creation and temporal with creation is "full of holes."

 

[SkyWriting]

I've been thinking about what it means for God to create time itself, and it seems to mean strange things, so I thought I would share my thoughts and see what other people think.

First, if time doesn't exist, then time can't pass. This seems self evident, but it is important to think about.

Second, without the passage of time words like "before" and "after" are nonsense.

So from this it seems that anything that happens while time doesn't exist must happen simultaneously. Now given the concept of God, I don't think this is anything that is too hard for him. Of course he can do an infinite number of things and think an infinite number of thoughts all simultaneously, so don't think this is supposed to be a disproof of his existence.

So I'll put it into argument form given these premises.

1. Time doesn't pass until time exists
2. We measure age based on the amount of time that has passed.
3. No time passed until God created time.
4. God's age is equal to the amount of time that has passed since time was created.

So wether you believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old, or you believe that the universe is 6000 years old, we all pretty much agree that time began to exist at the onset of creation. I believe the theory of general relativity and the big bang theory state this, and that is why it is so hard (impossible?) to see what is beyond that threshold.

But it seems that without time, "eternity" is a nonsense word just like "before" and "after". Eternity needs to extend infinitely backwards in time in order for it to make sense (and infinitely forwards). So to say that God is eternal, but to say that time is not, seems like nonsense to me.

So what explanation for this could there be? Thoughts?

Scripture claims that Adam did not have to worry about death until he knew Sin.
A good match for this would be that time- as we know it- began after Adam sinned.
So all of creation, including Adam's time in the garden (some call paradise) existed in a "timeless" state.
This would help explain why the 6 days of creation both "took so long" and don't fit our current concepts
of billions of years very well either.

So Adam sinned, and "normal" time began for humans. God is outside of this restricted area 51 we call home.

 

[Moral Orel]

Creatio ex nihilo is not a change. When a tree dies a change occurs. When something comes into being from absolute non-being a change has not occurred. Change presupposes something that undergoes the change.

You're just going to argue semantics about all the other things I said in that post? Word it however you want, but what I showed was that there was a moment in which time existed and also did not exist in the same moment, therefore a logical contradiction. When things change in time, we can say that one moment they were this, and the next moment they were that, but they were never this and that at the same exact time.

 

[Moral Orel]

As far as location. I did not say there is an eternal location.

You used the word "place" which is pretty vague and could mean a lot of things I suppose. I guess I just assumed that "place" meant "location". But if I'm wrong, what did you mean then? What is outside of our known universe? Would that not be the location that our universe was made in?

 

[Moral Orel]

Explain why God being timeless without creation and temporal with creation is "full of holes."

See that's not really an argument. That's a statement, that is apparently the conclusion of an argument. So the only thing I have to point out is that you have presented absolutely no evidence to support that claim. There might be good evidence, there might not be, but in your posts you have presented none except a link to a bunch of other arguments, some of which contradict each other.

If you want me to discuss this with you, you're going to have to put more effort into it.

 

[Moral Orel]

We really cannot comprehend God's time

There it is again. You're saying that time is eternal, just not our kind of time. Why does there have to be a different kind of time, instead of God just having the power to manipulate our time any way he pleases?

 

[zippy2006]

You're just going to argue semantics about all the other things I said in that post? Word it however you want, but what I showed was that there was a moment in which time existed and also did not exist in the same moment, therefore a logical contradiction. When things change in time, we can say that one moment they were this, and the next moment they were that, but they were never this and that at the same exact time.

No, it's not semantics. There was no moment when time both existed and didn't. You're not thinking very carefully about questions of temporality and change. You are insisting on categories of temporality and change where none can exist by metaphysical necessity. Traditional theology is quite clear on the proposition that creation is not a change, and if you think about it it makes perfect sense.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, it's not semantics. There was no moment when time both existed and didn't. You're not thinking very carefully about questions of temporality and change. You are insisting on categories of temporality and change where none can exist by metaphysical necessity. Traditional theology is quite clear on the proposition that creation is not a change, and if you think about it it makes perfect sense.

I'm talking about this post from way back on page 2. What's wrong with this explanation?

Let's see if I can illustrate this idea. For the sake of argument, let's pretend we know the order in which God made some decisions before he made creation. We'll start with time existing, and so we will say we are at Time 0.

Time 0: God decides to make matter.
Time still doesn't exist, so no time passes until...
Time 0: God decides to make energy.
Since no time passed, it is still Time 0.
Time still doesn't exist, so no time passes until...
Time 0: God decides to make time (he hasn't made it yet, he just decided that he will make it).
Since no time passed, it is still Time 0.

So the time hasn't changed, because it hasn't passed, because it doesn't exist.

Next God creates time itself. How much time passed between God deciding to make time and time existing? None. 0 units of time measurement pass before it exists, so time begins to exist at Time 0. The same exact time that all of his other decisions were occurring. So everything happened at the same time until after time existed in order for it to pass.

