Eternal the originator of time - proof.

[JuliaL]

---

I already stated that this a proof for a Creator, not God. However, if we were to ponder over our own nature and the world,

---

we would see benevolent will,

---

yet we would see a trial in a world where we are tried by good and evil, blessings and affliction. The very nature of love, goodness, and honor shows we been given opportunity to become something worthy and [hide]this is obviously not from a neutral or evil being.[hide] The honorable possible ranks we can walk through is obviously a possibility.

---

It's not far off to see that morality was not just created from nothing but has a basis in an eternal reality, the creator himself.

---

God himself cannot decide the nature of goodness, but he himself is rather the ultimate nature of goodness by which he has knowledge of it and the opposite of it.  When we realize the origin of goodness is God...then this is not far off to see.  It's not far off to see praise belong to God, God being the source and basis of it, and by which it get's it's reality. Seeing benevolent will in creation, it's not far off, that as humans stray off the path, become irrational, do not think and reflect properly, [hide]books reminding us of our spiritual reality, our purpose, emphasizing advice and reminders, be sent by the creator. Aside from that,

---

it's not far off to see God help his elite friends in guiding to the truth by manifesting their leadership and appointing them as guides. 

---

They being the most fit for leadership and having the wisdom, it's not far off to see God guide us by them. 

---

In fact, everything becomes easy to see once you acknowledge a creator.

---

The nature of darkness and light becomes obvious when you accept a spiritual creator to the universe, and light having infinite possible ranks points to the Creator being the utmost absolute light possessing all possible light.

---

The technical term for this argumentation is:
"It's so obvious, why can't you see I'm right?" or more fully
"You just have to believe in God first, it's so obvious, why can't you see I'm right?" with the corollary
"And God wants me (or at least my social group) to be in charge."

Not generally accepted as an argument.  Each side would use it and the discussion would be the bloody violent stalemate that theology has been for thousands of years.

Certainly time could be eternal.
Here is an analogy to help.
A timeline contains intervals of time transformed into distances for illustration.
Intervals start at one point and end at another.  
What is the shortest distance on the globe between London and Paris?  As most everyone knows, it lies on a great circle between the two cities.  This represents a time with beginning and end.
Now answer the question, "What is the longest distance on the globe?"  There are no beginning or end points beyond which there is no more timeline.  It is infinite, eternal, but bounded.  Yet Paris ( the now) exists.

You are correct in believing that evidence from our universe does not indicate that there is an infinite past.  Expansion, red-shift, the Hubble constant extrapolated into the far past does indicate that at one point the universe was very small and very dense and very hot.  Perhaps time did begin at that point, but your conclusions are not supported: that it was a mystical person which caused the beginning of time.  (You have an equivocation problem here using the word 'being' because in english 'being' can mean 'having the property of existing' and also mean 'a thinking individual with intentions.')

Your argument from "What else could it be? It's just so right and beautiful my way." (ignorance and incredulity) has to be more convincing than competing models.  It isn't.  
You are making another equivocation error using the word 'cause.'
Causation as we observe it is a temporal event.  Something doesn't exist, then at some later time, it does.  Between the two, that thing was caused.  If there was no prior time, that cannot happen.  So let's use another dimension, one outside of what is recognized as time.  In the analogy of the globe, the place that is North of the North pole is 'up,' a direction not on the globe.  There is no word in english that means 'a causation that does not happen over a period of time,' so I am going to make one up.  Let it be 'bup.'  So the universe came to be via bup.  If there was a 'being' (thinking individual with intentions) which buped the universe into existence, on that same axis of bup, where did He come from?  Even if He thinks He is alone on the axis of bup, how does He know he was not created from yet another dimension, an axis perpendicular to bup, called 'fub?'  It is your (and His) ignorance of fub that lets you specially plead your God onto existence on the axis of bup.

You don't know and certainly haven't shown how many dimensions exist beyond space and time.  You've postulated one into existence for your God.  I can create as many more as I need out of the same lack of evidence.


http://www.american-buddha.com/hitchhikermostharml4.htm

How about now? Am I going backward?"

For once the bird was perfectly still and steady.

"No, " said Random.

"Well, I was in fact, I was moving backward in time. Hmmm. Well, I think we've sorted all that out now. If you'd like to know, I can tell you that in your universe you move freely in three dimensions that you call space. You move in a straight line in a fourth, which you call time, and stay rooted to one place in a fifth, which is the first fundamental of probability. After that it gets a bit complicated, and there's  all sorts of stuff going on in dimensions thirteen to twenty-two that you really wouldn't want to know about. All you really need to know  for the moment is that the universe is a lot more complicated than you  might think, even if you start from a position of thinking it's pretty damn complicated in the first place.