What property of the universe leads us to conclude that it required a cause to exist?

[R_Daneel]

No one should say that “there was a time when the Universe did not exist.” That is indeed an incoherent statement, primarily because the universe IS time but also space, so that they form a fabric and contain all matter and energy. That sum total of time, space, matter, and energy is the universe.

So far we agree.

Rather, and more appropriately, I would affirm the statement, “A finite time ago, our universe came into existence.” This more accurate statement does not assume time before the universe. In fact, the initial moment of time, which we indicate using a singularity, marks the edge of spacetime so that space and time literally come into being in the immediately proceeding moment.

But it does, implictily. If you had said that “a finite time ago the Big Bang occurred, and the Universe assumed its current form” then there would be no implicit reference to the “before”.

This is the standard model among cosmologists, which is why you will often hear the universe being called 13.7 billion years old. That is the “finite time ago” I am referring to in the statement I affirm.

That is not accurate. It should say that “about 13.7 billion years ago the Big Bang happened”.

You cannot rightly suggest that the universe has always existed because this would commit the fallacy of infinite regress. In an infinite time, all possibilities would be realized in our universe. There are several problems that this would create if true, but suffice it to say that an infinite of anything can never be realized in spacetime. despite what you seem to be suggesting. If our universe has always existed, then an infinite amount of events have already occurred, which is impossible.

The usage of “always” also implies a time outside the Universe.

1. You argue that the universe–that is, spacetime and the sum total of all matter and energy–simply exists and does not need a cause. I have shown already that in fact it does need a cause*, it did come into existence, and scientists know roughly how long ago it came into existence. Since the universe is a created being, it requires a cause.

Saying that the Universe is a “created being” already assumes the result which you wish to demonstrate. It is incorrect to assume the expected result as one of the premises. (***)

1. God exists outside of the universe–including spacetime. This is not simply an arbitrary assertion, but a necessary reality! Why? Because if God was bound by spacetime, or even just space or time, he could not be the cause of the universe, which has spacetime as a component. Something which is among the universe cannot cause the universe without committing the fallacy of begging the question.

Except I explicitly stated that the base assumption of the atheists is that the Universe is uncaused and “uncreated”.

So God exists outside of the universe and because of that he really does not require a cause. For how can we speak of a cause outside the context of time? The terms “before,” “after,” “cause,” and “effect” only make sense within the context of time, just as you cannot go left without space to turn left within! Therefore, since these terms mean nothing outside of time, the question “What caused God?” is incoherent and thus negligible.

I did not ask that. And I also agree that it would be an incoherent question, just like “What caused the Universe?” is an incoherent one.

1. If the universe was not caused, so that it has always existed, then certain incoherences arise. For instance, in a universe which extends into the past ad infinitum, all events in the present have been realized…

I did not say that the universe extended infinitely into the past, since the usage of “past” assumes an “absolute time”, and we both agree that time only exists within the universe.

1. …You must realize that the standard model adopted by cosmologists places a singularity 13.7 billion years ago, representing the reality that the universe did not always exist and in fact came into existence at that time (t=0).

The current form of the Universe. We can say nothing about the “before”, because the “before” would assume an “absolute time”.

For these reasons, we understand that the universe requires, not only a cause…

Refer back to (***) where you introduced this expected result as one of the premises.

Summing up: “The proposition that the Universe simply exists does not imply an infinite, absolute past” - which is the backbone of your argument. According to our best knowledge, matter/energy/momentum etc. cannot be created, nor destroyed. It is a basic principle, which cannot be “proven”, of course. Also causation (like space and time) cannot be defined “outside” the Universe.

I accept that is whole argument creates a “picture”, which cannot be “visualized”. We are unable to “visualize” a huge blob of STEM (space/time/enrgy/matter) which somehow “resides” in a “nothingness”. But visualizing something is not necessary to hold it true. We cannot visualize a hydrogen atom either. The first model suggested by Niels Bohr was a miniscule “solar system”. This “visual model” was discarded, and nothing really took its place. We are simply unable to attach a “normal world” picture to a hydrogen atom, or the totality of the Universe. It is regrettable, because we humans are highly visual beings. But the lack of a picture does not render it impossible.

 

[R_Daneel]

This is a posteriori incorrect. No observable functions in the universe happen nessecarily.

