What was God doing?

[JimL]

Can you please try and quote where you think I have made this argument? It seems like you are completely missing the point about temporality.

This is the quote you referenced: "If time itself came into existence, then it makes no sense to ask what came before time." The inference being, that there is no before time. Now I know the argument is that god exists outside of time, but no matter how you look at it, if you are going to argue that god exists, and that he created the universe, then even if he exists outside of that universe of time, he has to have had to exist, in some sense, before he created it. If your argument is that there is no before time then how do you square that circle?

[JimL]

let's turn it around. If time came into existence when the singularity happened at the big bang, how long did it just sit there not exploding? why didn't it explode sooner? It is a nonsense question just like the OP

That doesn't even make sense Sparko. Whether the bang was instantaneous, or the singularity just sat there for a while, the beginning of time would be the same in both cases. To ask how long the singularity just sat there not exploding, implies that time passed as it sat there.

[JimL]

If anything existed, even God, then there was in some sense time. There would be a "before" to creation else we argue that God 'started' at the beginning of Creation, which we wouldn't argue.

God was creating, is creating, and will be creating.

So your argument would be that time was not created along with the creation of universe, that time, like god himself, is past eternal. Doesn't the notion of time and creation being past eternal change the whole christian conception of god and his relationship to this universe and human beings as being perfect and special? I think also that the notion of god as being in time changes the whole dynamic, makes him one with the universe, thus destroying the concept of god and creator altogether.

[JimL]

No, he's clearly saying that you can apply the term, and implying that some sort of nebulous contradiction exists, and that anyway Christians are somehow obligated to provide an account of what happened before, or God does not exist or something.

No, what I'm suggesting is that it makes no sense to say that there was no before the universe of time, that the concept of before time makes no sense, while at the same time asserting that a timeless creator existed before he created time. How do you square that circle? How can a timeless entity exist before time, when the term before itself implies time?

[JimL]

No, you have not understood me correctly. I have not argued that God existed before the [temporal] universe. It makes no sense to speak of before temporality.

Well if god the creator didn't exist before his creation, then how did he create it?

[Leonhard]

Well if god the creator didn't exist before his creation, then how did he create it?

We've already said He exists timelessly with the creation of the universe. There's no time at which God does not exist, and you don't have to be temporally prior to something to be a cause. In fact in physics all physical causes are entirely localized, even temporally, their continuously evolving result of their effects exist simultaneously with the causes. If an electron is accelerated its physics doesn't wait a discrete amount of time before bremsstrahlung radiation occurs, that happens immediately. By analogy, God caused the universe to exist simultaneously with its beginning.

In fact I'd go further and say God causes the universe to exist at all points in time, and its maintained in existence by His one constant act.

When we talk about God existing 'before time', we're definitely *not* talking about that in a temporal sense. You're insisting that 'before' should here only be as 'in time'. If all you're concerned about is a quibble about terminology, then we can switch to terms you can better stomach, but there isn't really a problem here.

Source: St. Thomas Aquinas, Compendium Theologiae 98

(emphasis added)

© Copyright Original Source

[robrecht]

This is the quote you referenced: "If time itself came into existence, then it makes no sense to ask what came before time." The inference being, that there is no before time. Now I know the argument is that god exists outside of time, but no matter how you look at it, if you are going to argue that god exists, and that he created the universe, then even if he exists outside of that universe of time, he has to have had to exist, in some sense, before he created it. If your argument is that there is no before time then how do you square that circle?

I don't. I take it you have, as I asked, tried to quote me making the argument you assumed I made and were unable to do so. It would be polite for you to acknowledge this.

You assert that if one is going to argue that god exists, and that he created the universe, then even if he exists outside of that universe of time, he has to have had to exist, in some sense, before he created it. For your own parameters of the argument to be coherent, you seem to require some sense of 'before' that cannot be taken in its normal, temporal sense.

Well if god the creator didn't exist before his creation, then how did he create it?

Apparently, atemporally.

The real issue here is that you do not believe in an atemporal origin of the temporal universe, even aside from any question of God, as we have already seen here. This issue would be much more interestingly discussed between you and Hawking or Vilenken, if you are up to it, rather than with theists who have no more expertise in theoretical physics and cosmology than yourself.

[guacamole]

So your argument would be that time was not created along with the creation of universe, that time, like god himself, is past eternal.

