Eternal the originator of time - proof.

[paulpablo]

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.

This argument is done in the same style as Hamza.  He uses the army analogy.

There's lots of arguments like this and they all have the same problem.

You're saying an infinite regress is impossible I don't know how that would work I've never seen on work it's illogical to my human brain and the concepts I know of.

But then you're replacing it with a creator who also breaks the known laws of physics in so many ways and does things you have never seen done before.

You can't tell me you know how a being would operate outside of time, how and non physical being would have any conscious, how a non physical being who is conscious could create something from nothing while having no time in which to do it in or any time in which to decide to do it.

You're basically saying infinite regress is impossible and we have no other answers but rather than admit you don't know, it's better to pretend there's this guy who can do absolutely everything even things we consider to be impossible, just so that we can have an answer.