I am not talking about “functions”. If, by “necessary” existence you mean that some entity exists in all “possible worlds”, then this concept is incorrect. We can imagine two possible worlds, where one is comprized of one electron, and the other one is comprized of one positron, and the intersection of these two possible worlds would be a “null-Iworld”. Therefore there is no “necessary” entity in this meaning. if you would say that both of these worlds are comprized of STEM (some kind of physical entity), then the result would be that “matter” necessarily exists, which would be pretty trivial (though true). If you mean something else by “necessary”, then I don’t know what you mean, so I cannot answer that.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No, you can’t, because terms like “before” and “prior” are all based on time, which is an intrinsic property of the universe and does not exist outside of it. Look at it this way, was there any amount of time between when God willed the creation of the universe and it was created? No. Therefore, since God and his will are eternal, there was no time before the universe existed.

Okay, I am going to give you a chance, because you claim to be catholic and willing to learn.

Firstly; terms like before and after, certainly imply time. However they can be used in a different context that is just as relevant to objective reality. For instance, before I can think I must first have a brain. Before I can see, I must have eyes. Before i can be concious of my being i must first exist. Thus we see clear evidence that terms like “before” can be used in the sense of function, sufficiency or ontology, rather than in the sense of time.

Secondly, before we can move on, you keep saying there is no before time, which appears on the surface to be meaningful and consistent. But you do not explain what you mean by time. What do you mean when you say time?

 

[kildare]

To answer the OP, I would say INTELLIGENCE.

So if I ask what are the properties of the universe, I could come up a list including, Entropy, gravity, electromagnetic forces, evolution, 3 dimensional space, Time and the, so far uniquely in humans, evolved attribute of intelligence.

The wierd thing that an athiest must consider is that within the energy of the big bang were the seeds for this incredible “intelligence” which we now possess. After 13.7 billion years the universe has finally, through us become aware of itself.

Now remove the function of time from the universal equation, and like gravity, although perhaps not quickly or as ineviatbly (gravity must have been “created” very quickly after the big bang, while intelligence took a bit longer). To be sure Intelligence is a function of Time and Matter/energy but that dependency does not take away its a priori existance.

So I think that if INTELLIGENCE exists now its possibility must always have existed, therfore it would follow that it is a property which came from outside the Universe.

 

[kildare]

Does the reductionist/atheist not see that 1+1 cannot equal 2 unless 2 exists before hand.
Therefore intelligence must exist as a property of the univser.
Human like intelligence is already self evident
For me its not a great leap of faith to assume that God like intelligence also exists and therefore has pre- or rather a-existed(existed independently) of the Universe

 

[R_Daneel]

Does the reductionist/atheist not see that 1+1 cannot equal 2 unless 2 exists before hand.

It is a huge error to think that atheism equals reductionism. It is not true the “whole” always equals the “mechanical” sum of its parts, and atheists do not say that. And the equation you mention is simply an abstraction based upon the physical property of “countability” - which is the ultimate asbtraction, when one disregards all the particulars, and concentrates on simply the “number” of the objects in question.

One apple and another apple is still two apples, even if there is no one to realize it. Intelligence is an emergent attribute, not some mystical ability imposed from “above”. Think about water, which is 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Neither of the constituent parts exhibits the property of “wetness” and the resulting combined entity does have that property. Do you think that wetness needs a god as an explanation? Surely not.

I just want to emphasize once more that one should not confuse reductionism with atheism.

Therefore intelligence must exist as a property of the univser.

Therefore nothing.

 

[jkiernan56]

I’m not asserting that the universe is eternal. I’m asserting that the universe is finite. What I’m asking is why a finite universe needs to be caused in order to exist.

---

There was no time when there was no universe. This is not the same as being eternal*** I’ve explained why already.

The same reason that your posts here in this thread don’t happen auto-magically by themself. You are “causing” your ideas to be posted here. Same for existence. Finite existence does not “cause” itself no more than your posts here happen auto-magically without you causing them to be here. Cause-Effect. Cause precipitates effect. But what precipitates the very FIRST EFFECT - The existence of the Universe? What is the Cause of the FIRST EFFECT? Can it cause itself? No more than your posts here can happen auto-magically by themself.