I suppose it's akin to saying something like co-eternal. Time and logic are not created things because
They are not things; they are descriptions of potential change, change, and relationship.

Doesn't the notion of time and creation being past eternal change the whole christian conception of god and his relationship to this universe and human beings as being perfect and special?

I don't know why that would be the case. There are other created beings with whom god has a relationship.

I think also that the notion of god as being in time changes the whole dynamic, makes him one with the universe, thus destroying the concept of god and creator altogether.

It seems to me like you are making a pointless objection here about specialness. My reply is that it doesn't matter. It is what it is. If it means ground of being, then it does.

Sorry if I'm coming across as overly abrupt but I'm on my phone and philosophy on my phone is frustrating.

[Bisto]

For those of you who believe that the universe was created 14 billion years ago by an eternally existing deity, I'm wondering what it is you think that deity was doing for that eternal duration prior to that creation?

2) Time came into being with the Act of Creation, and in that case the question 'What did God do before He created the universe' commits the same mistake as asking 'What's south of the South Pole?'

Let's build a spatial analogy. Imagine a world conqueror whose troops always marched from the South. Following Leonhard's thought, this would mean his conquest started in the South Pole. Is it right to ask what cardinal direction did his army come from prior to that? Apparently not, and it's obvious that thinking "south from there" is equivocal.

Maybe the correct answer to where they came from is "up"; the guy's army came from outer space, and they just happened to arrive on the South Pole. The point is that this plausibly correct answer discards the cardinal directions system, and it's a category mistake to assert that where they came from is "farther South". To try and keep framing the "Where were they?" question in cardinal-directions terms is incoherent.


And this is the same stuff. 'Wherever' God was/existed 'prior' to Creation, it was simply outside our space-time framework and to think of it in temporal terms is nonsensical, just as thinking an army's location previous to arrival to a planet's South Pole in terms of North-South terms is nonsensical.


After reading through that "Misuse of science" thread, I thought both sides would be clear on this...?

[37818]

For those of you who believe that the universe was created 14 billion years ago by an eternally existing deity, I'm wondering what it is you think that deity was doing for that eternal duration prior to that creation?

Well, if God made infinite creations with no first creation (John 1:3), how would that change the problem you are having with not knowing what God did prior to creating this creation?

". . . Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. . . ." -- Psalm 90:2.

[JimL]

We've already said He exists timelessly with the creation of the universe. There's no time at which God does not exist, and you don't have to be temporally prior to something to be a cause. In fact in physics all physical causes are entirely localized, even temporally, their continuously evolving result of their effects exist simultaneously with the causes. If an electron is accelerated its physics doesn't wait a discrete amount of time before bremsstrahlung radiation occurs, that happens immediately. By analogy, God caused the universe to exist simultaneously with its beginning.

In fact I'd go further and say God causes the universe to exist at all points in time, and its maintained in existence by His one constant act.

When we talk about God existing 'before time', we're definitely *not* talking about that in a temporal sense. You're insisting that 'before' should here only be as 'in time'. If all you're concerned about is a quibble about terminology, then we can switch to terms you can better stomach, but there isn't really a problem here.

Source: St. Thomas Aquinas, Compendium Theologiae 98

(emphasis added)

© Copyright Original Source

Excuse me, but please explain if you will what is meant by a timeless entity, and how it can be both timeless and changeless and also be responsible for change. Even if I concede to you the argument that cause and effect occur simultaneously, that simultanaity takes place in time and is the result of the continuity of previous actions through time. So how does that work with a cause that is itself timeless and changeless? How do you explain the eternal timeless nature of an entity, i.e an entity that doesn't change, alongside of your explanation of the change that must take place in that entity with its creation? It seems to be an argument based on the idea that the universe and time are as eternal as its cause because no change takes place in the cause. It seems to me that you can't have it both ways, either the universe and time are past eternal, and so in need of no cause, or there was a change that took place in its cause when it created, and change implies that the cause would itself be subject to time.

[Bisto]

Excuse me, but please explain if you will what is meant by a timeless entity, and how it can be both timeless and changeless and also be responsible for change. Even if I concede to you the argument that cause and effect occur simultaneously, that simultanaity takes place in time and is the result of the continuity of previous actions through time. So how does that work with a cause that is itself timeless and changeless? How do you explain the eternal timeless nature of an entity, i.e an entity that doesn't change, alongside of your explanation of the change that must take place in that entity with its creation? It seems to be an argument based on the idea that the universe and time are as eternal as its cause because no change takes place in the cause. It seems to me that you can't have it both ways, either the universe and time are past eternal, and so in need of no cause, or there was a change that took place in its cause when it created, and change implies that the cause would itself be subject to time.

