Philosophical argument for the temporality of the universe

[k]

By asking this question I am assuming that you are trying to show a change (the relation of Lucifer) that occured outside of time. However, we have no way of knowing when Lucifer (Satan, since the name Lucifer is not in the original Hebrew, but is rather a translation from the Latin which simply means "Light-bearer.") was thrown out of heaven. For all we know, it could have been after the universe was created. Either way he existed in time, since they (the angels) are circumscribed to a particular location, and so they had to move, and to move implies a before and after, so the angels were in time. So no change is occuring outside of time.

Not quite....his getting tossed is not germane to the creation of the universe because he was in Heaven. Heaven does not exist in time, therefore, his change occurred outside of time.

 

[JBrian]

Not quite....his getting tossed is not germane to the creation of the universe because he was in Heaven. Heaven does not exist in time, therefore, his change occurred outside of time.

What reference are you refering to? And any creaure that is created, circumscribed to one place, and is subject to before and after is in time. God is not in time. Angels are in fact in time. There are many presuppositions concerning the fall of Satan. What reference are you looking at?

Remember, God does not just live in a place called heaven. Heaven is not eternal. Only God is eternal. He is not circumscribed to a place called heaven.

 

[k]

What reference are you refering to? And any creaure that is created, circumscribed to one place, and is subject to before and after is in time. God is not in time. Angels are in fact in time. There are many presuppositions concerning the fall of Satan. What reference are you looking at?

Remember, God does not just live in a place called heaven. Heaven is not eternal. Only God is eternal. He is not circumscribed to a place called heaven.

Heaven is not eternal? It's going to take some time for me to get my mind wrapped around that concept.

 

[JBrian]

Heaven is not eternal? It's going to take some time for me to get my mind wrapped around that concept.

What is your definition/concept of heaven? I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing. No place, person, or creature is eternal except God. There is no eternal place. Otherwise it would have been uncreated, like God. God is the only uncreated. Can you show me from Scripture that heaven is eternal?

 

[k]

What is your definition/concept of heaven? I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing. No place, person, or creature is eternal except God. There is no eternal place. Otherwise it would have been uncreated, like God. God is the only uncreated. Can you show me from Scripture that heaven is eternal?

Mt. 25:46 is one example and there are a plethora of "eternal" references in scripture.

Heaven is the complete and absolute absence of pain.

Why can't God create the eternal since it is..well...God? God is not restricted to our constructs of time/space so what could prevent?

We know from scripture that Lucifer was in heaven w/ God, and we see scripture is quite clear about heaven being eternal and it would fall into my second category of eternal, meaning the simple absence of time. God would fit into the first because it is the forever and ever, which would satisfy your criteria of God being uncreated.

 

[Exist]

Hah, I got the answer while I was drunk on sleeping pills a few nights ago.

however it is impossible for the universe be infinite, that is, infnite in time. An infinite has no beginning and no end. This moment is the end moment in time. If the universe has existed from the infinite past we never would have reached this moment. But we have, so it is not infinite regarding time.

Time has no beginning, as you said. Note that, then think of this:

We would never have reached this moment. We would never reach now....from where? You imply a journey, one that has a beginning and and end. You say that right now is the end, so when is the beginning? The start of time? There isn't one. So your question doesn't make sense unless you give us a starting point.

That seems to make sense to me, does it you? This discussion is strange to me, but it's good.

 

[JBrian]

Time has no beginning, as you said.

Thank you for your note. If I said that time has no beginning then I didn't mean to. Where did I say that?

Time does have a beginning, which is my whole argument. My thesis is that the universe can't be eternal. Something that is eternal does not have a beginning, but time does. Where did time begin? At the creation of the universe.

If time had no beginnning then we would never have reached this time.

Thanks again,

Brian

 

[Eudaimonist]

Time does have a beginning, which is my whole argument. My thesis is that the universe can't be eternal. Something that is eternal does not have a beginning, but time does. Where did time begin? At the creation of the universe.

If time has a beginning, the universe could be regarded as eternal. If the universe existed at t=0, then it would be uncreated, since there was no previous instant when it did not exist. The universe will always have been, which fits the concept of "eternal" quite well.

It may be that -- to reply more directly to the OP -- since time seems to be a property of the universe, the universe has an aspect of its nature that is "outside of time", since the universe is the context in which time has meaning, not the other way around.

 

[Exist]

If I said that time has no beginning then I didn't mean to. Where did I say that?

No, I'm sorry; I meant, in your argument, time has no beginning. I was following your argument, I just came up with a different conclusion. It isn't that the universe is eternal, it's that "an eternity ago" isn't a starting point.