Either there has always been an infinite series of cause-effects or there is a Primary Mover who is not moved, but started the whole cause-effect chain to start (the birth of time and history). God who “causes” but is NOT caused. My experience tells me the latter is true.

 

[bogeydogg]

There is no point in time when the “stuff” that comprises the universe did not exist. Why must it have a cause? Or, why must a finite being be caused by something else in order to exist?

You are playing a linguistic trick and committing the logical error of equivocation.

You are saying

A> At no time did the stuff in the universe not exist

B> Time is a property of the universe

C> Since time is a property of the universe, and at no time did the universe not exist, therefore the universe has always existed.

The statement is true by force of irresistible logic, you are basically saying the universe exists because it exists. Even a Theist would agree with this.

Then you muddy the waters by saying that the cause of the universe must have created the universe in time (since the universe has always existed and therefore time has always existed) and therefore must exist within the universe itself (since time is a property of the universe) and since the universe has always existed in time, therefore there is no need to posit a first cause because such a cause would be part of the universe.

Therefore your two conclusions are

A> The universe is infinite

or

B> The universe caused itself

We both agree that the universe cannot cause itself because then it would have to exist before it existed and thus would be and not be in the same way and relationship.

So here is where your notion of infinity fall on its head.

You are measuring infinity by time passed, but you assert that there was a big bang (which I agree with) and there is no point of arguing ‘before’ the big bang because 'before is time language and therefore must exist within the universe and therefore is irrelevant.

The problem is that you cannot posit that matter has always existed because of the singularity (the supposed stable state of the universe before the big bang) because that singularity would necessarily have to exist outside of time since time is a property of space and a singularity by definition has no space.

Therefore there is no time at which the singularity could exist.

Therefore to say that the universe is infinite because it has ‘always existed’ is irrelevant language because you are asserting a ‘time’ in which the singularity existed and therefore changing the way that you use the word ‘time’ and therefore equivocating on your language and thus your argument saws off the log upon which it is sitting.

The argument from causation namely the First Cause is that this cause created time and therefore exists outside of time and therefore need not assert a ‘when’ such a cause took place but rather a ‘what’ that such a cause did take place.

But you say that we cannot say that because we are using time language to assert a ‘before’ the big bang, but the problem is that you are asserting a universe which is infinite and uncaused while at the same time having a finite beginning in time at the the big bang, and asserting that before the infinite universe existed it existed infinitely in a non-infinite way because you are defining infinite in terms of time and time could not exist before the universe.

The universe exists infinitely in time

The universe (and time) began to exist at the big bang

Therefore the universe’s existence is infinitely finite

The argument from first cause does not change its definitions and neither does it contradict itself and therefore is a better argument.

God Bless

 

[Windfish]

R Daneel, in the statement, “A finite time ago, our universe came into existence,” there is no reference, or even an allusion, to a time before the big bang. It simply states that the age of the universe is finite, with no claim about anything “prior to” this event. In any case, let me make it clear that there cannot be a “before” time. Time, which fundamentally measures change, did not exist before the big bang because there was no change before the big bang.

You might like to water down the 13.7 billion figure, but the fact is, this is called the “age” of the universe. It does not simply represent the duration since the big bang. In any case, as I said earlier, there was no “before” the big bang. I suggest you study the gravitational singularity and how it represents the edge of spacetime.

Surely you must know that when I say you claim the universe “always” existed, I am using a figure of speech. You are claiming that, at the very least, all matter and energy has always existed, which still commits the fallacy of infinite regress (that went ignored in your latest message). Unfortunately, you will continue throughout your message to pick at semantics and see past this figure of speech.

Your objection to my using a “premise” as a conclusion is misguided. That was not a premise at all. In fact, in the former portion of my message I had already done a great deal to establish that point. It was a reiteration of what I had already stated in order to build towards a conclusion.

Asking what caused the universe is not incoherent because the universe can be shown to have a finite past. The matter and energy certainly did not always exist; they at some point came into being, and thus demand a cause.

 

[R_Daneel]

R Daneel, in the statement, “A finite time ago, our universe came into existence,” there is no reference, or even an allusion, to a time before the big bang.

The phrase “came into existence” clearly says that the Universe did not exist before that point in time.

