Time cannot be created


Time doesn’t cause anything. Time allows causation.


There is distinction between them since there are conscious beings in the first one which we cannot program them because they can decide.


Do we have a sense of directionality and temporality in an act including the act of creation, the uncaused cause?


That’s not my point. My point is that you’re positing two distinct entities that you are claiming are uncreated. If God is the ‘unmoved mover’ (by virtue of his omni-'s), then there cannot be another that is not created by him. Therefore, contradiction.


The way you frame these up is problematic; it implies some sort of temporal framework. You cannot posit a temporal framework (even by implication) if your goal is to prove the temporal framework. It’s a circular argument. It fails by definition. :man_shrugging:

“Follows” in what way?

A ‘point’ on what kind of line?


directionality? temporality?

The uncaused cause is perfect as is.


What I am trying to show is that it is impossible to perform an act without time. You are facing a contradiction if you are trying to think so.


There is no temporality in this step. Can you show it to me?

One comes after another.

No line. Just reach from one point to another point.


What that supposed to mean? Perfect. You are not answering my questions.


That seems right. I don’t see how you can do anything if there is no time to do it?


For STT, time is a kind of intangible substance. It seemed to me that your notion was more rational, as you did not have any comment on the interpretation I made of one of your explanations: time would be our act of comparing one movement or change against another movement that features the peculiarity of periodicity. Did you change your mind?


You are positing “points” with implicit time. Moreover…

…this only happens if there is ‘time’. See what I mean? Your argument is bound up in implicit references to a temporal framework!!!

Again… physical things that ‘reach’ and do so ‘from’ and ‘to’ require time. If you’re trying to prove that there’s time within the created universe, then your argument works. It fails because you’re working outside the created universe. :wink:

Great. And if your argument went something like:

  1. Let’s suppose that there is no temporal framework prior to creation.
  2. … blah blah blah…
  3. But this requires time. Therefore, there’s a contradiction. Therefore, time must exist prior to creation.

… now, that would be an argument with some force behind it. However, your argument looks like this:

  1. Let’s suppose that there is no temporal framework prior to creation.
  2. State S’ follows state S (as in a temporal framework).
  3. blah blah blah
  4. But this requires time. Therefore, there’s a contradiction. Therefore, time must exist prior to creation.

This argument doesn’t work, because – although your first premise is that there’s no temporal framework (after all, that’s what sets you up for showing the contradiction) – your following premises rely on exactly the opposite premise. Therefore, you’re proving that time exists through premises that presume (implicitly) that time exists.

See the problem here?


Giant begging the question fallacy via equivocation, equating essence to substance (measurement/the equation itself) and presuming time cannot itself cannot be a function, or measurement, of any other variable.


refers back to post 231 Time cannot be created

what’s your point Re: directionality? temporality?


Hello and good day:
Not sure, but I suspect that there are more aspects of time than just one way of looking at it. There is a similar situation with light. Although it may seem contradictory, light can be viewed as either a particle or a wave.


Yes, a movement against another movement and this movement against another movement and … To measure time. That is infinite regress. We are aware of duration. Duration is simply time elapsed between two events in a specific system, standard clock. It is real since allows that the events happen with a specific order.


The necessity of time comes in the last step of my argument if you read it carefully! :wink: You need to show that where is the time in the first and second premises. Time implicitly enters when we assume that there was a uncaused cause which caused change between point one and two. I repeat the argument in the last part of this post.

That is the conclusion. If you don’t like that argument then you have to show that one of the step before is wrong.

That is not really an argument. The key question is whether nonphysical things decide and act.

Well, then you have to show that the rest of my argument is blah blah: I repeat them again for sake of clarity and in regards to my previous comments.

Well, lets see if we could accept these facts: (1) You accept that there was/is a point at which only God exists, (2) You accept the fact that there was/is a point at which God plus creation exist. (3) Well these are two separate points otherwise the existence is ill-defined. (4) You only have two separate points which are not causally related unless you accept that there was an act. (5) The act of creation comes with a sense of directionality, one state follows another one, otherwise there was no act. (6) Now let me know that how you could reach from one point to another without sense of temporality. It should take a while to reach from one point into another otherwise either two points coincides (well we have problem with 3) or you can never reach from one into another (act cannot be fulfilled).


I am afraid that it doesn’t help if you don’t elaborate. The discussion was long and I am not sure if you followed all posts.


Actually, Georgias, the first premise is vicious: when STT says “Let’s suppose that there is no temporal framework prior to creation”, he is already affirming what he supposedly intended to put in suspense.


I don’t know what happens there, but in this part of the world we do measurements this way: if we want to know what the length of an object is, we compare it against another object that we have adopted as a reference. We have adopted a unit system in which the basic unit of length is called “meter”. Nothing prevent us from doing as many comparisons as we wish, but if we just want to know the length of a given object we just do one. It is because we are very smart.

We also compare velocities. And to do that we have adopted another reference. We call it a “second”. What is it? It is, for example, one turn of one of the hands of my watch. So, if I observe that an object moves a distance of 20 meters while the hand of my watch gives 10 turns, I say that the object had a speed of 2 m/s (two meters per second). I am comparing the linear velocity of the object against the angular velocity of the hand of my watch. I could also use as a reference the tangential velocity of the hand of my watch, but I still would call it a"second". As in the case of distances, nothing prevent us from comparing indefinitely, but as we are smart people we don’t do that when we just want to know the velocity of a given object. Our extended practice and our common sense have shown us that that would be unnecessary and even preposterous.

Sometimes we use the expresión “to measure time”, but we know what we are talking about; and nobody here pretends that there is a kind of thing called “time” that we can take piece by piece and measure with the movement of our watch. That makes no sense.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.