Philosophical argument for the temporality of the universe

[quatona]

A bad way of putting it I know.

To me the problem here lies not in unprecise wordings, but in the absurdity of the claim.

However, the creation of the universe was not in time, it was the creation of time.

Whatever that might mean.

 

[JBrian]

To me the problem here lies not in unprecise wordings, but in the absurdity of the claim.

Can you show why it is absurd?

 

[quatona]

Can you show why it is absurd?

Yes, I did. The way you put it was self-contradictory. Try to find a wording that is consistent, try to explain a bit more what it is you actually mean to say, and I will have a starting point.

 

[JBrian]

Yes, I did. The way you put it was self-contradictory. Try to find a wording that is consistent, try to explain a bit more what it is you actually mean to say, and I will have a starting point.

The universe did not always exist. Therefore time did not always exist. Once the universe was brought into existence by God time also came into existence.

This is a fast and unsophisticated way of putting it, but let's go from here.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

The universe did not always exist. Therefore time did not always exist. Once the universe was brought into existence by God time also came into existence.

This is a fast and unsophisticated way of putting it, but let's go from here.

If something did not always exist, it never existed and will not come into existence.

 

[JBrian]

If something did not always exist, it never existed and will not come into existence.

This is true, unless it is brought into existence by something else.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

This is true, unless it is brought into existence by something else.

1.Anything that is born or brought forth,must also have a source or a cause.
2.When cause leads to an effect, how can it remain without change ?

If God is the material cause, how can He remain unchanged?

If God is not the material cause, how did this world come forth?

Either God is the material cause, in which case God changed and hence does not fit His definition
or
God created the world out of something which already existed, in which case things existed before God's creation
or

Nothing ever happened. That is to say, creation did not take place. Existence is eternal and is not brought forth or bring forth something else.

 

[JBrian]

1.Anything that is born or brought forth,must also have a source or a cause.
2.When cause leads to an effect, how can it remain without change ?

If God is the material cause, how can He remain unchanged?

If God is not the material cause, how did this world come forth?

Either God is the material cause, in which case God changed and hence does not fit His definition
or
God created the world out of something which already existed, in which case things existed before God's creation
or

Nothing ever happened. That is to say, creation did not take place. Existence is eternal and is not brought forth or bring forth something else.

First of all, God is the efficient cause. Please demonstrate why it is necessary for God to change for an ex nihilo creation to take place.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

First of all, God is the efficient cause. Please demonstrate why it is necessary for God to change for an ex nihilo creation to take place.

I think many posters have clearly demonstrated that 'creation ex-nihilo' is an impossible situation.

If before the point when creation began, there was absolutely nothing, then creation took place on its own, if at all it took place, since there is no God in absolute nothingness.

 

[JBrian]

I think many posters have clearly demonstrated that 'creation ex-nihilo' is an impossible situation.

If before the point when creation began, there was absolutely nothing, then creation took place on its own, if at all it took place, since there is no God in absolute nothingness.

The reason I always ask you (and others) to point something out is so I can see your argument more clearly. In "absolute nothingness," I simply mean that the universe does not exist. That does not mean that God does not exist. I am arguing that God created the universe, including time.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

The reason I always ask you (and others) to point something out is so I can see your argument more clearly. In "absolute nothingness," I simply mean that the universe does not exist. That does not mean that God does not exist. I am arguing that God created the universe, including time.

We cannot just define 'absolute nothingness' for our own conveniences.
God is not 'nothing'. In fact He is everything.
Omnipresence is one of His attributes.
How can time and space exist outside of Him?
If I argue in God's favor, I would argue that God is inside time and also outside of it.

How can something exist outside of God?
Is God just a powerful being, just more powerful than anything else, or is He all-encompassing outside of whom nothing exists?
Your definition of God makes Him very limited
in His attributes.

 

[quatona]

The universe did not always exist. Therefore time did not always exist.

What is "always/not always" supposed to mean if taking the pov from outside time. These words are meaningful only in reference to time.

Once the universe was brought into existence by God time also came into existence.

"Once" refers to a point in time.Else I don´t see what this word could possibly mean. It implies a before and an after. Even if you avoid to word it explicitly, you are referring to something before time. This, for all I know, is a self-contradiction.
On another note "creating" as used here appears to point to an action, an event, an incident. These things require time to be present. You cannot drive a motorcycle in the absence of time, and you cannot "create" something in the absence of time.

 

[JBrian]

We cannot just define 'absolute nothingness' for our own conveniences.
God is not 'nothing'. In fact He is everything.
Omnipresence is one of His attributes.
How can time and space exist outside of Him?
If I argue in God's favor, I would argue that God is inside time and also outside of it.

How can something exist outside of God?
Is God just a powerful being, just more powerful than anything else, or is He all-encompassing outside of whom nothing exists?
Your definition of God makes Him very limited
in His attributes.

to the contrary. God is not subject to time. God created time like he created the universe. He is unlimited in every respect; also unlimited regarding the constraints of time. He is not temporal; He is eternal.

 

[JBrian]

What is "always/not always" supposed to mean if taking the pov from outside time. These words are meaningful only in reference to time.