It simply states that the age of the universe is finite, with no claim about anything “prior to” this event. In any case, let me make it clear that there cannot be a “before” time. Time, which fundamentally measures change, did not exist before the big bang because there was no change before the big bang.

But you say that the Universe was “created”, which involes a change and thus involves a time. An act of “creation” without a change and without a time is an oxymoron.

You might like to water down the 13.7 billion figure, but the fact is, this is called the “age” of the universe. It does not simply represent the duration since the big bang. In any case, as I said earlier, there was no “before” the big bang. I suggest you study the gravitational singularity and how it represents the edge of spacetime.

The wording used is not always precise.

Surely you must know that when I say you claim the universe “always” existed, I am using a figure of speech. You are claiming that, at the very least, all matter and energy has always existed, which still commits the fallacy of infinite regress (that went ignored in your latest message). Unfortunately, you will continue throughout your message to pick at semantics and see past this figure of speech.

Semantics cannot be avoided. As a matter of fact we are “talking” about things for which there are no accurate words. We cannot say that the Universe “always” existed - figuratively or not. The fact that you resorted to figurative speech indicates that there are no words to describe the singularity. Our mathematics does not reach into the singularity, and thus cannot describe it.

Your objection to my using a “premise” as a conclusion is misguided. That was not a premise at all. In fact, in the former portion of my message I had already done a great deal to establish that point. It was a reiteration of what I had already stated in order to build towards a conclusion.

I read it, several times. Maybe you would wish to restate your premises in a list format, so we can be on the same wavelength.

Asking what caused the universe is not incoherent because the universe can be shown to have a finite past. The matter and energy certainly did not always exist; they at some point came into being, and thus demand a cause.

The same semanitcs is used here. Words which are unable to describe reality.

As I said before the idea of “creation” without action and without time is a nonsensical proposition. The usual phrase of “eternally willed” is without meaning. The concept of “creation” is therefore incoherent. And as soon as one assumes that the creator operated in its “own” time, which is not the same as our time, then the whole problem of infinity (and inifinite regress) raises its ugly head again, just one step removed into a state of affairs about which nothing can be said. So the “creation” scenario cannot avoid the same problems. And therefore it is simpler to accept that the Universe is uncaused.

 

[JDaniel]

There is no point in time when the “stuff” that comprises the universe did not exist. Why must it have a cause? Or, why must a finite being be caused by something else in order to exist?

Luke, very sneaky! Very sneaky, indeed. You have basically set up a word-trap. There is no time etc., . . . That is correct. An efficient cause must be prior to its effect, whether in time or in sequence.

However, God created the universe. And Creation is not synonymous with Causation. Causation requires prime matter, etc., to exist previous to merging with its form. Creation does not require a causal sequence, nor the causal attributes of matter, form and privation.

In answer to your final question, however, a finite being must be caused by something else because there is no case that we know where a being causes itself. If it could, it would have to pre-exist itself, which is illogical, not to mention impossible.

Good one!
jd

 

[Windfish]

R Daneel, to say that the universe “came into existence” only implies time at that point and after. In other words, t=0 is at the singularity and continues from there. This is the standard model, and no, it does not imply time before the singularity. The event is taking place at t=0 and in the immediately proceeding moments. Thus you have creation within a timeline without suggesting that there is time before t=0.

As for that 13.7 billion figure, the wording used almost always includes the word “age” when describing the relation of this number to the universe. True, it also describes the duration of time passed between now and the big bang, but that’s because cosmologists understand that the big bang marks the beginning of all matter and energy. In any case, this is the literal age of the universe, that’s the wording they use, and that’s the reality of the matter.

Much more is known about the singularity than you seem to suggest. We know it marked the edge of spacetime, contained all matter and energy, was infinitely dense, had no dimensions, and had zero volume. In other words, it was nothing. The singularity is actually a way to express that at one point, there was no matter or energy. As Stephen Hawking once put it, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang” (-The Nature of Space and Time).

If you want a clear line of premises, here it is:

P1. Given an infinite amount of time, all possibilities will be realized.
P2. All possibilities have not been realized.
C. All matter and energy has not existed for an infinite amount of time.

