Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Joshua260]

I understand what you're saying... I don't agree with it (I don't think a cause and effect can exist in the same moment...it changes the very meaning of cause and effect) but I'll accept it for the sake of this discussion because it's not the problem. The problem is that you have a god creating a universe that begins to exist. If the universe begins to exist, and god has always existed, then you logically have a time when only god exists and the universe doesn't. So follow along....

Moment 1. God exists...universe doesn't.
Moment 2. God creates universe.
Moment 3. God and universe exist.

It's a timeline, in sequential order. It doesn't matter that we cannot measure it in seconds or years...it's a logical temporal sequence. If the universe "begins to exist" then there is some state of time which exists outside the universe and god is in it. Your explanation of god creating the universe makes it a logical necessity. Sorry.

The top physicist of today believe that space-time began to exist and provide scientific evidence to support that position. I don't disagree with that. Currently, the cause (God) and the effect (the universe) both exist. In a different state of affairs (per the KCA), the cause (God) existed without the effect (the universe). Since what scientists call space-time did not exist in those state of affairs, there would have been no sequential order of events. That's what we mean when we say that God is timeless.

 

[Joshua260]

How does one argue against someone's ideology? Faith is just that...faith. It doesn't have substantiated proof to back it up. So, to argue against it would be an effort in futility. I was once a believer, so I know how that goes.

Faith is trusting in something in which you have good reason to believe is true. In my view, it is reasonable to believe in Christianity.

 

[Joshua260]

Our concept of causality, as derived from personal experience, describes the interaction of matter and energy in spacetime, not the creation of matter and energy ex nihilo.

My concept of causality is not restricted to a logical order of events or an interaction of energy in space-time. My example (with the energy transaction) was only using the exchange to illustrate that the giving and receiving was happening at the same time. For example, when I see a bowling ball resting on a pillow, I know that the effect of the pillow begin concave in the middle is due to the cause of having a bowling ball sitting on it. Besides, your objection does nothing to destroy the KCA...the same t0 that the universe began to exist and at which God brought into existence was in space-time!!

What implications specifically?

I've listed these already in this thread.

It's immaterial spaghetti.

Incoherent.

So what? To the best of our knowledge, persons are also within spacetime. Yet you have no difficulty in positing a person that exists beyond spacetime.

It's not due to lack of evidence.

Okay, but that still doesn't answer the question of how you established that this particular entity is the starting point, and not some other entity. All it suggests is that the chain may not extend infinitely, not that the chain stops with your god.

It would stop with a being who existed timelessly.

Kudos for admitting to it. Most apologists don't.

Every apologist I've read admits that we are speculating on the traits of the first cause. I don't know who you're talking about.

In what way does the KCA narrow the possibilities? In its most basic form, all it tells us is that the origin of the universe is in need of explanation. It doesn't provide any guidance as to what form that explanation must take, whether it must be natural or supernatural, whether it involves gods or Divine Flames, etc. You're right in saying that it doesn't rule out the Abrahamic gods, but it also doesn't rule out countless other supernatural explanations, including the Divine Flame.

My understanding of a flame is that it burns in time and the component chemicals within flames are all within our space-time universe. Sorry, I'm not finding this one to be a good candidate. This suggestion has flaws.

You have not established this, particularly the last one.

I think I have several times in this thread. I didn't push the personal trait because it's quite a difficult concept to understand, but the literature I've read on this suggestion are quite intriguing.

The KCA doesn't set any criteria. The conclusion of the standard three-line KCA can be read as simply saying that the origin of the universe is in need of explanation. The criteria you are referring to come from your speculation about what this explanation might be.

No apologist I know of denies that we are speculating about the traits of the cause of the universe coming into being.

There's no "misunderstanding." It's an apologetic sleight of hand being exposed. It's relevant to consider what is meant by 'cause' because the term's meaning seems to shift between premise 1 and the conclusion.

