(November 10, 2016 at 9:50 am)theologian Wrote:

(November 10, 2016 at 3:18 am)Irrational Wrote: It's logically absurd. The only way you can get out of this is by saying God defies logic anyway. But then that would mean God could also create a square-triangle and also create an object he is unable to lift or destroy or other such absurd things.

The analogy doesn't address how time came to be because for the author to write the story (or even plan to write it) in the first place, time must have already occurred. And this is because, once again, time is automatically a correlate of act, whether it's divine or not.

God doesn't defy logic, for the basis of logic is reality, and God is Being Himself.

We may not know how He created, but we are sure that God is always in present, for time will limit God and in Him there must be no limitation.

I think the key here is to know that time doesn't exist apart from changeable substance. But, God is already perfect and unable to undergo change. Therefore, in God, there's no time.

You forgot to say that time also must exist with every process that occurs, including any mental process exercised by God. As God had to plan (mental process) in order to create, then God did not create time. Rather, time has always been.

And to be clear, I am not arguing logically from incredulity or ignorance here. My argument is not "I don't know how God could have created time, therefore God likely didn't create time". Rather, I'm arguing that timelessly creating is illogical, therefore God (if he exists) could not have created time and time must always have been.

And if, as you say, time limits God, not my problem. This is your problem to fix. Come up with a logical divine alternative then.

(November 10, 2016 at 2:40 am)Irrational Wrote: Shouldn't time always be a correlate of any act, including the act of creation?

Not necessarily. Time is only a "correlate" of those acts which involve certain sorts of change. e.g. If something is pure act, that act is real despite the lacking of any change. Pure act, therefore, is "timeless". 

If creation involves the sorts of change which demand time (and it does), then time is a "correlate" of creation.

Quote:How did God create time outside of time?

If pure act creates, then "timeless" act brings about creation and its correlating time, "timelessly" (i.e. the pure act itself remains timeless while bringing about time-dependent creation).

How? How does god do any of the things he does? No answer to that question does not = the absurdity of the concept.

(November 10, 2016 at 6:50 pm)Ignorant Wrote:

(November 10, 2016 at 2:40 am)Irrational Wrote: Shouldn't time always be a correlate of any act, including the act of creation?

Not necessarily. Time is only a "correlate" of those acts which involve certain sorts of change. e.g. If something is pure act, that act is real despite the lacking of any change. Pure act, therefore, is "timeless". 

If creation involves the sorts of change which demand time (and it does), then time is a "correlate" of creation.

Quote:How did God create time outside of time?

If pure act creates, then "timeless" act brings about creation and its correlating time, "timelessly" (i.e. the pure act itself remains timeless while bringing about time-dependent creation).

How? How does god do any of the things he does? No answer to that question does not = the absurdity of the concept.

Can you elaborate more on this "pure act"? What does it mean to act if it does not involve any change at all?

As for your last point, the problem goes beyond merely not knowing the answer to the question. The problem is with the logical aspect of invoking change timelessly/changelessly.

(November 11, 2016 at 9:47 am)Irrational Wrote: Can you elaborate more on this "pure act"? What does it mean to act if it does not involve any change at all? [1]

As for your last point, the problem goes beyond merely not knowing the answer to the question. The problem is with the logical aspect of invoking change timelessly/changelessly. [2]

1) Well, I assumed that had already been covered, so I apologize for intruding on the conversation. Pure act is meant in the sense of actuality vs. potentiality. The most fundamental sort of change is from potential to actual. Pure act means that there is no potentiality whatsoever in that reality. If there is no potentiality, then there is no change either.

So what would it mean to "purely act"? That is a good question, and anyone who pretends to know exactly what that means doesn't know what they are talking about. The closest I have managed to come in grasping it is that a pure act can't be thought of as a-thing-doing-some-pure-act. Instead, the pure-act-IS-the-thing. Many philosophy papers later, and you might better understand it as the pure-act-of-"being"-subsisting-as-itself. I doubt that satisfies your question, but I think that might mean its a decently true answer.

