Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Durston and Craig on an infinite temporal past . . .

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In recent days, the issue of an infinite temporal past as a step by step causal succession has come up at UD. For, it seems the evolutionary materialist faces the unwelcome choice of a cosmos from a true nothing — non-being or else an actually completed infinite past succession of finite causal steps.

Durston:

>>To  avoid  the  theological  and  philosophical  implications  of  a  beginning  for the  universe,  some  naturalists  such  as  Sean  Carroll  suggest  that  all  we  need  to  do  is  build  a  successful  mathematical  model  of  the  universe  where  time  t runs  from  minus  infinity  to  positive  infinity. Although  there  is  no  problem  in  having  t run  from  minus  infinity  to  plus  infinity with  a  mathematical  model,  the real past  history  of  the  universe  cannot  be  a  completed  infinity  of  seconds  that  elapsed,  one  second  at  a  time. There  are at  least  two  problems.  First,  an  infinite  real  past  requires  a  completed  infinity, which  is  a  single  object and  does  not  describe  how  history  actually  unfolds.  Second,  it  is  impossible  to  count  down  from  negative  infinity  without  encountering the  problem  of  a  potential infinity  that  never  actually  reaches  infinity. For  the  real  world,  therefore,  there  must  be  a  first  event  that  occurred  a  finite  amount  of  time  ago  in  the  past . . . [More] >>

Craig:

>Strictly speaking, I wouldn’t say, as you put it, that a “beginningless causal chain would be (or form) an actually infinite set.” Sets, if they exist, are abstract objects and so should not be identified with the series of events in time. Using what I would regard as the useful fiction of a set, I suppose we could say that the set of past events is an infinite set if the series of past events is beginningless. But I prefer simply to say that if the temporal series of events is beginningless, then the number of past events is infinite or that there has occurred an infinite number of past events . . . .

It might be said that at least there have been past events, and so they can be numbered. But by the same token there will be future events, so why can they not be numbered? Accordingly, one might be tempted to say that in an endless future there will be an actually infinite number of events, just as in a beginningless past there have been an actually infinite number of events. But in a sense that assertion is false; for there never will be an actually infinite number of events, since it is impossible to count to infinity. The only sense in which there will be an infinite number of events is that the series of events will go toward infinity as a limit.

But that is the concept of a potential infinite, not an actual infinite. Here the objectivity of temporal becoming makes itself felt. For as a result of the arrow of time, the series of events later than any arbitrarily selected past event is properly to be regarded as potentially infinite, that is to say, finite but indefinitely increasing toward infinity as a limit. The situation, significantly, is not symmetrical: as we have seen, the series of events earlier than any arbitrarily selected future event cannot properly be regarded as potentially infinite. So when we say that the number of past events is infinite, we mean that prior to today ℵ0 events have elapsed. But when we say that the number of future events is infinite, we do not mean that ℵ0 events will elapse, for that is false. [More]>>

Food for further thought. END

PS: As issues on numbers etc have become a major focus for discussion, HT DS here is a presentation of the overview:

unity

Where also, this continuum result is useful:

unified_continuum

PPS: As a blue vs pink punched paper tape example is used below, cf the real world machines

Punched paper Tape, as used in older computers and numerically controlled machine tools (Courtesy Wiki & Siemens)
Punched paper Tape, as used in older computers and numerically controlled machine tools (Courtesy Wiki & Siemens)

and the abstraction for mathematical operations:

punchtapes_1-1

Note as well a Turing Machine physical model:

Turing_Machine_Model_Davey_2012

and its abstracted operational form for Mathematical analysis:

turing_machine

F/N: HT BA77, let us try to embed a video: XXXX nope, fails XXXX so instead let us instead link the vid page.

