The first cause argument

[Polymath257]

Repeating an aunt sally is pretty weird.

Right. Which has a cause. Thats the OP.

Nope. ALL causes are in time and all time is in the universe.

If you disagree, give a counter-example.

 

[Polymath257]

Exactly, and that is what I meant about t=0 being unrealisable.

Which is why asking about anything before the Big Bang, or the cause of the Big Bang is an error.

 

[firedragon]

Nope. ALL causes are in time and all time is in the universe.

If you disagree, give a counter-example.

Nope. The universe had a cause. If time began with the universe, it began with the universe. So by default, the first cause has to be out of time because the universe was caused.

 

[Polymath257]

Nope. The universe had a cause. If time began with the universe, it began with the universe. So by default, the first cause has to be out of time because the universe was caused.

There can be no cause of time because all causes are within time, and thereby within the universe. Therefore, the universe *cannot* be caused.

You keep claiming the universe had a cause, but give no reason to think that is true.

Here's another thing:

Does causality have a cause? Did causality begin to exist?

 

[muhammad_isa]

"The second is defined as being equal to the time duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the fundamental unperturbed ground-state of the caesium-133 atom."

..and that happens as a "rate" in space.
Rate = space / time

..which is why I said 'time' is defined in terms of space.
..and yes, 'space' is defined in terms of time.

That is why we can't make any definitive conclusions about the underlying nature of time and space. We can only show how they interact with each other in the reality of our universe.

Which is why asking about anything before the Big Bang, or the cause of the Big Bang is an error.

No, it is not.

The theory of relativity is not definitive at t=0.
i.e. We can't make any relationship between time and space at t=0

How can one make a statement about the relationship of something that doesn't exist?
You are saying that time can only exist if SPACE exists.

If we say that at t=0 time doesn't exist, we are referring to our definition of 'measured time'. It implies that eternality is impossible.
That must be wrong, surely?

 

[Polymath257]

..and that happens as a "rate" in space.
Rate = space / time

No. This is always from the same location, watching the light pass by and counting the oscillations.

..which is why I said 'time' is defined in terms of space.
..and yes, 'space' is defined in terms of time.

No, it is not. If anything, the reverse is true, as I pointed out: the meter is defined in terms of the second, not the other way around.

That is why we can't make any definitive conclusions about the underlying nature of time and space. We can only show how they interact with each other in the reality of our universe.

I get an allergic reaction whenever someone talks about 'underlying natures' that can't be observed.

Yes, we can only show how they interact with each other! That is an *operational definition* and is how *all* physical things are defined: by how they interact.


And, in fact, going beyond 'how it interacts' and asking about anything deeper is, I think, a serious philosophical mistake. A thing *is* how it interacts and nothing more.

No, it is not.

The theory of relativity is not definitive at t=0.
i.e. We can't make any relationship between time and space at t=0

Actually, it is pretty definitive. That's was some of Hawking's original research: that general relativity always includes such singularities in spacetime.

There simply is no t=0 in GR.

How can one make a statement about the relationship of something that doesn't exist?
You are saying that time can only exist if SPACE exists.

Yes, and matter, and energy. They are ALL co-existent.

If we say that at t=0 time doesn't exist, we are referring to our definition of 'measured time'. It implies that eternality is impossible.
That must be wrong, surely?

Why would you say that? Time is *defined* by how it is measured. That is something in common with *all* physical things.

I'm not sure why you think that 'eternality' is a necessary thing. I see it as quite likely not to be the case. I just don't know either way.

And, like I said, in most quantum theories of gravity, time *can* be extended further back. In fact, it can be extended infinitely far back. But then, you don't like that idea either since you don't like infinite regress, right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please provide the evidence that it is proven this as a fact is uncaused

He doesn't need to. All that's needed to defeat the first cause argument is to cast doubt on its premises.

If it's uncertain whether the premises are true, then you start at "maybe all things that begin to exist need a cause and maybe they don't," which only gets you to "maybe God exists and maybe he doesn't," which is exactly where we were without the argument.

(This is ignoring all the other problems with the first cause argument, of course)

 

[muhammad_isa]

Time is *defined* by how it is measured. That is something in common with *all* physical things.

Exactly. One can't "see" time, we can only measure it.
..and we measure it relative to something.

I'm not sure why you think that 'eternality' is a necessary thing. I see it as quite likely not to be the case..

