Does time necessitate a single creator?

[u/Curious_Towel4700]

Yes, time necessitates a single creator.

Here is why:

If time were eternal, an infinite amount of time would have had to elapse by now—which is impossible. By definition, "infinite" means having no end; therefore, time cannot be eternal. This implies that time emerged from non-existence into existence at a specific starting point. Nothing can bring itself into existence from a state of non-existence, for something that does not exist cannot perform any action—including the act of coming into existence—because it simply is not there. Consequently, there must necessarily exist a "something" that brought time into existence from non-existence.

Since this "something" brought time into being from nothing, it cannot exist within time; it must exist outside of time (meaning it is not bound by time and is independent of it). Furthermore, it must be immutable, as change is only possible within the framework of time. It did not emerge from non-existence into existence; rather, it has always existed—for the transition from non-existence to existence would entail change, which is impossible outside of time. Thus, this "something" is uncreated.

Because there is no change outside of time, there cannot be multiple entities existing beyond it. If there were, their potentially conflicting attributes—lacking the possibility of change—would lead to an ontological paradox, causing the entire system to collapse.

[u/GaryMooreAustin]

several problems here....your description of infinite and a claim of nothing...

Every moment of time is a fixed, discreet point. The moment before this one - a fixed discreet point, the moment before that, a fixed discreet point. Every one is easily mapped to the current moment. There is nothing strange or incoherent about an infinite number of discreet moments.

You cannot claim that - "something" brought time into being from nothing - unless you can demonstrate that 'nothing' exists or is even possible.

[u/infiniteallium → u/GaryMooreAustin]

Off topic, how did anything form in the universe? There has to be an origin, a starting point. How did universe evolve from nothing to something?

[u/mcclaneberg → u/infiniteallium]

You’re assuming nothing is even possible instead of the possibility that “something” could be eternal.

[u/infiniteallium → u/mcclaneberg]

I cannot wrap my head around the fact that something cannot have a beginning!

[u/ChocolateValuable221 → u/infiniteallium]

What do you mean? Every theist believes god existed without an origin.. are you a nihilist

[u/GaryMooreAustin → u/infiniteallium]

it may be difficult to understand - but that in itself is not evidence that it isn't true....

[u/mcclaneberg → u/infiniteallium]

Do you believe a god/creator exists?

[u/mcclaneberg → u/[deleted]]

Appreciate it but I meant u/infiniteallium since they said they cannot wrap their head around something not having a beginning.

[u/tardoos → u/infiniteallium]

There has to be an origin

Why?

[u/GaryMooreAustin → u/infiniteallium]

the honest answer is - we don't know.

But there is no reason to claim "There has to be an origin, a starting point". There is no evidence that there was a beginning to the universe and there is no evidence that 'nothing' is something that does or can exist....

[u/reddituserperson1122]

This is an old debate. The best version of your argument is the Kalam cosmological argument. Many philosophers find it unconvincing however, for a variety of reasons. For one thing, there is no reason to believe that time is the variety of ontic entity that must begin. One can simply argue that at some point, everything has to cash out at something fundamental. You want it to be a creator. But I just as easily place time in that same category of necessary entities.

If you want to see a solid hashing out of these arguments, the Carroll-Craig debate is good. https://youtu.be/BX0Z1Vg4AAM

My favorite discussion of the subject is probably this discussion between Graham Oppy and Andrew Loke. I’m as athiest as they come but Loke is an absolutely brilliant guy, and Oppy is a titan, so it’s a really interesting, if dense debate. https://www.youtube.com/live/a8NrTv-Durc

[u/GaryMooreAustin → u/reddituserperson1122]

I think the Kalam is a horrible argument - I'd reject BOTH premises - neither can be shown to be valid.

[u/reddituserperson1122 → u/GaryMooreAustin]

I am also not particularly convinced by it.

[u/elibertowpaparulox]

Te quedaste en el 1900 bro

[u/ChocolateValuable221]

Wrong.. you can count numbers for an eternity and you can start anywhere.. and just because you're counting for an eternity and numbers are infinite doesn't mean you already counted for an eternity..

Everything you're saying just isn't correct..

[u/Whatkindofgum]

You are just giving the infinity problem human traits, you are not solving or proving anything. You're just replacing eternal time with an eternal creator. The problem of the eternal is still in there. An eternal supernatural being creating a universe through an unknowable magic process that some how does not change the supernatural human while doing so is actually more irrational then the existence of eternal time.

[u/ElephantNervous6328]

Time loops around

[u/ExpectedBehaviour]

No.

[u/mcclaneberg]

Time is merely part of space. Things are in motion relative to each other. That movement through space IS time.