Reason-Based Case for God

[Machoke47]

Universe exists.
Universe had a beginning.
It cannot be eternal, for time began with the universe, and if time is eternal, then today would never come; an infinite amount of time would have to pass first.
Quantum fluctuations occur inside a quantum vacuum, which only furthers the question of origin.
Therefore, something outside of time must exist with a reason to create.
An impersonal force has no reason.
Therefore, a personal force is required.
This personal force can be examined in its creation.
The force is infinitely powerful for having created a universe, and is capable of creating personal beings such as itself in physical form.
It must share the traits of its creation, for an effect resembles its cause. We can then infer it is able to love, forgive, etc.
Good and evil exists because of us personal beings, so the force must have an understanding of good and evil.
Evil is negative and is met with discipline, so the force is good.
The force loves us, for it gave us its personal spirit and forgives us for commiting evil.
This force is God. His nature is not completely known to us, such as why He is a Trinity, but He is revealed to us in all walks of life. To believe in the Bible as the truth of God is to believe you need a savior. The Bible teaches the good word of God, and our faith stems from it.

This is my long pondered understanding of creation. Feel free to correct me, I could feel something wrong in my writing, then again I'm always back to the drawing board. This was backed by a multitude of sources.

 

[mark kennedy]

Universe exists.
Universe had a beginning.
It cannot be eternal, for time began with the universe, and if time is eternal, then today would never come; an infinite amount of time would have to pass first.
Quantum fluctuations occur inside a quantum vacuum, which only furthers the question of origin.
Therefore, something outside of time must exist with a reason to create.
An impersonal force has no reason.
Therefore, a personal force is required.
This personal force can be examined in its creation.
The force is infinitely powerful for having created a universe, and is capable of creating personal beings such as itself in physical form.
It must share the traits of its creation, for an effect resembles its cause. We can then infer it is able to love, forgive, etc.
Good and evil exists because of us personal beings, so the force must have an understanding of good and evil.
Evil is negative and is met with discipline, so the force is good.
The force loves us, for it gave us its personal spirit and forgives us for commiting evil.
This force is God. His nature is not completely known to us, such as why He is a Trinity, but He is revealed to us in all walks of life. To believe in the Bible as the truth of God is to believe you need a savior. The Bible teaches the good word of God, and our faith stems from it.

This is my long pondered understanding of creation. Feel free to correct me, I could feel something wrong in my writing, then again I'm always back to the drawing board. This was backed by a multitude of sources.

Well your right about one thing, versions of this argument already exist:

Five logical arguments regarding the existence of God summarized by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theologica. They are:

the unmoved mover;
the first cause;
the argument from contingency;
the argument from degree;
the teleological argument ("argument from design").​

Five Ways (Aquinas) Wikipedia

It seems you have added a moral argument, evil exists, thus good must exist. Rationality (reason) has long been considered one of the most reliable arguments for God simply because your appealing to the cause and effect rationality of the one being addressed. With regards to creation we are sometimes left to interject something a little more dynamic, we have to appeal to an innate perception of what God is like. This would probably be dependent on a purposeful creation, an intelligent design and thus God as primary source, the unmoved mover. This goes on to develop into first cause and contingency, always a matter of cause and effect logic.

I've never seen the argument that because there is a sense of evil there must be a standard for good and thus a source. This would appeal to what Paul called the witness of conscience. If your mind is telling you that there is such a thing as evil, just as darkness is the absence of light then evil is the absence of morality. I like it but I would caution you, the core question comes down to what is the source of morals. Of course, we can say God's divine attributes and eternal nature but an opposing viewpoint might suggest me don't really need God to make effective moral judgements. Do you have a reason why we would?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[John Hyperspace]

This is my reason-based case for God:

1. Consciousness exists.

The end.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is my reason-based case for God:

1. Consciousness exists.

The end.

I'm embarrassed that I'm playing devils advocate here but the brain exists, therefor consciousness, the end. The question presents itself, how do I know that an ultimate consciousness, an omnipotent one no less, exists, since I have no means to demonstrate this heartfelt conclusion. God must be self evident, the philosophical term is a priori.

