The creation of time and space? What!

[Chrawnus]

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!

How about the example I gave, with a ball resting on a cushion from eternity?

[JimL]

How about the example I gave, with a ball resting on a cushion from eternity?

Its the same scenario, they are eternal, the eternal can't have a cause. The indentation in the cushion is no more caused by the ball, than the position of the ball is caused by the indentation in the cushion. The nature of both are their eternal natures. It could just as easily be assumed that the indentation in the cushion existed first, eternally, previously to the existence of the ball being placed on it.

[Chrawnus]

Its the same scenario, they are eternal, the eternal can't have a cause. The indentation in the cushion is no more caused by the ball, than the position of the ball is caused by the indentation in the cushion. The nature of both are their eternal natures. It could just as easily be assumed that the indentation in the cushion existed first, eternally, previously to the existence of the ball being placed on it.

In other words, you're either incredibly stupid, or you're just trolling. The above is essentially nothing but a big steaming pile of begging-the-question. And no, it could not be assumed that the indentation in the cushion existed prior to the the ball resting on the cushion, because the example I gave is worded to rule that scenario out. Both the ball and the cushion is eternal, and the ball has rested on the cushion from eternity, i.e no one has placed it there, it has always been there.

[JimL]

In other words, you're either incredibly stupid, or you're just trolling. The above is essentially nothing but a big steaming pile of begging-the-question. And no, it could not be assumed that the indentation in the cushion existed prior to the the ball resting on the cushion, because the example I gave is worded to rule that scenario out. Both the ball and the cushion is eternal, and the ball has rested on the cushion from eternity, i.e no one has placed it there, it has always been there.

No need to get all worked up Chrawnus. We have a disagreement thats all. If you worded it to rule that scenario out, then I gave my answer to that as well, they are both eternal, ergo neither is the cause of the other.

[Chrawnus]

No need to get all worked up Chrawnus. We have a disagreement thats all. If you worded it to rule that scenario out, then I gave my answer to that, they are both eternal, ergo neither is the cause of the other.

I'm not worked up.

And your last sentence is the reason why your argument begs the question. You're assuming that causes need to be temporally prior to their effects, so when we give you (hypothetical) examples which shows that this is not the case you basically answer it with "causes can't be eternal, because the eternal can't have a cause". What you're doing is essentially sticking your fingers in your ears, keeping your eyes as tightly shut as you can manage while singing "Lalala, I can't hear you!" at the top of your lungs.

[Sparko]

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?

first the books don't have to be eternal. they could have been set down at the same time. either way the position of the top one is caused by the bottom one. Not the book is caused by the other. You can't even read the example correctly.

Your stupidity is caused by the logically prior condition of your lack of a brain.

[MaxVel]

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?

So can you now see that it's possible that when someone talks about God existing 'before' the universe what they are meaning is (strictly speaking) that He is logically prior to the universe, but not necessarily temporally prior (if one wants to argue that there was no time until the universe was created)? All along I have been responding to your OP, which raised the use of 'before' as a problem if time had a beginning. It's not a problem if one is meaning logical priority rather than temporal priority.

A cause being logically prior to it's effect doesn't necessarily imply that it must also be temporally prior, it could also be simultaneous to the effect (which was one of the points of the arm-hand-stick-stone example I gave).

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

So you are arguing that God, being eternal, could not have created the Universe because 'before' the universe was created there was no time, and thus it was not possible for God to act??

If so, I don't see that you are posing any probelms for the Chrtistian view that other views don't share equally, or worse. See Sparko's post and quotation of WL Craig. If there was no God, and the universe had a beginning, then I think that view has bigger problems (which is why people posit multiverses, bubble universes and so on, none of which have any empirical evidence to support them AFAIK). If nothing** is all there ever was, then nothing is what we would have now too. Since (it seems to me) the universe is contingent and not eternal, we need a cause outside of the universe. Ultimately we need a non-contingent cause, something has to be the first cause, and that something must itself be uncaused, or else it would not exist. We need a self-existent, uncaused cause to start everything off.





**Nothing meaning not anything at all, not even quantum vacuums, no space, no time, no matter, no laws of physics, nothing.

[JimL]

first the books don't have to be eternal. they could have been set down at the same time. either way the position of the top one is caused by the bottom one. Not the book is caused by the other. You can't even read the example correctly.

Your stupidity is caused by the logically prior condition of your lack of a brain.

Well if they one were not atop the other eternally, then the cause of the one being on the top is the same as the cause of the one being on the bottom, i.e. whover put them there, and if someone put them there, then the one on the bottom was not only logically prior to the other but was placed there temporally prior as well.
Btw, what is it with you guys and your nastiness? Is that the only way you can make your point?

[Sparko]

Well if they one were not atop the other eternally, then the cause of the one being on the top is the same as the cause of the one being on the bottom, i.e. whover put them there, and if someone put them there, then the one on the bottom was not only logically prior to the other but was placed there temporally prior as well.
Btw, what is it with you guys and your nastiness? Is that the only way you can make your point?

No, the person who put them there would be the primary cause of them BEING there, but the book on the bottom is still the cause of the book on top's position.

and we are getting frustrated with your lack of critical thinking. You also fail to see that the problem you pose for God causing the universe is even worse when you try to explain the universe without a personal cause, as I said earlier and Maxvel just explained above.

[Adrift]

I'm willing to be convinced by this argument if I could really get my head around it.

