A timeless being cannot create

[LastPoet]

A Timeless being heh? I for one, am content being a timed existence, it makes everything mostn interesting.

[mcc1789]

A creation involves a change in space and time.

I wonder if this is so...

If there is no space and time yet, then there can be no change in space and time. So creation doesn't change space and time -- it makes space and time. 

I don't think it makes sense to imagine a big blank space hanging around in time waiting for creation, and then changing. There was no blank space and no hanging-around time.

mcc1789, I don't know if you want to put in a lot of time on this. I wouldn't blame you if you didn't. But all these questions have been worked on for a long time, and there are very involved and careful answers. You can be sure all the obvious questions ["if everything has a cause, then what caused god?"] have serious answers, though surprisingly few people have bothered to look into them. I think you'll find in fact that a lot of people prefer to mock the whole issue rather than learn anything at all. 

If you go to this site and start clicking links, it will give a taste of how careful explanations have been offered. 

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1044.htm#article1

I am NOT saying they are right or wrong. Nor am I saying that I understand much of it.

That is the issue though. How can creation occur with no space or time?

I'm aware this isn't the first time the question here has been raised or addressed. Doubtless not all possible answers have been made known to me. However, answers like those of Aquinas have great difficulty I think. Moreover, a lot of times I'm unclear on what he's saying at all (like here). This specific answer also doesn't seem related to what I'm talking about here either (so far as I can tell).

[The Grand Nudger]

A very serious summary of the very serious answer to that very serious question, is that the faithful contend that everything has to stick to the rules, except their god.

[mcc1789]

I think there's a logical argument to be made against God's existence here on the basis of incompatible properties. God is outside time, we're told. He's not only eternal (existing forever) but also unaffected by temporal changes. He is after all the creator too, and that includes time. Yet when something is created, it comes into being. That entails a previous instance where it didn't exist of course. Yet if time itself was created, that makes no sense. To speak of a time "before" time is meaningless. Moreover, how does a timeless being create while outside time (and space as well)? A creation involves a change in space and time. It's enough to see how this could be done by a lesser being. How though could it be with a timeless being? I suggest it's incoherent, and the very fact that things do exist shows that such a being (i.e. God) doesn't. What do you think?

Our understanding and our brain capacity cannot understand or interpret a universe outside the edges of the discovered universe. It doesn't mean nothing is there; but it means our minds cannot understand or translate things but in this primitive, basic way.

The future, the present and the past might exist at the same time

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/...belltitem2

So, is time just an elaborate mind trick? And more importantly - is time travel possible?

Dr. Miller's answer to that is "yes". Of course, just hypothetically, since we'd need to figure out first how to travel at "some reasonable percentage of the speed of light". Going to the past would entail using wormholes, like "short cuts through space-time".

Okay... I'm unclear on how that relates to this.

[LadyForCamus]

God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent

As always, these words are usually misunderstood. 

"Omnipotent" doesn't mean God can do anything. There are any number of things he can't do, like logical impossibilities. 

The idea of omnipotence is based in the contrast of act and potency -- whether a characteristic is fully enacted or only latent and potential. Every material thing has potential -- it can change, grow, decay, fall, etc. Only God cannot change; he is totally, purely actualized. By saying he is omnipotent, theologians are saying that he is the cause of the activation of the potentialities in the material world. There is a long involved argument as to why the activation of potencies in the world requires a completely non-potential cause. But that's a different subject, and you won't like it anyway.

I would like to see this argument laid out, if you’re interested in taking the time. 

The theory was that to know something, we take in its form but not its material. The material wouldn't fit into our heads anyway, but the form on its own is immaterial and has no extension in space. Since God contains all the forms, yet is perfectly immaterial, it is argued that all the forms, which constitute knowledge in animals, is present immaterially in him.

God has knowledge? So, even by the Aristotelian definition of omniscience god is/has a mind, yes? Also, if god is not material, what is he? Is he a part of the brute fact of existence we’ve been talking about?

