Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    Davidqwert's Avatar
    Davidqwert Posts: 0, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #1

    May 8, 2017, 06:39 PM
    Is it possible to logically prove that God created time?
    I believe it is a logical impossibility for God to have created time in the first place, because creating time requires time to exist (during the creating) and not exist at that very same moment (during which, time still needs to be created because time does not yet exist). In other words, if time did not yet exist, in order for God to create time in the first place, a moment in time must already exist during which God recognizes his need to create time; a second moment in time must already exist during which God designs a plan to create time; and a third moment in time must already exist during which God implements his plan to create time, and all three of these moments in time must exist precisely at a time when time itself does not yet exist in order for time to still need to be created. And this unsolvable paradox doesn't disappear simply by claiming God is "outside of time", or God "transcends time", because no matter what dimension we imagine God to be in when God is "outside of time", God still cannot create time in that imaginary dimension unless time already exists in that imaginary dimension, because creating time in any dimension will always require time to exist and not exist at the very same moment in that very same dimension, thereby violating the Law of Non-Contradiction. So my question is, "Is it possible to logically prove that God created time?" (without simply claiming that "God can do anything, so God must be able to create time?" or claiming, "God can create time because God is outside of time").
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 39,354, Reputation: 5431
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #2

    May 8, 2017, 07:11 PM
    Christians would tell you God created the sun, moon, and stars. Seeing their movements, man created time, the common term for the experience of duration and fundamental quantity of measuring systems, and the inevitable progression into the future with the passing of present events into the past.
    Fr_Chuck's Avatar
    Fr_Chuck Posts: 81,301, Reputation: 7692
    Expert
     
    #3

    May 8, 2017, 07:33 PM
    You can not even use logic to prove God exists. And in reality time is a man made idea, that man does by using sun movement and planet movements.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #4

    May 8, 2017, 07:58 PM
    Logic only gets you so far, and logic is not proof, just a way to form a theory, or belief. Its only one way however and you don't need logic for either a theory, or a belief, nor an opinion.

    You can be logical, and be wrong so in my opinion, no, logic is no proof of ANYTHING.
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #5

    May 8, 2017, 09:18 PM
    Instead of trying to outguess God, or trying to prove God doesn't exist, because in fact, this is what you are doing, why don't you try to get to know God. The Scripture says, in the beginning, so it is a given that there was moment when time might not have existed and yet God existed. God wants to know very human being personally so that we can be with him for all eternity.

    How long is eternity? We do not know, it is certainly longer that the 14 billion years this universe is said to have existed, but it is not important we know everything, only that we know the one who created us.
    ma0641's Avatar
    ma0641 Posts: 15,675, Reputation: 1012
    Uber Member
     
    #6

    May 9, 2017, 12:07 PM
    In Genesis 1, it never mentions time. Man decided to make time notation. Time keeping is a relatively new thing, geologically speaking. In ancient days, man got up with the sun and went to bed when it got dark. The current sexagesimal (60) system of time measurement dates to approximately 2000 BC from the Sumerians.
    joypulv's Avatar
    joypulv Posts: 21,591, Reputation: 2941
    current pert
     
    #7

    May 9, 2017, 02:19 PM
    This should be under Religion.
    Why are you going through all this when you have made an assumption to begin with - that God exists?
    Belief in God requires FAITH. Faith is not a part of logic, science, or philosophy.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #8

    May 9, 2017, 04:01 PM
    In many cases human logic is a BIG leap of faith!
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #9

    May 9, 2017, 06:46 PM
    The concept of time is God given, in Genesis he divides time into days and the day into days and nights. It is obvious that man didn't like the imprecision of these and divided up the day into hours, etc and obsessed with this we get ever shorter periods, and ever longer periods.

    Only one question remains, is this logical enough for you?
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #10

    May 9, 2017, 07:08 PM
    The only things that's logical here is that you are human and have your beliefs.
    Davidqwert's Avatar
    Davidqwert Posts: 0, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #11

    May 17, 2017, 05:48 AM
    To wondergirl,

    All the laws of physics require time to exist as an actual independent "thing" in order for these laws to mathematically describe energy changes over time. Therefore time must exist as an actual independent "thing" and not simply a "common term for the 'experience' of duration and fundamental quantity of measuring systems, and the inevitable progression into the future with the passing of present events into the past."