 

[7trees]

Universe exists.
Universe had a beginning.
It cannot be eternal, for time began with the universe, and if time is eternal, then today would never come; an infinite amount of time would have to pass first.
Quantum fluctuations occur inside a quantum vacuum, which only furthers the question of origin.
Therefore, something outside of time must exist with a reason to create.
An impersonal force has no reason.
Therefore, a personal force is required.
This personal force can be examined in its creation.
The force is infinitely powerful for having created a universe, and is capable of creating personal beings such as itself in physical form.
It must share the traits of its creation, for an effect resembles its cause. We can then infer it is able to love, forgive, etc.
Good and evil exists because of us personal beings, so the force must have an understanding of good and evil.
Evil is negative and is met with discipline, so the force is good.
The force loves us, for it gave us its personal spirit and forgives us for commiting evil.
This force is God. His nature is not completely known to us, such as why He is a Trinity, but He is revealed to us in all walks of life. To believe in the Bible as the truth of God is to believe you need a savior. The Bible teaches the good word of God, and our faith stems from it.

This is my long pondered understanding of creation. Feel free to correct me, I could feel something wrong in my writing, then again I'm always back to the drawing board. This was backed by a multitude of sources.

Also truth by its nature is immutable unlike the physical world. Truth must be true eternally. Therefore truth exists apart from matter and therefore needs spirit to exist...

 

[Machoke47]

Well your right about one thing, versions of this argument already exist:

Five logical arguments regarding the existence of God summarized by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theologica. They are:

the unmoved mover;
the first cause;
the argument from contingency;
the argument from degree;
the teleological argument ("argument from design").​

Five Ways (Aquinas) Wikipedia

It seems you have added a moral argument, evil exists, thus good must exist. Rationality (reason) has long been considered one of the most reliable arguments for God simply because your appealing to the cause and effect rationality of the one being addressed. With regards to creation we are sometimes left to interject something a little more dynamic, we have to appeal to an innate perception of what God is like. This would probably be dependent on a purposeful creation, an intelligent design and thus God as primary source, the unmoved mover. This goes on to develop into first cause and contingency, always a matter of cause and effect logic.

I've never seen the argument that because there is a sense of evil there must be a standard for good and thus a source. This would appeal to what Paul called the witness of conscience. If your mind is telling you that there is such a thing as evil, just as darkness is the absence of light then evil is the absence of morality. I like it but I would caution you, the core question comes down to what is the source of morals. Of course, we can say God's divine attributes and eternal nature but an opposing viewpoint might suggest me don't really need God to make effective moral judgements. Do you have a reason why we would?

Grace and peace,
Mark

I supposed science had an answer for that, just as with most self-standing arguments for a Creator. I can't say morals stem from God alone as long as people have their facts and/or theories to provide an answer. I truly believe morals are not culturally adopted (if a tribe teaches murder is ok, you won't see it as good) or are a "don't kill me, I won't kill you" sort of thing (socially, people are far beyond such an 'agreement', but with the way the world is I can see people believing that.) If a personal being indeed exists, and we share its traits (that cause for effect), and we have both good and evil, judging from its actions of creation of personal beings and the negativity we feel about evil, we can infer He is good. He gave us the knowledge of good and evil, evil being the absence of the good that we all feel. I don't see science explaining the positive and negative connotations with the same acts of evil across all cultures, whether you commit them or hear about them.

 

[com7fy8]

One thing I think of > God's ways are "past finding out" > in Romans 11:33.

Therefore, the ways of His creation are past finding out. And scientists keep seeing that there is more to discover > they never reach a point where they can figure everything out

 

[John Hyperspace]

I'm embarrassed that I'm playing devils advocate here but the brain exists, therefor consciousness, the end. The question presents itself, how do I know that an ultimate consciousness, an omnipotent one no less, exists, since I have no means to demonstrate this heartfelt conclusion. God must be self evident, the philosophical term is a priori.