If you object to P2, understand that one of the possibilities of our universe is its ultimate end. Whether it’s the consumption by black holes, the heat death, the winding down according to thermodynamics, etc. This death has not been realized. Further, the next event in time has not been realized. In other words, what will occur in the instant immediately proceeding this present moment has not yet been realized.

 

[kildare]

It is a huge error to think that atheism equals reductionism.

I dont get it. If you dont believe in non-material/measureable/empirical processes (i.e. supernatural, how can you not be reductionist? But anyway sorry.

One apple and another apple is still two apples, even if there is no one to realize it. Intelligence is an emergent attribute, not some mystical ability imposed from “above”. Think about water, which is 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Neither of the constituent parts exhibits the property of “wetness” and the resulting combined entity does have that property. Do you think that wetness needs a god as an explanation? Surely not.

OK my fault for not being clear.
What i mean is that as soon as the big bang occurred, the factors were there for the evolution of intelligence. The gravity, the sub-atomic forces etc. As soon as they came into being, intelligence became a possibility (not that any observer with human intelligence might of guessed. At a slightly earlier point, even though say gravity had not yet appeared, something happened which made that a possibility which in turn made intelligence a possibility.

 

[Luke_K]

Wow, thanks everyone for replying so quickly and giving me good stuff to think about. I may ask another question on this topic once I’ve digested what you’ve all said already, which may take a while. I’m not here to try to advance an argument and disprove opponents, just to seek an answer to a question I’ve never seen an explanation for.

 

[KyivAndrew]

The late philosopher Mortimer Adler (who converted to Catholicism) made an interesting argument in his book How to Think About God. He demonstrates reasonable grounds for affirming God’s existence. His argument in that book avoids the error of begging the question of God’s existence by assuming the universe had a beginning - that at some past moment it was caused to come into existence out of nothing.

He affirms God’s existence on the assumption of an uncreated cosmos - that the cosmos was uncreated or never came into existence out of nothing. (Naturally, he believed in the more “likely” assumption of a created universe since the possibility that the universe has everlastingly existed is less likely than the opposite). But he wished to avoid begging the question and demonstrated God not as the creative, but as the preservative cause of the continuing actual existence of a possible universe (I believe he uses the term “exnihilation”, an exnihilating cause being one that preserves the existence of something and prevents it from being annihilated, or being reduced to absolute nothingness).

The existence of the universe as a whole is radically contingent in Adler’s words, which is to say that, while not needing an efficient cause of its coming to be, since it is everlasting, it nevertheless does need an efficient cause of its continuing existence, to preserve it in being and prevent it from being replaced by nothingness. If the universe needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence to prevent its annihilation, THEN that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused - God. No natural cause can be an “exnihilating cause”, and no natural cause is uncaused in its existence or action. Since “natural” and “supernatural” represent an exhaustive set of alternatives, the cause must be supernatural if it cannot be natural.

Adler argues that the continuing existence of the universe needs an efficient cause for its perpetuation in that state. The reason is found in the fact that the universe which now exists is one of many possible universes that might have existed in the infinite past, and that might still exist in the infinite future. Other universes might have existed in the past, and might still exist in the future. IF other universes are possible, then this one also is merely possible, not necessary - not the only universe that can ever exist in an infinite extent of time.

How do we know the present universe is only a possible universe (one of many possibilities that might exist), and not a necessary universe (the only one that can ever exist)? It is to be inferred from the fact that the arrangement and disarray - order and disorder - of the present universe might have been otherwise, might have been different from what it is. There is no compelling reason to think that the natural laws which govern the present universe are the only possible natural laws. Our universe manifests chance and random happenings, as well as lawful behavior, in Adler’s words. Even electrons and protons, which are believed imperishable once they exist as the building blocks of the present universe, might not be the building blocks of a different universe.

Now, whatever might have been otherwise in shape or structure is something that also might not exist at all. That which cannot be otherwise cannot not exist; and conversely, what necessarily exists cannot be otherwise than it is. Whatever can be otherwise than it is can also simply not be at all. A universe which can be otherwise is one that also can not be; and conversely, a universe that is capable of not existing at all is one that can be otherwise than it now is.

