What does it mean to say God created time?

[outhouse]

Because our study of science is inevitably affected by our perception. And we perceive time.

only in a very limited scale

 

[Storm]

first you need to prove a deity exist before you can attribute something to it.


your lack or gap of knowledge here doesnt need to be filled with a deity of any shape or form

"A is less nonsensical than B" =/= "A 4eva!!!!1!"

 

[outhouse]

and storm ,,, i dont mean that in a negative way.

spacetime is a hard thing for most humans to grasp

 

[1137]

Hello folks:

If I understand Abrahamic religions correctly, it is believed that "YHWH/Allah created time".

My thoughts are that "God created time" is a meaningless collection of words. Time is eternal and it is uncreated.

For God to be the cause of an effect, God has to temporally precede the effect.

Any thoughts?

Eternal is something that exists outside of time. Time existing outside of time is a paradoxical belief. Time may possibly just be the way we currently perceive things, and maybe it does not exist at all? I don't know, thinking about time freaks me out haha.

Now, there is an argument for god's existence called the Contingency Argument:

Main Argument
1. All beings are either necessary or contingent.
2. Not all beings can be contingent.
Therefore: there is a necessary being.
3. A god is the most likely necessary being.
Therefore: god exists.

Argument for Premise 1
1.' Every being must be necessary (explained in terms of itself), contingent (explained in terms of another thing), or unexplained (without explanation).
2.' There must be an explanation for every being and every fact (Principle of Sufficient Reason).
Therefore: every being is either necessary or contingent.

Argument for Premise 2
1.'' If every being is contingent, there is no explanation for the series of contingencies.
2.'' There must be an explanation for every being and every fact (PSR)
Therefore: not all beings are contingent.


This argument, if sound, explains how god can have created and be separate from time. God does not need an explanation for why it exists, as it is the Necessary Being. Time however, if it exists, does.

 

[Nois Forme]

...The clock does not actually tick any faster. ..Once both observers are in the same frame of reference, they once again perceive the repeated cycle of the clock ticking (or time) the same way.

Actually, each observer involved in the 'clock paradox' (akin to the twin paradox) have their own clock. When they again meet, the clocks have indeed measured different amounts of time. It is a real, physical, measurable phenomenon.

"The clock-paradox phenomenon has been observed directly in an experiment performed in 1971 by J. C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, who observed differences in elapsed times of atomically stabilized clocks flown in airplanes as compared with ones on the ground." (Clock paradox: Definition from Answers.com)

 

[fantome profane]

3. A god is the most likely necessary being.

Nonsense

God does not need an explanation for why it exists, as it is the Necessary Being.

More nonsense.

 

[Skwim]

No. Time doesn't exist in the first place.

Well, the word has to refer to something. Exactly what is the referent denoted by the term "time"? You say it is "a result of how we perceive things." So what is the nature of that result? What are its characteristics?

From what you've said, whatever they are they evidently cease to be when a " person goes to sleep." This also implies that there should be no reason why my time should be the same as your time, but if that is so just how do they synchronize in such a way that they are identical: we can both agree to the second when January 1st, 2012 10:07:32 PM occurs ?

The thing is that, whether we realize it or not, everything is always changing. Time is our way of keeping track of certain changes so we can pretend that things aren't changing.

Excuse me, but I don't know of anyone who pretends things aren't changing.

Because most people have become accustomed to static living.

And "static living" is, what?

 

[1137]

Nonsense
More nonsense.

First of all, not even my argument. But how is this nonsense? Please support criticisms made against valid logical arguments.

 

[Skwim]

Eternal is something that exists outside of time. Time existing outside of time is a paradoxical belief. Time may possibly just be the way we currently perceive things, and maybe it does not exist at all? I don't know, thinking about time freaks me out haha.

Now, there is an argument for god's existence called the Contingency Argument:

Main Argument
1. All beings are either necessary or contingent.
2. Not all beings can be contingent.
Therefore: there is a necessary being.
3. A god is the most likely necessary being.
Therefore: god exists.

Argument for Premise 1
1.' Every being must be necessary (explained in terms of itself), contingent (explained in terms of another thing), or unexplained (without explanation).
2.' There must be an explanation for every being and every fact (Principle of Sufficient Reason).
Therefore: every being is either necessary or contingent.

Argument for Premise 2
1.'' If every being is contingent, there is no explanation for the series of contingencies.
2.'' There must be an explanation for every being and every fact (PSR)
Therefore: not all beings are contingent.


This argument, if sound, explains how god can have created and be separate from time. God does not need an explanation for why it exists, as it is the Necessary Being. Time however, if it exists, does.

Never mind.


What fantôme profane said.

 

[PolyHedral]

Because our study of science is inevitably affected by our perception. And we perceive time.

You have looked at quantum mechanics, haven't you? It's a major problem in theoretical research that the new theories must match up to our perceptions, and making that happen is often quite hard. (And this is before making it match up to normality, which is a lot harder again.)

If anything, the link you posted to time dilation proves just that. The key point is that there are observers. The clock does not actually tick any faster.

Actually, the key point was that Einstein proved that it does. A major example of this is the GPS satellite network: it loses 105 picoseconds per second, so any useful result has to correct for Relativity. A high-speed clock will measure shorter durations than a stationary one; this was one of the experiments done to prove Relativity shortly after the technology became available.