The flaw isn't in the assumption (the universe is eternal), it's in the argument.

It's the same way with space. Infinite space all around us. We couldn't be "Right Here", because if we came from the left, an infinity away, then there would always be one more foot to go. Then another.

And you say that time only exists in the universe, I don't see how any change could occur outside of time. Speed = time x distance. If there is no time, there is no speed, no movement. Time measures the rate of change.

If God was doing one thing (creating light), and then he stopped doing that, and starting doing something else (creating men), then that is change. It followed a chronological time line. When He spoke directely to people, he said one word, and then another. There was change in God's actions.

A suspended, static God could not regret, could not act, could not create.

 

[Exist]

If time has a beginning, the universe could be regarded as eternal. If the universe existed at t=0, then it would be uncreated, since there was no previous instant when it did not exist. The universe will always have been, which fits the concept of "eternal" quite well.

I think I disagree with this. Time has existed for as long as time has existed; that doesn't mean that time is eternal (heh, even though time has existed "for all time"). There would be a definite starting point.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think I disagree with this. Time has existed for as long as time has existed; that doesn't mean that time is eternal (heh, even though time has existed "for all time"). There would be a definite starting point.

I'm not claiming that time is eternal.

 

[:æ:]

Something is eternal if it exists for all real time values. Since time is a feature of the universe, the universe must so exist. Therefore, the universe is eternal.

All of you making reference to "outside of time" must first demonstrate the validity of said reference before you can premise an argue upon it. AFAIK, using prepositions like "in" and "outside" to describe time iis nothing more than metaphor at best, and simply nonsensical at worst.

Keep in mind that space and time are not two separate things. Prepositions like "in" and "outside" describe relations IN space-time and are meaningless without the presupposed existence of space-time. Therefore speaking about being "outside time" seems about as meaningful as speaking about being "in the corner of the circle."

 

[Eudaimonist]

Something is eternal if it exists for all real time values. Since time is a feature of the universe, the universe must so exist. Therefore, the universe is eternal.

Precisely.

 

[quatona]

I think I disagree with this. Time has existed for as long as time has existed; that doesn't mean that time is eternal (heh, even though time has existed "for all time"). There would be a definite starting point.

What the heck does "starting point" even mean in the absence of time?

 

[:æ:]

Where did time begin? At the creation of the universe.

But there isn't any such event in evidence. Indeed, to identify such an event as the creation of the universe, we would need to obeserve the state of the universe's non-existence, and then a subsequent state of its existence. We have never observed the universe not existing, however, so we could not have observed its coming into existence.

If time had no beginnning then we would never have reached this time.

Why not? I've seen this asserted many times before, but I've never seen anyone successfully defend it.

 

[k]

Something is eternal if it exists for all real time values. Since time is a feature of the universe, the universe must so exist. Therefore, the universe is eternal.

All of you making reference to "outside of time" must first demonstrate the validity of said reference before you can premise an argue upon it. AFAIK, using prepositions like "in" and "outside" to describe time iis nothing more than metaphor at best, and simply nonsensical at worst.

Keep in mind that space and time are not two separate things. Prepositions like "in" and "outside" describe relations IN space-time and are meaningless without the presupposed existence of space-time. Therefore speaking about being "outside time" seems about as meaningful as speaking about being "in the corner of the circle."

How is time a feature of the universe?

Saying something is outside of time is not describing time at all, but simply addressing how it is an invention of the human mind.

How is space and time the same thing?

 

[Eudaimonist]

How is time a feature of the universe?

Change is a feature of the universe. Time is a measure of change.

How is space and time the same thing?

See Einstein's theory of relativity.

 

[k]

Change is a feature of the universe. Time is a measure of change.

So time is a human construct as a form of organizational comprehension in grasping the world around us. Change exists, but that is not inclusive for proving the existence of time.

See Einstein's theory of relativity.

I'm not asking Einstein, I'm asking the one who made the claim here on CF.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Blah. Eternal means 'all time'. The universe is necessarily eternal since it has existed for all time (time having begun with the universe).

It had a beginning.....thus it's not eternal, which means w/o beginning and end. Only God is that.

 

[quatona]

It had a beginning.....thus it's not eternal, which means w/o beginning and end. Only God is that.

The logical problem is, that in the absence of time nothing can begin.
Constituting that the universe had a beginning means stating that in the realm in which it began there must have been time. The coming into existence of the universe must have happened in an already existing time, else it could not have begun.
Whilst if we assume time to be a particular property of the universe (as opposed to the assumed realms that may or may not be there), then of course the universe has existed for all time.