RJG wrote: ↑May 21st, 2019, 12:49 pm
Not so. There is ONLY one logical possibility, and that is that time has "always existed" (i.e. has never not-existed). Claiming that a moment in time existed "before" the existence of time, is a logical contradiction. X<X is a logical impossibility.
I claimed that an eternal, timeless 'now' exists causally 'before' our time - it is not a moment of time - it is a different state of existence.
How does timeless state cause the creation of time? You have to think about timelessness as one eternal now - everything happens at the same time - yet there can still be causal relationships. So the first cause could cause time to start. I think it was incorrect of me to use the word ‘before’ as that’s associated with time; what I meant was causally before.
RJG wrote: ↑May 21st, 2019, 12:49 pm
devans99 wrote:...without something timeless, you get an infinite regress - which is impossible.
Not so. There is no infinite regress with "always existing". There is NO beginning (NO starting point) in "always existing".
If time has 'always' existed, the moments of time and the particles within those moments form an infinite regress. IE particle A hits particle B hits C etc... this collision history forms an infinite regress. But an infinite regress has no start so none of it can exist. To illustrate this with an example, imagine a pool table:
The cue hits the white ball.
The white ball hits the black ball.
The black goes in the pocket.
Would the black ball go in if the cue did not hit the white? No - we remove the first element in a time ordered regress and find that the rest of the regress disappears. So the first element (in time order) is key - it defines the whole of the rest of a regress. If it is absent, as in the case of an infinite regress, then the regress does not exist - temporal/casual infinite regresses are impossible.
That means that time cannot be infinite.
RJG wrote: ↑May 21st, 2019, 12:49 pm
Again, not so. If something has "always existed" then there is
no beginning (...nor is there any logical contradiction of an "uncaused first cause"). There is no "first cause" in an "always existing" causal universe. ...a tough concept to grasp, but it is the
only one that doesn't logically contradict itself.
If there is no first cause, there is no second cause, no second cause, then no third cause. By induction there is nothing in the universe without a first cause.