Time cannot be created


#223

No doubt it would; but let’s complete this part of the discussion first, which corresponds to the discrete case.

So, if what you say is rigorous, there can be movement within a Plank time period. And if there is movement it is posible and meaninful to say that something exists within that period. Do you want to correct something of what you have said so far?


#224

A by-product of ‘creation’ or of the ‘created universe’? I guess that’s one way to think about it. Time is a dimension of the universe, and therefore, it proceeds only within the scope of the created universe.

That would be an assertion that’s somewhat problematic, don’t you think? After all, the will of God is prior to the universe, and after the end of the world, the will of God continues to exist. However, ‘time’ – as the temporal dimension within creation – only has existence within the context of the present universe. So, if you want to say “God willed the universe, and as a result, He willed ‘time’”, then that sounds reasonable; however, if you say “the temporal dimension proceeds directly from God’s will”, then you could be opening a can of worms…

That would seem to play into @STT’s mistakes, since he would be able to say “well, if time is an experience of change, then it must exist in the context of the change from ‘non-existing universe’ to ‘universe in existence’”. I would hold that assertion to be in error.

Erm… no. At least, not strictly speaking. Humans are a product of creation, not co-creators of it. (Yes, we act freely within creation, giving rise to changes within it… but we were not involved in the creation ex nihilo of all that exists.)

You’re talking about a different type of creation than the subject at hand. :wink:


#225

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).


#226

Time doesn’t cause anything. Time allows causation.


#227

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


#228

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


#229

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.


#230

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?


#231

directionality? temporality?

The uncaused cause is perfect as is.


#232

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.


#233

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.


#234

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


#235

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


#236

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?


#237

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?


#238

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.


#239

refers back to post 231 Time cannot be created

what’s your point Re: directionality? temporality?


#240

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.


#241

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.


#242

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).


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.