Nope. You're just hung up on the mistaken understanding that causes and effects cannot occur concurrently.

Hey, you're the one gesturing toward our experience as support for premise 1, so don't blame me when I point out that your use of the term 'cause' departs significantly from the understanding of causality we derive from experience. You could of course admit that our intuitions about causality may be a poor guide to understanding the very early universe, or may even be inapplicable in the absence of a universe, but that would undermine the KCA.

Not only is our personal experience support for p1, but this understanding of effects having causes is foundational to scientific work. Whenever scientist see effects, they start theorizing about what the cause might be, and when they don't know, they simply say, "we don't know what the cause is yet, but give science enough time and we'll figure it out".

 

[Ana the Ist]

The top physicist of today believe that space-time began to exist and provide scientific evidence to support that position. I don't disagree with that. Currently, the cause (God) and the effect (the universe) both exist. In a different state of affairs (per the KCA), the cause (God) existed without the effect (the universe). Since what scientists call space-time did not exist in those state of affairs, there would have been no sequential order of events. That's what we mean when we say that God is timeless.

You're going to have to provide some evidence for this...

"The top physicist of today believe that space-time began to exist and provide scientific evidence to support that position. "

It's my understanding that the "top physicists of today" believe that time as we know it began to exist during the expansion of the universe known as the big bang. They don't rule out the possibility of time existing outside our universe...they simply don't know since they accept that all we can know of time is how it works "within" our universe.

Regardless of that though, you've backed yourself into a corner. It's not your fault, it's the KCA...it's a rather poorly constructed argument. It starts with a conclusion and tries to work its way backwards, and that's always poor reasoning. The trouble is that your argument is trying to arrive at these three positions.

1. God always existed.
2. God created the universe.
3. The universe began to exist.

Those 3 claims/positions/premises had to occur in that order to logically make sense. Could the universe begin to exist before god creates it? Can god create the universe before he exists? Logic dictates that there had to be a sequential order... and that order can be referenced as a timeline.

Now, you could try to argue that " there would have been no sequential order of events." but just so you know, if you head down that path with that claim...we no longer need your god. We could just claim the universe has always existed in some form or another. Your claim that an infinite chain of causality is impossible doesn't apply since the universe exists in a place that (as you put it) has no sequential order of events.

 

[Davian]

Faith is trusting in something in which you have good reason to believe is true. In my view, it is reasonable to believe in Christianity.

What convinced you that your religion was reasonable to believe in? Was it the KCA?

 

[Joshua260]

Not necessarily true. If all the items which began to exist in your sample had a cause, then one can come to the erroneous conclusion that everything that began to exist has a cause. But have you (or anyone) examined everything that ever began to exist? If not, then we can't know for sure that everything that begins to exist had a cause.

An argument from ignorance?

Causality is foundational to scientific work. If scientists see an effect, they begin theorizing about the cause. If they can't find one, they usually say "well, give science enough time and we'll figure it out". I see no reason to disagree with the scientists view that effects have causes. Why would you doubt them?

- The KCA relies on two premises, which in effect are actually two conclusions. Yet there are no sufficient premises upon which those two conclusions are based on. This is argument from ignorance, as you're assuming the initial two premises to be true when you really don't know.

Those premises are based on scientific evidences.

- The primary reason it assumes that the universe hasn't always existed is because infinity doesn't exist and that infinity is just a concept. Yet it contends that God is infinite. This is special pleading, as you're giving God a waiver from your rules regarding infinity.

When we say that God is "infinite", we are not using it in the quantitative way, as with time, but in the qualitative way, as in greater than anything else.

- In order to get from the conclusion to a god existing, the supporters of KCA would have to show how the only thing which can be in the category of "not beginning to exist" is God. This is begging the question, as you're essentially using God as a synonym for "all things that did not begin to exist".

Well, to be honest and accurate, the conclusion of the KCA implies that something that caused the universe to exist is timeless. These and other traits extrapolated from the conclusion happen to line up with a select few possible causes, one of which is the Christian god.

