I started with a valid dichotomy, two different types of theirs. I discarded both types of theories, which means that reality cannot exist. The reality, however, exists; therefore, there must be a God who created the universe at the finite past.
God, by definition, is the uncreated Being. If God were created, then we would need another creator, etc. This leads to infinite regress unless you accept that there is a uncreated Being.
I started with that hidden assumption when I discussed two different types of theories that explain the universe. I then showed that neither theory is acceptable, which means you cannot have any reality.
The story is long and can be explained in 6 steps: 1) Time cannot exist at present only, and change, 2) This means that we need two points of time, now and immediate future, in which now is constantly annihilated and the immediate future is constantly created, 3) The physical substances are also subject to creation and annihilation, 4) A computation is needed for the act of creation, 5) there is an entity who does the computation and run the universe, read it create and annihilate physical substances, 6) Therefore we are living in a simulation. I would be happy to expand if you are interested. Just please pick the step you donât understand and let me know.
First, I am not talking about the infinite past but the eternal past. By eternal past, I mean something bigger than any infinity that you can imagine. Second, I am not saying that infinity cannot exist. Space, in fact, could be infinite and exist. I am, however, arguing against the eternal past. All I am saying is that you have to obtain the eternal past to reach from the eternal past to now, and that is not possible since the eternal past does not have a definite value.
If eternalism is correct then points in time are never actually âreachedâ. From a hypothetical âoutsideâ perspective, different points in time are no different in principle to different points in space; they just occur on another axis.
So the universe might just be a static four-dimensional âblockâ. Time is just a dimension of the universe and not something that the universe itself is âsubjectâ to, i.e. the words âpastâ, âpresentâ, and âfutureâ refer to three (equally real) âsegmentsâ of the universe, with the universe itself never changing.
That kinda takes away all your ammo to prove the existence of God (not that you ever really explained how God comes into the picture, or what you meant when your brought up simulations).
Sometimes presentism has been a response to the conclusion that eternalism makes the passage of time impossible. If the future already exists, why am I only experiencing the present? Who is experiencing my future and past now?
Does an the infinity of series of moments become a problem for eternalism? Zenoâs turtle and hare couldnât move in time because they had infinite moments to traverse.
If all times exist, how many times is that?
If God exists, why doesnât he think the ontology of time is important enough to include in the Bible. If it is included in the future Bible, which possibly exists now, why arenât we reading it in the future now? Are we?
Eternalism is false since it cannot explain motion and the definite subjective now we experience all the time.
God comes into the picture as a result of discarding all theories for the beginning of time that explain the beginning of the universe. We are basically left with no explanation of how the universe could exist. The universe, however, exists; therefore, there must be a God who created the universe at a finite point in the past.
The story simulation is long and can be explained in 6 steps: 1) Time cannot exist at present only, and change, 2) This means that we need two points of time, now and immediate future, in which now is constantly annihilated and the immediate future is constantly created, 3) The physical substances are also subject to creation and annihilation, 4) A computation is needed for the act of creation, 5) there is an entity who does the computation and run the universe, read it create and annihilate physical substances, 6) Therefore we are living in a simulation. I would be happy to expand if you are interested. Just please pick the step you donât understand and let me know.
Thatâs just word salad. You are claiming a distinction without a difference.
The biggest infinity imaginable is the absolute infinite. How is your âeternal pastâ bigger than that?
So, âyou have to obtain infinite past to reach from the infinite past to now, and that is not possible since the infinite past does not have a finite valueâ. No difference whatsoever.