Corvus wrote:I have to hand it to you, Observer, you almost convinced me there, and that is a significantly rare occurence. But I still thought the argument flawed in a way, but I did not know how. Only now, several days later, did my subconscious brain discover why.An Observer wrote:
Time had to begin. To say otherwise is to say that time had no beginning, and that is the same as saying that the "beginning" of time was infinitely far in the past! But that does not make sense. If the "beginning" of time was infinitely far in the past, then the time required to get from the "beginning" of time to this point in time would be infinite! And we could never have gotten to this point in time! But, we are here at this point in time! Therefore, time had to have a beginning, that was not infinitely far in the past.
The reason I believe your argument is flawed is because it hangs finite time on an infinite clothesline. God would have to create, at one point in time in an existence where time does not exist, a timed narrative, and how could a timed narrative exist when it is part of a larger timeless narrative? And how does a timeless narrative exist coherently at all?
The common response to the argument of first causes is; "what caused the First Cause (God)?" The common answer is; "God is infinite and he exists outside of time, thus not requiring a cause". I believe this overlooks a step, and that is, the question of what caused the First Cause to cause an effect at all . If God is infinite and time has no meaning to him, what is the cause of his intent to create earth, and how does this required cause exist at all in chronological vacuum? The cause of the act of creating would have to exist at one point in non-time and not another. Phrased in the clearest way possible, I am asking; What provoked the First Cause to be the first cause? This may deserve its own topic.
His response:
The question; Is God as a first cause a logical answer to the creation of the universe?An Observer wrote:Maybe this does deserve its own topic .... but ... for the time being let me say that the "infinite clothsline" you reference is not made out of time! It is made out of logic (part of the nature of God).Corvus wrote:
......
The reason I believe your argument is flawed is because it hangs finite time on an infinite clothesline. God would have to create, at one point in time in an existence where time does not exist, a timed narrative, and how could a timed narrative exist when it is part of a larger timeless narrative? And how does a timeless narrative exist coherently at all?
.......
To assert that there was a point in time when time did not exist is to assert the contradiction that:
1) time existed
and
2) time did not exist,
both at the same time.
The contradiction proves the assertion to be false.
Now, I certainly do not have all the details of how and why God created space and time (there are many mature theological explanations developed over the ages). However, I do know that space has no meaning without time, and time has no meaning without space. Time is measured via movement and changes of physical things. Physical changes are measured via time. Space and time are, in a sense, the same thing.
I also know that logic is not dependent upon the physical universe (space and time), but the physical universe (space and time) is dependent upon logic (among other things).
There are prerequisites of the physical universe, in the same way that the concept of a side of a triangle is a prerequisite of the concept of a triangle. The concept of the side is not necessarily temporally before the concept of a triangle. It is logically before the concept of a triangle. But, the concept of a triangle is not necessary for there to be a concept of a side. Therefore the concept of a side is a foundational to the triangle, not the other way around.
In the same way, logic is a prerequisite to the physical universe. The physical universe (space and time) is not a prerequisite to logic (part of the nature of God). God created the universe out of nothing (no space, time), not the other way around.