I would propose that "the brain exists therefore consciousness" is backwards, unless you can somehow demonstrate that consciousness is a product of the material world. But I don't feel you can do this, because it's not possible that consciousness is produced by material means. In fact I would call this, self-evident; that immaterial cannot be emergent from material.

Consciousness is the self-evident foundation of the thing we call "the material world": in fact, the only thing we ever experience is consciousness. No one experiences anything but that which there consciousness creates. Color is a product of consciousness, smell is a product of consciousness, hearing is a product of consciousness. The only possible truth is that, all things are emergent from a single consciousness. Which we call God.

Consciousness exists is self-evident proof that God exists. A person that thinks that a "material world" proceeded and produced concsciousness is not only reasoning backward, and without justification or demonstration; but are not comprehending that, their entire experienced reality is the product of consciousness.

Going further, I would propose that a "material world" does not exist at all, and cannot be demonstrated, and is unnecessary and therefore (via Occam's Razor) to be dismissed. I say this because, consider the dream world. When dreaming, we move along surfaces, handle objects, perceive geometry, and have all of the same experiences as we do in the "material world": yet, would one argue that there must exist some "material" construct underlying the dream world? That, the dream world is the result of a "non mind" structure such as "space-time"? We know that no such "non mind" construct is present or necessary to create the conscious dreal world.

Since I know by self-experience that no such "non mind" structure is necessary for the conscious environment of the dream to be experienced, why should I believe there is some "non mind" "material" structure underlying the reality I am experiencing in the waking world. Why do we not simply and consistently consider the waking world as created of the ame substance as the dream world: that being, a construct of consciousness alone? Such a structure is unnecessary and, moreso, unprovable.

Therefore, I maintain that all that is experienced is consciousness, and must therefore be the result of consciousness; furthermore that consciousness must exist as a unified consciousness in whole; and so there is only one consciousness from which all else is given being in consciousness.

In other words, if you wish to prove "material which is not caused by consciousness gives rise to consciousness" I would say, "demonstrate such 'material which is not caused by consciousness' actually exist to even 'give rise to consciousness": but this is impossible and so cannot be falsified and is unscientific. Moreover, by the self-experience of dreaming, such 'material' is entirely unnecessary in order to explain reality.

Thus, consciousness exists proves God in an axiomatic way. It may not be realized by everyone now, but it's inevitable that someday everyone considers that statement and goes "Oh yeah. How was that not obvious the entire time?"

 

[Machoke47]

I would propose that "the brain exists therefore consciousness" is backwards, unless you can somehow demonstrate that consciousness is a product of the material world. But I don't feel you can do this, because it's not possible that consciousness is produced by material means. In fact I would call this, self-evident; that immaterial cannot be emergent from material.

Consciousness is the self-evident foundation of the thing we call "the material world": in fact, the only thing we ever experience is consciousness. No one experiences anything but that which there consciousness creates. Color is a product of consciousness, smell is a product of consciousness, hearing is a product of consciousness. The only possible truth is that, all things are emergent from a single consciousness. Which we call God.

Consciousness exists is self-evident proof that God exists. A person that thinks that a "material world" proceeded and produced concsciousness is not only reasoning backward, and without justification or demonstration; but are not comprehending that, their entire experienced reality is the product of consciousness.

Going further, I would propose that a "material world" does not exist at all, and cannot be demonstrated, and is unnecessary and therefore (via Occam's Razor) to be dismissed. I say this because, consider the dream world. When dreaming, we move along surfaces, handle objects, perceive geometry, and have all of the same experiences as we do in the "material world": yet, would one argue that there must exist some "material" construct underlying the dream world? That, the dream world is the result of a "non mind" structure such as "space-time"? We know that no such "non mind" construct is present or necessary to create the conscious dreal world.

Since I know by self-experience that no such "non mind" structure is necessary for the conscious environment of the dream to be experienced, why should I believe there is some "non mind" "material" structure underlying the reality I am experiencing in the waking world. Why do we not simply and consistently consider the waking world as created of the ame substance as the dream world: that being, a construct of consciousness alone? Such a structure is unnecessary and, moreso, unprovable.

