The creation of time and space? What!

[JimL]

Disingenuous, Jim. You're moving the goalposts, nowhere in the OP do you mention 'creation ex nihilo period'; and your OP is clearly meant to be talking about the Christian God

No, not disingenuous at all, the idea of creation by a God is creation ex nihilo, creation out of nothing. Creation by God is not the mere forming and shaping of that which already exists, it is the bringing into existence that which didn't exist before. That applies to the christian idea of God yes, but it applies to the general idea of Gods and creation as well.

Nice one! Your first sentence denies what you affirm in the second sentence.

Of course it does, thats the point Max. If they are united as one, then they move as one. That is why you need to unite them as one in order to make your point, because you understand that unless they are joined together as one your example of logically prior causation fails. God in your view is not only logically prior as your arm is logically prior to your hand, or your hand is to the grasped stick, god accoding to your view is distinct from and temporally prior from his creation. Your analogy doesn't fit the facts of the case we are discussing.

Stop right there, Jim. I am only talking about casual priority, trying to explain that to you.

I understand that and have answered it reasonably as above. It is now for you to dispute my answer to you.

No content, just blank assertions that the Christian position is wrong. That requires no response, since it's not an argument, nor does it engage in a meaningful way with what I said.

I disagree, your analogy of the united hand, stick, stone causation to Gods creative act is one that unites God to his creation as one and the same thing whereas the true idea of creation is that God is distinct from his creation.

Cow Poke was right. You're acting like a Your objections boil down to: "I don't understand it! It makes no sense to me (because I can't be bothered trying to understand it), so it must be wrong!"

Thats pathetic Max. I have answered your objections and given you reasoned objections of my own to your ideas. How is that trolling?

[robertb]

I'm afraid that we are talking about two different things rb, I am talking creation, you are talking about giving form to that which already exists. A scientist in another universe, perhaps creating a black hole leading to our universe, is not a God, he is not creating out of nothing. A short time ago I remember there was fear that the scientist at the LHC would do just that, but I don't think we would consider them to be Gods for that.

Then this is a new argument. Let me remind you of your OP.

If God existed before the universe existed, then how can God have created time? Doesn't the fact that God existed "before" his creation and that the universe existed "after" God, imply that time existed with God? Doesn't a universe that did not exist "before" but now exists "after" imply the existence of time previous to the creation of the universe? And what about space? If God created space, where was he before he created it? Seems to me that the more logical argument is that spacetime always existed.

I'll take your questions one at a time.

If God existed before the universe existed, then how can God have created time?

It is possible that there are multiple instances (in the sense that one timeline may be completely separate from another) of time.

Doesn't the fact that God existed "before" his creation and that the universe existed "after" God, imply that time existed with God?

Yes, but it does not imply that time before the creation is the time created.

Doesn't a universe that did not exist "before" but now exists "after" imply the existence of time previous to the creation of the universe?

It might, for instance in the case of a previously existing universe.

And what about space?

Same as above.

If God created space, where was he before he created it?

Perhaps in another space, for example, an eternal spacetime.

Seems to me that the more logical argument is that spacetime always existed.

As opposed to ex nihilo, I agree. The issue is that you are ignoring the possibility of a finite spacetime being created within an eternal spacetime. A point I have made throught this discussion.

[JimL]

Then this is a new argument. Let me remind you of your OP.



I'll take your questions one at a time.

If God existed before the universe existed, then how can God have created time?

It is possible that there are multiple instances (in the sense that one timeline may be completely separate from another) of time.

And how does that change anything, no matter which imaginary time line you put him in, God either created time or he did not.

Doesn't the fact that God existed "before" his creation and that the universe existed "after" God, imply that time existed with God?

Yes, but it does not imply that time before the creation is the time created.

I see, so your idea is that God exists in an uncreated time line, as opposed to the time line that he created. So a God was not needed to create time, just a new time line?

Doesn't a universe that did not exist "before" but now exists "after" imply the existence of time previous to the creation of the universe?

It might, for instance in the case of a previously existing universe.

