Eternal the originator of time - proof.

[Mystic]

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

How can the whole of time be eternal, when some of the past didn't always exist, and the present didn't always exist? By whole of time..I mean all of time that existed. It's obviously not eternal.

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

I don't get how you conclude that by me stating a point of time. I'm saying no point of time is eternal and always existed. That's logical.

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

But this is ignoring the argument and attacking the conclusion. Since I used an argument to show that time is not eternal, then it doesn't make sense to say "what if it's made out of infinite of finite pieces" and use the phrase to reject a conclusion that has been shown by reason.

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

It would be trivial, were it not that people state time is eternal...but I'm showing none of the past is eternal, the present is not eternal, the future is not eternal, then how can it be said it is eternal when none of it is? It's illogical. We are attributing eternity to a whole thing that none of it is eternal.

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?

It's to manifest an obvious fact, that time didn't always exist, when none of it always existed. It's logical, it's a clear conclusion.

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

This is to show I am talking about time in the assumption that it has no beginning. In the assumption that it has beginning, obviously the whole of time is not preceded with time. But if we assume it had no beginning, we reach a paradox where the whole of time has no time preceding it and by logic should have time preceding it. It's a paradox because it's an illogical concept, an impossibility, not possible in any possible worlds.