Really?
I see it as being pedantic, when somebody suggests that there is no such thing as "before" the big-bang.
It refers to a theory that relies on a defined physical measurement.

It is intuitive that one couldn't rule out that time could go on for ever. In the same way, time could not have a beginning.
It is only when one plays with 'time' as in 'what we measure', that one makes these unreasonable statements of time having an end or beginning.

 

[Polymath257]

Exactly. One can't "see" time, we can only measure it.
..and we measure it relative to something.

The same is true for electrons, or infrared light, or gamma rays, or radio waves, or any number of other things.

Really?
I see it as being pedantic, when somebody suggests that there is no such thing as "before" the big-bang.
It refers to a theory that relies on a defined physical measurement.

And as I said, in quantum theories of gravity, it can make sense. And, in those, time goes infinitely far back.

But in *relativity*, at least general relativity, time can only be defined to the Big Bang and not even extended further.

I think the problem is that you don't see time as being part of the dynamical system that is the universe.

Time is affected by matter and energy. That isn't just a coordinate effect, but is instead a geometrical effect. And yes, we measure that.

It is intuitive that one couldn't rule out that time could go on for ever. In the same way, time could not have a beginning.

OK, so you allow for an infinite regression for time? But not causes? how does that work?

It is only when one plays with 'time' as in 'what we measure', that one makes these unreasonable statements of time having an end or beginning.

it isn't necessarily unreasonable. It is one logical possibility. In some theories, it is the prediction.

 

[Ponder This]

It is not ignorance that makes the quantum version of coin tosses random. Einstein believed that but he has been proved wrong. We know that quantum coin toss type events are TRULY RANDOM and there is no fact of the matter, which if known, would make it possible to predict the quantum outcomes from prior causes.
Google EPR and Quantum Mechanics.

Googling EPR and Quantum Mechanics did not help your case. Perhaps you can explain your claim further?

What we can say with some certainty is that ALL causes are within the universe and ALL causes happen over time.

How do you say, with Certainty, that ALL causes are within the universe if the only things you ever examine are things within the universe? Surely you are simply creating a definition that suits your particular claims.
And why must causes happen over time? What does that mean?

Then philosophy needs to grow up and learn about infinity.

...

How so? it shows that an infinite regress is a logical possibility.
More accurately, the model of the negative integers (0, -1, -2, -3, ...) is one where everything has a predecessor (so, -5 has -6 as a predecessor) and yet there is no 'first' negative integer.
That shows the concept is not self-contradictory. If you want to avoid that, you need a separate argument to show such is impossible.

Here's an example of infinite regress:
"The world does not fall because it is supported by four elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle, which is standing on the back of another giant turtle, which is standing on the back of another giant turtle, and so on..."
The negative numbers aren't formed by counting up from negative infinity; they are formed by counting down from zero.

If there is an infinite regress of causes, there is no first cause in that sequence.

Right, so imagine the infinite hotel, only this time your guests start complaining that they are being kicked out of their rooms by guests from higher numbered rooms.
"I just had to move out because the guest from room 355 took my spot at room 354!"
So you go to ask the guest formerly known as guest number 355 why he took guest 354's room.
"I was moved out by the guest in room 356."
So you ask the guest formerly known as guest number 356 why he took guest number 355's room.
"Well you see there's this guest froom room number 357 who moved into room 356."
And so on.
It's a very strange problem because there isn't actually any reason for any of the guests to move. As you've already shown before, space can be made in Hilbert's hotel by moving the guests to higher numbered rooms. There isn't actually any lack of space. They claim they need to move because of higher numbered guests, but it's all an elaborate illusion. They don't actually have to move at all!

"Actually, it is the other way around: time is *in the universe*."
Does time exist outside of the universe?
If not, it seems nothing happens without time so how did the universe begin without time?
1. Either the universe and time always existed
2. Either the universe and time had a start.
Which do you favor, 1 or 2?

If time existed before the universe began, then how would it be measured I wonder? Not by sun or moon, star or planet, or even by the vibration of atoms. It would have to be measured by... something else?

In my view the universe 'just is'. There is no 'how it came about'.

This is only a view you hold about the universe, correct? You don't hold this view about the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, or RF, right? The universe is a special exception.

Then philosophy needs to grow up and extend its boundaries.

...

