Cameron, doesn't your theory of infinite time assume that time has existence independent of the universe? Doesn't this ignore general relativity? Also, doesn't it follow that with infinite time, it would take an infinite amount of time to reach this point? Since we clearly have reached this point, then it follows that time cannot be infinite?
WHAT MAY I ASK YOU OCCUPIES THIS STATE? FOR A STATE OR REALM OF NOTHING TO BE (FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM) EXIST, IT MUST TAKE UP SOME SPACE BUT THERE IS NOTHING TO TAKE UP SPACE AS IT IS NOTHINGNESS. THERE IS NO NON-EXISTENCE BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING THAT EXISTS WITHIN IT TO EXIST BECAUSE IF SOMETHING EXISTED WITHIN THIS STATE OF NON-EXISTENCE THEN IT WOULD BE EXISTENCE BECAUSE SOMETHING EXISTS THERE. GET WHAT I'M SAYING?
Since to say prior to the universe would assume that there was time prior to the universe, and to say outside the boundary of the universe's existence would assume that there was space outside the universe, and neither are true. Perhaps it can be described in a satisfactory manner by calling it the ~ universe, or a negative universe?
To those arguing for the existence of a creator, how do you expect to use logic to prove something that hypothetically does not require to be logical? If the universe requires a logical explanation, couldn't it be argued that since God is not necessarily logical, he is not necessarily the explanation? In fact, it could be argued that God is necessarily not
logical, considering the attributes normally used to describe him seem to contradict reason. (cause-less cause, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc...)
On the flip side, it would seem equally impossible to disprove his existence.
Will, perhaps the point of this argument is that it is a pleasure to discuss. Although I agree that no one should create concrete beliefs based on the small amount of evidence we have. As to causality, do you have any evidence that causality can be reversed? Could you elaborate further on the incorrect assumptions used in this thread?