Again, your conception of God, is not of a God that is necessary for space and time to exist, space/time for you is co-eternal with a distinct God that lives within it.

And what about space?

Same as above.

Yes I see, God and spacetime for you are two distinct and co-eternal entities.

If God created space, where was he before he created it?

Perhaps in another space, for example, an eternal spacetime.

Yes I see, but again, aren't you just pushing the problem back a step and ending up with the same dilemma? If space time is eternal, then a God isn't necessary for its creation.

Seems to me that the more logical argument is that spacetime always existed.

As opposed to ex nihilo, I agree. The issue is that you are ignoring the possibility of a finite spacetime being created within an eternal spacetime. A point I have made throught this discussion.

I don't ignore the possibility of finite spacetime, time for each existing thing is finite, but again if space time is etenal, if it wasn't created, then positing a God is superfluous. If your God lives in an eternal spacetime universe, then a God isn't needed for creation, the universe is as eternal as he.

[robertb]

And how does that change anything, no matter which imaginary time line you put him in, God either created time or he did not.

I see, so your idea is that God exists in an uncreated time line, as opposed to the time line that he created. So a God was not needed to create time, just a new time line?

Again, your conception of God, is not of a God that is necessary for space and time to exist, space/time for you is co-eternal with a distinct God that lives within it.

Yes I see, God and spacetime for you are two distinct and co-eternal entities.

Yes I see, but again, aren't you just pushing the problem back a step and ending up with the same dilemma? If space time is eternal, then a God isn't necessary for its creation.

I don't ignore the possibility of finite spacetime, time for each existing thing is finite, but again if space time is etenal, if it wasn't created, then positing a God is superfluous. If your God lives in an eternal spacetime universe, then a God isn't needed for creation, the universe is as eternal as he.

It's like you get there, but then do not, for some reason. Remember, I originally said the following in response to your OP:

Our universe could simply be a finite bubble floating in an eternal spacetime. So, if this is the accepted premise, it is not a defeater for God existing and creating from this eternal space-time. Kinda like blowing a bubble, I guess.

So, if it is the case that God exists in an eternal spacetime and spends his days blowing bubbles, one of which happens to be our finite universe, then it seems falacious to say that such a God is superfluous to the existence of our universe so not a dilemma and again not a defeater.

[lilpixieofterror]

To give to that which you imagine to exist outside of space and time a name, i.e. "eternity," does nothing to explain your case. Its just a word, a title given to a timeless/spaceless place that you believe to exist. That does nothing to refute a reasoned argument, its just an expression of belief. I already know what you believe. Now can you give a reasoned response? "Before" implies time. If one thing exists before another it doesn't matter whether that thing exists outside of that other or not. Before is before, no matter how you slice it, and before implies time.

Wow... you really are dumb, huh? Do I really need to explain to you mathematical theory and how it operates? Like I said, if time is represented by the numbers 0-10, what exists outside of it isn't time, but something else (Christians would say it is eternity or God, but even scientist wouldn’t say time existed before time). You basically want your cake and want to eat it too. Can you present actually explain how 'before time' means time existed before it existed?

[Jedidiah]

Jim, did you ever read "Flatland?"

[JimL]

It's like you get there, but then do not, for some reason. Remember, I originally said the following in response to your OP:



So, if it is the case that God exists in an eternal spacetime and spends his days blowing bubbles, one of which happens to be our finite universe, then it seems falacious to say that such a God is superfluous to the existence of our universe so not a dilemma and again not a defeater.

If God exists in an eternal space time, then he didn't create space or time period, which would mean that he is no more of a God than space and time are.

[JimL]

Wow... you really are dumb, huh? Do I really need to explain to you mathematical theory and how it operates? Like I said, if time is represented by the numbers 0-10, what exists outside of it isn't time, but something else (Christians would say it is eternity or God, but even scientist wouldn’t say time existed before time). You basically want your cake and want to eat it too. Can you present actually explain how 'before time' means time existed before it existed?