Let's modify the argument in the OP a bit to reflect what we actually know.
I'm going to present two different syllogisms, each a slight modification of that in the OP, and both more based on what we know.
First syllogism:
P1. Everything in the universe that begins to exist has a cause within the universe.
In this, there is no possible conclusion about the universe because the universe is not *within* the universe. So, with this P1 it is quite possible that the universe began while not having a cause.
But P1 is closer to what we actually know than the OP. We certainly don't have any evidence except from *within* the universe, so this P1 is a better starting point than the one in the OP.
Now, from this, we get the following conclusion:
1. Either there is an infinite regression of causes within the universe OR there is something in the universe that did not begin.
Now, I would argue that there is another premise that is much closer to what we actually know than either the one above or the one in the OP. And that is
P1': Everything in the universe that has a cause has a cause within the universe.
This is something supported by all the evidence and all of our intuitions. it is a reasonable philosophical starting point.
But, from P1', we can only conclude:
1': Either there is an infinite regression of causes within the universe OR there is something in the universe that is uncaused.
And this is as far as you can get from pure philosophy.

If you just take the example of a simulation, it becomes clear that:
1. Not everything that begins to exists in the simulation has a cause within the simulation.
2. There need not be an infinite regress of causes within the simulation.
3. Not everything in the simulation has a cause within the simulation.
4. It can be that there is nothing in the simulation that is uncaused.
You're speculations don't even apply to a simple game of tic-tac-toe.

First of all, the big bang doesn't explain the origins of the universe - not really. It explains the expansion.
But let's say the big bang is whatever happened at T = 0.
Then the answer to your question is that this event has no cause.
It can't have a cause.
Because causes happen BEFORE effects.
And if the universe is supposedly an "effect", then its "cause" must have happened "before" T = 0.
And that simply doesn't compute.
it's like north of the north pole.
There's just no there there.

Perhaps it's time to think outside the box.

Causality is a phenomenon of physics.

The notion of causality is used to construct the notions of time and space, not vice versa. Physics does not explain the cause of phenomena. A force does not "cause" a mass to accelerate. Causality is a philosophical notion which physics borrows.

The big bang happened at T = 0.
There is no "before" T = 0.
The OP argument requires a "before" T = 0.

Perhaps there was no observable "time" at T = 0.
It is the cup that holds the water, not the water that holds the cup.
_____________________________________________________________
I've been thinking about the philosophical problem of whether or not the universe began to exist. It does seem that there is a problem with defining a point in time when all existing matter and space started.

If time is a property or effect or consequence of mass-energy then time only exists because mass-energy does. Which would solve the problem of beginnings.
I think the evidence as it presently stands points persuasively to our universe being defined by an initial event some 14 bn years ago.
I also think that the mass-energy which formed the contents of the Big Bang necessarily pre-existed the Big Bang, even though we presently have no way of accessing information about it.

I would think that mass-energy before the Big Bang would be part of "all existing matter and space". But if we can have some sort of notion of time that does not depend on the universe - it just seems like this notion that the universe began at some point in time presents a paradox.

I just copy and paste one of my recent posts since it is applicable also here.
This argument makes an implicit assumption concerning the ontology of time. Namely, that time is Newtonian, ergo absolute and sort of external to the rest. This ontology, usually called the A theory of time, corresponds to our intuition of time. What exists is the present; what is in the past ceased to exist and what lies in the future is not existing yet.
An increasingly popular theory of time is the B theory. It is increasingly popular because Einstein showed that the A theory does not account for relativistic effects, and it is therefore very likely false. That B theory corresponds to time as in the special theory of relativity. The whole Universe is a 4 dimensional manifold punctuated with all physical events. All those events exist eternally on a block Universe, eternal and unchanging. Events including the Big Bang, my birth, my death, etc. existing as we speak. So, according to that ontology, there is no physical flow of time, and what we perceive as a flow is an illusion of our psychology.
So, if the B theory is correct, which is likely, nothing begins to exist. And if that is true, then P1 is true, while P2 is clearly false, and therefore the argument is not sound.
Ciao
- viole

That argument is irrelevant because time does not have to "flow".
Suppose that the Earth exists as a static object. It still has a beginning and an end, a boundary which defines its physcial static existence, and a length that spans it from one end to the other.

 

[Polymath257]

Googling EPR and Quantum Mechanics did not help your case. Perhaps you can explain your claim further?