Comments
may well be far worse.
Could you explain more specifically what could be "far worse" than paradoxical. I don't think we have any idea what you're talking about, and you won't tell us.Aleta
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
KF,
the concept of infinitely many finite counting sets incrementing from {} –> 0 by the copy set so far principle, becomes at minimum paradoxical, and may well be far worse. KF
Have you found any published sources indicating there is an actual logical problem here? I would think such a problem would have been identified long ago.daveS
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
Aleta, the issue is not mathematics constraining reality so much as that reality is coherent, a logical criterion. Bring to bear structural and quantitative aspects and then we see that such coherence can have mathematical forms. As for mind changing, the issue I have has been openly stated from early on, the concept of infinitely many finite counting sets incrementing from {} --> 0 by the copy set so far principle, becomes at minimum paradoxical, and may well be far worse. KFkairosfocus
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
KF, I am not going to bring up God again because we just go down the rabbit hole.Me_Think
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
I don't think changing kf's mind about anything is a reasonable goal. My goals are 1. to learn to really understand the positions of others, in part by pushing them to articulate and further their views, 2. to improve my understanding and ability to articulate my own views, 3. to learn more, both from others and by researching topics that are brought up (I've re-learned lots of stuff I've haven't thought about in years and learned a bunch of new stuff in this discussion) 4. to have some intellectual recreationAleta
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
Aleta #1250
Exactly what ellazimm said – very good post!
Thanks! I don't think it will change much but it was fun trying to remember examples. What did I miss . . .ellazimm
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
Exactly what ellazimm said - very good post!Aleta
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
KF #1345
was it Wheeler who wrote on the unreasonable effectiveness of Mathematics in the physical sciences?] The divorcing of the two is ill advised. That has been one of my points of concern all along.
Why is it ill-advised? When imaginary numbers were first proposed they had zero applications in the real world. When Euler came up with his famous equation he used i = sqrt(-1) without worrying about whether or not he was 'divorced' from the real world. I know you admire that equation but what does it model? What about the Goldbach conjecture (every even integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two primes)? Does the truth or falseness of that say anything about the physical world? Or Fermat's Last Theorem which occupied mathematicians for 300 years! What about the Four Color Theorem? It's easy enough to verify it for any 'real' map but that doesn't make it true in mathematics. What about Zeno's paradox? Do we actually see Achilles NOT catching up with the tortoise? What about the Axiom of Choice? Is it true? How would its truth or falseness change anything we can experience? Differential equations are terribly useful in many fields of science. Have you looked at the theorems determining when a differential equation has a continuous, differential solution? Do we, in the real world, have anything that is actually an everywhere continuous function? If I measure the coastline of England using a yard stick and you measure it with a 12-inch ruler we will get different results (after a conversion). Mandelbrot considered that kind of problem and came up with fractals (he was working on other things as well) which stay 'jagged' no matter how far you zoom in. I took a class where we studied fractional dimensions and integrals. I still can't quite get my head around that stuff. But the math works. We use values like sqrt(2) or Pi without being able to write them down or measure them beyond a rather small level of accuracy. But in mathematics they are exact values. Reality and mathematics are frequently separate. A lot of mathematics has turned out to be useful in modelling real world phenomena . . . to a level of accuracy. But if you take a real world circle and find the ratio between the measured circumference and the diameter you will not get the mathematically exact value of Pi. It's true that some mathematics was motivated by a real-life problem. But there's quite a lot that was 'discovered' just because some (mostly) guys were just trying to out-do each other. For some reason you have taken a particular topic of pure mathematics and decided you can't go there because of some perceived real world implications. You've not been able to tell us why that is so important to you on this particular point and you keep using non-standard and undefined terms to discuss the issue. Unless you can clearly and concisely explain what it is that is causing you cognitive conflicts (because the mathematics is very clear and has been for over a century) then I think it's time to agree to disagree and leave it. And PLEASE try hard to not just repeat all the things you've already said over and over again. If they didn't make sense to us the first and second and third time you said them they're not going to make sense now. Just get to the real 'problem' you see because I don't get it. 'Endlessness' is NOT a mathematical issue or problem. Why is it a problem for you?ellazimm
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
in 1345, I believe kf is affirming what I said at 1342: he believes that math constrains reality rather than that math is a tool for describing reality.Aleta
