Eternal the originator of time - proof.

[robvalue]

This is just another version of Kalam, trying to define God in such a way as to be a special case for an over simplified regression of the universe. Special pleading fallacy. You set up a rule then break it. If the creator needs no cause, then not everything needs a cause, so we can't say the universe needs a cause without extra justification.

Also, personally, I don't care if there is a creator. I don't claim that there isn't one.

[Mystic]

What you have done is said "Existence represents an infinite regression, which is paradoxical.  Therefore, we need a philosophical quantity, X, which solves this paradox."

The problem is that you insist X must be separate from whatever exists.  However, there is now a new system: "whatever exists + X," and you anyway need to explain how this new system originated.

X being separate from whatever exists is obvious, as it originated all things in time through it's power and will. It is eternal, while everything in time is not eternal, and it brought into being, it being the original definition of true existence, the whole universe depends on it's existence and power to exist.

 You will need an infinite regression of Gods.

That doesn't follow, and is in fact illogical to assume.

[quote pid='918201' dateline='1428798594']
You don't get to break the rules of logic simply by claiming that something must exist which is illogical.  If so, then your idea is itself illogical.

[/quote]
How is an eternal creator illogical?

---

 If the creator needs no cause, then not everything needs a cause, so we can't say the universe needs a cause without extra justification.

I presented that extra justification. So please address it instead of the usual kalam argument you are use to.

---

The whole of time is not eternal (ie. present, some of the past is not eternal)
No point of time existed eternally (fact, a point of time passes from another point of time)
It's hence illogical to state time is eternal when none of it is eternal, and the past present and future didn't always exist either. 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.
The logical conclusion is that it has beginning. 
To state the beginning of time is without cause is saying it just appeared out of nothing into existence without cause which is irrational. 
Thus time has a cause.
The cause must before time and eternal. It being eternal needs no cause. 
It originating time and creating shows it has incredible power and a will.

---

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

[bennyboy]

What you have done is said "Existence represents an infinite regression, which is paradoxical.  Therefore, we need a philosophical quantity, X, which solves this paradox."

The problem is that you insist X must be separate from whatever exists.  However, there is now a new system: "whatever exists + X," and you anyway need to explain how this new system originated.

X being separate from whatever exists is obvious, as it originated all things in time through it's power and will. It is eternal, while everything in time is not eternal, and it brought into being, it being the original definition of true existence, the whole universe depends on it's existence and power to exist.

Special pleading is illogical. If something can be eternal, then just say the universe itself may be eternal. Why add Santa Claus to the picture? If nothing may be eternal, then stop asserting that there is something which is eternal.

See? If nothing is eternal, then God cannot exist. If something can be eternal, then the God idea is not needed.

[Mystic]

X being separate from whatever exists is obvious, as it originated all things in time through it's power and will. It is eternal, while everything in time is not eternal, and it brought into being, it being the original definition of true existence, the whole universe depends on it's existence and power to exist.

Special pleading is illogical.  If something can be eternal, then just say the universe itself may be eternal.  Why add Santa Claus to the picture?

I showed why the universe cannot be eternal and why time cannot be eternal.

Please address what is said.

[bennyboy]

Special pleading is illogical.  If something can be eternal, then just say the universe itself may be eternal.  Why add Santa Claus to the picture?

I showed why the universe cannot be eternal and why time cannot be eternal.

Please address what is said.

You keep saying you've shown stuff which you haven't shown.  Word salad is not the same as logical proof.

You said time is not eternal because no one point in time persists eternally, i.e. that the universe changes states. However, your God idea must have at least two states as well: the God who had not yet created the world, and the God who had created the world. Therefore, your God does not meet your own criteria for eternity.

[Mystic]

As far as how an eternal being exists, creates, and relates to the world of creation...I think this is beyond our understanding. It preceded time and originated it. Yet there is no before time in reality since before comes with time. It's just that time couldn't appear out of nothing so God on ontological level precedes time and always existed and is in the state of eternal existence as he always was. Time now relates to him, and he sees it, but that is not to say that time really keeps him or that there was a time in which he was not creating and just standing idle. It's just that creation requires time, and time requires a start, and start of time requires a cause.

---

I also added the following argument, so this argument is preceded by three first initial proofs leading to the conclusion that universe/time had a start.

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

[IATIA]

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.

And they are right. An infinity cannot pass as it has no beginning, no end, no boundaries. We are here, so an infinite period of time has not passed.

---

---

As far as how an eternal being exists, creates, and relates to the world of creation...I think this is beyond our understanding. It preceded time and originated it. Yet there is no before time in reality since before comes with time. It's just that time couldn't appear out of nothing so God on ontological level precedes time and always existed and is in the state of eternal existence as he always was. Time now relates to him, and he sees it, but that is not to say that time really keeps him or that there was a time in which he was not creating and just standing idle. It's just that creation requires time, and time requires a start, and start of time requires a cause.

---

I also added the following argument, so this argument is preceded by three first initial proofs leading to the conclusion that universe/time had a start.

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

---

Gobbledygook!

[Chas]

As far as how an eternal being exists, creates, and relates to the world of creation...I think this is beyond our understanding. It preceded time and originated it. Yet there is no before time in reality since before comes with time. It's just that time couldn't appear out of nothing so God on ontological level precedes time and always existed and is in the state of eternal existence as he always was. Time now relates to him, and he sees it, but that is not to say that time really keeps him or that there was a time in which he was not creating and just standing idle. It's just that creation requires time, and time requires a start, and start of time requires a cause.

---

I also added the following argument, so this argument is preceded by three first initial proofs leading to the conclusion that universe/time had a start.

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

Except #7 does not follow.  It assumes a being where none has been shown to be required.

[Mystic]

Except #7 does not follow.  It assumes a being where none has been shown to be required.

The first initial point of time is not eternal. It didn't always exist. The logical conclusion then is that it came into being. It coming into being from nothing is illogical. Something had to always be there. That eternal thing is the only thing that could of cause time to come into being. But without a will and power, it could not have caused it to come into being. Therefore it makes sense it's an eternal being with will and power.

I already showed how I concluded there is a being/creator as a result of time having a start. It doesn't make sense to say "what is more north then the north pole", because in case of time, yes even the very initial point of time needs to come into being. There not being something time wise before it doesn't take out the need of it being caused because it was not always there. So an eternal being needs to cause it.

[Mudhammam]

If you could have made an argument for the existence of black holes 500 years ago my response would have been the same as it is for your version of Aristotle's unmoved mover.

Cool.