 

[fantome profane]

First of all, not even my argument. But how is this nonsense? Please support criticisms made against valid logical arguments.

It is nonsense because there is absolutely no reason for making this statement.

3. A god is the most likely necessary being.

I could just as well say that a god is the least likely necessary being. I could just as well say that a quantum fluctuation is the most likely necessary being.

No reason, no evidence, no argument that a god is a necessary being at all, much less the most likely necessary being. No reason, no evidence, no argument - therefore nonsense.

 

[1137]

It is nonsense because there is absolutely no reason for making this statement.

I could just as well say that a god is the least likely necessary being. I could just as well say that a quantum fluctuation is the most likely necessary being.

No reason, no evidence, no argument that a god is a necessary being at all, much less the most likely necessary being. No reason, no evidence, no argument - therefore nonsense.

Obviously you aren't even slightly understanding where the creator of the argument is coming from I. A quantum fluctuation is a contingency. I apologize, but as a philosopher I refuse to blindly accept something with no explanation. If God is not a logical necessary being, please provide other examples that could be the necessary being and not contingent.

I personally don't believe it is god, but the argument is completely valid, even if not sound.

 

[fantome profane]

I apologize, but as a philosopher I refuse to blindly accept something with no explanation. If God is not a logical necessary being, please provide other examples that could be the necessary being and not contingent.

Then you should not be content to accept that "God" can exist with no explanation. Simply because the premise of an argument states that "God" can exist without an explanation is not a good reason for accepting that.

I have no idea what a necessary being would entail, but I don't think I am required to provide one simply because I am pointing out that the argument you gave us does not provide one.

I personally don't believe it is god, but the argument is completely valid, even if not sound.

I'm ok with that. But a good synonym for "unsound" would be "nonsense".

btw, perhaps you could tell me what a quantum fluctuation is contingent upon.

 

[1137]

Then you should not be content to accept that "God" can exist with no explanation. Simply because the premise of an argument states that "God" can exist without explanation is not a good reason for accepting that.

So like I thought, you don't understand the argument.

I have no idea what a necessary being would entail, but I don't think I am required to provide one simply because I am pointing out that the argument you gave us does not provide one.

It does if you read and understand it...

I'm ok with that. But a good synonym for "unsound" would be "nonsense".

Since it is valid, this statement is false (and evidence of ignorance of how philosophy works). If a valid argument is nonsense, I'm sure you yourself believe plenty of nonsense.

btw, perhaps you could tell me what a quantum fluctuation is contingent upon.

Is it cause by something, even something small or that we don't understand yet?

 

[PolyHedral]

Is it cause by something, even something small or that we don't understand yet?

No.

 

[Skwim]

Obviously you aren't even slightly understanding where the creator of the argument is coming from I. A quantum fluctuation is a contingency. I apologize, but as a philosopher I refuse to blindly accept something with no explanation. If God is not a logical necessary being, please provide other examples that could be the necessary being and not contingent.

I personally don't believe it is god, but the argument is completely valid, even if not sound.

As a philosopher then, you're aware that a valid but unsound argument is of no more value than a invalid, unsound argument.

Argument for Premise 1
1.' Every being must be necessary (explained in terms of itself), contingent (explained in terms of another thing), or unexplained (without explanation).
2.' There must be an explanation for every being and every fact (Principle of Sufficient Reason).
Therefore: every being is either necessary or contingent.

Curious as to how one would establish a being "explained in terms of itself," which would amount to an intensional definition, without resorting to contingents, external concepts, as I understand your usage. Or am I misunderstanding your use of "necessary"?'

 

[fantome profane]

Go back and reread the original argument again yourself. Notice that you give an argument in support of premise #1. Notice also that you give an argument in support of premise #2. And notice that there is no argument in support of premise #3.

Can you give me an argument in support of premise #3?

 

[1137]

No.

Haha can you send me a good link on what this is? I'm a philosopher / psychologist, not very good with physics and I am curious to learn. As it is not a contingent thing, it could be the Necessary something. I discussed this in a class once and we decided that these are the options:

1. There is a necessary being - God
2. There is a necessary something - matter / energy
3. There is a necessary something X (something we cannot understand, lije the Tao)
4. The big bang is the start of everything (brute fact)
5. All there is is an infinite series of contingencies (brute fact)

 

[1137]

Go back and reread the original argument again yourself. Notice that you give an argument in support of premise #1. Notice also that you give an argument in support of premise #2. And notice that there is no argument in support of premise #3.

Can you give me an argument in support of premise #3?

Considering that it is an argument for god specifically, and the writer was a theist, it is a premise you simply accept. Same with the PSR. Again, not my fault. However, if you understood the argument better, it makes sense. The premise comes out of the main argument itself. According to the nature of a necessary being, god is one of the more logical choices.

 

[DandyAndy]

Hello folks:

If I understand Abrahamic religions correctly, it is believed that "YHWH/Allah created time".

My thoughts are that "God created time" is a meaningless collection of words. Time is eternal and it is uncreated.

For God to be the cause of an effect, God has to temporally precede the effect.

Any thoughts?

Time cannot be eternal. Time must be finite.

The definition of time involves a beginning and an ending. This is how time is measured - a start and a finish.

GOD is said to have created time because GOD has no beginning and He has no end.