Eternal the originator of time - proof.

[Mystic]

You guys don't know what special pleading is. I never said the universe is not eternal or time is not eternal, because nothing can be eternal. What is eternal obviously doesn't have a cause. I showed specifically why the universe or time is not eternal through arguments that applies to it because of it's nature. And I showed why it makes sense an eternal being brought it to exist.

Is God a series of events that each is not eternal? Is God made out of infinite points in which each point didn't always exist?

Try to think instead of parroting usual slogans.

[Esquilax]

You guys don't know what special pleading is. I never said the universe is not eternal or time is not eternal, because nothing can be eternal. What is eternal obviously doesn't have a cause. I showed specifically why the universe or time is not eternal through arguments that applies to it because of it's nature. And I showed why it makes sense an eternal being brought it to exist.

Is God a series of events that each is not eternal? Is God made out of infinite points in which each point didn't always exist?

Try to think instead of parroting usual slogans.

because nothing can be eternal.

And I showed why it makes sense an eternal being brought it to exist.

This is why you fail.

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]

Try to think instead of parroting usual slogans.

How about you try to think, instead of making up shit and trying to make it sound "meta-physical"...
Most what you're saying is meaningless drivel. Just because you keep saying that "it's obviously logical" - does not make it so.
We know you'd really like there to be some sort of god-like creator, but if that could be proven - we wouldn't be having a discussion. Many people - way smarter than you - tried to prove such thesis - and they failed. Just as you have. Believe what you damn want - just don't call it "proof", or demand that people, who haven't been brainwashed as much as you, accept your bold assertions...

Have a glorious day.

[Mystic]

Guys Satan and his forces are an open enemy,they make sometimes the clearest of things unclear to people, and sound arguments just don't register. Try to reflect sincerely.

@Equilax I was stating I never stated nothing can be eternal as my argument. Way to take my words out of context.

[bennyboy]

You guys don't know what special pleading is. I never said the universe is not eternal or time is not eternal, because nothing can be eternal. What is eternal obviously doesn't have a cause. I showed specifically why the universe or time is not eternal through arguments that applies to it because of it's nature. And I showed why it makes sense an eternal being brought it to exist.

Is God a series of events that each is not eternal? Is God made out of infinite points in which each point didn't always exist?

Try to think instead of parroting usual slogans.

Learn how to read what you write:
1)  Nothing's eternal.
2)  God's eternal.

Therefore, God is nothing.

[Mystic]

You guys don't know what special pleading is. I never said the universe is not eternal or time is not eternal, because nothing can be eternal. What is eternal obviously doesn't have a cause. I showed specifically why the universe or time is not eternal through arguments that applies to it because of it's nature. And I showed why it makes sense an eternal being brought it to exist.

Is God a series of events that each is not eternal? Is God made out of infinite points in which each point didn't always exist?

Try to think instead of parroting usual slogans.

Learn how to read what you write:
1)  Nothing's eternal.
2)  God's eternal.

Therefore, God is nothing.

I said I never argued that nothing is eternal thus the universe is not eternal. I never argued such. I showed specific reasons (different arguments) for the nature of the universe.

Show me where I stated nothing is eternal. Read the sentence:

I never said the universe is not eternal or time is not eternal, because nothing can be eternal.  

Meaning I never argued from the premise nothing is eternal thus the universe is not eternal or time is not eternal. When did I argue such?

[Esquilax]

Guys Satan and his forces are an open enemy,they make sometimes the clearest of things unclear to people, and sound arguments just don't register. Try to reflect sincerely.

"I'm obviously right and if you don't think so, that's because there's something wrong with you!"

Real nice argumentation.

@Equilax I was stating I never stated nothing can be eternal as my argument. Way to take my words out of context.

Yes, my apologies. Reading back I seem to have misinterpreted what you wrote, by putting the stresses in the wrong place in the sentence. My bad.

[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.

[Mudhammam]

Repeating over and over that "time is not eternal because of its nature" is not an argument that time is, in fact, not eternal, or that you have any deeper understanding of its nature other than an intuitive feeling that the past no longer exists in some manner, Mystic. Speaking of parroting...

You're also special pleading because you keep saying that "an infinity of x" is "impossible without y" when "impossible" only means, per your demonstration, "incomprehensible," yet you're willing to make an exception for your admittedly just-as-inconceivable and unknown timeless cause that acts at definite moments in time.

[robvalue]

How about, "No one knows what the fuck happened at the beginning of the universe, if such a notion is even coherent."

You can't apply simple everyday common sense and logic to regressing past the point where all of science has hit a barrier.

"I think it would work like this..." is not convincing.