 

[Joshua260]

This isn't a fact.

You're seriously suggesting that a foal, a painting, a house, or a car can come into existence without a cause?

And this is rational thinking?

 

[Joshua260]

Seems that even proponents of the KCA are talking strictly about cause and effect of natural material objects here inside the universe.

The beginning of the universe began at t0...the same moment that God brought it into existence. Both this cause and effect happened within space-time.

 

[Joshua260]

Did anything exist prior to t0?

There is no "prior" in the state of affairs in which God exists without the universe.

 

[Joshua260]

You're going to have to provide some evidence for this...

"The top physicist of today believe that space-time began to exist and provide scientific evidence to support that position. "

It's my understanding that the "top physicists of today" believe that time as we know it began to exist during the expansion of the universe known as the big bang. They don't rule out the possibility of time existing outside our universe...they simply don't know since they accept that all we can know of time is how it works "within" our universe.

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." (Stephen Hawking)

Take it up with Stephen and see what he thinks.

Regardless of that though, you've backed yourself into a corner. It's not your fault, it's the KCA...it's a rather poorly constructed argument. It starts with a conclusion and tries to work its way backwards, and that's always poor reasoning. The trouble is that your argument is trying to arrive at these three positions.

1. God always existed.
2. God created the universe.
3. The universe began to exist.

Those 3 claims/positions/premises had to occur in that order to logically make sense. Could the universe begin to exist before god creates it? Can god create the universe before he exists? Logic dictates that there had to be a sequential order... and that order can be referenced as a timeline.

Now, you could try to argue that " there would have been no sequential order of events." but just so you know, if you head down that path with that claim...we no longer need your god. We could just claim the universe has always existed in some form or another. Your claim that an infinite chain of causality is impossible doesn't apply since the universe exists in a place that (as you put it) has no sequential order of events.

What? No I didn't say that. Of course the universe has a sequence of events, and that's how we measure time...by change. No, I'm not backed into a corner at all. You're apparently constrained to think that a being could not exist timelessly. I'm not making presuppositions but just following the logic of premises backed up by scientific evidence and then evaluating the consequences of the logical conclusion. Interestingly though, it seems to me that you're the one making suppositions by ruling out a timeless being from the outset. Why not just follow the logic? You seem to have a priori bias.

 

[Joshua260]

What convinced you that your religion was reasonable to believe in? Was it the KCA?

Well, although I had not read or heard of philosophical arguments such as the KCA, Teleological, and Moral arguments, etc I believe that I had already had a concept of them from my own ponderings. But when I began to research Christianity, the thing that tipped it for me was the fulfillment of so many messianic prophecies. Later, that was backed up by other research, of which I think the most critical to our faith is all of the evidence surrounding the Resurrection. FYI, for most of my life, I considered myself an unbeliever, and later came to the bible as a skeptic.

Thanks for asking but I do not plan to expand on any of that in this thread...the unbelievers in this thread are keeping me busy enough as it is with the KCA!

BTW, I corrected myself in that I saw that your icon indicates that your are a faith seeker. I hope and pray that you keep investigating. I sincerely believe that it is more rational to believe in God than not and I would tell you that my life has changed dramatically for the better since becoming a Christian. However, I wouldn't attribute that to "happiness", which is a "yuppie word" (from a Switchfoot song) and comes from without, but to joy which comes from within.

 

[TillICollapse]

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." (Stephen Hawking)

Take it up with Stephen and see what he thinks.

I haven't read all your previous posts, but just read this one and wanted to jump back in quickly:

Do you know what Hawking is saying when he says "universe" in this cherry-picked context ? I don't for certain, but I'm guessing he is probably meaning the observable universe, or the universe in it's current state. Either way, see: the Hartle-Hawking state, where Hawking theorizes what the state of things may have been like before the Big Bang. It involves a no-boundaries proposal.

Here and here for example.