"Once" refers to a point in time.Else I don´t see what this word could possibly mean. It implies a before and an after. Even if you avoid to word it explicitly, you are referring to something before time. This, for all I know, is a self-contradiction.
On another note "creating" as used here appears to point to an action, an event, an incident. These things require time to be present. You cannot drive a motorcycle in the absence of time, and you cannot "create" something in the absence of time.

The universe is not eternal. God decreed from all eternity to create the universe. Since God is outside of time and not subject to it this is not a contradiction. Time is not some "thing." It can only "exist" or measure material, changing entities. I will have to write more later. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

to the contrary. God is not subject to time. God created time like he created the universe. He is unlimited in every respect; also unlimited regarding the constraints of time. He is not temporal; He is eternal.

Something eternal should be the only thing there is.

How does something temporal like time and universe exist separate from this eternal.

Do you mean to say that this universe is an illusion?

 

[quatona]

The universe is not eternal.

I don´t think that this has been established.

God decreed from all eternity to create the universe.

Doens´t change anything about the fact that creation process must be a temporal one (i.e. happen within time), if there is a state of the universe not existing and a state of the universe existing (and both are not eternal themselves). Whether it was "decreed from all eternity" (whatever that might mean) or not, doesn´t help to solve this dilemma.

Since God is outside of time and not subject to it this is not a contradiction.

The contradiction is there, as soon as you ascribe temporal actions to this being outside of time.

Time is not some "thing." It can only "exist" or measure material, changing entities.

I agree fully. This renders already the ideas of "time existing", "existing outside time" or "time being created" pretty questionable.
If, as your sentence seems to imply, your idea is that God cannot be described or measured by matters of time, don´t do it. Else you run into argumentative problems.

I will have to write more later.

Ok, I would really be interested to understand your idea.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Same to you, and happy easter!

 

[JBrian]

Something eternal should be the only thing there is.

How does something temporal like time and universe exist separate from this eternal.

Do you mean to say that this universe is an illusion?

Something eternal can create something temporal. There is no contradiction here. Something temporal DEMANDS something eternal, or the temporal thing could not exist. Otherwise it would be infinite, with no beginning. However, something cannot exist that had no beginning. The universe needs a cause.

 

[JBrian]

I don´t think that this has been established.

Without going into the scientific proofs (big bang) suffice me to say that if the universe was eternal it would be outside of time. However, time is the measurement of change, hence, to be outside of time is to be outside of change. We know that the universe is changing, so it must be in time (not eternal).

The only other alternative is to say that the universe is infinite, namely without a beginning. But what exists must have a cause. The series of causes cannot be infinite, for that would not account for the effect, namely, the universe. There must be a cause that does not need a cause. However, this cause must be uncaused, and unchanging, that is, outside, or not subject to time (eternal). This is the uncaused cause that created the known universe. Being must be grounded in something that does not need to be grounded in something else. The universe cannot be this uncaused cause because it is changing and the ultimate cause must be unchanging, namely, have no potency for change (or anything). This is because it is in/subject to time, and time cannot be infinite. If time had no beginning we would not reach the present moment. In other words, as Aristotle and Aquinas put it, this being must be pure act, pure existence.

Doens´t change anything about the fact that creation process must be a temporal one (i.e. happen within time), if there is a state of the universe not existing and a state of the universe existing (and both are not eternal themselves). Whether it was "decreed from all eternity" (whatever that might mean) or not, doesn´t help to solve this dilemma.

There is no contradiction with an eternal being decreeing to create something that needs a beginning. In fact it is necessary for the above reasons.

there is no such thing as a state of the universe not existing. "not existing" is not a state, it is nothing.

The contradiction is there, as soon as you ascribe temporal actions to this being outside of time.

I did not ascribe temporal actions to this being that is outside of time. The fact that he created time does not make him subject to it. There was no "before" he created. It is a category mistake to say "what existed before time?" nothing temporal existed without the universe.

Happy Easter to you too, and thanks for the dialogue!

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

The only other alternative is to say that the universe is infinite, namely without a beginning. But what exists must have a cause. The series of causes cannot be infinite, for that would not account for the effect, namely, the universe. There must be a cause that does not need a cause. However, this cause must be uncaused, and unchanging, that is, outside, or not subject to time (eternal).

The uncaused, unchanging, eternal, cannot be a cause. Cause and effect are only in space-time(change).

The changeless cannot be a cause since there is no time-space(change) to produce an effect.

The eternal does not cause the temporal.
Eternal is eternal, no strings attached. It does not bring forth anything.

 

[Born_to_Lose_Live_to_Win]

What is eternal is necessarily outside of time. Whatever is outside of time is also outside of change, since change only occurs within time, that is, there is a before and an after. The universe is changing, therefore the universe is not outside of time (eternal), and is temporal.

I actually agree with the OP.
It is also my opinion that the perceived universe is changing and hence temporal and hence not real, since reality is eternal, unchanging, without attributes.

I just don't agree with the 'eternal(real) bringing forth this temporal(unreal)' argument of yours.

How can the real be a cause of this unreal?