Was there a point that only God existed? Yes or no?
It’s meaningless to suggest that there was a
point where only God as a cause existed. God is not physical. Again, you are placing God in a temporal physical context and asking him to play by the rules of your game. God’s existence is simultaneous with his effect. There wasn’t a before creation.
What I am arguing is that time cannot have a cause.
Your argument fails because it is ultimately semantics. You are saying that time exists because there was not a time before it, but that statement in itself does not explain why time exists, it just means that it cannot have a physical cause. Saying that there was no universe before the universe doesn’t mean that it’s existence is necessary or not contingent and i think i have done my part in explaining why it isn’t necessary.
The sum of any positive quantity of something, such as energy, which can cancel out the same amount of negative quantity of the same thing is nothing/zero.
This is not a metaphysical statement and so it doesn’t refer to the philosophical concept of absolutely nothing; but you knew that right.
This mean that you could have something and then nothing. I don’t see why the opposite cannot be true.
It cannot be true because it is absolutely nothing, and absolutely nothing is the antithesis of something. If something were to come out of absolutely nothing without a cause it would contradict the fact that it is nothing. In other-words you would have to throw reason out of the window to accept that possibility. I wonder why you would do that?
Material in fact do not change when they move. Their nature/essence does not change when they move. It is the mistake that Aristotle made to think that matter’s nature/essence is subject to the change when it moves.
This is a straw-man please read some more of Aquinas and Aristotle.
Change in fact can be the result of having a specific nature/essence which this doesn’t change. Therefore, a thing can be subject to motion without any need for sustainer.
Having a particular nature can give you the ability to move spontaneously from a state of rest. But we are not talking about change in that sense. We are talking about what change involves on a metaphysical level, and in principle it involves the actualisation of potential reality, of that which was not. It is a progression of a reality made possible by the reception of more reality, regardless of the fact that some form or essence endures.
But a thing cannot cause change to exist and at the same time be subject to change. You cannot potentially exist and necessarily exist at the same time. That which is changing is made of parts, or states or natures that do not necessarily exist, which contradicts the necessity of it’s existence since each part is receiving existence.