Adler applies this insight to the fact that the existing universe is merely one of a plurality of possible universes, and comes to the conclusion that the universe, radically contingent in its existence, would not exist at all were it not caused. A merely possible universe cannot be an uncaused universe but needs a cause of that existence, a supernatural cause which exists and acts to exnihilate this merely possible universe, thus preventing the realization of what is always possible for a merely possible universe: its absolute non-existence or reduction to nothingness.

(all points from Mortimer Adler’s How to Think About God, and now I’m tired, though I realize from some of the previous posts which questions may arise in regards to Adler’s reasoning) I just thought I’d throw in another view to mix things up.

 

[greylorn]

There is no point in time when the “stuff” that comprises the universe did not exist. Why must it have a cause? Or, why must a finite being be caused by something else in order to exist?

By the “stuff” of the universe, I’ll assume that you are speaking of energy, which according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, cannot be created or destroyed. This law validates your premise.

The stuff itself cannot have a cause.

However, the universe is an interesting place because the stuff (energy) is structured into different forms (electric charge, mass, motion, radiation, etc.) The existence of each of these represents an ordering of the stuff contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The most elementary study of classical physics will show that we live in a cause-effect universe. Without cause, there are no effects. A finite being is clearly an “effect,” and not its own cause.

Interesting question, by the way.

 

[Windfish]

You are playing a linguistic trick and committing the logical error of equivocation.

You are saying

A> At no time did the stuff in the universe not exist

B> Time is a property of the universe

C> Since time is a property of the universe, and at no time did the universe not exist, therefore the universe has always existed.

The statement is true by force of irresistible logic, you are basically saying the universe exists because it exists. Even a Theist would agree with this.

Then you muddy the waters by saying that the cause of the universe must have created the universe in time (since the universe has always existed and therefore time has always existed) and therefore must exist within the universe itself (since time is a property of the universe) and since the universe has always existed in time, therefore there is no need to posit a first cause because such a cause would be part of the universe.

Therefore your two conclusions are

A> The universe is infinite

or

B> The universe caused itself

We both agree that the universe cannot cause itself because then it would have to exist before it existed and thus would be and not be in the same way and relationship.

So here is where your notion of infinity fall on its head.

You are measuring infinity by time passed, but you assert that there was a big bang (which I agree with) and there is no point of arguing ‘before’ the big bang because 'before is time language and therefore must exist within the universe and therefore is irrelevant.

The problem is that you cannot posit that matter has always existed because of the singularity (the supposed stable state of the universe before the big bang) because that singularity would necessarily have to exist outside of time since time is a property of space and a singularity by definition has no space.

Therefore there is no time at which the singularity could exist.

Therefore to say that the universe is infinite because it has ‘always existed’ is irrelevant language because you are asserting a ‘time’ in which the singularity existed and therefore changing the way that you use the word ‘time’ and therefore equivocating on your language and thus your argument saws off the log upon which it is sitting.

The argument from causation namely the First Cause is that this cause created time and therefore exists outside of time and therefore need not assert a ‘when’ such a cause took place but rather a ‘what’ that such a cause did take place.

But you say that we cannot say that because we are using time language to assert a ‘before’ the big bang, but the problem is that you are asserting a universe which is infinite and uncaused while at the same time having a finite beginning in time at the the big bang, and asserting that before the infinite universe existed it existed infinitely in a non-infinite way because you are defining infinite in terms of time and time could not exist before the universe.

The universe exists infinitely in time

The universe (and time) began to exist at the big bang

Therefore the universe’s existence is infinitely finite

The argument from first cause does not change its definitions and neither does it contradict itself and therefore is a better argument.

God Bless

I think this, quite convincingly, proves that the universe needs a cause.

 

[JDaniel]

I think this, quite convincingly, proves that the universe needs a cause.

Windfish:

Yes, with the caveat that time is not a per se property of the universe, except, perhaps, in an analogical manner. Motion is a per se proper property of the universe. Time is the measure of that motion; it is how we measure the motion that we sense.

God bless,
jd

 

[Windfish]

Windfish:

Yes, with the caveat that time is not a per se property of the universe, except, perhaps, in an analogical manner. Motion is a per se proper property of the universe. Time is the measure of that motion; it is how we measure the motion that we sense.

God bless,
jd

I want to understand you, maybe you can elaborate a bit more?

 

[R_Daneel]

… The event is taking place at t=0 and in the immediately proceeding moments. Thus you have creation within a timeline without suggesting that there is time before t=0.