Therefore, I maintain that all that is experienced is consciousness, and must therefore be the result of consciousness; furthermore that consciousness must exist as a unified consciousness in whole; and so there is only one consciousness from which all else is given being in consciousness.

In other words, if you wish to prove "material which is not caused by consciousness gives rise to consciousness" I would say, "demonstrate such 'material which is not caused by consciousness' actually exist to even 'give rise to consciousness": but this is impossible and so cannot be falsified and is unscientific. Moreover, by the self-experience of dreaming, such 'material' is entirely unnecessary in order to explain reality.

Thus, consciousness exists proves God in an axiomatic way. It may not be realized by everyone now, but it's inevitable that someday everyone considers that statement and goes "Oh yeah. How was that not obvious the entire time?"

Yeah, God truly is self evident. I'm hoping to finalize an argument that can't be denied with theories and uncertain science. If people can't accept the basic reasoning behind God, I seek to disprove any alternative they have. Science digs a pit of spiritual denial while filling the ditch of wordly knowledge.

 

[Machoke47]

You know what, I'm chasing shadows trying to explain the immaterial with the material, just as the atheist. An impersonal and material world cannot create the personal and immaterial consciousness we all share, and since science deals with the former, it offers nothing. All that's left is the reasoning of the human mind to explain itself; its the basis of our existence, and it is immaterial.

 

[-57]

Universe exists.
Universe had a beginning.
It cannot be eternal, for time began with the universe, and if time is eternal, then today would never come; an infinite amount of time would have to pass first.
Quantum fluctuations occur inside a quantum vacuum, which only furthers the question of origin.
Therefore, something outside of time must exist with a reason to create.
An impersonal force has no reason.
Therefore, a personal force is required.
This personal force can be examined in its creation.
The force is infinitely powerful for having created a universe, and is capable of creating personal beings such as itself in physical form.
It must share the traits of its creation, for an effect resembles its cause. We can then infer it is able to love, forgive, etc.
Good and evil exists because of us personal beings, so the force must have an understanding of good and evil.
Evil is negative and is met with discipline, so the force is good.
The force loves us, for it gave us its personal spirit and forgives us for commiting evil.
This force is God. His nature is not completely known to us, such as why He is a Trinity, but He is revealed to us in all walks of life. To believe in the Bible as the truth of God is to believe you need a savior. The Bible teaches the good word of God, and our faith stems from it.

This is my long pondered understanding of creation. Feel free to correct me, I could feel something wrong in my writing, then again I'm always back to the drawing board. This was backed by a multitude of sources.

I've always said..if there is anything in this universe (stuff) there has to be a being that always was.

 

[mark kennedy]

I would propose that "the brain exists therefore consciousness" is backwards, unless you can somehow demonstrate that consciousness is a product of the material world. But I don't feel you can do this, because it's not possible that consciousness is produced by material means. In fact I would call this, self-evident; that immaterial cannot be emergent from material.

Consciousness is the self-evident foundation of the thing we call "the material world": in fact, the only thing we ever experience is consciousness. No one experiences anything but that which there consciousness creates. Color is a product of consciousness, smell is a product of consciousness, hearing is a product of consciousness. The only possible truth is that, all things are emergent from a single consciousness. Which we call God.

Consciousness exists is self-evident proof that God exists. A person that thinks that a "material world" proceeded and produced concsciousness is not only reasoning backward, and without justification or demonstration; but are not comprehending that, their entire experienced reality is the product of consciousness.

Going further, I would propose that a "material world" does not exist at all, and cannot be demonstrated, and is unnecessary and therefore (via Occam's Razor) to be dismissed. I say this because, consider the dream world. When dreaming, we move along surfaces, handle objects, perceive geometry, and have all of the same experiences as we do in the "material world": yet, would one argue that there must exist some "material" construct underlying the dream world? That, the dream world is the result of a "non mind" structure such as "space-time"? We know that no such "non mind" construct is present or necessary to create the conscious dreal world.