Is that always true? A speaker can give a speech stating his views and not changing himself at all but causing changes in someone listening. In general, information can be shared without changing its source (e.g. you don't lose information as you give it). I wonder how that may play into a divine creation model ("by His word", anyone?).

By the way, does this understanding of God's causal relationship with creation even allow for God to do anything at all within time in creation? A miracle? A prophecy? Do these things change God too, in your opinion?

[Leonhard]

Hi JimL, your demands are kinda fractured so I'll try to make brief responses to them individually, since I doubt you expect a full answer to them. Otherwise tell me which of these you'd rather focus on.

... please explain ... what is meant by a timeless entity,

A being unlimited by time, subject to no change in relation to anything that is undergoing change. Since God is pure actuality, having no potentiality by necessity of being the Prime Mover, He cannot undergo change. Therefore He is immutable. A corollary shows that God is the only being that has this property.

and how it can be both timeless and changeless and also be responsible for change.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'how' here. Do you want a recipe? There is no reason to assume that a being who is the cause of an effect undergoes change. If you disagree, give an argument to the contrary.

Even if I concede to you the argument that cause and effect occur simultaneously, that simultanaity takes place in time and is the result of the continuity of previous actions through time.

Do you have an argument, or only appeals to incredulity?

So how does that work with a cause that is itself timeless and changeless?

I'm not even sure what you're asking at this point, you seem to be moving words around in the same question. God caused a change, and wasn't changed by causing that.

How do you explain the eternal timeless nature of an entity,

God's nature is unknowable in and of itself. By natural reason we can only know what God isn't, and understand Him by analogy. We know God is immutable for instance. So while I can know that God is timeless, knowing what that means from God's perspective is an infinitely deep mystery.

alongside of your explanation of the change that must take place in that entity with its creation

Like with robrecht, you're attributing something to me I haven't argued. I've specifically said that God did not undergo change when He created the world. That would be impossible, as per the argument from motion. God is pure actuality, without accidents: There's no other way He could be, and nothing He could change into. I emphasise this a bit strongly, because you're not going to understand what I say, until you understand this. God does not change. Not now, not at the moment of the creation of the world, not at the end of time.

It seems to be an argument based on the idea that the universe and time are as eternal as its cause

On the contrary, only God is eternal. And I have never claimed that the universe or time are eternal. Though perhaps you meant 'past-infinite'.

It seems to me that you can't have it both ways, either the universe and time are past eternal, and so in need of no cause

On the contrary, even a past-infinite universe would still be in need of a cause for its existence. There is no such thing as existential inertia. If the universe has a beginning, then of course, God is the cause of that beginning. If the universe had no beginning, then God would be the cause of it being in existence. The argument from motion makes no assumptions about temporal history, separating it from the cosmological arguments. It's based on the nature of motion, and what is required for anything to change.

The universe changes, something of pure actuality must exist, and this we call God.

The topic of the argument from motion, and argument from existence are some of my favorites.

[Jedidiah]

Excuse me, but please explain if you will what is meant by a timeless entity, . . .

If you have you ever read "Flatland" look at it from that perspective. If not give it read.

[Tassman]

A being unlimited by time, subject to no change in relation to anything that is undergoing change. Since God is pure actuality, having no potentiality by necessity of being the Prime Mover, He cannot undergo change. Therefore He is immutable. A corollary shows that God is the only being that has this property.

The postulated existence of an Unmoved Mover violates the argument's own fundamental premise, namely that everything which initiates change must have been initiated in some way itself. This principle must therefore be applied to the Prime Mover as well. There is no logical reason why we should stop applying this principle at this or any other point. otherwise it's fallacy of Special Pleading.

On the contrary, even a past-infinite universe would still be in need of a cause for its existence. There is no such thing as existential inertia. If the universe has a beginning, then of course, God is the cause of that beginning. If the universe had no beginning, then God would be the cause of it being in existence. The argument from motion makes no assumptions about temporal history, separating it from the cosmological arguments. It's based on the nature of motion, and what is required for anything to change.

The universe changes, something of pure actuality must exist, and this we call God.