Timelessness

[Time Traveler]

Why do you think that the Kalam Cosmological argument fails, if the 'A' theory of isn't true?

I think it's because, under the B-theory where all times co-exist as equally real, the universe cannot really be said to have "begun", and thus the premise from the KCA: "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is in trouble.

---

But what does it really mean, to exist timelessly? Physicists like Victor Stenger (author of Timeless Reality, amongst other books), along with philosophical advocates of the B-theory of time, consider it possible to view our universe as “timeless,” where time is perfectly symmetrical at a quantum level.

What does this mean? Symmetrical with respect to what?

As I understand it, Stenger is talking about the time symmetry between past and future at a quantum level. He details his perspective in Chapter 8 - The Timeless Quantum of his book, Timeless Reality: Symmetry, Simplicity, and Multiple Universes. Also, in The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, Stenger writes on pg. 93 the following hypothesis: "An important component of [his Atoms in the Void] model is time reversibility. That is, there is no arrow of time at the fundamental level, and all processes can proceed in either time direction." Stenger also seems a fan of the biverse model proposed by Carroll, Chan and Aquirre, Gratton in which the universe contracted prior to expanding again as we know it post big bang. "The other beauty of the biverse scenario is its symmetry. It is invariant under time-reversal (as well as particle-antiparticle conjugation C and parity P). It also explains why the universe has low entropy at t = 0." p. 145

---

Timelessness

...Some theists want to imagine that God first existed prior to creating the universe, then created the universe (including, ironically, time itself). This is having their cake and eating it too. Others imagine God existing, considering, deciding, and creating the universe all at the same instant the universe came into being. But this implies God never existed prior to the universe, and thus if the universe had a beginning, so did God; or if God is eternal, so then the universe... [edit: emphasis mine]

Do you think it is possible that this formulation unconsciously imports temporal meaning into a reality where temporal expressions would have no meaning? What does existing "prior" to temporal events even mean (if anything)? I think that adds to the difficulty of the issue.

If I understand your question correctly, it has to do with the semantic difficulty of trying to describe events happening in a timeless manner without using words like "prior" or "before". But I think the difficulty is more fundamental than that, because absent time, by what possible mechanism does something ever change? It is up to the theists who believe God existed timelessly before the creation of our universe to explain and defend these apparent paradoxes.