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, The von Neumann sequencing shows how stage by stage the next ordinal is a copy of the set so far. That copy is by way of union of the successive counting sets to that stage, giving the +1 succession as illustrated.
Yes, certainly.
This continues without end, end-less-ly.
If you mean we can take the successor of any ordinal, true. We cannot carry out an infinite sequence of these steps, however. That's illegal in standard logic/mathematics.
Were there an infinity of such successive sets, at the far region, zone or whatever there would be members that are endless, per that infinity or endlessness.
No, this remains to be shown. I claim the set ω includes only finite elements, and showed how assuming otherwise leads to a contradiction, so I don't believe you can show this.
All the values we can reach are finite but we cannot exhaust the set.
We cannot "exhaust the set" meaning construct ω starting with {} and the successor operation? Yes, we cannot do that in a mathematical proof.
PS: Do you see why I take a serious pause in the face of a claim like there are INFINITELY many successive FINITE natural numbers starting from 0,1,2 etc?
Yes, in that any suggestion of a contradiction should be taken seriously. I take it seriously, but it's not difficult to show that there actually is no contradiction. To sum up, I believe that I have shown that the union of the sets {}, {0}, {0, 1}, ... contains no infinite elements. My challenge to you is to prove otherwise, in standard mathematical language.daveS
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
DS, The von Neumann sequencing shows how stage by stage the next ordinal is a copy of the set so far. That copy is by way of union of the successive counting sets to that stage, giving the +1 succession as illustrated. This continues without end, end-less-ly. Were there an infinity of such successive sets, at the far region, zone or whatever there would be members that are endless, per that infinity or endlessness. The point is, we cannot attain that zone that way as at any k, endlessness lies still ahead; hence the pink vs blue tapes example. We point across the potential infinite and the ellipsis of endlessness and say the successor to the lot is w. But we cannot define a predecessor to w as a specific, finite value or member. My point is we CANNOT complete the succession and that is part of the nature of the set of successive counting sets. All the values we can reach are finite but we cannot exhaust the set. So, w has no specific finite predecessor, it is a limit ordinal. So also, we can only speak to the finitude of what we can reach to or represent, we have to accept that we cannot traverse to completion in +1 steps or things based on that. This includes ordinary mathematical induction. KF PS: Do you see why I take a serious pause in the face of a claim like there are INFINITELY many successive FINITE natural numbers starting from 0,1,2 etc?kairosfocus
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
EZ (& Aleta), forgive an early morning type-up. I adjust: >>the difference would be to
[a] first, analysis of the logic of structure and quantity [aka mathematics],
then also, necessarily, to
[b] domains in which structures (abstract or physical) and quantities are relevant.
[ --> was it Wheeler who wrote on the unreasonable effectiveness of Mathematics in the physical sciences?] The divorcing of the two is ill advised. That has been one of my points of concern all along.>> Both and, in short. But with a first and foremost. KFkairosfocus
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
KF,
DS (attn VS), the tree structure in the OP shows that in the W-zone, w – 1 to w/2 is a branch from w and would be beyond the marked ellipsis of endlessness. The far zone from the zero neighbourhood would include such. And far zone is observationally descriptive, treating quantities as a phenomenon.
Thanks, I see now. The primary issue I have at this point is your contention regarding this countably infinite sequence:
0 = {} 1 = {0} 2 = {0, 1} 3 = {0, 1, 2} etc.
namely, that if we *repeat this successor operation a countably infinite number of times*, then the resulting set will necessarily include an element of infinite cardinality. I believe at some point above you replaced the phrase enclosed with asterisks with something like "take the union of all 0, {0}, {0, 1}, ...", which I think is more correct. For example, ω is the union of all finite ordinals. ("Applying the successor operation infinitely many times" is not allowed in standard mathematical proofs, but forming the union of an arbitrary family of sets is). So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the union of the countably infinite sequence of sets 0, {0}, {0, 1}, {0, 1, 2}, ... must include an element (itself a set) of infinite cardinality. Let's call this set α. But by definition of the union of sets, this means that α ∈ {1, 2, 3, ..., n} for some natural number n. But again, the sets {0, 1, 2, ..., n} that occur in that union all have finite endpoints n (since I am not allowed to repeat the successor operation more than finitely many times). So we have a contradiction: our infinite subset α is an element of a finite set (of finite sets) {0, 1, 2, ..., n}.daveS
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