    Secondly, if you are correct, then time is merely perception and not an actual "thing". But science has proven that spacetime is an actual "thing", which means that time itself (the "time-part" of spacetime) must be an actual "thing" also. Otherwise, instead of space + time = spacetime, it would be space + perception = space alone.

    Thirdly, our bodies age, and the aging of our bodies requires time to exist as an actual "thing" in order for this to happen. The aging of our bodies does not require us to actually perceive our aging in order that aging to happen.

    Fourth, science has proven that extreme gravity can slow down time, which is why it is thought that time stops in a black hole. But for gravity to "grab-hold-of-time" (so to speak) in order for gravity to slow down time, then once again, time itself must be a real "thing".

    Therefore, time is not merely perception or intuition as you imply, but is a real "thing".

    So my question remains: "Can you prove that God could create the real "Can you prove that God could create the real " that is time without time itself already being in existence?"
    Davidqwert's Avatar
    Davidqwert Posts: 0, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #12

    May 17, 2017, 06:14 AM
    To Fr_Chuck,

    Sure you can, Chuck. You personally use the logic of probability every day. Every day you presume that your car will start when you turn the key or push the button because it worked that way yesterday and the day before, etc. You use the logic of probability to reason, "things that happened a lot in the past in the same way are likely to happen again in the same way." In daily life, when it comes to the logic of probability, evolutionists and atheists reason the same way as Christian creationists. But creationists reason the same way in science as they reason in daily life, whereas evolutionists and atheists reason just the opposite way in some areas of science than they reason in daily life.

    Here are two examples. For instance, if something is too improbable to have happened by chance in daily life, evolutionists, atheists and Christian creationists will all conclude that the event happened by intelligent design because of the probabilities. But when it comes to the origin of life, regardless of the colossal improbabilities against abiogenesis or against the evolution of one phylum into another phylum, evolutionists and atheists will reason just the opposite way in science than they reason in daily life and conclude that abiogenesis and the evolution of one phylum into another phylum happened despite the probabilities. Christian creationists, however, apply the probabilities the same way in science as they do in daily life, and conclude that because of the improbabilities, that an Intelligent Designer was involved in the origin of life and in the origin of various phyla. Ergo, Atheists and evolutionist have adopted a double standard for applying probabilities--one standard for daily life, and an entirely opposite standard for abiogenesis and evolution. This double standard is a logical Fallacy of Inconsistency--applying rules and criteria to one argument, claim, belief or position but not to others. And a logical fallacy is an instance of incorrect reasoning that creates an invalid form of argument.

    Here is a second example. In daily life, "things don't create themselves out of nothing" and all atheists, evolutionists and Christian creationists believe this. We also have the Law of Energy Conservation which tells us the same thing (at least when it comes to energy itself). But when it comes to the actual origin of energy out of nothing, Athiests and cosmological evolutionists reason just the opposite way in science from the way they ordinarily reason in daily life and conclude that billions of years ago, energy did create itself out of nothing. (Their A Prior beliefs leads their conclusions by the nose.) This again is a double standard for reasoning, and again, a double standard is a logical Fallacy of Inconsistency--applying rules and criteria to one argument, claim, belief or position but not to others. And a logical fallacy is an instance of incorrect reasoning that creates an invalid form of argument.

    Chuck, I could go on and on about how atheists and evolutionists reason just the opposite way in "origin science" from the way they ordinarily reason in daily life.
    So it is real easy to prove by default that an Intelligent Designer must exist, and the way atheists and evolutionists get around that idea is to adopt a double standard for their own reasoning, so they can reason just the opposite way in science as they reason in daily life, and never even recognize that they are doing this.
    Davidqwert's Avatar
    Davidqwert Posts: 0, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #13

    May 17, 2017, 06:42 AM
    Talaniman, do you have children? Because if you do, and if you ask your child,

    "Where is my jelly donut? That was my jelly donut. I just turned around to answer my cell phone and my jelly donut is gone. And you have powdered sugar on your fingers and lips that was not there a moment ago and some new jelly on your lips that was not their a moment ago. So, logically you must have eaten my donut, son."