2) Right, and I don't think it invokes timeless change. I think, rather, it concludes from the changes around us that a timeless and changeless act, existing in a radically different way than everything else around us, lies at the foundation of everything else that exists and acts and changes. You might read a bit about primary and secondary agency or agency by participation.

In short, if existence/being itself subsists as its own "thing-ness", then it must be a timeless and pure act. Any thing that does not subsist as its own act of existing possess a real potentiality of not existing at all. These must, therefore, share-in or participate in the-pure-act-of-existence to change from potential existence to actual existence. How or why does that participation/sharing operate and come about? I don't know, but I am pretty sure it doesn't introduce any change to the pure-act-of-"being"-subsisting-as-itself. I've been wrong before.

(November 11, 2016 at 2:16 pm)Ignorant Wrote:

(November 11, 2016 at 9:47 am)Irrational Wrote: Can you elaborate more on this "pure act"? What does it mean to act if it does not involve any change at all? [1]

As for your last point, the problem goes beyond merely not knowing the answer to the question. The problem is with the logical aspect of invoking change timelessly/changelessly. [2]

1) Well, I assumed that had already been covered, so I apologize for intruding on the conversation. Pure act is meant in the sense of actuality vs. potentiality. The most fundamental sort of change is from potential to actual. Pure act means that there is no potentiality whatsoever in that reality. If there is no potentiality, then there is no change either.

So what would it mean to "purely act"? That is a good question, and anyone who pretends to know exactly what that means doesn't know what they are talking about. The closest I have managed to come in grasping it is that a pure act can't be thought of as a-thing-doing-some-pure-act. Instead, the pure-act-IS-the-thing. Many philosophy papers later, and you might better understand it as the pure-act-of-"being"-subsisting-as-itself. I doubt that satisfies your question, but I think that might mean its a decently true answer.

2) Right, and I don't think it invokes timeless change. I think, rather, it concludes from the changes around us that a timeless and changeless act, existing in a radically different way than everything else around us, lies at the foundation of everything else that exists and acts and changes. You might read a bit about primary and secondary agency or agency by participation.

In short, if existence/being itself subsists as its own "thing-ness", then it must be a timeless and pure act. Any thing that does not subsist as its own act of existing possess a real potentiality of not existing at all. These must, therefore, share-in or participate in the-pure-act-of-existence to change from potential existence to actual existence. How or why does that participation/sharing operate and come about? I don't know, but I am pretty sure it doesn't introduce any change to the pure-act-of-"being"-subsisting-as-itself. I've been wrong before.

This, to me, sounds like a "I can say 2 + 2 = 5, therefore it's true (even though I don't know how)" kind of logic.

Without clear examples and elaborations, I have no idea what else to say in response to this.

(November 11, 2016 at 7:15 pm)Irrational Wrote: This, to me, sounds like a "I can say 2 + 2 = 5, therefore it's true (even though I don't know how)" kind of logic.

Without clear examples and elaborations, I have no idea what else to say in response to this.

I'm sorry I wasn't much help.

Your question seems so revolve around the idea of a changeless act causing change. Like I said, anyone who pretends to know exactly what that means and how it operates is not being genuine, or else they are ignorant of a few things. That does not make the idea illogical. You might call it a "natural mystery". Not a mystery in the sense that we can't say anything about it, but a mystery in the sense that we could never possibly say everything about it. So let me say one more thing =)

Suppose three changing things exist. Each of them may only continue in their changing existence as long as they participate/share in the unchanging-pure-act-of-"being"-subsisting-as-itself (see arguments from contingency for necessity). But if EACH of the changing things participate in the ONE unchanging-pure-act-of-"being"-subsisting-as-itself, then ALL of these changing things exist in parallel with a single unchanging thing.

Pure-act-of-"being"-subsisting-as-itself is not just "another thing" in our cosmos. It is "thing-ness" itself. It "is" in a radically different way than anything else. <= Those claims are a posteriori conclusions derived from observing the things in our cosmos. They are not a priori assertions. So you are free to disagree with those conclusions, but if you grant them for the sake of argument, you also grant the premises that led to them. If you do that, then there is no contradiction, even if the reality they describe does not have a readily useful analogy or image.