MT, the first question is whence the cosmos, a cosmos in which we find ourselves as responsibly free and rational beings. To which the best answer is a necessary and inherently good being who is also the is grounding ought. The God of ethical theism as worldview, which is not an issue of various religious traditions but of philosophy at foundational level. Such an inherently good Creator and God is worthy of our reasonable, responsible loyalty and service in light of our evident nature and equality of nature as people. This is a serious, responsible view in and of itself and not one to be brushed aside with dismissive talking points such as oh, men made up the notion of god out of whole cloth. As to the oh then why are there different views and traditions about God, look no further than that we are finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill-willed. That 876,985 + 234,761 = 1,111,746 is not answered by but different people who did the sum came up with different answers. Of course, that is what we expect in a world where error is a commonplace. The issue is, what is right, on what grounds and how can we move towards what is right. I suggest that here on, do not skip the vid, may well be of help. But, this is an aside from the main focus of this thread -- I took it up because in some ways it is even more important than the main point as the weight of one soul outweighs the wealth of a planet. KFkairosfocus
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
to Dave re:1340. I also find it hard to follow kf's meaning, and am not sure why a straightforward answer wouldn't suffice, but I think was kf is saying is that you can't separate math and reality. In some earlier posts, several times kf said that the math "constrains reality." I really think he believes that what we determine about math also tells us something certain about reality. That is the opposite of my belief, which is that we have to model reality using math, and then test the model to see if it fits. I think this difference is perhaps fundamentally driving his resistance to accepting orthodox interpretations of infinity. He thinks that in talking about infinity mathematically we are also truly discussing how time and the past have to be.Aleta
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
to me_think and kf, re: 1329. I assumed for the sake of discussion that a "root of reality" outside of time exists, but that that being was not the Christian God, and not a God with a particular interest in human beings. Part of my purpose was to separate the big philosophical ideas about time and events from the further beliefs about God of any particular human religion.Aleta
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
KF #1338
Aleta, the difference would be to first analysis of the logic of structure and quantity [aka mathematics], then also necessarily to domains in which structures (abstract or physical) and quantities are relevant. The divorcing of the two is ill advised. That has been one of my points of concern all along. KF
I find it hard to parse this sentence but it does seem that you are not necessarily objecting to the mathematical work done by Cantor and others which established methods and structures for handling infinite cardinal numbers. If that is true then Aleta, daveS and I have no argument with you. As I've said before, how you or anyone else chooses to see the mathematics reflected in the real world has nothing to do with the mathematics. I think it would be helpful if you'd clear up whether your 'concerns' have to do with the actual mathematics or its use.ellazimm
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
KF @ 1337
F/N: for those who imagine it a clever dismissive clip to suggest man invented God, I suggest a ponder here on with a look to the question of necessary being root of reality i/l/o modal considerations on being/non being. KF
Sorry KF, that link does not explain why different religion have different God with their own stories. If you have read Robert Spitzer's book (Chapter III), you know that the 'unconditional reality (God) has to be the simplest possible reality and should be uniqueMe_Think
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
Aleta, the difference would be to first analysis of the logic of structure and quantity [aka mathematics], then also necessarily to domains in which structures (abstract or physical) and quantities are relevant. The divorcing of the two is ill advised. That has been one of my points of concern all along. KF PS: It is in that context of logic in primary sense as a prior and defining aspect of mathematics that I have seen it as at minimum paradoxical and perhaps far worse, to suggest an INFINITE sequence of FINITE, successive +1 step counting steps from 0 on through 1,2,3 etc. Especially where a --> at each succession the counting set that leads to the next value is a copy of the set so far. As I pointed out yesterday. b --> Were such to go to endlessness as infinite suggests, there would be individual, endless members. c --> Which would not be finite. d --> That is why I suggest instead the view that while the sequencing -- and no it cannot be brushed aside, e.g. in von Neumann's construction it is there for all to see -- can go on endless-LY in principle, it also cannot be completed in finite stage steps. e --> It is potential, not exhausted or ended. f --> So there is ever an onward endlessness at any stage k we reach, k+1 etc on. This, the pink/blue tapes and do forever algorithm of 217 underscore. g --> The ellipsis of endlessness is a material part of the definition of the natural counting numbers. h --> It is then in recognition of an emergent type of quantity that we define w etc. And yes, i --> I am seeing this as putting a caution on how we understand what an ordinary mathematical induction . . . which preceded the axiomatisation since C19 . . . proves, that j --> a result depending on an initial case and a chaining implication case k => case k+1 will show a result that goes on endless-LY but that's not the same as giving an ending of the process that actually traverses a transfinite span that in effect reaches to the zone of w. So, k --> all PARTICULAR counting sets we can specifically reach, instantiate and/or denote by succession or representations on notations depending on such (place value, scientific etc) will be finite but such cannot exhaust endlessness. l --> We are not warranted to infer that all counting sets in the onward endless succession are finite (or even that some are infinite), which breaks the possibility of outright contradiction.* m --> We may point across an ellipsis of endlessness to draw a general conclusion, but we must circumscribe such with due limits.* ________________ * F/N: Thus, the question of materiality of endlessness. ______________ n --> Transfinite induction allows us to address ALL ordinals, but that is because it takes some very powerful and potentially constraining steps.kairosfocus