Sure, the EPR paradox was introduced by Einstein because he didn't like the acausal aspects of quantum mechanics: in particular, he didn't like the way entanglement works. He tried to find a 'hidden variable' theory that would explain the probabilities seen in QM.

But, we now know that there cannot be such hidden variables that work locally (a requirement of relativity). Actual observations have been done showing that the predicitons of QM in the EPR paradox are actually what happen, contrary to what Einstein thought would happen AND contrary to any causal theory.

How do you say, with Certainty, that ALL causes are within the universe if the only things you ever examine are things within the universe? Surely you are simply creating a definition that suits your particular claims.

No, I am limiting my premises to what we can actually observe and measure. Those saying that everything that begins must have a cause make different assumptions that suit their particular claims. I am giving one possible alternative.

And why must causes happen over time? What does that mean?

It means that causal order (what causes what) and temporal order (what is before what) are the same. And that means that for causes to exist, there has to be time.

Here's an example of infinite regress:
"The world does not fall because it is supported by four elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle, which is standing on the back of another giant turtle, which is standing on the back of another giant turtle, and so on..."

Yes, and?

"The negative numbers aren't formed by counting up from negative infinity; they are formed by counting down from zero.

No, they are not 'formed' at all. I don't have to count down to get them. I know that -123,345,183,242 is a negative integer even if I cannot count down to it.

Right, so imagine the infinite hotel, only this time your guests start complaining that they are being kicked out of their rooms by guests from higher numbered rooms.
"I just had to move out because the guest from room 355 took my spot at room 354!"
So you go to ask the guest formerly known as guest number 355 why he took guest 354's room.
"I was moved out by the guest in room 356."
So you ask the guest formerly known as guest number 356 why he took guest number 355's room.
"Well you see there's this guest froom room number 357 who moved into room 356."
And so on.
It's a very strange problem because there isn't actually any reason for any of the guests to move. As you've already shown before, space can be made in Hilbert's hotel by moving the guests to higher numbered rooms. There isn't actually any lack of space. They claim they need to move because of higher numbered guests, but it's all an elaborate illusion. They don't actually have to move at all!

Yes, and? If we can get the guests to reverse direction, everything would be fine.

Again, this is not a contradiction to infinity. It just shows that it doesn't work the same way as finite things.

If time existed before the universe began, then how would it be measured I wonder? Not by sun or moon, star or planet, or even by the vibration of atoms. It would have to be measured by... something else?

What would it even mean to say that time exists before the universe if there is no way to measure it?

This is only a view you hold about the universe, correct? You don't hold this view about the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, or RF, right? The universe is a special exception.

I leave it open whether there are things in the universe that are uncaused. The evidence points to most quantum events being of that sort.

If you just take the example of a simulation, it becomes clear that:
1. Not everything that begins to exists in the simulation has a cause within the simulation.
2. There need not be an infinite regress of causes within the simulation.
3. Not everything in the simulation has a cause within the simulation.
4. It can be that there is nothing in the simulation that is uncaused.
You're speculations don't even apply to a simple game of tic-tac-toe.

Perhaps it's time to think outside the box.

Or give evidence to suspect this universe is, in fact, a simulation.

The notion of causality is used to construct the notions of time and space, not vice versa. Physics does not explain the cause of phenomena. A force does not "cause" a mass to accelerate. Causality is a philosophical notion which physics borrows.

In that case, the notion of causality is nonsense. Philosophy cannot, ultimately, explain anything because there are too many logically consistent, but false possibilities. Physics allows for testability and predictability. That is why it can actually explain the things it does.

For the most part, modern physics ignores the whole concept of 'cause' as being useless.

Perhaps there was no observable "time" at T = 0.
It is the cup that holds the water, not the water that holds the cup.

Both interact with the other. There are situations where the surface tension of water can hold the glass together.

I've been thinking about the philosophical problem of whether or not the universe began to exist. It does seem that there is a problem with defining a point in time when all existing matter and space started.

I would think that mass-energy before the Big Bang would be part of "all existing matter and space". But if we can have some sort of notion of time that does not depend on the universe - it just seems like this notion that the universe began at some point in time presents a paradox.

What makes you think there was a 'before the Big Bang'? At this point, that is an open question. But, in those theories that have time before the Big Bang, there is also matter and energy before the Big Bang.

That argument is irrelevant because time does not have to "flow".
Suppose that the Earth exists as a static object. It still has a beginning and an end, a boundary which defines its physcial static existence, and a length that spans it from one end to the other.

