Eternal the originator of time - proof.

[bennyboy]

As far as how an eternal being exists, creates, and relates to the world of creation...I think this is beyond our understanding. It preceded time and originated it. Yet there is no before time in reality since before comes with time. It's just that time couldn't appear out of nothing so God on ontological level precedes time and always existed and is in the state of eternal existence as he always was. Time now relates to him, and he sees it, but that is not to say that time really keeps him or that there was a time in which he was not creating and just standing idle. It's just that creation requires time, and time requires a start, and start of time requires a cause.

You keep saying time requires a start, but have not proven this to be the case. And God, being timeless, if he ever created the universe, could never have done anything other than create the universe. He must intrinsically be linked to it at every level-- which makes him a part of it. God cannot have created himself, and since he created the universe, the universe cannot have been created by God, and a creator God cannot therefore exist, at least by your definition.

[Esquilax]

This shows there is an eternal cause who originated time.  But it's obvious a physical thing cannot simply create time and make the whole universe subservient to time, as it would need time to do that.

What if someone traveled back in time and created shit? Not eternal, no infinite regress. Dichotomy, falsified.

As to your point about physical things not creating time, that's an argument from ignorance: just because you can't think of a way, doesn't mean it's impossible, and you don't just get to demand that that's obvious and end the argument there.

[Anomalocaris]

A lot of people say, how do we know that infinite regress is not possible, and that there isn't an infinite chain of cause and effects.

A chain of effects is an effect.
An effect requires a cause.
A chain of effects thus requires a cause.


Now, a chain of infinite effects would be without cause right? But we know a chain of infinite effects is still a chain of effects and each of the effects requires a cause, the whole chains of effects all require a cause. Therefore it's by definition without a cause and with a cause, a contradiction, an impossibility.

Another thing is that it's as if every chain is a person in army that won't shoot unless the person next to him shoots. There being infinite people, all saying, they won't shoot unless the person next to him shoots. But there not being an actual one person who shoots without a person telling him, it would never actualize. 

Another argument is that all of time cannot be said to be eternal. That is the present of time, a lot of the time in the past, for sure is not eternal. It can also be said that no point in time is eternal. If no point in time is eternal, that it doesn't have an eternal existence. To say, "but a point of time always existed" is circular and is obviously wrong as no point of time is eternal and was the point of eternal beginning. 

Now with a beginning, there is beginning. Stating there is real no "before" the beginning, doesn't show that beginning is eternal and thus without cause. Therefore something that is eternal needs to cause the beginning. To say "what is more north then north pole" doesn't make sense, because eternalness is the utmost beginning of beginning, while a point of time, even the first, would need to come into being, and cannot cause itself. 

This shows there is an eternal cause who originated time.  But it's obvious a physical thing cannot simply create time and make the whole universe subservient to time, as it would need time to do that. 

It existing before things subject to time, is none physical being. 

Now this doesn't prove God, but this proves a Creator. And if you guys can accept a Creator to start with, perhaps, you will accept the knowledge of God and his Oneness as well.

You are progressing under the tutelage of Muhammad, peace be upon him, from being regrettably pitiable, to being annoyingly contemptible. 

[robvalue]

Our universe could have began when another universe became unstable and fragmented into new universes. The beginning of our time doesn't mean there wasn't a different, external timeline already running.

[bennyboy]

Our universe could have began when another universe became unstable and fragmented into new universes. The beginning of our time doesn't mean there wasn't a different, external timeline already running.

That's right.  There are an infinite number of possible stories for cosmogony, and (presumably) only one right one.  I'm fairly confident that it wasn't Sky Daddy, though.  Let's play the "make up a story" game, because in 1 minute I can make up at least 5 explanations as good as the God idea:
1)  Every subatomic particle is a universe-- THE universe, seen from a different perspective.  Circles within circles within circles forever!
2)  The universe is an unimaginably complex, multi-dimensional (and timeless) "tree," and I'm just traveling down one thread in one branch.  All the "change" I see is an illusion-- all that is changing is my position along that thread as it weaves its way through those many dimensions.
3)  Zero = Infinity.  Therefore all that might be imagined to exist must exist.
4)  I'm God, and I'm entertaining myself by imagining there's a universe that exists outside My holy Self.
5)  It's turtles, all the way down.

All of these solve MysticKnights philosophical "problem," which is really just that reality (specifically, the reconciling of finite and infinite quantities in one framework) confuses him and he wants to invent a magic wand to wave it away.

[downbeatplumb]

No one wants to address the argument in the opening post it seems.

An argument without supporting evidence is just words.

But as you ask.

Eternal regress may be possible when it comes to universe formation. Current physics breaks down at the moment just prior to inflation so we just don't know.

In other words we just don't know what caused our universe to exist at the this moment in time. But there is no more reason to think that a god did it than that he caused the lottery balls to not be my numbers again.  

[Lucanus]

IMHO, trying to use conventional logic in regards to the origins of the universe isn't really wise, as quantum physics have proven that stuff happens in weird ways we're not used to experience in the macroscopic world of ours.

We really don't know much about the actual nature of time (at least as far as I know, feel free to shame me Alex) and about the deep nature of the cause-effect principles. Of course, we know how they work at our level, and we know they are there, but those questions are better left to physicists, not amateur philosophers.

[Alex K]

I think quantum mechanics heavily blurs the line between effects and causes, wouldn't you say so Alex? (Psst, agree with me!)

Yes. And even in classical physics it's not all that obvious because the arrow of time relies on  entropy and thus on the probabilities of events.

---

IMHO, trying to use conventional logic in regards to the origins of the universe isn't really wise, as quantum physics have proven that stuff happens in weird ways we're not used to experience in the macroscopic world of ours.

We really don't know much about the actual nature of time (at least as far as I know, feel free to shame me Alex) and about the deep nature of the cause-effect principles. Of course, we know how they work at our level, and we know they are there, but those questions are better left to physicists, not amateur philosophers.

First of all, yes, but even if you managed to find a rigid concept of cause and effect in physics, it still wouldn't apply to the "creation" of the universe as a whole. So I think it might be a job for philosophers, but they are not allowed to use classical physics concepts to make their arguments without solid justification...

[Chas]

Except #7 does not follow.  It assumes a being where none has been shown to be required.

The first initial point of time is not eternal. It didn't always exist. The logical conclusion then is that it came into being. It coming into being from nothing is illogical. Something had to always be there. That eternal thing is the only thing that could of cause time to come into being. But without a will and power, it could not have caused it to come into being. Therefore it makes sense it's an eternal being with will and power.

Before time, there is no 'always'.

I already showed how I concluded there is a being/creator as a result of time having a start. It doesn't make sense to say "what is more north then the north pole", because in case of time, yes even the very initial point of time needs to come into being. There not being something time wise before it doesn't take out the need of it being caused because it was not always there. So an eternal being needs to cause it.

You concluded there is a being, but you did not prove it or even convince anyone.  #7 does not logically follow in the argument.

Pro tip:  You don't seem to actually understand what a proof is.  

[Alex K]

Wasn't "effect needs cause" a premise? If not then what is your argument exactly. It's confusingly written because there are several paragraphs and I don't understand how they relate

That was one part of the argument. But the conclusion doesn't rely on it. Because there is two parts to initial part of the argument. One then talks about effect and cause. The other part talks about time and it's limited nature.  Then the conclusions follow from there. (ie. the first point of time came into being, ie time came into being).

So you are saying effects don't require a cause?

Can you rewrite your argument such that it doesn't contain things it doesn't actually rely on? That makes it unnecessarily opaque.

Yes, effects don't always require a cause.