And Devans99, why don't you read Aquinas's first book of the Contra Gentiles. He tries to "prove" God is all-knowing. Why not go all the way? Why not start praying all the time?

If you guys want to believe in medieval physics, go for it. I'm not wasting my time anymore — Gregory

The most obvious metaphysical arguments and therefore the most worthy (according to Occam's Razor) are made first in history. So it would be foolish to disregard them purely because of their antiquity.

But see GBV Theorem for an example of an up to date argument that time has a start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde–Guth–Vilenkin_theorem

And Devans99, why don't you read Aquinas's first book of the Contra Gentiles. He tries to "prove" God is all-knowing. — Gregory

God cannot be all knowing: the clue is 'know thyself'.

I said time did have a start. William Craig used that theorem all the time but his atheist opponents contacted the authors and they said Craig misrepresented it. There much confusion about its details. I think you should read the first book of Contra Gentiles. You will be impressed by his extended argument for God's existence and get to see why Aquinas thought God was all knowing and all powerful. You're going down that rabbit hole anyway. You have selected a couple articles in the Summa Theologica without even reading the ones about God's knowledge and power. Don't be afraid of God knowing you fully, if you insist on believing in him. Fair enough Devans?

BTW, by 99 are you referring to your birth year? I get the impression you are very young. I'm 34

If ...

The previous moment defines the next — Devans99

... then a 1^st moment is "undefined".

assuming time has a start [...] If time has no start, what then? — Devans99

Then you've started out with a contradiction.

Anyway, still no proof, then.
Leibnizian sufficient reason doesn't work (may not be applicable at all), the induction doesn't either.
I don't think it's a mere logical matter (as I'm sure Kant and Hume would have agreed); to learn more (and more still) we have to go look.

13.77 ± 0.059 billion years

• Age of the Universe: How Old is the Universe? (Edward J Wollack, WMAP, NASA)

the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error

• Shape of the Universe: Will the Universe expand forever? (Edward J Wollack, WMAP, NASA)

When did God create time, and how long did it take him? — Yohan

Augustine had a somewhat humorous take on that stuff. :)

How, then, shall I respond to him who asks, “What was God doing before he made heaven and earth?” I do not answer, as a certain one is reported to have done facetiously (shrugging off the force of the question). “He was preparing hell,” he said, “for those who pry too deep.” — The Confessions (400) by Augustine (354-430)

Spacetime is fine-tuned for life. So there must be something external to spacetime that did that fine-tuning. — Devans99

Define "must" please. Others, in other posts (notably 180) have made the observation that the Universe is decidedly not "fine-tuned" for life. Anyone with the slightest understanding of what's out there must concur.

You are, then, free-wheeling, ignorant, and irresponsible in your claims. Why is that?

The title of this post, (to be precise, the idea behind the title) is predicated on the assumption that the human perception of the linear progression of time is inherently correct and trustworthy. Who has not been deceived by their own eyes? Who would claim that their subjective experience is objective reality? We can no more rightly claim that time exists only as we experience it than we can assert that we can see gravity through our experience of it. Using the human perception of time to argue a Primary Cause outside of time is...it seems, from my perspective, nonsense.

Why would our experience of time be any more trustworthy than our sight, and if our visual perception is so limited, so easily tricked, then why would you assume that your experience of the progression of time is inherently true and infallible? Cause is caused by a cause that exists outside of time? I'm bored of this already, but I haven't read every comment under the post, and I would, but I don't have time.

Welcome! In your recognizing that even from the OP (original post/title) you can squeeze from this lemon all that can be got from it, we find someone worth reading. You're quite right that many of the posts here aren't worth the candle, but some are. And the ones that are, those writers also are worth reading. If you stay, you'll recognize them soon enough.

We have a self-contained universe. — Gregory

Even modern physicists very often don't believe that. Have you read "A brief history of time" (Stephen Hawkings"). What do you mean by self contained assuming i'm misunderstanding that?

You need to give up the the Newtonian idea of time — Gregory

Your assumption is that Einstein rejected all aspects of Newton's ideas on time. While he did change some things he didn't reject everything Newton believed on time.

Einstein and Hawking, the two greatest thinkers of the last century, didn't think the universe required a God separate from it.

Your suggestion that people can't have wonder if they don't believe in an all-powerful guy out there is wrong wrong wrong. You just think everyone is like you. You don't have to believe in anything higher than humans and other mammals.

Einstein and Hawking, the two greatest thinkers of the last century, didn't think the universe required a God separate from it. — Gregory

ok, but thats besides the point. As time goes on peoples view points change. If you look at Einstein and Hawking there viewpoints changed over time.

Define "must" please. Others, in other posts (notably 180) have made the observation that the Universe is decidedly not "fine-tuned" for life. Anyone with the slightest understanding of what's out there must concur. — tim wood

You have of course ignored my extensive reply to 180 on the subject of fine tuning:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/367699

Have a read of it first and then see if you can come up with any decent counter arguments against fine tuning. That would be more useful than your usual habit of clogging up the forum with non-philosophical whining ( 'I don't like devans99 blah...')

Using the human perception of time to argue a Primary Cause outside of time is...it seems, from my perspective, nonsense. — Seditious

For the non realists, there is this argument:

1. Thoughts flow in the mind. There are past thoughts, a present thought and future thoughts.
2. So we can deduce the presence of time with a linear-like structure from our minds alone without using our senses.
3. So time exists.
4. If time has no start, it has no 1st moment. If it has no nth moment, it has no nth+1 moment
5. So time with no start has no moments in it
6. But time has moments (contradiction), so it must have a start
7. If time has a start, something timeless must have created it.