That is getting closer: the idea that spacetime is the key thing, not space nor time alone. And spacetime, like the Earth, has a geometry. It is a four dimensional manifold. Matter and energy can be thought of as decorations on that manifold.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The same is true for electrons, or infrared light, or gamma rays, or radio waves, or any number of other things..

Right, but matter and energy are not the same as time, in as much as energy and mass are equivalent, and are widely acceped as being physical.
Time is different, as we perceive it in a different way.
We have the concepts of the past, now and the future.

And as I said, in quantum theories of gravity, it can make sense.

I don't think we need to go into the world of quantum theory .. it is notoriously difficult to interpret, and there is no "one size fits all".

But in *relativity*, at least general relativity, time can only be defined to the Big Bang and not even extended further.

I agree. That is because we are describing the relationship between time and space as we perceive it, given our initial assumptions/physical definitions about time and space

I think the problem is that you don't see time as being part of the dynamical system that is the universe.

I wouldn't call it a problem
I see that time is not an absolute concept. Our perception of it is
that time is passing at the rate we measure.

Einstein shows us that it is more complex.
It is not difficult to imagine an expanding space, although many people have difficulty in understanding what it is expanding INTO.
If we say that time is ALSO expanding, what would that mean?

OK, so you allow for an infinite regression for time?

Yes. Any theory that shows us that that is not possible undermines our intuition.
To suggest that "before the big-bang" is meaningless as there can be no before defies logic.
If it is possible for eternity to be real [which it is], then I would say that it has something to do with confusion due to infinitive concept.
Eternity is an infinite concept.

 

[blü 2]

I would think that mass-energy before the Big Bang would be part of "all existing matter and space".

"All existing matter and space" gets us into definitions. The hypothetical multiverse might be sufficiently described in those terms, or it might require something more; or it may not exist in any form other than the matter-energy constituting our universe. One day we may come up with a way to find out.

But if we can have some sort of notion of time that does not depend on the universe - it just seems like this notion that the universe began at some point in time presents a paradox.

As I said, if time exists because matter-energy exists ─ rather than matter-energy existing within time ─ then the problem goes away.

We presently think, for example, that time in our local universe goes only from past to future, that this progress is consistent everywhere in spacetime, that spacetime has only one temporal dimension and that time does not move slantwise, ─ and so on. But nothing protects the conclusions of science, based as they are on empiricism and induction, from unknown unknowns. And meanwhile nothing stops us hypothesizing such views of time for universes other than our own.

 

[Polymath257]

Right, but matter and energy are not the same as time, in as much as energy and mass are equivalent, and are widely acceped as being physical.
Time is different, as we perceive it in a different way.
We have the concepts of the past, now and the future.

One of the big aspects of general relativity is that time is more than just a background: it interacts with matter and energy and is affected by both. That is one thing that makes is part of physics these days.

Past, present, and future are relative to a specific event: they don't have universal meaning.

I don't think we need to go into the world of quantum theory .. it is notoriously difficult to interpret, and there is no "one size fits all".

Quantum mechanics is a very good description of how the universe works. We definitely need to take it into consideration if we want to understand how things work.

And, going back to the Big Bang, at *some* point quantum mechanics becomes relevant. Going back a bit further, quantum gravity is essential.

I agree. That is because we are describing the relationship between time and space as we perceive it, given our initial assumptions/physical definitions about time and space


I wouldn't call it a problem
I see that time is not an absolute concept. Our perception of it is
that time is passing at the rate we measure.

Our perceptions are very poor when it comes to time. Just look at the fact that we can be fooled into thinking something is continuous (say a projected movie) when it is not. We are very poor at time intervals less than a fraction of a second.

But time is still relevant at that scale.

Einstein shows us that it is more complex.
It is not difficult to imagine an expanding space, although many people have difficulty in understanding what it is expanding INTO.
If we say that time is ALSO expanding, what would that mean?

Space expands into the future. Literally: the direction of expansion in the geometry is the direction of the future.

Expanding or contracting time is equivalent to time dilation or contraction and is a well-known (and verified) phenomenon in relativity. We have the ability to measure the difference in the time scale between floors of a building. because of the gravitational field, time runs just a bit faster at higher floors.

Yes. Any theory that shows us that that is not possible undermines our intuition.

