Timeless creation ?

[37818]

But the question isn't about the particular time that the universe was created, the question is, no matter when the universe was created, could God have created it prior to that time if he so chose? In other words "if" it is true, "if" the science is correct, and the universe began 14 billion years ago, could God have created it say 20 billion years ago instead of 14 billion years ago if he so chose?

God who has no beginning, He could just as easily have created an infinite series of creations, where there would be no first creation at all.

[JimL]

This in a way assumes that our universe began at a specific time in the past, ie 'Big Bang cosmology. Current Science of Cosmology does not assume the certainty that our universe began at some point in the past. It is also currently accepted that time does not exist beyond our time space relationship of our universe.

No it doesn't really, it assumes that our particular place in the cosmos began at a specific time in the past, i.e. 14 billion years ago. Current science, does make this assumption, which is why the 14 billion years is posited as its beginning. And no it is not currently accepted that time does not exist beyond our time, what is currently accepted is that we don't know exactly what time is in itself, if anything, or if it only applies, becomes manifest, to things which begin to exist.

As above time out side our universe time likely does not have a beginning nor ending.

Which means what, that time outside of our universe is infinite, or that time outside our universe doesn't exist?

Time does not likely exist outside our space time perspective of our universe. In other words there is not likely 'time before.'

Thats an assertion that, though some may assume to be the case, you won't hear from any physicist. We can not even explain the existence of time as a thing in itself within our own universe let alone whether it is a factor outside of it. And to my main point which your last statement answers to, if there is no time before our universe, then our universe, like that of the notion of God, would be defined as being eternal and so could not have been created. If our universe were a trillion years of age rather than the 14 billion years of age that we understand it to be, then there would have to have been a "time before". The same would apply to the future, if God should create another universe, in the present say, then there was obviously a "time before" 14 billion years before, when our universe was created.

The eternal infinite world of God does not necessarily exist in time as we view it in our limited perspective.

Yes, and the eternal infinite world doesn't necessarily include a Divine creator either as we view it from our limited perspective.

[shunyadragon]

Sorry shunya, but anthropomorphic terminology is all we have to go by when it comes to describing anything we believe. If you can not explain the existence of God, then why do you believe it?

If you propose this then you do not understand what aanthropomorphic means.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anthropomorphic

adjective 1. ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, especially to a deity.

© Copyright Original Source

You most definitely do not need to describe God in anthropomorphic terms, unless you believe that God is a man or woman as some believe.

Yes, that could be true, but you give no reason as to why one should believe it is true since it could just as well be that there is nothing divine about the existence of the natural world. Why should I believe that the world is a reflection of the devine rather than what it appears to be, ie. a reality unto itself?

Legitimate questions, but the why? and reasons to believe would be the subject of another thread.

You have objected to the purely materialistic nature of existence before, assuming a negative limited view of its uncreated natural existence, if it is uncreated. This in reality only applies to ancient world views of limited archaic visions of the nature of the natural world, and those that wish to assume a negative hostile view of the possibility that existence, the natural world, is a reality unto itself.

Actually if you follow my posts I HAVE NOT, and threads in the past I have not been hostile to the naturalist/materialist world view. Please do not misrepresent me. I have taken a lot of flack, and accusations for being everything but a theist from theists because of my open views on these philosophical and theological issues. I have previously stated that this is a distinct possibility from the perspective of Methodological Naturalism, which is neutral to the existence of God or spiritual worlds beyond. Philosophical Naturalism is a possible conclusion and in the past I consider the only two options that are not distinctly illogical are the Philosophical Naturalist position, and the Universal Theistic naturalist perspective of the Baha'i Faith, and I am open to discuss different views in this respect. Ancient world views are illogical, because each reflects an ancient world view of one culture, and fail to have a universal perspective that reflect the knowledge we have today for the history of humanity, and the science of our physical existence.

I am an agnostic theist, because in reality I do not know, and a Baha'i by choice of faith. I consider the different religions of the past to be a human view of God of the time and culture the Revelation took place.