It's been awhile since I've read that article of his specifically (the link that goes to the article he wrote himself, it's actually a very quick read), however I believe he even addresses in laymen understanding the contrast between his own theory SHOWING there is no need for an outside agency to be responsible for the Big Bang, etc. IIRC he directly addresses religious concepts, showing how one could conclude some of the very things you have concluded ... and then shows how his own theory counters it. If you're going to quote Hawking, you may want to read up on the Hartle-Hawking state, otherwise your own quotes may be self defeating.

 

[TillICollapse]

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." (Stephen Hawking)

Take it up with Stephen and see what he thinks.

In fact, I decided to go back and re-read that article I linked to, which I hadn't read in awhile. I see you quoted from that very article. Did you read the entire article ?

In your opinion, would you say you cherry picked a quote from that article to support your own view ? Here's that quote in it's entirety:

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation."

And more:

"This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe."

I could quote a lot more from the article, where Hawking even addresses the concepts that there IS an agency outside the universe which is responsible for it, and then goes on to show how his own hypothesis counters it and renders it unnecessary to even speculate.

IOW, that gap where you keep attributing an agency to "causing" things to happen is not necessary to fill with such an agency. His own hypothesis attempts to explain that very process, and he even attempts to support it with evidence:

"According to the no boundary proposal, the universe would have expanded in a smooth way from a single point. As it expanded, it would have borrowed energy from the gravitational field, to create matter. As any economist could have predicted, the result of all that borrowing, was inflation. The universe expanded and borrowed at an ever-increasing rate. Fortunately, the debt of gravitational energy will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe.

Eventually, the period of inflation would have ended, and the universe would have settled down to a stage of more moderate growth or expansion. However, inflation would have left its mark on the universe. The universe would have been almost completely smooth, but with very slight irregularities. These irregularities are so little, only one part in a hundred thousand, that for years people looked for them in vain. But in 1992, the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite, COBE, found these irregularities in the microwave background radiation. It was an historic moment. We saw back to the origin of the universe. The form of the fluctuations in the microwave background agree closely with the predictions of the no boundary proposal. These very slight irregularities in the universe would have caused some regions to have expanded less fast than others."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Faith is trusting in something in which you have good reason to believe is true. In my view, it is reasonable to believe in Christianity.

No, faith is just the opposite of that. If you have good reason to believe something is true, you don't need faith.

My concept of causality is not restricted to a logical order of events or an interaction of energy in space-time.

Then why gesture toward our experience as support for the first premise? Define your terms so that the meaning of the premise is clear and then examine whether it is supported. For our experience to serve as support for the first premise you necessarily have to restrict your usage of the terms 'cause' and 'begins to exist' to that which is indicated by our experience. If these terms refer to something that is outside our experience, then our experience cannot serve as support for the first premise.

My example (with the energy transaction) was only using the exchange to illustrate that the giving and receiving was happening at the same time. For example, when I see a bowling ball resting on a pillow, I know that the effect of the pillow begin concave in the middle is due to the cause of having a bowling ball sitting on it. Besides, your objection does nothing to destroy the KCA...the same t0 that the universe began to exist and at which God brought into existence was in space-time!!

Don't know what this has to do with anything; this seems to be more relevant to your conversation with Ana. In any case, Martymer 81 (YouTube) has something interesting to say about this from a physics perspective. The basic point is this: "Forces don't propagate instantaneously."

Incoherent.

Is it any more incoherent than a disembodied, immaterial, spaceless, and timeless consciousness?

It's not due to lack of evidence.

What evidence? All you've done is speculate. I've shown you that I can speculate as well. If our speculations are ever going to be more than just speculations, however, we need evidence, which is obtained by investigation.

It would stop with a being who existed timelessly.

You haven't shown that your preferred entity is timeless and did not begin to exist. It could just be another cause in a longer chain. On that point, you haven't even shown that your preferred entity is uncaused.

