The creation of time and space? What!

[shunyadragon]

You're going all pantheistic on me again shunya. Space and time are attributes of the universe. Is God the universe?

Did not say that, and please cite me properly. I only said that eternal time is part of the nature of God. God is not the the universe. The physical existence that the universe is a part of is the creation of God.

[MaxVel]

what people use as indistinct terms, does not mean that is what they are talking about. If they say God existed before he created time, that sounds logically impossible, but that is not what they are actually saying. What they are saying is that God existed LOGICALLY PRIOR to creating the universe and time, not temporally prior.

And that sums up the guts of JimL's original objection, which was addressed way back - except that for JimL, apparently an answer is not what he wants.

[JimL]

what people use as indistinct terms, does not mean that is what they are talking about. If they say God existed before he created time, that sounds logically impossible, but that is not what they are actually saying. What they are saying is that God existed LOGICALLY PRIOR to creating the universe and time, not temporally prior.

Thats because logically prior is an illogical argument, one that has already been addressed in this thread. If two thing are eternal then one cannot be logically prior to the other and if one is eternal and the other began to exist then the former is not logically prior to the latter, it is temporally prior.

[MaxVel]

Thats because logically prior is an illogical argument, one that has already been addressed in this thread. If two thing are eternal then one cannot be logically prior to the other

Can you provide us with an explanation of what it means for something to be logically prior to something else, and then show how this is not possible if both things are eternal?

and if one is eternal and the other began to exist then the former is not logically prior to the latter, it is temporally prior.

Doesn't exclude the possibility that the eternal things is also logically prior to the non-eternal thing.

[Sparko]

Thats because logically prior is an illogical argument, one that has already been addressed in this thread. If two thing are eternal then one cannot be logically prior to the other and if one is eternal and the other began to exist then the former is not logically prior to the latter, it is temporally prior.

it only seems to be a problem to you because you have no concept of logic or logical operators. Logically prior has nothing to do with time.

Why don't you have a problem with how the singularity began to expand and create time and space? Where was the singularity before time and space existed? How did it begin to expand without time to "begin" expanding it? Where did it exist if there was no space? Every objection you try to come up with for an eternal God creating the universe also applied for how the universe started without God. At least with God you have an intelligent force that can DO something, like create time and space, where without God, you have nothing giving rise to everything, with no way to get started.

As William Lane Craig states in his Kalam Cosmological Argument:

In fact, I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

[Adrift]

if one is eternal and the other began to exist then the former is not logically prior to the latter, it is temporally prior.

I think you're just having a hard time comprehending the idea of "eternity". When one talks of God's "eternality" causally prior to the universe, they're not talking about a long long never-ending amount of time, they're talking about timelessness and its implication of "an unchanging state of being". Time comes into being only after the creation of the universe in the Augustinian view (a premise that was, as I understand it, eventually supported by the Big Bang theory and specifically the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems).

If you're seriously interested in this subject, philosophers like William Lane Craig go into this at some length in his various books, but a quick Google search brings up these two links which may help you out a bit.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/creation-and-time
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-go...ior-to-the-son

[robertb]

I think you're just having a hard time comprehending the idea of "eternity". When one talks of God's "eternality" causally prior to the universe, they're not talking about a long long never-ending amount of time, they're talking about timelessness and its implication of "an unchanging state of being". Time comes into being only after the creation of the universe in the Augustinian view (a premise that was, as I understand it, eventually supported by the Big Bang theory and specifically the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems).

If you're seriously interested in this subject, philosophers like William Lane Craig go into this at some length in his various books, but a quick Google search brings up these two links which may help you out a bit.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/creation-and-time
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-go...ior-to-the-son

Perhaps you should say that "time in our universe comes into being only after the creation of our universe". Creation ex nihilo is neither supported nor denied in so far as the prior statement is concerned, as far as I can tell and avoids the unevidenced assumption of the original.

[JimL]

Can you provide us with an explanation of what it means for something to be logically prior to something else, and then show how this is not possible if both things are eternal?

Yeah, your mother is logically prior to you, and she is also temporally prior. The fetal form is logically prior to its future developed form of a human infant, and as regards to its form, it is also temporally prior. In example 1, your mother is obviously both logically and temporally prior to you, but she also, obviously, couldn't be either logically or temporally prior to you if you were both eternal in which case she could not be said to be your mother. In example 2, the fetus, though logically and temporally prior in form to the human infant, the difference is only in the form and so they would be one and the same eternal thing. Neither of these are what you are asserting about strictly logically prior existence. Now why don't you provide "us" with an example of a logically prior existence, other than your assertion of a timeless being existing outside of the universe of time, in order to show us the logic upon which you base such an idea?

