If there was a 1st moment in time.

[Mystic]

If there is a first moment in time,  it didn't always exist.

Although time wise, and only time wise, nothing precede the first moment in time.  First moment in time is like all other moments, coming to existence and that shifting to another moment in time.

Just like all other moments in time didn't always exist, the same is true of the first moment of time.

The only question remains, what ontologically preceded time. Preceded not as in time wise, but ontological precedence. 

I would say there is 3 options:

Nothing.
Something without will.
Something with will.

As for nothing, I don't think first moment in time just appearing out of nothing makes sense.

Something without will, is problematic, in that it is timeless. As it timeless, time wasn't part of it's reality, and as such it cannot undergo change.  Whatever that reality is, it cannot add to what's there, because ontologically is without time, without motion. Physical things without time cannot cause things to come to exist.

Something with will is the best reasonable conclusion, if there was a first moment in time, that caused the 1st moment in time.

Now when I say something with will, if we imagine will to be separate part of it's essence or part of it's essence, that has it's problems, but it's just semantics, and it means this thing that cause it, is will, because there is no divisions in God.

That is it is  a will that causes the first moment in time to come to be. And God is a will.  The best will at that.

But for the sake of argument, you can say the being has will or is will, doesn't matter.

[Anomalocaris]

If there is a first moment in time,  it didn't always exist.

Although time wise, and only time wise, nothing precede the first moment in time.  First moment in time is like all other moments, coming to existence and that shifting to another moment in time.

Just like all other moments in time didn't always exist, the same is true of the first moment of time.

The only question remains, what ontologically preceded time. Preceded not as in time wise, but ontological precedence. 

I would say there is 3 options:

Nothing.
Something without will.
Something with will.

As for nothing, I don't think first moment in time just appearing out of nothing makes sense.

Something without will, is problematic, in that it is timeless. As it timeless, time wasn't part of it's reality, and as such it cannot undergo change.  Whatever that reality is, it cannot add to what's there, because ontologically is without time, without motion. Physical things without time cannot cause things to come to exist.

Something with will is the best reasonable conclusion, if there was a first moment in time, that caused the 1st moment in time.

Now when I say something with will, if we imagine will to be separate part of it's essence or part of it's essence, that has it's problems, but it's just semantics, and it means this thing that cause it, is will, because there is no divisions in God.

That is it is  a will that causes the first moment in time to come to be. And God is a will.  The best will at that.

But for the sake of argument, you can say the being has will or is will, doesn't matter.

Can you please kindly go fuck yourself in private?

[GrandizerII]

Depends on theory of time, MK. It's possible for there to have been a "beginning moment" but with the whole space-time universe having always existed.

[vorlon13]

Empty universes don't experience time, there being nothing in them for it to impinge upon.

(and now for the weird bit)

therefore, empty universes are unstable and 'decay' into universes that aren't empty.

IOWs, enormously vast expanses of time accrue, unbidden, if I may, and EXTREMELY unlikely (but not impossible) events like Big Bangs occur.

[Mystic]

You mean the circular universe?

---

Empty universes don't experience time, there being nothing in them for it to impinge upon.

(and now for the weird bit)

therefore, empty universes are unstable and 'decay' into universes that aren't empty.

IOWs, enormously vast expanses of time accrue, unbidden, if I may, and EXTREMELY unlikely (but not impossible) events like Big Bangs occur.

There can't instability in something that spans eternity. Can't decay without time either.

[GrandizerII]

You mean the circular universe?

No, how about exposing yourself first to the various theories of time, and then we can have a discussion about it. Make use of Google.

[Mystic]

You mean the circular universe?

No, how about exposing yourself first to the various theories of time, and then we can have a discussion about it. Make use of Google.

Just tell me which one it is.

[GrandizerII]

No, how about exposing yourself first to the various theories of time, and then we can have a discussion about it. Make use of Google.

Just tell me which one it is.

I've given you all the hints you need. Now go read you some philosophy and cosmology.

[Mystic]

Just tell me which one it is.

I've given you all the hints you need. Now go read you some philosophy and cosmology.

I think you are talking about infinite chain of moments of time type set up theory with big bang and contraction happening over and over again. In that case, it has nothing to do with this argument, since I'm talking about if there is 1st moment in time, not arguing whether or not the moment of the big bang is that 1st moment.

[Alexmahone]

As for nothing, I don't think first moment in time just appearing out of nothing makes sense.

You are not a physicist and therefore not qualified to make this statement. Lots of physicists believe the universe (space and time) emerged from nothing. Read A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss, who is (was) a physics professor.