    It would be interesting if your son replied, "Dad, you are wrong, because as you taught me, 'Logic only gets you so far, and logic is not proof, just a way to form a theory, or belief... So you can be logical, and be wrong so in my opinion, no, LOGIC IS NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.' So dad, none of what you just said proves that that I ate your donut."

    Sound arguments are indeed logical proof, but unsound arguments can be illogical and can be incorrect if the premises are incorrect or if the reasoning is wrong. However, if the information available to the debater is complete, and if his premises are valid and if his conclusions are valid then he has what is called a "sound argument". The study of logical fallacies is the study of why logic may seem correct but can occasionally be incorrect because of the reasons I just mentioned.

    That being said, a "sound argument" is indeed logical proof. And it is the same "proof" that you yourself use in daily life with your family and with other people you meet, including when you make an argument while posting on this website. I presume that all the arguments that you yourself post are "logical", are they not, and all your arguments are supposed to be supported by your own logic, are they not? In fact, let me ask you, can you actually prove what you said using logic? In other words,

    "Can you prove by logic, that logic is not proof?"

    Because if you cannot prove by logic that logic is not proof, then you cannot make that claim. On the other hand, if you can indeed prove by logic, that logic is not proof, then from now on, all your posts must be supported by something in addition to your logic. (And by the way, adding empirical evidence to support your logic only changes your logic from deductive logic to inductive logic or a combination of both. But it is still logic. Of course, even that won't be enough to support the arguments in any of your future posts, because you're the one who claims that "LOGIC IS NO PROOF OF ANYTHING."
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #14

    May 17, 2017, 06:51 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidqwert View Post
    To wondergirl,

    All the laws of physics require time to exist as an actual independent "thing" in order for these laws to mathematically describe energy changes over time. Therefore time must exist as an actual independent "thing" and not simply a "common term for the 'experience' of duration and fundamental quantity of measuring systems, and the inevitable progression into the future with the passing of present events into the past."
    Humans do not know ALL the laws of physics, so cannot factually base what we do know as imperial facts. You have left out factors that may well be important such as the things that change energy from one form to another. We find old bones and fossils buried in the earth of long dead animals but does proof of their existence explain what happened to them? Or where they came from in the first place? What we do know is that time does affect reality of the NOW.

    Secondly, if you are correct, then time is merely perception and not an actual "thing". But science has proven that spacetime is an actual "thing", which means that time itself (the "time-part" of spacetime) must be an actual "thing" also. Otherwise, instead of space + time = spacetime, it would be space + perception = space alone.
    The reality is YOU/WE are here with no clue where we came from, or how we got here, or even where the hell is HERE! So our perception of time is a flawed thing because of what we don't know so cannot relate to but that never stopped us humans of filling in the gaps with things that make us comfortable but doesn't change the ignorance of not knowing for sure. That's what is flawed, we cannot explain how, when, why that you have left out of your equation.

    Thirdly, our bodies age, and the aging of our bodies requires time to exist as an actual "thing" in order for this to happen. The aging of our bodies does not require us to actually perceive our aging in order that aging to happen.
    Sure we exist NOW, because we perceive reality, but flies and mosquitoes exist now too, and bite, but die in shorter times than humans, while a turtle may out live humans by double. So what? You can certainly perceive as you age the CHANGE of your physical and mental boundaries can't you? Does it matter that you accept your aging, or not?

    Fourth, science has proven that extreme gravity can slow down time, which is why it is thought that time stops in a black hole. But for gravity to "grab-hold-of-time" (so to speak) in order for gravity to slow down time, then once again, time itself must be a real "thing".
    Again, you speculate without knowing the facts of not just a black hole, but of gravity itself and the functional relationship of the things you have referenced. The basic cause and effects of forces we are just trying to understand. Read the parable of the blind men who encountered an elephant and tried to explain it and you get a lesson in perception, and perspective by humans. Wouldn't it be fascinating if they had collaborated instead of argued about what an elephant is like?