You've yet to explain lilpix how something can exist before the existence of something else if there were no existing time before. You are simply making the assumption that time is finite and that there is some non temporal existence outside of it, but anyone can make such unreasonable assertions if they don't feel the need to back them up logically. As to your question, it is not I that am claiming a "before time" existence. That would be you, therefore I have nothing to explain. What needs to be explained is your "before time" existence. Explain what you mean by "existing before" without the implication of time. In other words explain exactly what you mean by "before!"

[lilpixieofterror]

You've yet to explain lilpix how something can exist before the existence of something else if there were no existing time before.

You really have a hard time with comprehension, don’t you? Like I said, if you represent time on a number line from 1-10, there are numbers both before 1 and after 10 on the line and I really hate to break your delusions, but I don’t see too many scientist throwing a fit over this and in fact, they have argued that something or someone existed before time did. So I suggest you go and argue with them.

You are simply making the assumption that time is finite and that there is some non temporal existence outside of it, but anyone can make such unreasonable assertions if they don't feel the need to back them up logically.

So I seriously need to back up the idea that you can’t have a series of uncaused, causes that create things, which create other things, which create other things forever and ever? Wow… you really are the dimmest bulb on the tree, are you? I really hate to break your delusions, but as I said above, many scientist think there is an all existing element that existed before the universe did.

As to your question, it is not I that am claiming a "before time" existence. That would be you, therefore I have nothing to explain. What needs to be explained is your "before time" existence. Explain what you mean by "existing before" without the implication of time. In other words explain exactly what you mean by "before!"

Like I said Jimmy, current theories seem to indicate something else existed before the universe did and I gave you a very simple illustration to make this point with, it is not my fault you are a century behind current scientific theories and understandings.

[robertb]

If God exists in an eternal space time, then he didn't create space or time period, which would mean that he is no more of a God than space and time are.

Non-sequitor.

[JimL]

You really have a hard time with comprehension, don’t you? Like I said, if you represent time on a number line from 1-10, there are numbers both before 1 and after 10 on the line and I really hate to break your delusions, but I don’t see too many scientist throwing a fit over this and in fact, they have argued that something or someone existed before time did. So I suggest you go and argue with them.

Really, and how long before the existence of time did this previous entity exist? Something existed before time came into existence for you as well, your mother! Would you conclude from that fact that your mother existed before time? Time has a beginning for everything that begins to exist, it has a beginning for our particular universe as well, time for our universe began some 13.7 billion years ago, but that time has a beginning for each finite thing that begins to exist doesn't mean that time itself didn't exist "before!" Do you think that because time has only existed for you personally for 14 years, that therefore time has only existed for 14 years?

So I seriously need to back up the idea that you can’t have a series of uncaused, causes that create things, which create other things, which create other things forever and ever? Wow… you really are the dimmest bulb on the tree, are you? I really hate to break your delusions, but as I said above, many scientist think there is an all existing element that existed before the universe did.

Exactly my point pix, something certainly existed before our universe did, and that something existed in time.

Like I said Jimmy, current theories seem to indicate something else existed before the universe did and I gave you a very simple illustration to make this point with, it is not my fault you are a century behind current scientific theories and understandings.

And its not my fault that you don't understand the difference between the universe and time.

[JimL]

Non-sequitor.

How is that a non-sequitur? If space and time are eternal, then how did God create them?

[robertb]

How is that a non-sequitur? If space and time are eternal, then how did God create them?

I do not see the problem with positing a God existing within an eternal space time, nor have I posited this God as the creator of said eternal spacetime, as I have said repeatedly in this thread.

That is why your response:

If God exists in an eternal space time, then he didn't create space or time period, which would mean that he is no more of a God than space and time are.

is a non-sequitur to my argument.

[Cerebrum123]

many scientist think there is an all existing element that existed before the universe did.

Don't some people believe that it might be the Higgs Boson particle that does that(don't they sometimes call it the "God particle"?)?

[robertb]

Don't some people believe that it might be the Higgs Boson particle that does that(don't they sometimes call it the "God particle"?)?

I think that the Higgs Boson relates to the question of why particles have mass, if I remember correctly.