Eternal the originator of time - proof.

[Alex K]

The whole of time is not eternal (ie. present, some of the past is not eternal)

You don't know that, but let's assume that for the sake of argument

No point of time existed eternally (fact, a point of time passes from another point of time)

Now it seems to get muddy. You are now treating points in time as objects that live in time? Seems like an inconsistent mix of categories to me

It's hence illogical to state time is eternal when none of it is eternal,

It could be an eternal thing made up of an infinite amount of finite pieces?

and the past present and future didn't always exist either.

Isn't this a trivial statement? Isn't the future no existing yet kind of by definition?

To say time always existed is hence refuted as is saying a point of time always existed, and would be attacking the conclusion instead of the argument.

Now when you say "always existed", you must presuppose some other time line with respect to which you can make this statement, otherwise the word always is meaningless. How do you respond to this?

The logical conclusion is that it has beginning. 

This is already such a mess that I stop here. Pls clarify above definitions.

I also thought of adding the following argument:


1. A time always has time preceding it except for perhaps the start of time.
2. If there is no start of time, each point of time would be preceded by another point of time.
3. If there is no start of time, no point of time can come into being without a time preceding.
4. If there there is no start of time, every point of time needs time preceding.
5. The whole of time is every point of time.
6. There would be no time preceding the whole of time where it had no beginning.

I don't understand the meaning of this sentence starting at "where" in the last point

7. Thus it's a paradox showing time indeed has a start from an eternal being.
[/quote]