Every apologist I've read admits that we are speculating on the traits of the first cause. I don't know who you're talking about.

Not in my experience. Craig, for example, calls it a "conceptual analysis". He doesn't say, "I speculate that..." He says, "A conceptual analysis reveals..."

My understanding of a flame is that it burns in time and the component chemicals within flames are all within our space-time universe. Sorry, I'm not finding this one to be a good candidate. This suggestion has flaws.

That's your understanding of how a flame works within the universe. Physical principles that describe how flames naturally form within the universe don't apply to the Divine Flame, which is beyond the universe. It's supernatural, and therefore doesn't need to satisfy the conditions for naturally forming flames (e.g., a source of fuel).

But if you think this objection to the Divine Flame has merit, then I can make the same objection to your personal creator God: my understanding of intelligence is that it has its roots in biology, that it is the product of living brains and therefore subject to their metabolic requirements, and that the components necessary to form intelligent life are all within our spacetime universe.

You can't dismiss the Divine Flame as incoherent on the basis of principles operant in the universe while also upholding your favoured theological proposal in spite of them.

Nope. You're just hung up on the mistaken understanding that causes and effects cannot occur concurrently.

I wasn't even talking about causes and effects occurring concurrently. You seem to be confusing my posts for someone else's. I was talking about the shift in the meaning of 'cause' in the argument.

Not only is our personal experience support for p1, but this understanding of effects having causes is foundational to scientific work.

If you want to rely on personal experience as support for the first premise, then don't be surprised when people hold you to it.

Whenever scientist see effects, they start theorizing about what the cause might be, and when they don't know, they simply say, "we don't know what the cause is yet, but give science enough time and we'll figure it out".

Is Goddidit a theory? Does it advance our understanding of the origins of the universe any further than "I don't know?"

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What? No I didn't say that. Of course the universe has a sequence of events, and that's how we measure time...by change. No, I'm not backed into a corner at all. You're apparently constrained to think that a being could not exist timelessly.

Such a being, if it were conscious, would be trapped with the same thought forever. It could not change. It could not contemplate and select from different design concepts. It has no latitude in which to move from one idea to the next.

 

[Joshua260]

In fact, I decided to go back and re-read that article I linked to, which I hadn't read in awhile. I see you quoted from that very article. Did you read the entire article ?

In your opinion, would you say you cherry picked a quote from that article to support your own view ? Here's that quote in it's entirety:

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation."

And more:

"This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe."

I could quote a lot more from the article, where Hawking even addresses the concepts that there IS an agency outside the universe which is responsible for it, and then goes on to show how his own hypothesis counters it and renders it unnecessary to even speculate.

IOW, that gap where you keep attributing an agency to "causing" things to happen is not necessary to fill with such an agency. His own hypothesis attempts to explain that very process, and he even attempts to support it with evidence:

"According to the no boundary proposal, the universe would have expanded in a smooth way from a single point. As it expanded, it would have borrowed energy from the gravitational field, to create matter. As any economist could have predicted, the result of all that borrowing, was inflation. The universe expanded and borrowed at an ever-increasing rate. Fortunately, the debt of gravitational energy will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe.

Eventually, the period of inflation would have ended, and the universe would have settled down to a stage of more moderate growth or expansion. However, inflation would have left its mark on the universe. The universe would have been almost completely smooth, but with very slight irregularities. These irregularities are so little, only one part in a hundred thousand, that for years people looked for them in vain. But in 1992, the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite, COBE, found these irregularities in the microwave background radiation. It was an historic moment. We saw back to the origin of the universe. The form of the fluctuations in the microwave background agree closely with the predictions of the no boundary proposal. These very slight irregularities in the universe would have caused some regions to have expanded less fast than others."

Yes I read the whole article. He discusses several theories and talks about why they failed. It was actually he who postulated a "science of the gap" argument when he suggested that we wouldn't need an outside agency if there was such a thing as "imaginary" time. Then he goes on to admit that it's only a suggestion with absolutely no supporting evidence. So I'm not impressed by that. But in the end, he does admit, that if we're going to talk about "real" time, then time and space had a definite beginning, which was our discussion.