    Therefore, time is not merely perception or intuition as you imply, but is a real "thing".
    If I grant your premise that time is real, explain to me the relationship between time, space,and humans with all the factors (Forces) in between, some we know, and many we do NOT.

    So my question remains: "Can you prove that God could create the real "Can you prove that God could create the real " that is time without time itself already being in existence?"
    NO! Because you simply do NOT know enough! Or to put it more gently, you have not presented enough FACTS.

    PS

    My kids AND grandkids already know I will snatch their jelly donuts or french fries AND will lie about it, if they are distracted. No logic needed in that regard. The lesson, don't get distracted or you may lose your donuts or fries.
    Davidqwert's Avatar
    Davidqwert Posts: 0, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #15

    May 17, 2017, 07:04 AM
    Oh, Paraclete, you are so wrong. I have been a born-again Christian believer for more than 50 years, and I have read the Bible cover-to-cover ten times and I have led people to Christ and have had Bible-studies in my home. I am a Bible-believing Christian creationist, and I believe salvation by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ's sacrificial death on the cross. So I am certainly not trying to prove God does not exist.

    That being said, many Christians, both new-born Christians and older Christian elders, have occasionally wondered,

    "How could our eternal God with no beginning have ever come into existence in the first place and still be eternal with no beginning?"

    I'm sure you have heard earnest, well-meaning Christians occasionally ask that question, have you not? Please re-read my question, Paraclete, and you will see that there is absolutely nothing about my question that suggests that I was trying to prove that God does not exist.

    I think that you have been in so many discussions with non-believers that you saw an overlap between my argument and their arguments. And while I too can see an overlap between my arguments and theirs, this overlap is actually no different than the overlap of an earnest, well-meaning Christian asking a question about "Where did God come from?" If a new Christian was just baptized in your church and he asked the question, "Where did our eternal God come from?" or "How could God have created time without time itself already being in existence?", would you automatically conclude that he was trying to prove that God did not exist? Of course you wouldn't. Yet that is exactly what you concluded about me.

    To ma0641, your argument presumes that time is not a real thing but only perception or intuition. That is false.

    As I said to wondergirl,

    All the laws of physics require time to exist as an actual independent "thing" in order for these laws to mathematically describe energy changes over time. Therefore time must exist as an actual independent "thing" and not simply a "common term for the 'experience' of duration and fundamental quantity of measuring systems, and the inevitable progression into the future with the passing of present events into the past."

    Secondly, if you are correct, then time is merely perception and not an actual "thing". But science has proven that spacetime is an actual "thing", which means that time itself (the "time-part" of spacetime) must be an actual "thing" also. Otherwise, instead of space + time = spacetime, it would be space + perception = space alone.

    Thirdly, our bodies age, and the aging of our bodies requires time to exist as an actual "thing" in order for this to happen. The aging of our bodies does not require us to actually perceive our aging in order that aging to happen.

    Fourth, science has proven that extreme gravity can slow down time, which is why it is thought that time stops in a black hole. But for gravity to "grab-hold-of-time" (so to speak) in order for gravity to slow down time, then once again, time itself must be a real "thing".

    Therefore, time is not merely perception or intuition as you imply, but is a real "thing".

    So my question remains: "Can you prove that God could create the real "Can you prove that God could create the real " that is time without time itself already being in existence?"
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #16

    May 17, 2017, 07:06 AM
    FACT-It takes KIDS and Grandkids TIME to understand what the older guy is teaching them. As they grow and age they LEARN.

    The lesson-More will be revealed later as understanding grows with MORE facts. You must be able to ADAPT!
    Davidqwert's Avatar
    Davidqwert Posts: 0, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #17

    May 17, 2017, 07:28 AM
    To talaniman,

    I should have said, "all the KNOWN laws of physics". So how's this:

    All the KNOWN laws of physics require time to exist as an actual independent "thing" in order for these laws to mathematically describe energy changes over time. Therefore time must exist as an actual independent "thing" and not simply a "common term for the 'experience' of duration and fundamental quantity of measuring systems, and the inevitable progression into the future with the passing of present events into the past."