 

[zippy2006]

I'm talking about this post from way back on page 2. What's wrong with this explanation?

The problem is that the contradiction is built into your assumptions. I will highlight each thing that assumes the existence of time in green, and each thing that assumes the non-existence of time in red:

Let's see if I can illustrate this idea. For the sake of argument, let's pretend we know the order in which God made some decisions before he made creation. We'll start with time existing, and so we will say we are at Time 0.

Time 0: God decides to make matter.
Time still doesn't exist, so no time passes until...
Time 0: God decides to make energy.
Since no time passed, it is still Time 0.
Time still doesn't exist, so no time passes until...
Time 0: God decides to make time (he hasn't made it yet, he just decided that he will make it).
Since no time passed, it is still Time 0.

So the time hasn't changed, because it hasn't passed, because it doesn't exist.

... So everything happened at the same time until after time existed in order for it to pass.

• "Time 0" implies time
• Successive ordering implies time
• Successive decisions imply time
• The passage or non-passage of time implies time
• The passage of time and the existence of time are not the same thing
• Things happening at the same time imply time (you posit simultaneous events without the existence of time)

...yet you have posited all of these things which imply time while at the same time insisting that time does not exist. Your account is intrinsically contradictory in just that way.

Earlier you intimated that Aquinas hadn't thought carefully enough about the nature of a non-temporal reality...

Edit: it is also present in the prior post:

Now again, if time didn't exist until God created it, then the point in time he created time is simultaneous with everything that "preceded" its inception.

Points in time, simultaneity, and "preceding" are impossible absent time. This isn't semantics. Sometimes you can use words analogously or loosely and get away with it, but it's not clear how you can use temporal terms even analogously when you are at the same time positing the total absence of temporality. Creatio ex nihilo is a heady mystery; most take it for granted and don't perceive its depth.

 

[Moral Orel]

The problem is that the contradiction is built into your assumptions. I will highlight each thing that assumes the existence of time in green, and each thing that assumes the non-existence of time in red:

• "Time 0" implies time
• Successive ordering implies time
• Successive decisions imply time
• The passage or non-passage of time implies time
• The passage of time and the existence of time are not the same thing
• Things happening at the same time imply time (you posit simultaneous events without the existence of time)

...yet you have posited all of these things which imply time while at the same time insisting that time does not exist. Your account is intrinsically contradictory in just that way.

Earlier you intimated that Aquinas hadn't thought carefully enough about the nature of a non-temporal reality...

Edit: it is also present in the prior post:



Points in time, simultaneity, and "preceding" are impossible absent time. This isn't semantics. Sometimes you can use words analogously or loosely and get away with it, but it's not clear how you can use temporal terms even analogously when you are at the same time positing the total absence of temporality. Creatio ex nihilo is a heady mystery; most take it for granted and don't perceive its depth.

You're right about this. I was trying to wrap my head around it as I waited for a response, and I started catching myself doing these things. I can't state that time existing and time not existing happened in the same moment because there was no such thing as a "moment" until time existed. But there I go again using the word "until" and that is nonsense without time.

So back on track with real questions that I don't think have been answered yet. There's no such thing as "before time existed" because "before" is nonsense without time, and there is no such thing as "after time stopped existing" since "after" is nonsense without time. How can we say time had a beginning if there was no before? And how can we say time has an end if there is no after?

 

[D2wing]

There it is again. You're saying that time is eternal, just not our kind of time. Why does there have to be a different kind of time, instead of God just having the power to manipulate our time any way he pleases?

You seem to be leaving God out of the equation. It isn't that nothing existed before time. Since God is eternal he doesn't need to measure time, and nothing has to be chronological like it does for us.
It is as if creation were a movie, that he can stop reverse or speed up at will.
We really do not know what existed before creation. We do not know if matter existed. We think that creation began as a Big Bang originating in one place, that seems most likely near the Earth. It makes sense that before time there is no distance so that place would be tiny not matter how big it was actually. You seem to be confused by trying to reduce the infinite to something finite. Time is something we exist in moment by moment and cannot be in another time or many times like God can. God's time is not chronological or in one plane in time and space like us.
You are never going to be able as a mortal to grasp what is beyond our ability to know and provide answers for. We can only speculate which is what I have done. I have presented some ideas, that you may or may not understand, may accept or not. If you don't get it you don't get it. It may not be right anyway. I think I am close though.

 

[Moral Orel]

You seem to be leaving God out of the equation. It isn't that nothing existed before time. Since God is eternal he doesn't need to measure time, and nothing has to be chronological like it does for us.
It is as if creation were a movie, that he can stop reverse or speed up at will.
We really do not know what existed before creation. We do not know if matter existed. We think that creation began as a Big Bang originating in one place, that seems most likely near the Earth. It makes sense that before time there is no distance so that place would be tiny not matter how big it was actually. You seem to be confused by trying to reduce the infinite to something finite. Time is something we exist in moment by moment and cannot be in another time or many times like God can. God's time is not chronological or in one plane in time and space like us.
You are never going to be able as a mortal to grasp what is beyond our ability to know and provide answers for. We can only speculate which is what I have done. I have presented some ideas, that you may or may not understand, may accept or not. If you don't get it you don't get it. It may not be right anyway. I think I am close though.

