You didn’t. I did, based on a classical definition of ‘change’. Time is a measure of change of physical objects. Without physical objects, there is no change, and no variable ‘time’ with which to measure change.
That is exactly the problem that you have noticed. Time should exist in order to allow us to define changes.
No. The ‘problem’ is that you’re asking the dimension of time to pre-exist creation. This is illogical.
And, when you force time to pre-exist creation, you run into what you perceive of as a ‘problem’. It’s not a ‘problem’; it’s a logical consequence of creation ex nihilo. It doesn’t cause issues.
No. Your difficulty is that you’re not grasping the metaphysics of ‘coming into being’, and are attempting to conflate ‘coming into being’ with other changes (in which already-existing objects change). Until you come to grips with ‘coming into being’, you’ll continue to fail to understand why this does not present a problem with the dimension of the universe known as ‘time’.
The universe has existed for a finite amount of time. There was never a mount of time when the universe did not exist.
Always is a tricky word because it’s ultimately ordered to speaking temporally. But if something has existed for “all-time” that doesn’t mean that time is infinite. The primary meaning of “God is eternal” is not that God has existed for infinite time. It’s that God is unchanging and has no cause.
This moment is as much an act of creation as the first moment of the universe. It’s not any less. God is the creator because the existence of everything is dependent upon His will that it exists. It’s not comparable to a watchmaker fashioning a clock. If you only think of creation or causation in that sense you’ll never grasp God as the creator.
“Change” and “act” are tricky concepts within the framework of eternity. That’s why I am trying to work out a broader understanding of creation as a fact, not an act.
Something exists; that is a fact. How it exists is debatable. To say it “was created” is putting it in human (time/change) terms. To say it “is created” may be closer to the fundamental truth of existence. I believe it may be understood outside the framework of time.
The reason I am trying to take time out of the picture is physics. Time is closely tied to space. In the Special and General Theories of Relativity, time and space are both flexible and to some extent interchangeable.
Most crucial to your argument, Special Relativity explains that the order of events in time – that is, which of two events precedes the other – depends on the reference frame. This does not affect causality, but it makes time look like a poor frame of reference in philosophical arguments.
Yes! We see acts as points in time. Creation is maybe better understood as a relationship than as an act.
I think a lot of us grew up with an image of the Three Persons of the Trinity ‘sitting around’ surrounded by nothing and then suddenly saying, “Huh! Wouldn’t it be cool if We created some stuff! Let’s start now.”
But that’s just our projection onto ‘eternity’. We have no reason to suggest that God was ‘ever’ not creating. God creates. This isn’t an act in time; it’s the nature of the relationship.
What you call the “contradiction” only shows that your “model” is useless, STT. If you provided the first steps of your… reasoning, perhaps you would understand why (but I am not sure):
You needed to proceed like this:
At a given time t0, the “state of existence” of the universe is S. At another time t1 it is S’.
Then you needed to think of a kind of average rate of change of such “state of existence” (whatever that means), like this:
R = (S’ - S)/ (t1 - t0)
The time interval could be as short as you want. That way, you could think on an instantaneous rate of change at the time t0 (for example). You just needed to take the limit of the average rate of change when the time interval tends to 0. That would be the definition of your derivative dS/dt.
Then you think, “what if the time t0 is the “moment when there was” no time” (crazy idea!, but anyhow, who cares!). That would be the “moment” of creation A(S), right?
However, every rate of change involves time! And here you get confused (which could be a good sign!, but not always), and instead of concluding “I am making no sense!”, you prefer to announce: “Here, I am demonstrating that time cannot be created!”
Did you pretend to look smart and elegant using mathematical symbols, STT?
I think your definition of “creation” is too narrow. It has other connotations. For instance, the Law of Conservation of Energy contrasts “creation” with “change” when it asserts that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather it can only be changed from one form to another. Yet, even within this connotation, the context is physics, whereas when God creates, it is ex nihilo, which is necessarily beyond-physics.
I think creation is more commonly defined as “bringing something into existence.”
Moreover, “time” can also be seen as an ambiguous term that can have different connotations. The ancient Greeks, for example, had two words for “time.”. Chronos is quantitative and means linear, chronological time. Kairos is qualitative and means an opportune moment.
In the New Testament, “kairos” means “the appointed time in the purpose of God”, the time when God acts (e.g. Mark 1:15: the kairos is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand).
God created from nothing, even before chronos existed, at the opportune moment, i.e. kairos.
Maybe his creation is unchanging to him as well. We are temporal so things come and go and things change. Maybe for God it is different, seeing the whole of his creation from beginning to end. For us, because of when we exist in the creation, it appears incomplete and maybe even in jeopardy. Yet, since there is only one Almighty God, he creates what he wills.
These I understand and there is a problem within. I first said that there was a point that God was alone and you said no. Then I ask what is the act of creation then and you answer accordingly. The reality is the the concept of the act of creation is not coherent if God was not alone before.
Time is a dimension. The universe consists of three spacial dimensions and one temporal dimension. Time differs from the spacial dimensions in that particles with mass can only travel in one direction in time but can travel in both directions in spacial dimensions. Time differs from spacial dimensions by a factor of the imaginary unit. The result is that events can be defined according to their separation in spacetime: those with a timelike interval have a clearly defined sequence, and there exists a reference frame where both events occur in the same place but no reference frame where they occur at the same time. Events with a spacelike interval do not have a defined sequence, and there exists a reference frame where both events occur at the same time, but not one where they occur at the same place. Lastly, there are events separated by a lightlike interval, where a ray from one event intersects the other event. Creation occurs in the finite past of every event, though different observers may disagree about how much time has elapsed since Creation.
Let’s discuss it then. Take this example: you have a body at rest. Then, suddenly it starts moving vertically, in free fall, under the attraction of the Earth. Obviously there is a change in its state of movement: first it is not moving, then it is moving. What is the time elapsed between those two states?