    Talaniman, do you know what the Fallacy of the Irrelevant Thesis is?

    Fallacy of the Irrelevant Thesis--supposing an argument roving an irrelevant point has also proved the point at issue.

    In other words, even if everything you mentioned were proven to be absolutely true, none of what you mentioned would actually be relevant to my simple question, "Can God create time if time itself does not already exist?" And a person doesn't have to know all the other things you suggest in order to ask that simple question or make the simple argument that I made in my first post.

    Your argument suggests that since there is much more that could be known about any and every given subject, that no one should ever make an argument or ask a question about anything whatsoever until that person knows everything about everything. That type of argument would make all conversation between anyone to be useless.

    Ma0164,

    I agree, but still, since time itself is a real "thing" that allows the laws of physics to work and that gravity can slow down, then my question remains, "Can God create the actual "Can God create the actual " that is time without time itself already being in existence?"
    Davidqwert's Avatar
    Davidqwert Posts: 0, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #18

    May 17, 2017, 07:35 AM
    To joypulv,

    Many parts of faith are very logical; some parts are less logical; and for some very unusual faiths, very few parts of those faiths are logical. For instance, when a Christian apologist defends his faith in a debate, you can be sure that he will provide many "logical" reasons for his faith. The opposing debater may not agree with any of them, but that doesn't mean he cannot see the "logic" within his opponent's argument.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #19

    May 17, 2017, 07:50 AM
    Debating with a fellow human is hardly useless, be he uninformed, or a great scholar, or even just opinionated. It's but a FUN fact of human behavior and interaction.

    Interaction is the basis of human relationships. Something to do as we mark our time together. You like it so admit it!

    8D
    Davidqwert's Avatar
    Davidqwert Posts: 0, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #20

    May 17, 2017, 07:55 AM
    Paraclete, I agree that God did what you claim. But that being said, my [implied] question still remains,

    Can God created time without time itself already being in existence?"

    You know, when I first wrote my initial question, I predicted (to myself) that absolutely no one would actually address the implied question,

    "Can God created time without time itself already being in existence?"

    And I was right. No one has addressed it. At least, as of 10:42 AM on Wednesday, 5-17-2017, no on has actually addressed the question.

    There might be those who have already responded to my original post who might now be prompted to address my question (which means addressing each particular premise and each particular conclusion in my argument) after reading what I have just written. Of course, I shouldn't have to remind you that an argument must be addressed because of its particular merits or lack of merits in its premises and conclusions. So far, none of the arguments in any of your rebuttals have ever come close to addressing the premises of my arguments of my conclusions.

    Suppose I asked the question in a different way, "

    "Can an eternal God be actually living for an eternity before God got eventually around to creating time?"

    This is a sister question to my earlier question:

    "Can God created time without time itself already being in existence?"

    Since none of your answers have even come close to addressing my question, then I will no longer visit this site to read what any of you have written.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search


Check out some similar questions!

Why does my boyfriend not want me to live with him when logically it makes sense? [ 10 Answers ]

My boyfriend and I have been together for two years, both live in the same city and ardently love each other. With that being said, I'm really confused right now about the living situation. Im at a new university across the city so I can't live with my family anymore and have to move into a new...

I've been given two chances,blew them both how can I prove that I won't this time? [ 4 Answers ]

I lied to my boyfriend but about the smallest thing and he took me back,I then lied again he took me back,this time I haven't really lied I told him the truth buh he doesn't seem to see it,I want to prove to him that I'm not the person he thinks I am. He said that I was perfect but it was the lies...

Time between paper signing and prove-up in IL [ 9 Answers ]

Hi can anyone tell me if any changes can be made to the Joint Parenting Agreement, and the Marital Settlement documents once they have been signed and you are just waiting for prove-up? I ask this because my ex is acting weird and I fear that he will try to change what we agreed upon. There...


View more questions Search