Since I know by self-experience that no such "non mind" structure is necessary for the conscious environment of the dream to be experienced, why should I believe there is some "non mind" "material" structure underlying the reality I am experiencing in the waking world. Why do we not simply and consistently consider the waking world as created of the ame substance as the dream world: that being, a construct of consciousness alone? Such a structure is unnecessary and, moreso, unprovable.

Therefore, I maintain that all that is experienced is consciousness, and must therefore be the result of consciousness; furthermore that consciousness must exist as a unified consciousness in whole; and so there is only one consciousness from which all else is given being in consciousness.

In other words, if you wish to prove "material which is not caused by consciousness gives rise to consciousness" I would say, "demonstrate such 'material which is not caused by consciousness' actually exist to even 'give rise to consciousness": but this is impossible and so cannot be falsified and is unscientific. Moreover, by the self-experience of dreaming, such 'material' is entirely unnecessary in order to explain reality.

Thus, consciousness exists proves God in an axiomatic way. It may not be realized by everyone now, but it's inevitable that someday everyone considers that statement and goes "Oh yeah. How was that not obvious the entire time?"

That sounds very subjective, we know the brain houses memories, certain parts do certain things. We know a color, a sight, a sound, if something is hot or cold because of sense data being received from impulses to the brain. I believe in the immortal soul but like a lot of people I believe God created both the mind and reality, God gave us the ability to perceive reality as it actually is.

Now don't get it twisted, I'm not saying that the brain is the source of consciousness. That said, you mention dreams, you seem to think are illusions and you could make that argument. I can think of no other source for dreams then the subconscious. We really don't know where they come from exactly but not all of your brain is part of your consciousness. You put your hand on something hot, your hand jerks back, you didn't consciously make that happen. It's called the Limbic system, it felt the heat and just pulled back your hand as a reflex action, your physical brain over ruled you conscious mind. We did this little exercise when I was in the Army, the SF guys can in and had us walk in a circle, then one of them would fire a starter pistol, everyone ducked. They said that is the Limbic system and if you can control your breathing...etc, you can control that reaction.

There are also problems you run into with say, Schizophrenia. Research is telling us that it's actually related to genetic mutations working in concert with various other processes. This person may hear voices, might be able to think he is somewhere else or believe something that is not real. That's part of the reason so many of them end up on the streets, in their minds, they are somewhere else. It's defective brain function.

Like I said, a little too subjective for my taste. You might like this, it sounds vaguely similar to what you are saying, especially the part about dreams:

Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; And because some men err in reasoning, and fall into Paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of Geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for Demonstrations; And finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be something; And as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am,[c] was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the Sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search. (Descartes's 1637 Discourse on the Method)​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[John Hyperspace]

That sounds very subjective, we know the brain houses memories, certain parts do certain things. We know a color, a sight, a sound, if something is hot or cold because of sense data being received from impulses to the brain. I believe in the immortal soul but like a lot of people I believe God created both the mind and reality, God gave us the ability to perceive reality as it actually is.

Now don't get it twisted, I'm not saying that the brain is the source of consciousness.

What I would say here is that it seems in your words to imply that the brain is not a construct of consciousness. It's a typical thought, but one which I reject since, there is no way to falsify "not a construct of consciousness": do you know what I mean? Even if (not that you are but if) a man says "the brain is the source of consciousness" I would ask for evidence that the brain itself is not a construct of consciousness. I would again state that, through dreams/imaginings/etc. I know that a "reality" can exist which is completely constructed of consciousness. If I were dreaming of a brain, the brain itself would be a construct of consciousness; thus there is no need of a "not constructed by consciousness" thing even in the "waking world" in order to construct an experienced environment. So to one claiming "There is a reality which is not constructed by consciousness" I would reply "This is both unecessary to explain reality, and also unfalsifiable; therefore rejected, and all of reality is constructed via consciousness" and following this line, there must be a singular consciousness which constructs all of reality: i.e. God.

That said, you mention dreams, you seem to think are illusions and you could make that argument.