Good. That means we can learn to form a better intuition. I have found that intuition is a very poor guide to figuring out truth.

To suggest that "before the big-bang" is meaningless as there can be no before defies logic.

No, it defies intuition, but it does not defy logic. Your intuition just needs to be updated. Time is an aspect of physics. It is affected by gravity and is dynamical in ways that nobody suspected prior to about 100 years ago.

One of the good things about education is that we learn that our intuitions are often, even usually, wrong.

If it is possible for eternity to be real [which it is], then I would say that it has something to do with confusion due to infinitive concept.
Eternity is an infinite concept.

I see it as possible, not not guaranteed. It is still possible that time is finite into the past. We just don't know yet.

But that is a problem for science. Philosophy is very poor at answering this type of question reliably.

Infinity isn't that hard of a concept. Mathematicians deal with it on a daily basis. For example, it is easy to see that there are different sizes of infinity and, in fact, infinitely many different sizes.

Anything about this subject prior to Cantor can be safely discarded and prehistoric twaddle. Before that point, people were horribly confused about the infinite. Now, it is an undergraduate topic.

But, like other things related to this, if your intuition is based on finite things, it will fail when dealing with the infinite.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Good. That means we can learn to form a better intuition. I have found that intuition is a very poor guide to figuring out truth.

Intuition by itself is not enough, I would agree.

No, it defies intuition, but it does not defy logic..

It does defy logic.
If one says something begins at a certain time, but there can be no before, that is illogical.

I see it as possible, not not guaranteed. It is still possible that time is finite into the past. We just don't know yet.

You might not know

Infinity isn't that hard of a concept. Mathematicians deal with it on a daily basis..

That is true, but even mathematicians can be fooled, eventually realising that they have made a grave error by dividing by zero unknowingly, for example.

 

[Polymath257]

Intuition by itself is not enough, I would agree.

Correct. Intuition is good for figuring out what concepts to test. But even the best intuition needs to be tested.

It does defy logic.

No, it actually does not. But if you are stuck with a Euclidean concept of time, you might think so.

Logic is a very limited area of study. Ultimately it cannot say anything about the real world, only about certain abstract relationships.

Anything dealing with time, causality, matter, consciousness, or anything outside of a very limited formal system requires MUCH more than simple logic.

Even math requires it. Something as simple as 1+2=3 cannot be dealt with by logic alone. it takes extra assumptions that allow the definition and construction of numbers, addition, equality, etc. None of those are purely logical concepts.

If one says something begins at a certain time, but there can be no before, that is illogical.

If someone told you there is a place where you can go no further south, would that be illogical?

Do you see the analogy?

You might not know

Actually, at this point *nobody* knows. It really is a question of which version of quantum gravity is correct.

If general relativity is correct with minor quantum effects, then time may well be finite into the past.

If other versions of quantum gravity are correct, time might be meaningful before the Big Bang.

In other versions, there is 'time', but what we have in our portion of the multiverse is a 'projection' of that.

Again, without evidence, we simply do not know.

Philosophy is useless in this.

That is true, but even mathematicians can be fooled, eventually realising that they have made a grave error by dividing by zero unknowingly, for example.

Such errors are quickly discovered by those checking the work.

We have learned where people in the past went wrong; which intuitions are faulty when applied to infinite quantities, which things are possible and which things do not go through.

But it does take some care, especially when first learning it. There is no contradiction, but that doesn't mean that intuitions are always reliable before being trained.

 

[leroy]

No doubt that the video is full of good arguments and refutations against the KCA, my only point is that your original refutation “if god created the universe then who created God” is a poor refutation because one doesn’t have to explain the origin to explain the origin of a cause, in order to established it as a cause.


So if you admit that your original refutation is poor I invite you to share an other refutation, if you think that the refutation is “good” then I invite you to develop your argument and explain why is it a good refutation

 

[muhammad_isa]

If someone told you there is a place where you can go no further south, would that be illogical?

Do you see the analogy?

Yes, but I have already told you 'before'..

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, but I have already told you 'before'..

So where is the illogic about a time with no before?

The whole 'no boundary' hypothesis is cute. Probably not true, but cute.

Certainly there is nothing inherently self-contradictory about a start to time.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So where is the illogic about a time with no before?

What does it mean?
That it is impossible for something to experience anything "before"?
Why? Because you say that "time" no longer exists?

No, that's silly.
Anyway, I haven't got the "time" for this