Hmmm... I'll think more on it today, but my initial thought is 'no' because some events are necessarily extended. For instance, the ticking of my clock from 8:01 to 8:02, it seems to me, requires extension in time. I'm not sure how to conceive of that event without an extension in time, or without having to redefine the terms involved. But, I'll think more about it today.

FJ

Answering that question is one reason we need a definition for "stuff event." If there is something about at least some events that would make their being of zero length a logical contradiction, then God could not do it.

God can do anything if He wishes. To pursue what God could do is pointless as all possibilites are open. The thing to figure out here is what did God actually do.

An event like transubstantiation is a miraculous event. FJ actually completing a paper is a miraculous event. Perhaps the distinction between events of zero duration and events with > zero duration is the miraculousness or the naturalness of the event?

It is really difficult to ban an admin

Good point

(I told youse guys we needed a mathematician in this thread!)

Hmmm.... I'm not sure. I think "human to corpse" is another good example. I cannot see a body holding the form of both human and corpse at the same time. It has to be one or the other. And therefore, if it changes from one to another it must be in an instant. Yet, that is no miracle. I think this must be the case for all substantial changes.

FJ

But God can only do what is logically possible if something is not logically possible God cannot do it.

Because there is no "it" for Him to do.

Ok. Transubstantiation.

There is a moment where there is bread.

Followed by a moment where there is no bread.

Followed by a moment where there is Christ.

Body to corpse.

There is a moment where the body is alive.

Followed by a moment where the body is neither alive nor dead.

Followed by a moment where the body is a corpse.

That is the only way to make it work. There must be the teeniest tiniest interval of time to separate the two events. Otherwise they are touching (so to speak) and both existing together. And in that moment where there is neither one or the other ........ hmmmmm ......... what kind of moment is that?

Since the body continues to exist throughout those moments, then what is it when it is neither alive nor dead. It has to have some form to exist in this reality.

I think you are encountering a problem in your thinking.

FJ

There is no moment during transubstantiation when there is neither bread nor Christ. At one moment, there is bread. In the next instant, there is Christ.

I agree with F/J. If there is a moment when a host is neither bread nor the Body, what is it? It can't be nothing.

Miracle Max: He probably owes you money huh? I'll ask him.

Inigo Montoya: He's dead. He can't talk.

Miracle Max: Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.

Inigo Montoya: What's that?

Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and look for loose change.

What are the two events separated by? If it is an infinitesimal point then it is nothing (has no real existence) and there is no separation. I can't think of a better way to say it, but if there is no separation by something bigger than an infinitesimal then the two events "touch" and do in fact exist together. There must be some separation greater than an infinitesimal.

I don't know. But neither can there be a moment when the bread and the Body exist together. They must be separated in time by something greater than an infinitesimal span of time.

The change is instantaneous; there is no time at all between when it is bread and when it is the Body. (All substantial changes are instantaneous.)

Because there must be some substance present to support the accidents?

Still, if there is no separation of time with a magnitude greater than zero between the events then the events collapse in upon themselves and exist together. That is what I am reading in Father Spitzer's book, and he did write his thesis on the nature of time.

I guess what it boils down to is how we understand time. Is time fluid with one event flowing into the other? Or is time more like an old movie film strip, with each event a frame separated from the other frame?

That some events (such as substantial change) are instantaneous does not mean that all events are instantaneous.