 

[talquin]

There is no "prior" in the state of affairs in which God exists without the universe.

So you're saying the only time anything has existed is at t0 and after t0. Correct?

 

[talquin]

Not necessarily true. If all the items which began to exist in your sample had a cause, then one can come to the erroneous conclusion that everything that began to exist has a cause. But have you (or anyone) examined everything that ever began to exist? If not, then we can't know for sure that everything that begins to exist had a cause.

An argument from ignorance?

Causality is foundational to scientific work. If scientists see an effect, they begin theorizing about the cause. If they can't find one, they usually say "well, give science enough time and we'll figure it out". I see no reason to disagree with the scientists view that effects have causes. Why would you doubt them?

So you're agreeing that scientists have studied things in which they couldn't find a cause. From that, how do you draw the conclusion that everything which began to exist has a cause?

You're engaging in the fallacious argument of appeal to higher authority.

- The KCA relies on two premises, which in effect are actually two conclusions. Yet there are no sufficient premises upon which those two conclusions are based on. This is argument from ignorance, as you're assuming the initial two premises to be true when you really don't know.

Those premises are based on scientific evidences.

Once again, that's the fallacious argument of appeal to higher authority.

Show me in your own words why premises #1 and #2 are correctly drawn conclusions without deferring to science.

- The primary reason it assumes that the universe hasn't always existed is because infinity doesn't exist and that infinity is just a concept. Yet it contends that God is infinite. This is special pleading, as you're giving God a waiver from your rules regarding infinity.

When we say that God is "infinite", we are not using it in the quantitative way, as with time, but in the qualitative way, as in greater than anything else.

Then you disagree with the assertion that infinity doesn't actually exist and is just a concept.

- In order to get from the conclusion to a god existing, the supporters of KCA would have to show how the only thing which can be in the category of "not beginning to exist" is God. This is begging the question, as you're essentially using God as a synonym for "all things that did not begin to exist".

Well, to be honest and accurate, the conclusion of the KCA implies that something that caused the universe to exist is timeless. These and other traits extrapolated from the conclusion happen to line up with a select few possible causes, one of which is the Christian god.

So what you're saying is if premises #1 and #2 are true, then the conclusion in #3 only tells us that whatever caused the universe is timeless and that there are no other known qualities about it.

Please explain how you get from limited to being timeless to possessing all those other qualities such as personal, loving, spaceless, etc.

And what other things in the category of "not beginning to exist" have you considered other than your god and why have you ruled them out?

 

[TillICollapse]

Yes I read the whole article. He discusses several theories and talks about why they failed. It was actually he who postulated a "science of the gap" argument when he suggested that we wouldn't need an outside agency if there was such a thing as "imaginary" time.

What do you mean he postulated a science of the gap argument ?

Then he goes on to admit that it's only a suggestion with absolutely no supporting evidence. So I'm not impressed by that. But in the end, he does admit, that if we're going to talk about "real" time, then time and space had a definite beginning, which was our discussion.

In that paper, he mentioned fluctuations in the CBR in support. Those fluctuations have also been theorized to be caused by other universes pulling on our own in it's initial expansion and moments. IOW ... those fluctuations apparently give support to the idea of what may have had an influence on the universe before it's beginning as we know it.

You keep referring to the beginning of time as we know it, and that is where you insert your need for a being. It is before those moments which Hawking and others are attempting to explain (I'm not going to get into the Wheeler-Dewitt equation since it's beyond me) ... would you agree you quoted him out of context and cherry-picked ?

 

[Joshua260]

So you're saying the only time anything has existed is at t0 and after t0. Correct?

No. There is a state of affairs in which God exist timelessly without creation (space-time). The state of affairs at t0 is when God began to exist temporally with his creation.