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT
F/N: for those who imagine it a clever dismissive clip to suggest man invented God, I suggest a ponder here on with a look to the question of necessary being root of reality i/l/o modal considerations on being/non being. KFkairosfocus
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
Ez, BTW, w is a stand in for omega, the first transfinite ordinal i/l/o say the von Neumann type construction from {} --> 0 on, which has cardinality aleph null. Kindly refer to the tree of numbers in the OP as a context for usages and remarks. KFkairosfocus
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT
DS (attn VS), the tree structure in the OP shows that in the W-zone, w - 1 to w/2 is a branch from w and would be beyond the marked ellipsis of endlessness. The far zone from the zero neighbourhood would include such. And far zone is observationally descriptive, treating quantities as a phenomenon. On eternity and infinite past time suggestions, Enyart or whoever may freely make up what he wants to, that is different from such being serious historic views. Above, I gave a model that would help some, of time-space's north pole point as God's throne room view. Thus, echoing Paul's citation of poets at Mars Hill in AD 50, in him we live and move and have our being. As a sampler, Augustine:
What times existed which were not brought into being by you? Or how could they pass if they never had existence? Since, therefore, you are the cause of all times, if any time existed before you made heaven and earth, how can anyone say that you abstained from working? (Augustine, Confessions, XI. xiii (15)). It is not in time that you precede times. Otherwise you would not precede all times. In the sublimity of an eternity which is always in the present, you are before all things past and transcend all things future, because they are still to come. (Augustine Confessions XI. xiii (16)). In you it is not one thing to be and another to live: the supreme degree of being and the supreme degree of life are one and the same thing. You are being in a supreme degree and are immutable. In you the present day has no ending, and yet in you it has its end: ‘all these things have their being in you’ (Rom.11.36). They would have no way of passing away unless you set a limit to them. Because ‘your years do not fail’ (Ps.101.28), your years are one Today. (Augustine Confessions, I. vi (10))
Time and eternity, actuality of a world. possible vs impossible beings, and of possible contingent vs necessary are all bound up in this. I simply note that true nothing, non being has no causal power. Were there utter nothing, such would forever obtain. If a world now is, a root of reality always was, a necessary being foundational to a world existing. Such points beyond the space time zone we inhabit to a zone of eternity that undergirds it. Something qualitatively different from time. Hence the north pole of space time model as a suggestion to help us ponder i/l/o how all lines of longitude converge at a single point. Just, to spark thought. The point is, we must beware our conceptual limitations and perhaps want of relevant background when we traipse into such matters. KFkairosfocus
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT
#1333 error correction: In the first sentence, the word 'chance' should read 'change' instead. Sorry for this misspelling, which shows I wasn't as careful as I should.Dionisio
April 5, 2016
April
04
Apr
5
05
2016
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT
Whatever y'all argue in this discussion, it aint't gonna chance a bit of the ultimate reality, which is written:
In the beginning was Logos
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. [John 1:1-2 (ESV)]
The creation of the world
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. [Genesis 1:1 (ESV)]
All things were made through Logos
All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made. [John 1:3 (ESV)]
Alright, you may continue with your arguments... or whatever, until the end of this age of grace. Paká! :)Dionisio
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
My thoughts: Humans created God. Every religion has their own God and their own story. If God was one infinite being, this wouldn't be the case.Me_Think
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
As far as I can tell, this thread isn't going away very soon, so no hurry! :-) And I also have had this line of thought in the back of my mind for a long time, but in the interest of a focused discussion (such as it has been), I didn't want to mix these metaphysical speculations with the pure math concerning infinity.Aleta
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