Well I think part of the problem is that "time" is a hard thing to get our minds around anyways. If we think of time as the measurement of the sequence of events or changes going back to the big bang and the beginning of the universe, what people mean when they say "causally prior" to the beginning is that there once was a state where there were no sequences of events that could be measured. There was nothing, but God eternal, timeless and changeless. At the instant that God caused the universe to exist, that was the first event, and the beginning of time. That's how I understand it at least.

The ball/pillow analogy comes from Immanuel Kant as he was describing causal relationships between differing states (you know... stuff that's mostly above my comprehension level for the most part). Like all analogies it breaks down at a certain points, and the ball and pillow are not replacements for God and the universe exactly (God is eternal, the universe is not in the Augustinian view), but as I understand it, the point of the analogy is simply to demonstrate how state A can causally influence state B spontaneously when the time between A and B is zero.

[JimL]

No, the person who put them there would be the primary cause of them BEING there, but the book on the bottom is still the cause of the book on top's position.

So, the one who put them there, the one who put the one book on the bottom and the other book on the top, is the primary cause of them being where they are, but the one on the bottom is still the cause of the other being on the top? What if whoever put them there decided to change their positions, what then would be the cause of their positions? Your logically prior argument is flawed. What makes the book on the bottom logically prior to the book on the top? Seriously, is that which is below logically prior to that which is above, is that which is to the left logically prior to that which is to the right? What if the united books were floating in deep space, would top and bottom have any meaning? would you still say that one was logically prior to the other? Which one?

and we are getting frustrated with your lack of critical thinking.

Yes, I get frustrated as well, but have learned to at least try to keep my cool.

You also fail to see that the problem you pose for God causing the universe is even worse when you try to explain the universe without a personal cause, as I said earlier and Maxvel just explained above.

Yes, that is true, I don't see the problem with the existence of an eternal universe any more than you see a problem for the existence of an eternal Creator. What I see as a problem is the illogic of a timeless creator, an illogic that is unnecessary for an eternal universe.

[Cerebrum123]

Yes, that is true, I don't see the problem with the existence of an eternal universe any more than you see a problem for the existence of an eternal Creator. What I see as a problem is the illogic of a timeless creator, an illogic that is unnecessary for an eternal universe.

That's just it, the universe is NOT eternal, and I think that outside Hinduism, and similar beliefs you aren't going to find many people who think it is eternal.
There are also big problems with the idea that the universe has an eternal past, and it basically leads to the idea that we never could have arrived at this point in time if you have an eternal past.

[Sparko]

So, the one who put them there, the one who put the one book on the bottom and the other book on the top, is the primary cause of them being where they are, but the one on the bottom is still the cause of the other being on the top? What if whoever put them there decided to change their positions, what then would be the cause of their positions? Your logically prior argument is flawed. What makes the book on the bottom logically prior to the book on the top? Seriously, is that which is below logically prior to that which is above, is that which is to the left logically prior to that which is to the right? What if the united books were floating in deep space, would top and bottom have any meaning? would you still say that one was logically prior to the other? Which one?

and you wonder why we mock you? I never said my book example was an example of God creating the universe, just of what logically prior means. In that context, who put the books there or when are not part of the example. Just the position of the books. It is showing how something (the first book) can cause an effect (the position of the second book) without temporality being involved.

Yes, I get frustrated as well, but have learned to at least try to keep my cool.

you don't have to deal with a complete moron like we do with you.

Yes, that is true, I don't see the problem with the existence of an eternal universe any more than you see a problem for the existence of an eternal Creator. What I see as a problem is the illogic of a timeless creator, an illogic that is unnecessary for an eternal universe.

You fail to notice that the objections you give for that timeless creator are a bigger problem for a universe starting without a cause. That is why everyone is telling you that you are wrong and acting like an idiot.

[JimL]

That's just it, the universe is NOT eternal, and I think that outside Hinduism, and similar beliefs you aren't going to find many people who think it is eternal.
There are also big problems with the idea that the universe has an eternal past, and it basically leads to the idea that we never could have arrived at this point in time if you have an eternal past.

Most scientists today believe that the universe is eternal. When I speak of an eternal universe, I am not speaking about our own little slice of it, we all understand that it had a beginning some 14 billion years ago, but ours is believed to be only a small part of a larger eternal cosmos. Pray tell why could we never have arrived at this point in time with an eternal past? By that logic, God could never have arrived at the point of his creation of the universe.

[Cerebrum123]

Most scientists today believe that the universe is eternal. When I speak of an eternal universe, I am not speaking about our own little slice of it, we all understand that it had a beginning some 14 billion years ago, but ours is believed to be only a small part of a larger eternal cosmos. Pray tell why could we never have arrived at this point in time with an eternal past? By that logic, God could never have arrived at the point of his creation of the universe.

Ok, if we had an eternal past, then the moments that would have to lead here would be infinite, and an actual infinite is something that doesn't exist(there would be no way of ever reaching our point in time, if there was an actual infinite amount of time prior to us, like trying to count to infinity, you will never get there), therefore our universe had to have had a beginning. Also, you are talking about the multiverse theory(and similar stuff), right? There is no evidence of such a "multiverse", and is nothing more than speculation, and trying to get rid of God as an explanation. Also, since God is NOT limited by time, then there was no point in which He would have to wait out an actual infinite of time to create anything(He wouldn't be limited by time the way our universe is, so no "counting to infinity" that He would need to accomplish first).