I highlighted the pertient part. How could there be an “immediately preceeding” moment to t=0?

… True, it also describes the duration of time passed between now and the big bang, but that’s because cosmologists understand that the big bang marks the beginning of all matter and energy. In any case, this is the literal age of the universe, that’s the wording they use, and that’s the reality of the matter.

Yes, that is the wording they use, and observe, none of them talks about creation. They are also cautious and do not talk about the singularity itself.

Much more is known about the singularity than you seem to suggest. We know it marked the edge of spacetime, contained all matter and energy, was infinitely dense, had no dimensions, and had zero volume. In other words, it was nothing.

That is a contradiction. Infinitely dense (and density is the property of matter) and “nothing” do not mesh with each other. Moreover, the physical properties of the singularity are simply unknown. Out physics and mathematics “break down” as we approach the singularity.

If you want a clear line of premises, here it is:

P1. Given an infinite amount of time, all possibilities will be realized.
P2. All possibilities have not been realized.
C. All matter and energy has not existed for an infinite amount of time.

If you object to P2, understand that one of the possibilities of our universe is its ultimate end. Whether it’s the consumption by black holes, the heat death, the winding down according to thermodynamics, etc. This death has not been realized. Further, the next event in time has not been realized. In other words, what will occur in the instant immediately proceeding this present moment has not yet been realized.

Well, let’s analyze what you suggest. First, you apply the second law of thermodynamics to the Universe, which is not correct. The second law only applies to closed and finite systems.

It is not certain that the Universe is finite. As we keep “digging down”, we keep finding even “more elementary” particles. What were assumed to be the “final building blocks” of the Universe, turn out to be not the final ones at all. There is no assurance that there is a limit “down there”.

Then it is feasible that our observable universe is just a “black hole” in some “hyperverse” (this has nothing to do with the multiverse theory). And that “hyperverse” may also be just a “black hole” in some “superhyperverse”. Who knows? What I mean is that the “finiteness” of the Universe is merely an assumption.

Furthermore, let’s speculate about the singularity. Since the singularity contains an infinite amount of "proto-matter’, it is possible that the Big Bang released our universe, and yet there is still an infinite amount of proto-matter within the singularity, to be released later.

So your reasoning does not lead to a creator. You may say that all that is just a speculation. You would be correct, but everything is just a speculation when it comes to the singularity.

However, let’s analyze you suggestion further. For the purposes of the discussion, we shall assume that the above speculation is too far out, and our universe is all there is. It was actually created at the Big Bang. You propose a “creator” and you propose an act of creation. (Now it does not follow from that that this “creator” is a conscious being. It could be some inanimate “thing”.) Since you propose an “act”, from that comes the notion of change, and thus the notion of time. You also speak of a hyperverse, but that hyperverse is not physical. Yet, there must be some kind of a time there (let’s call it hyper-time to distinguish from our “regular time”), since any act presupposes a before and an after.

Now, there are two possibilities. Either this hyper-time extends infinitely into the past, or it also had a starting point. If it exists infinitely into the past, we are confronted with the problem of traversing an infinitely long distance from minus infinity to the current time. This seems to be impossible, and it actually is the main argument against having an infinite past for our universe. (You used it yourself.) If this hyperverse also had a beginning, then - using your own logic, it also had to be created, and so we have an infinite regress of hierarchies.

So your solution suffers the same problems, only one step removed. This is again the case of muliplying the entities without sufficient reason. The atheist picture and your picture are still identical in structure, only you introduced a further level of “existence”. There is no need for that, especially since your picture suffers the same deficiencies you described for my picture. Also, your picture introduces some further problems. A non-physical being using only an undefined “will” creates a physical universe - which does not help at all in understanding the creation process. So your picture is needlessly complicated, suffers the same “problems” as mine, and also introduces some very far-out assumptions, which can only be described as sheer “magic”.

The simple assumption is that the Universe needs no cause, no explanation. The whole question of “how did the Universe become as it is” is meaningless and unnecessary. The Universe simply exists. And it is complex enough to fill up our foreseeable future with real research. No need to waste time on empty speculation, unless we realize that it is merely a fun pastime, when we have some free time to “waste”.