Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[polymath257]

Well, spacetime is the basis of the geometry. You are correct that the specific coordinates used are rather arbitrary, but the future light cone is part of the actual geometry and it is only within that light cone that causality manifests.

Time is not only a scientific concept? Really? Well, neither is chemistry, I guess. But it is, at base, a scientific concept.

In your description, you already have an internal contradiction: you have a 'being' that is changeless. Now, I might accept an *object* that is changeless, so let's go from there. if you have an object that is the only thing in the universe, with no background space or time (so it can be changeless), then there is no time. But there is also no causality *because* the universe in this model is changeless.

The being could not have a thought, because such would be a process, in other words a change. having two thoughts would also be a change, thereby destroying your whole setup as illogical.

Given that you didn't describe the spacetime geometry of said object, all we have in your scenario is two *different* objects: one with one thought and another with a different thought. Even to say they are the same object in this scenario requires the introduction of physical laws and time.

You just admitted that something needs to change for there to be time. Time does not exist without a change. I said earlier: Causality does not require time--time requires causality (events). The problem is that you want to make it a scientific concept and therefore want to drag all that baggage along about light-cone and block universe theories. Metaphysically speaking, all that is required for some type of time (which is only ever a metric) is change because otherwise there is nothing to meter off of.

If there is a before and after, there is already time. Time is a measure of a certain type of change.

But space is a different sort of change.

By the way, change and causality are not identical things.