Aleta, You've opened the door to a very interesting discussion here. I have some thoughts to offer on these points, and had actually been thinking of addressing some of them earlier today, though I didn't get around to it. I don't really have the time to write anything right now, but hopefully I'll have a chance tomorrow, because there are some really interesting issues here. Take care, HeKSHeKS
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
Since we (at least I) have pretty much exhausted the discussion about mathematical infinity, I think I'll take off my mathematician hat and venture into speculative metaphysics. Specifically, I'm going to take the perspective of a theist of the following sort: I'll assume an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent immaterial being capable of creating a universe or universes. However, I'm not assuming the Christian God, and specifically not a special focus on our little planet nor any of the special theological beliefs that are attached beyond the properties I listed above, I'll also agree with Origenes and kf that God is eternal and thus outside of both time and space. A disclaimer: I am going to talk of God creating multiple universes in my speculations below. In doing so, I am not referring to the multiple universe hypotheses ralted to quantum possibilities being discussed elsewhere - those don't interest me. Rather, I am assuming the a God capable of creating this universe is capable of creating other similar universes, and given his eternal nature, might not create many universes. So here are some thoughts and questions. Comments welcome. 1. Assuming God has omniscient knowledge of all possible mathematics, does God experience the infinite, be it the integers or the real number line or the digits of pi, in their entirety, as a completed whole? We are limited to just pointing to the lack of a limit, but my opinion is that God does not have that limitation. Even though we can't begin to grasp what it means to comprehend the whole of the infinite, I assume God can do so. 2. Since time doesn't apply to God, what is going on in God before he has created a universe? I assume he doesn't think linearly like we do, but rather has complete and instantaneous comprehension of all concepts. So during his eternal existence, does it make any sense to talk about what he is/does when there is no material universe? You can't ask what is he even doing "before" he created the universe, because he doesn't exist in time: no number line runs concurrently with God, so to speak. 3. So where does time come in? What does it mean to say that God created time. I see two possibilities, which I'll offer as a question: Does God create time as an independent creation and then create a universe in time, or is there no time until a universe is created? I ask this question to try to possibly separate the two issues of the possible infinitude of time from the question of the creation of a first causal event in time. 4. On the one hand, it may be that time cannot exist without events happening: that is, time is a by-product of events happening in causal sequence, so if nothing exists to happen, time does not exist. On the other hand, God might create time as a dimension which exists irrespective of whether any physical universe exists in which events happen in causal sequence. It is perhaps interesting to consider these two possibilities. 5. If God did create time independently of a universe, and then created a universe at a moment in time, could God have created time so it was infinite, so that an infinite number line truly represented this metaphysical time within which universes and physical time might exist, even though no causal events and no physical time, existed until the moment of creation. In this case, God could create multiple universes at different times (and even concurrently), and he could create/have created an infinite number of universes stretching back infinitely into the past and infinitely far in the future. 6. On the hand, if it really makes no sense, even to God, to consider time as being able to exist independently of events, then consider this situation: God creates universe A. It runs for 30 billion years or so, comes to a complete dead end, and then God utterly destroys it. Some time "later", which really doesn't make sense if God is outside time, God makes universe B and time starts up fresh in that universe. In this case we have two periods of time, one for each universe, with nothing "in between" except the God himself, and since he is eternal and atemporal, we couldn't say there is any time between the two universes. But surely, it seems to me, God would know the temporal sequence of the two universe, which might imply that God has an internal time line as one of his omniscient conceptions, not a timeline that pre-existed him, but an infinite internal timeline by which he knows of time even when there is nothing happening. Or perhaps God knows time when it is happening in a universe, but is so all-of-a-piece, such a Oneness, that his knowledge of different instances of time in different universe are themselves not temporally related. Thoughts? Questions?Aleta
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
KF: The beginningless past would refer to eternity which is different from time. How can you have a past without time?velikovskys
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
Bump 1314 kairosfocus April 4, 2016 at 8:08 am Material in context means what makes a difference to decisions or analysis etc. 1315 Aleta April 4, 2016 at 8:15 am Do you mean " makes a difference to decisions or analysis" in the world of abstract mathematics, or do you mean " makes a difference to decisions or analysis" in respect to the material, physical, actual world? Your response in 1314 doesn’t make clear which you mean.Aleta
April 4, 2016
April
04
Apr
4
04
2016
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 48

Leave a Reply