# Time cannot be created

#162

As I explained before the time elapse between two states of affair cannot be zero since the system becomes ill-defined. Let put things into equation: Suppose that you are dealing with free fall as you are interested. The change in position as I discussed is dx=a*dt^2/2. You get dx=0 if you set dt=0 or in another world dx is not zero only if dt is not zero. In simple word you cannot have dx=/=0 with dt=0.

My conclusion follows if we can agree on the previous comment.

#163

I think we can mathematically define such a state as we can understand it well.

Moreover, all arguments in favor of existing of God that start with this assumption are wrong too if you believe so. There is no first uncauses cause.

#164

Atemporally. Prior in the order of creation, but not chronologically. The assertion is philosophical, not biological / empirical.

It’s because I disagree with your premises that I disagree with your conclusion. If one finds a faulty premise, it’s not necessary to consider all the subsequent steps that lead to the conclusion: one may declare that the conclusion is faulty due to an error in the premise.

#165

Hmmn, I take it then that in your mind, ‘time’ and ‘infinity/eternity’ are just different names for the same state/set of dimensions?

If that is so, then how come anything that is physical and temporal can exist, given that it would take ‘infinity amount of time’ to get to it?

It also seems to me to be irrational and illogical for ‘stuff’ to pop-up from total nothingness. Things cannot be ‘partly’ acaused - to in effect have physical and temporal acausality.

#166

All you say is so wrong!

A constant acceleration is defined as the first derivative of velocity with respect to time or as the second derivative of displacement with respect to time. In my example we are interested on the first definition, because I want to make you reflect on what happens when the velocity changes from a positive value (first state of motion), to 0 m/s (second state of motion), then to a negative value (third state of motion).

If you do the integral of the first derivative you will get the following equation:

v = v0 + a*t

Where
t: time
v: velocity at time t
v0: initial velocity
a: acceleration

Which is the equation of a straight line. For a body that moves vertically upwards under the influence of gravity, “a” is a negative constant. As “a” plays the role of the slope of the line in our equation, velocity “v” is always decreasing starting from its initial value “v0”. It is 0 m/s when

v0 = a*t

That is to say

v = 0 when t = v0/a

At this very instant the body is at rest (v = 0 m/s)

For any other time different from t = v0/a, no matter how close it is from this value, the body is already moving (either upwards [v > 0m/s] for a time less than “v0/a”, or downwards [v < 0m/s] for a time greater than “v0/a”).

Therefore, from a mathematical point of view, the change from a positive velocity to 0m/s, and from here to a negative velocity happens in absolutely no time.

Therefore, it is not true that “All change involves time”.

#168

What prior means here?

You are doing is opposite of you should do my friend. So the conclusion and say that premises is wrong without being able to show that what is wrong in premise: There was a point that God was alone.

#169

I understand that time, infinity and eternity are different concepts.

Time has simply a beginning. But it is not created.

Uncause cause is strange to me too. We uncause cause any time that we decide. One might be able to create things. We also create things, such as concepts, too. What I am arguing in here is time cannot be created or be a component of creation since the act of creation by itself is temporal.

#170

It is not wrong. Anybody with a little knowledge of physics know that x=a*^2/2+v0t+x0. v0 is wrong for a body which start falling therefore x=at^2/2+ x0 or delta x=at^2/2. Initial time is zero in here therefore we can write delta x=a(delta t)^2/2. In the limit that delta t is small, dt, we have dx=a*dt^2/2.

You forget that v0 and t in the equation, t = v0/a, are time respect to initial time, t=t-0=t-t0=delta t, and v0=v0-v=deltat v where v is zero. One can write your equation as dv=a*dt for any instant. It is obvious that dv=0 when dt=0.

Therefore my conclusion follows.

#171

Are you assuming that “nothing” is a state in reality, or that it’s part of existence? If so this is not how philosophy defines “nothing”

“Nothing” is not merely an empty black-holish void, rather it’s the total lack or absence of anything, thus completely unobservable. It can’t change because there’s no thing to be changed.

Time isn’t needed here because nothing is changing because there is nothing to change. God, Who is transcendent Being Itself, is able to cause nothing to become something and out of that comes change.

“Eternity moved and said to time: ‘Begin.’ Omnipotence moved and said to nothingness: ‘Be.’ Light moved and said to darkness: ‘Be Light.’ Out from the finger-tips of God there tumbled planets and worlds.” —Fulton J. Sheen

#172

STT - You claim that time has a beginning, but is not created - if that was/is so, do you literally mean out of, and by means of, nothing? If not by means of nothing - then by what means?