[mcc1789]

God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent

As always, these words are usually misunderstood. 

"Omnipotent" doesn't mean God can do anything. There are any number of things he can't do, like logical impossibilities. 

The idea of omnipotence is based in the contrast of act and potency -- whether a characteristic is fully enacted or only latent and potential. Every material thing has potential -- it can change, grow, decay, fall, etc. Only God cannot change; he is totally, purely actualized. By saying he is omnipotent, theologians are saying that he is the cause of the activation of the potentialities in the material world. There is a long involved argument as to why the activation of potencies in the world requires a completely non-potential cause. But that's a different subject, and you won't like it anyway. 

"Omniscient" also depends on Aristotelian metaphysics. It doesn't simply mean that there is a mind and it knows stuff. 

The theory was that to know something, we take in its form but not its material. The material wouldn't fit into our heads anyway, but the form on its own is immaterial and has no extension in space. Since God contains all the forms, yet is perfectly immaterial, it is argued that all the forms, which constitute knowledge in animals, is present immaterially in him.

Again, I'm very sure you won't agree with any of this, and I'm not trying to persuade you. I'm only saying that the simple "he can do anything," or "he knows if you've been bad or good," dumbed-down versions of this are indeed silly, but that is not what serious people aver. Nor is this merely wordplay to try to save appearances, because it originates in serious attempts to understand the world that pre-date Christianity.

---

And that's not even getting into how a timeless being acquired the power to bring things into existence by commanding it to.

Timeless beings can't acquire anything. That would require change.

This seems like a related issue. How does bringing something into creation not involve actualizing a potential? Yet if that's so, isn't God less than pure actuality, as he has potential to create?

[Anomalocaris]

I think there's a logical argument to be made against God's existence here on the basis of incompatible properties. God is outside time, we're told. He's not only eternal (existing forever) but also unaffected by temporal changes. He is after all the creator too, and that includes time. Yet when something is created, it comes into being. That entails a previous instance where it didn't exist of course. Yet if time itself was created, that makes no sense. To speak of a time "before" time is meaningless. Moreover, how does a timeless being create while outside time (and space as well)? A creation involves a change in space and time. It's enough to see how this could be done by a lesser being. How though could it be with a timeless being? I suggest it's incoherent, and the very fact that things do exist shows that such a being (i.e. God) doesn't. What do you think?

justify not believing any way ya want.

from an engineering perspective it seems more likely they have some properties of their god correct and some properties not so much.

Yes.  They got god’s existence wrong, but his power of salvation right.

Which engineering school did you attend?

---

A very serious summary of the very serious answer to that very serious question, is that the faithful contend that everything has to stick to the rules, except their god.

Their god is so pathetic that even when free from any rule that they insist applies to anyone else, as well as any other conceivable ones which anyone with even the most minimum interest in actually knowing whether a treasured belief has validity or not might use to inform that interest, they still can’t get their god to win except through their own assertions.

[Belacqua]

I would like to see this argument laid out, if you’re interested in taking the time. 

@mcc1789
I enjoy working on these things, because it helps me understand the arguments. 
Trying to do it on threads like this one, though, is like trying to do it in a bus station full of angry people. If you have the focus, I admire that, but I'll wait for calmer climes.

[The Grand Nudger]

Punted, lol.

[mcc1789]

I would like to see this argument laid out, if you’re interested in taking the time. 

@mcc1789
I enjoy working on these things, because it helps me understand the arguments. 
Trying to do it on threads like this one, though, is like trying to do it in a bus station full of angry people. If you have the focus, I admire that, but I'll wait for calmer climes.

Okay, well... You can PM me about it too if you'd prefer. I really do wish to understand. My intent isn't to attack strawman. That can happen due to ignorance though I realize.


P. S. I can't reply here it seems without my comment being joined to the previous one. Anyone got an idea why?