Errata (already shown in the thread):

4. If time has no start, it has no 1st moment. If it has no nth moment, it has no nth+1 moment
5. So time with no start has no moments in it — Devans99

5. such time has no such numbering of moments

5. such time has no such numbering of moments — jorndoe

It's not about the numbering of moments, it's about the fact that the previous moment defines/determines the next moment. So the present moment cannot exist if the previous moment does not exist. So logically, if there is no first moment, there are no moments at all.

Lets quickly do an alternative proof that time has a start:

1. Assume time has no start
2. The universe has a state as defined by the precise position and velocity vectors of all 10^80 particles in it
3. Call the current state of the universe X
4. How many times has the universe been in that exact same state X in the past?
5. Probability of state X is non-zero * ∞ = ∞
6. So the universe has been in state X an actually infinite number of times in the past (IE a greater than any number of times)
7. Reductio ad absurdum, time must have a start

Or if you don't agree with that, how about:

A. Assume time has no start
B. Particle X has a collision 5 minutes ago, call that collision 1, 10 minutes ago call that collision 2, 15 minutes ago call that collision 3, etc...
C. How many collisions has particle X had?
D. Can't be actual infinite because it's impossible to count to infinity
E. So the particle must have had every number of collisions in the past
F. IE The particle has effectively counted 'every number' in the past
G. But it's impossible to count every number, if you count a million, you are 0% done, if you count a trillion, you are 0% done, etc...
H. Hence the particle must have had a finite number of collisions in the past
I. Which contradicts our initial assumption, hence time must have a start

I have a few more proofs that time has a start if you are interested?

imagine the series of motions as a bunch of pictures. Together they flow to create time, but there is no time before the first motion. Gravity causes the whole series to move and time to flow, but there is no before so a God or anything else outside the series is not needed. The world is uncaused, having its own causality within it, as you say of the dude out there

Thoughts flow in the mind. There are past thoughts, a present thought and future thoughts. — Devans99

Respectfully suggest that you re-read and absorb what @Seditious has to say. Your reasoning is based

on the assumption that the human perception of the linear progression of time is inherently correct and trustworthy. — Seditious

Your suggestion that people can't have wonder if they don't believe in an all-powerful guy out there is wrong wrong wrong. You just think everyone is like you. You don't have to believe in anything higher than humans and other mammals. — Gregory

Okay, what is the purpose of the humanistic will to wonder? And explain to me what the will is, and what wonder is... ?

Are those features of consciousness important or unimportant, and do you yourself benefit from them?

Bonus question : does the will and the sense of wonder confer any biological advantages in Darwinism?

Sorry for all the questions... but let's at least start there... .

Respectfully suggest that you re-read and absorb what Seditious has to say. Your reasoning is based — EricH

If you and @Seditious refuse to even trust your own mental faculty then there is little hope that I can win you over with reasoned arguments - you can reply to any and all logical arguments with 'I do not trust my own mind'!

If you think about all of 4D spacetime instead as 3D spacetime (drop a spacial dimension), then the universe must have a definite 3D shape to it. It maybe a cone (with the point representing the BB). Whatever its precise shape is, all 3D shapes have identifiable start points and our universe would be no exception.

imagine the series of motions as a bunch of pictures. Together they flow to create time, but there is no time before the first motion. Gravity causes the whole series to move and time to flow, but there is no before so a God or anything else outside the series is not needed. The world is uncaused, having its own causality within it, as you say of the dude out there — Gregory

What then causes the first motion? What causes there to be a time when gravity starts to take effect? What fine-tuned the universe for life? To be truly uncaused, one must be beyond time - you have something in time that is uncaused - some sort of creation ex nilhilo?

I trust my mental faculties to function properly within its limited capabilities.

Mankind in its current state has been on this planet for roughly 40,000 years or so. It is only within the last 100 years that we have become aware of the immensity of the universe we live in - and there are still vast gaps in our knowledge. If history is any guide, it is likely that much of our scientific knowledge of the universe will prove to be partially true and will be superseded by more encompassing theories. For all we know, the entire observable universe could be a microscopic pimple on something much larger.

To think that we can unravel the mystery of time based on the functionality of our advanced monkey brains is a case of hubris. We must be humble and acknowledge our limitations.

It is only within the last 100 years that we have become aware of the immensity of the universe we live in - and there are still vast gaps in our knowledge. — EricH

I have sympathy with this point of view. Our knowledge of reality is currently very incomplete and no doubt riddled with misunderstandings.

To think that we can unravel the mystery of time based on the functionality of our advanced monkey brains is a case of hubris — EricH

However, I think this is a bit defeatist. With such an attitude, science will not progress. We must try to understand the world around us, as I am trying to do in my own limited way.

We understand time and causality well enough to draw some initial conclusions I feel. It seems likely that time must have a start (as must all things) and there must be a first cause.

Let me try another argument out. You have a hamster and a hamster cage:

1. You put the hamster in the cage and observe
2. You take the hamster out of the cage and observe
3. You conclude that there must be a God

it doesn't matter if they are beneficial. Atheists have wonder towards the world and you can't stop them even though you don't understand it

i don't understand you. I say gravity starts time and the first motio, and you say what starts the first motion again. Obviously the no boundary hypothesis is too hard to understand for you.

I say gravity starts time and the first motio — Gregory

What starts gravity?

Obviously the no boundary hypothesis is too hard to understand for you. — Gregory

The no boundary hypothesis is nonsensical in the view of the fine-tuned nature of the universe; there must be a fine-tuner and that fine-tuner must be external to spacetime.

The world just is finetuned, just like you say God is just intelligent. Why is God intelligent. You have.to stop somewhere. Gravity moves by attraction in the Newtonian model and otherwise I'm GR. There is simply the first motion, and time starts. Nothing before. Debating people isn't going to help. You have to really think about it for awhile with an open mind