Oh dear. I've noticed a whole in my argument. It allows you to get something from nothing timelessly.

I would like to withdraw this argument for further consideration...

Looks like a contradiction in terms to me. How can an event occur outside of time? How can causation happen from outside of time?

Looks like a contradiction in terms to me. How can an event occur outside of time? How can causation happen from outside of time? — S

Didn't time start at the Big Bang (as a relationship among objects moving in relative motion to one another)? So, as a matter of argument, couldn't God cause the Big Bang and start the clock "ticking" so to speak?

Doesn't quantum mechanics reveal that Einsteinian physics can't be used to describe whatever happened during the big bang or black holes?

How can an event occur outside of time? How can causation happen from outside of time? — S

What is time exactly? And what is meant by causation?

It seems like these two words need to be defined before we can answer whether it is possible that timeless (or changeless) causation can exist; although, I do agree that it sounds impossible.
Intuitively, the word causation tends to imply a flow of time; thus, if I say "the dog's barking was caused by the cat's meowing," then I am saying the following two things: first, I am implying that becoming is a real feature of the world (A theory of time is true) and I am saying that what caused the dog to bark was the cat's noise. In this case, the word "caused" implies a flow in time, but timelessness denies that there is a flow in time. If there is no flow in time, then can change, or causation, of any kind, occur? If change or "becoming" is a necessary condition for time to flow, then I don't think the answer is yes.

Didn't time start at the Big Bang (as a relationship among objects moving in relative motion to one another)? So, as a matter of argument, couldn't God cause the Big Bang and start the clock "ticking" so to speak? — Noah Te Stroete

If you think so, then please explain how that is so in light of Walter's above reply, which is what I was getting at with my questions. (And besides, from what I recall reading about the Big Bang, I think he might be right in what he says about the physics breaking down; and if he is, then you'd be going by a false premise).

What’s the difference between time being discovered always existing as the when of or between events, or, time never existing at all until reason invented it as a means to quantize the occassions of events relative to itself?

For humans operating under the assumption that material reality is a soundly grounded doctrine, these propositions are equally true: things happen whether or not such things are witnessed, and the effects of things that happen have no meaning whatsoever until witnessed. In the former, time as a part of the material reality is irrelevant, and in the latter, time is an absolutely necessary condition under which any meaning can be assigned by the witness.

Ever notice? That of the multiplicity of mathematical expressions for the understanding of the material world that have time as a factor, there are no like-kind mathematical expressions for time itself as a stand-alone dynamic, that is to say, other than being a function of traditional arithmetic equivalences.
(Caveat: the physicist in me is no where near as well-read as the philosopher)

For what it’s worth.......

Just substitute “after” for “at”. Then what?

Just substitute “after” for “at”. Then what? — Noah Te Stroete

Then nothing. The answer would be the same. Current science can't tell us about an alleged start to time.

Okay. I was just putting some undeveloped thoughts out there.

Current science can't tell us about an alleged start to time. — S

We know that time slows in the presence of gravity. The intense gravity of the big bang would have caused time to run very slowly, maybe even stopping at the singularity.

We know that time slows in the presence of gravity. The intense gravity of the big bang would have caused time to run very slowly, maybe even stopping at the singularity. — Devans99

Maybe doesn't count. In fact, the maybes are precisely what I mean by saying that we don't know or that current science can't tell us.

Not that I'm agreeing with the rest, but "Exists forever outside of time" should seem obviously incoherent.

Current science can't tell us about an alleged start to time.
— S

We know that time slows in the presence of gravity. The intense gravity of the big bang would have caused time to run very slowly, maybe even stopping at the singularity. — Devans99

Not a very developed thought, but it just crossed my mind reading this.

If I made an argument that man's activities had no impact on climate change, I think I would get a rash of but science says ......

If I made an argument, consistent with science that the universe is finite, and had a beginning, I would get a rash of singularly, what is time, multi universe etc type comments

Probably from the same folks.