Sorry for being a bit sarcastic in my reply shunya, but perhaps you can see in it how empty such a statement is to a non-believer. We take a negative view, not to be hostile, but because such assertions have no positive value.

By the nature of your posts, the view is hostile. I believe there is distinct value in the Baha'i worldview in presenting a unifying vision, and progressive evolving views concerning science that spiritual laws. If it were not for the Baha'i Faith as an alternative I would probably be a Philosophical Naturalist of some sort.

[JimL]

God who has no beginning, He could just as easily have created an infinite series of creations, where there would be no first creation at all.

So, then a Cosmos that has no beginning could easily have created an infinite series of creations, where there would be no first creation at all?

[Adrift]

It sounds like what you really want to know is "can time exist before the universe came into being". That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with God or creation. Currently, there seems to be some consensus among physicists that time came into being when the universe came into being.

[shunyadragon]

So, then a Cosmos that has no beginning could easily have created an infinite series of creations, where there would be no first creation at all?

If Creation exists eternally as attributes of God, there would be no beginning nor first Creation at all.

[JimL]

It sounds like what you really want to know is "can time exist before the universe came into being". That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with God or creation. Currently, there seems to be some consensus among physicists that time came into being when the universe came into being.

The question is could God, if he so desired, have created a universe previously to the origin of our own universe 14 billion years ago if creation takes place in timelessness? Previously or before denotes time, so either an eternally existing creator had no choice but to create time 14 billion years ago or time itself is eternal and creation can take place at any time. If you say that God, if he wanted to, could have created a universe of time previously to the creation of our own, then that denotes the existence of time previous to our universe and that asserts that creation takes place in time, not in timelessness. At any rate I don't believe that your assertion is correct in that there is a consensus among physicists that time itself came into being when our universe came into being. The consensus is probably more like time became manifest for our universe when our universe came into being. Afterall, time only has meaning for existing things. Time didn't begin for you until you came into being either and so if our universe began 14 billion years ago, then time didn't exist for it either until it came into being, but just because time didn't exist for the non existent you, or the non-existent universe doesn't mean that time didn't exist at all.

[JimL]

If Creation exists eternally as attributes of God, there would be no beginning nor first Creation at all.

Sure, and the same could be said of an eternally existing Cosmos, so what is the point of positing something other than the Cosmos itself when we have no knowledge of anything other than the Cosmos.

[37818]

So, then a Cosmos that has no beginning could easily have created an infinite series of creations, where there would be no first creation at all?

Easy for God who has no beginning. To have created an infinite number of ex nihilo creations where there would never have been any first creation among the infinite creations.

[37818]

Sure, and the same could be said of an eternally existing Cosmos, so what is the point of positing something other than the Cosmos itself when we have no knowledge of anything other than the Cosmos.

An eternally existing Cosmos has to have an eternal existence in which to exist.

[shunyadragon]

Sure, and the same could be said of an eternally existing Cosmos, so what is the point of positing something other than the Cosmos itself when we have no knowledge of anything other than the Cosmos.

True, as I stated before. This would not be the reason for believing and the why? of believing or why? the nature of existence is as it is. Methodological Naturalism is just descriptive of the nature of existence as it is, and does not answer the question beyond that.

[shunyadragon]

An eternally existing Cosmos has to have an eternal existence in which to exist.

No it does not have to be so from the human perspective, but, yes I believe it so.

[Irate Canadian]

Do you mean to speak for most Christians in asserting that they don't bother to think and form opinions on matters relating to their beliefs?

A1IP5.gif

How exactly do you extrapolate that from what I said? God could have made the world whenever he pleased.

[JimL]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5000[/ATTACH]

How exactly do you extrapolate that from what I said? God could have made the world whenever he pleased.

"Whenever" denotes a a point in time, a before or an after. Besides that, if there were no time before the universe existed, then the universe is defined as existing eternally.

[JimL]

An eternally existing Cosmos has to have an eternal existence in which to exist.

Thats just an assertion, nor does it make sense. If that were true then God, by that definition, would need an eternal existence in which to live.