Uncaused cause - is not only strange, but appears to be nonsensical - that opens up a whole can of legalistic worms just for starters - it also causes to question not only cause, but the why of ‘effect’, and the why of ‘laws’.

We cannot ‘create’ concepts, the emergence of ‘concepts’ are part and parcel of, and reliant upon previous caused effects - PLUS to my mind the inputs of that singular acaused ‘ENTITY’, that I AM, referred to as God.

#173

I am arguing that nothing is state of being otherwise the act of creation is meaningless. The act of creation is related to a change. We know that the universe is outcome of act creation. The question is outcome from what? Of course nothingness. No change no creation, as plain as that.

Yes, nothing cannot change but that is not what we are arguing about.

I can argue that time is needed for any change. But that is the second step. The first step is to answer to the first question that whether creation is about a change?

You are using time to explain the act of creation in the same time claiming that time is part of creation.

#174

No, I am not saying that there was nothing then time. I am saying what we are trying to define as act of creation requires time still insisting that time is a part of creation. That is clearly a contradiction. What I am arguing is that time cannot be created at all. Time however has a beginning. As plain as that.

Well, I am amused with the eternal uncaused cause act of creation. How a timeless act can manifest itself to temporal acts? I think people who accept this don’t understand the implication of their claim. The burden to show that such a thing is possible is of course on their shoulders.

So God puts things inside our mouth? I don’t think so.

#175

It means that God creates. It means that He creates atemporally (since the dimension of ‘time’ doesn’t exist until creation exists). So, if you want to claim that God is subject to time, you have to make an argument that is metaphysically coherent, and is nuanced beyond a simplistic understanding of ‘time’ that is bound to our human experience within the framework of space-time.

No – I agree with your premise, as stated. However, I disagree with the implication that you’re attempting to foist upon us: that is, that in saying ‘point’, we mean ‘point in time’. We do not agree with you in that assertion.

So, what I’m doing isn’t opposite, but is consistent with good logic: I’m demonstrating to you that your premise is in error – that is, that God is constrained by His creation (namely, ‘time’).

#176

If the body is at rest at t1 = 0 and the body moves at t = t2, then the time elapsed is t2 - t1 or just t2 in this case.

#177

Not necessarily. If there is a contradiction in the assumption, then it does not destroy omnipotence of God. for example, it is wrong to say that God is not omnipotent because He cannot create a perfectly round square.

#178

That may or may not be true. For example, if the universe is cyclical, with consecutive Big Bangs and subsequent Big Crunches, then there would not be a time when the universe did not exist.

#179

Generally speaking you are right. there is a limiting value, but the function may not be defined at the point of interest. Take for example the function y(x) = (x^2 - 1)/ (x-1). There is no value of y for x = 1. I.e., y(1) does not exist. However, the limit as x ->1 of y(x) does exist and equals 2.

#180

Yes. That is correct.

#181

Time is nothing more than a human derived measurement to help assist us make some sense of the universe and our purpose within it. Trying to explain creation by using a measurement of time anthropomorphizes God IMO and is something we won’t figure out in this life

#182

Look how I am not asking how long does it take for a body to move from one position to another. Of course, no matter how fast the body is, or how short the distance, the change in position will take a finite time.

Also, I am not asking how long does it take for a body to increase its velocity from an initial value to a final one. Of course, no matter how great the acceleration is, or how small the difference between the initial and final velocity, the change in velocity will take a finite time.

What I am asking is how long does it take for a body at rest to start moving. This is a change in the state of motion of a body. And I am proposing as a context the example of a body that suffers a vertical shot (with an initial velocity v0): it moves upwards (positive velocity) and as it is under the influence of gravity (acceleration “g”), the magnitude of its velocity decreases until it is 0m/s. Then it starts moving downwards (negative velocity) at increasing speeds. So, a question considering this example would be: How long does it take for the body to change its velocity from positive to negative. And the answer is “it takes no time!”, because for any time you conceive less than “v0/g” (no matter how close it is to this value) it still has a positive velocity; and for any time greater than “v0/g” (no matter how close it is to this value) it already has a negative velocity.

There is nothing strange in the example. Actually, there is nothing as common as this: whatever body which is at rest and starts moving, the change in its state of motion from “rest” to “moving” happens in no time.

This is a parallel to what STT says: First the universe is not; then, as a consequence of the act of creation, it becomes. He says, “there is a change in the “state of existence” of the universe: first it is not, then it is; therefore time is involved”. As this is not obvious, he wants to support his conclusion saying that “all change involves time”. So, if the act of creation is a change in the “state of existence” it involves time. Then he concludes: “time was already there at the act of creation; therefore time was not created”. This is sophistry (and funny).

Continues…

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.