You used words like "time" and "place" in your posts, and I am just trying to get at what you mean by those. You aren't talking about there being no time or there being no place before God created them, you're just talking about them being different in some way from the time and place we know about. So I'm wondering why they need to be different since you're acknowledging that they existed.

 

[zippy2006]

First, I just want to throw out the disclaimer that I approach these question from an Aristotelian-Thomistic point of view and my proficiency is moderate. There may be other legitimate ways to approach these questions.

You're right about this. I was trying to wrap my head around it as I waited for a response, and I started catching myself doing these things.

Good, I'm glad you see it!

How can we say time had a beginning if there was no before? And how can we say time has an end if there is no after?

There are different theories of time. An Aristotelian theory makes time the measure of movement or change. Thus in order to "create time" God would not create a subsistent entity called "time," but rather would create a subsistent entity subject to change, such as a grain of sand. So time is co-existent with any entities subject to change (or material creation, which can simply be referred to as "creation" for our purposes).

The beginning and end of creation are relative with respect to creation (although there may well not be an end, as it would require an annihilation parallel to creatio ex nihilo). So to say that there is a beginning to creation (or secondarily, to time) is a reference to what follows: the whole or continuation of creation.

Oftentimes a beginning implies a change--it implies the end of something else. Thus the beginning of the frog is the end of the tadpole, the beginning of Tuesday is the end of Monday. Thus beginnings within the temporal realm signify transition or change. Yet if we wish to speak of the beginning of creation--of the temporal realm itself--in a way that is not just a reference to what follows upon the beginning, we must acknowledge the fundamental difference from beginnings within the temporal realm; we must recognize the sui generis nature of creatio ex nihilo. It seems to me that your question does not recognize this.

You ask, "How can we say time had a beginning if there was no before?" You mean to say that beginnings always imply a (previous) end, a change, a transition, a before. But that is a mistake. It is only true within the temporal realm itself. It is not true with respect to the temporal realm as an entirety. Strictly speaking, a beginning implies a middle and an end, but not a before. Thus creation is not situated contextually: it is not situated in a temporal, spatial, or any other context. It is, of itself, something entirely unique, something which as a whole has no relations to other created realities. It is unmoored. There is no before. There is no reference point. Reference points only begin with creation.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Explain why God being timeless without creation and temporal with creation is "full of holes."

It's nonsensical.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

First, I just want to throw out the disclaimer that I approach these question from an Aristotelian-Thomistic point of view and my proficiency is moderate. There may be other legitimate ways to approach these questions.



Good, I'm glad you see it!



There are different theories of time. An Aristotelian theory makes time the measure of movement or change. Thus in order to "create time" God would not create a subsistent entity called "time," but rather would create a subsistent entity subject to change, such as a grain of sand. So time is co-existent with any entities subject to change (or material creation, which can simply be referred to as "creation" for our purposes).

The beginning and end of creation are relative with respect to creation (although there may well not be an end, as it would require an annihilation parallel to creatio ex nihilo). So to say that there is a beginning to creation (or secondarily, to time) is a reference to what follows: the whole or continuation of creation.

Oftentimes a beginning implies a change--it implies the end of something else. Thus the beginning of the frog is the end of the tadpole, the beginning of Tuesday is the end of Monday. Thus beginnings within the temporal realm signify transition or change. Yet if we wish to speak of the beginning of creation--of the temporal realm itself--in a way that is not just a reference to what follows upon the beginning, we must acknowledge the fundamental difference from beginnings within the temporal realm; we must recognize the sui generis nature of creatio ex nihilo. It seems to me that your question does not recognize this.

Then we must also acknowledge that our causal intuitions, which are derived from our experience of things "coming to be" ex materia, may not apply.

 

[zippy2006]

Then we must also acknowledge that our causal intuitions, which are derived from our experience of things "coming to be" ex materia, may not apply.

Say more. What is the reason that we must acknowledge this, and to what "may they not apply"?

 

[D2wing]

You used words like "time" and "place" in your posts, and I am just trying to get at what you mean by those. You aren't talking about there being no time or there being no place before God created them, you're just talking about them being different in some way from the time and place we know about. So I'm wondering why they need to be different since you're acknowledging that they existed.

Zippy explained it better than I could. Don't ask me anymore because you just don't seem to get that God has his own realm and reality that we cannot know. I can't make it any simpler for you nor can I draw you a picture. Quit trying to limit God to the temporal real, and to your level of understanding. Once you unlimited your thinking you may get it, I hope.