Doesn't exclude the possibility that the eternal things is also logically prior to the non-eternal thing.

Of course it would be logically prior, anything that is prior, is logically prior, but what I meant to say is that it is not only logically prior, it is also temporally prior which is the notion that you need to disprove, "logically." So, show me an analogy of 2 things that are eternal in which the one is prior, or logically prior if you wish, to the other

[Cerebrum123]

[QUOTE=JimL;3425538]

Can you provide us with an explanation of what it means for something to be logically prior to something else, and then show how this is not possible if both things are eternal?
Yeah, your mother is logically prior to you, and she is also temporally prior. The fetal form is logically prior to its future developed form of a human infant, and as regards to its form, it is also temporally prior. In example 1, your mother is obviously both logically and temporally prior to you, but she also, obviously, couldn't be either logically or temporally prior to you if you were both eternal in which case she could not be said to be your mother. In example 2, the fetus, though logically and temporally prior in form to the human infant, the difference is only in the form and so they would be one and the same eternal thing. Neither of these are what you are asserting about strictly logically prior existence. Now why don't you provide "us" with an example of a logically prior existence, other than your assertion of a timeless being existing outside of the universe of time, in order to show us the logic upon which you base such an idea?





Of course it would be logically prior, anything that is prior, is logically prior, but what I meant to say is that it is not only logically prior, it is also temporally prior which is the notion that you need to disprove, "logically."

You are still thinking temporally prior, and you aren't engaging his argument.

[JimL]

[QUOTE=Cerebrum123;3425539]

You are still thinking temporally prior, and you aren't engaging his argument.

Of course I am thinking temporally, that is my argument Cerebrum and no one has yet shown to me how something can be logically prior in existence but not temporally prior as well. Take a shot at it if you wish!

[Sparko]

The number 1 is logically prior to the number 2, but it is not temporally prior.

If you have a stack of two books, the one on the bottom's position is logically prior to the one on top. The top one's position depends on the bottom one's position, but it is not temporally prior since they could have been placed there at the same time, or even have existed there eternally.

[pancreasman]

The number 1 is logically prior to the number 2, but it is not temporally prior.

If you have a stack of two books, the one on the bottom's position is logically prior to the one on top. The top one's position depends on the bottom one's position, but it is not temporally prior since they could have been placed there at the same time, or even have existed there eternally.

I'm willing to be convinced by this argument if I could really get my head around it. The examples you give of things being logically prior without being temporally prior are fine as far as they go but they don't involve causation. Can you think of an example where something causes something else but is not temporally prior to it?

[Chrawnus]

I'm willing to be convinced by this argument if I could really get my head around it. The examples you give of things being logically prior without being temporally prior are fine as far as they go but they don't involve causation. Can you think of an example where something causes something else but is not temporally prior to it?

One example that has been given is a ball and a cushion with the ball resting on the cushion, causing a depression on the cushion. Both the ball and the cushion are eternal, and the ball has always rested on the cushion. That means that the cause (the ball, or the weight of the ball) is not temporally prior to the effect (the depression on the cushion), but it would still be logically prior.

Hopefully the above will make sense. I think WLC has given (albeit more eloquently) an example like the above to show that causes do not necessarily have to be temporally prior to their effects.

[Sparko]

I'm willing to be convinced by this argument if I could really get my head around it. The examples you give of things being logically prior without being temporally prior are fine as far as they go but they don't involve causation. Can you think of an example where something causes something else but is not temporally prior to it?

My example of two books is exactly that. the bottom book is causing the top book to be 1 book higher than the table they are resting on.

What you are probably really asking is for some example that is temporal and not temporal at the same time and that is impossible.

[JimL]

My example of two books is exactly that. the bottom book is causing the top book to be 1 book higher than the table they are resting on.

What you are probably really asking is for some example that is temporal and not temporal at the same time and that is impossible.

If you have an eternal stack of two books, then neither is the cause of the other, the fact that one is atop the other is not caused by the other, thier positions are the eternal nature of both. The eternal cannot have a cause! If the one is eternally levitating above the other, is the other, just because it is beneath it, the cause of its being above it?