Let me note that "illusion" carries a connotation of "not real"; but I'm not saying everything is "illusion" but that everything is construct of consciousness, and that dream environment is every bit as real as the waking world environment: both are of the same "creative substance": the only discernible difference is that the waking world seems to be constructed in a more "rigidly cohesive" manner

I can think of no other source for dreams then the subconscious. We really don't know where they come from exactly but not all of your brain is part of your consciousness. You put your hand on something hot, your hand jerks back, you didn't consciously make that happen. It's called the Limbic system, it felt the heat and just pulled back your hand as a reflex action, your physical brain over ruled you conscious mind. We did this little exercise when I was in the Army, the SF guys can in and had us walk in a circle, then one of them would fire a starter pistol, everyone ducked. They said that is the Limbic system and if you can control your breathing...etc, you can control that reaction.

Okay, but here you use the phrase "physical brain" and I have to ask for specificity: are you meaning a "brain" that is not constructed by consciousness? Are you implying that the "physical" is not a construct of consciousness? This is as if you and I are in a dream, and there is a brain on a table, and you motion at it saying "the physical brain": I would reply "What you call 'physical' is a construct of mind; there is no "brain not constructed by consciousness"

There are also problems you run into with say, Schizophrenia. Research is telling us that it's actually related to genetic mutations working in concert with various other processes. This person may hear voices, might be able to think he is somewhere else or believe something that is not real. That's part of the reason so many of them end up on the streets, in their minds, they are somewhere else. It's defective brain function.

Again, you're coming from a point of view that there are things that are "not construct of consciousness": my objection is still, such a notion is both unnecessary to explain reality, and scientifically unfalsifiable. A "not constructed by consciousness" reality is no different than proposes elves in a hypothesis: neither are necessary (Occam's razored away) and neither are falsifiable (unable to be scientifically/philosophically valuable)

A person who is hearing voices is really hearing voices, and the voices are real. If you hear a voice in a dream, you are really hearing a voice, and the voice is real. If you are flying in a dream, you are really flying: the experiences are all as real as any other thing that is experienced. If a person is "somewhere else" in their mind, then they really are somewhere else in their mind. To you, they really are not; to them, they really are. What we experience is what we are really experiencing. The only alternative is to hypothesize a "not constructed by consciousness" waking world, but again, this hypothesis is both unnecessary and unfalsifiable.

Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; And because some men err in reasoning, and fall into Paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of Geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for Demonstrations; And finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be something; And as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am,[c] was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the Sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search. (Descartes's 1637 Discourse on the Method)

What Descartes is saying is similar, but his proverbial lens is reversed. He is setting out to "disbelieve" all that he can disbelieve as "not real" and ended up with the only "certain reality" which cannot be disbelieved as "false": cogito ergo sum; I think therefore I am. But I'm saying the opposite: nothing can be disbelieved because everything experienced is "real"; whereas Descartes is presuming a "reality not constructed by consciousness" which is "real" and all else "illusion"; I am saying that, everything experienced is really experienced, and no different in the quality of being "real" than any other thing experienced. In short, that which is real is that which is really experienced. Descartes differentiates between "dream world" and "waking world" as though the one is a product purely of mind, and the other is not. I would object on the same grounds: Descartes cannot "prove" a the waking world experience is any different in creative substance than the dreaming world; and since we know by self experience that "not of mind construct" is unnecessary to create an environment, then his unstated proposition that such a "not of mind" construct exists is both unnecessary and unfalsifiable. That being the case, only a construct of pure consciousness is available, and, known through conscious experience of the experiencer.

So, in the end, again: all of reality is a construct of consciousness, and taken as a whole this is the product of a singular consciousness. Thus, ultimately, there is One Consciousness from by and through which all of reality is emergent.

 

[SkyWriting]

....and if time is eternal, then today would never come; an infinite amount of time would have to pass first.

This part of your sentence seems to be in error.
The amount of time before "now" should have
no effect on the existence of today.

 

[-57]

Universe had a beginning.
It cannot be eternal, for time began with the universe, and if time is eternal, then today would never come; an infinite amount of time would have to pass first.

I have to agree.
There is the need of a creator that always existed and never didn't exist.