But when the fulness of the time was come,... Galatians 4:4
"Clearly, causes cannot happen after their effects in time, even when the effect is time’s beginning. But could the cause of time’s beginning occur before time’s beginning in time? Of course not! Nothing can occur before time’s beginning in time; such an idea is self-contradictory. Thus, we have only one option left: the cause of time’s beginning occurred when time began. In other words, cause and effect (since the effect is time’s beginning) were simultaneous.
Note that I’m talking here of time’s beginning, not necessarily the universe’s beginning. We can conceive of the two being distinct without contradiction. For instance, say that God counted to three before He created the universe. In this scenario, the universe began after time began. If God counted in sequence before He created the universe, time would’ve existed before the universe began.
Moreover, the relevance of simultaneous causation isn’t affected by how long ago time began. Of course, the Bible teaches that it began around 6,000 years ago. But even if time began with the supposed 13.7 billion years ago, simultaneous causation remains the only way for time to begin as an effect.
But is simultaneous causation a coherent concept? Since effects cannot precede their causes in time, it could only be incoherent if effects must follow their causes in time. But why think this is true?
First, there’s no obvious incoherence in the term ‘simultaneous cause’.
Could it be that we only ever experience effects following causes in time? Even if that were true (which is debatable), it wouldn’t show that effects must always follow their causes in time. A prince of a tropical nation who only ever experiences liquid water can’t thereby argue that ice is impossible. Indeed, if time began and had a cause, it must be an exception to this.
And consider the theological consequences of saying an effect must follow its cause in time. If so, then time must be uncaused. This is true whether time began or not.
Without a moment preceding time’s beginning in which a cause could operate, time must be uncaused if time began. Similarly, without a beginning, time cannot have a cause preceding it.
Thus, time can’t be an effect if it has no beginning.
And if time can’t be an effect, then it must be uncaused.
But if time must be uncaused, not even God can be time’s cause.
Can this be avoided by positing time as a divine attribute? No, that’s a category mistake. Eternity is a divine attribute, which describes God’s relation to time. However, the Bible teaches that God is the sole source of all things, and it strongly implies that time began.
Nonetheless, we can give examples of simultaneous causation: e.g. a ball sitting on a cushion. This example goes back to Immanuel Kant.
In this example, the depression in the cushion (the effect) lasts as long as the ball is sitting on the cushion (the cause). This would be true even if the ball had been sitting on the cushion forever, or if God had created them ex nihilo so that they began to exist simultaneously. As such, at any given time cause and effect are both occurring; i.e. they are occurring simultaneously. Thus, far from being “a philosophical fudge factor”, simultaneous causation is both coherent and even something we regularly experience.
Of course, if time began, then the atheist’s only way out is to say that time began uncaused. But if time began uncaused, it would be an inexplicable brute fact. And why think time’s beginning is inexplicable? Nothing comes from nothing. If it did, then anything could come from nothing, not just time or universes.
Now, you ask: “If God is outside of time, he can create time and have a motive to do so without time passing, correct?"
First, if God is outside time, can He be in time? If He can’t, can He create time?
God is responsible for time’s beginning. But that means at least one effect occurred when its cause occurred. It could be no other way for time’s beginning. And there’s no logical problem with saying so. We thus can’t say that effects must follow their causes in time. As such, we can use causality and time’s beginning as arguments for God. God is the only plausible candidate for causing time to begin." CMI
"Clearly, causes cannot happen after their effects in time, even when the effect is time’s beginning. But could the cause of time’s beginning occur before time’s beginning in time? Of course not! Nothing can occur before time’s beginning in time; such an idea is self-contradictory. Thus, we have only one option left: the cause of time’s beginning occurred when time began. In other words, cause and effect (since the effect is time’s beginning) were simultaneous.
Note that I’m talking here of time’s beginning, not necessarily the universe’s beginning. We can conceive of the two being distinct without contradiction. For instance, say that God counted to three before He created the universe. In this scenario, the universe began after time began. If God counted in sequence before He created the universe, time would’ve existed before the universe began.
Moreover, the relevance of simultaneous causation isn’t affected by how long ago time began. Of course, the Bible teaches that it began around 6,000 years ago. But even if time began with the supposed 13.7 billion years ago, simultaneous causation remains the only way for time to begin as an effect.
But is simultaneous causation a coherent concept? Since effects cannot precede their causes in time, it could only be incoherent if effects must follow their causes in time. But why think this is true?
First, there’s no obvious incoherence in the term ‘simultaneous cause’.
Could it be that we only ever experience effects following causes in time? Even if that were true (which is debatable), it wouldn’t show that effects must always follow their causes in time. A prince of a tropical nation who only ever experiences liquid water can’t thereby argue that ice is impossible. Indeed, if time began and had a cause, it must be an exception to this.
And consider the theological consequences of saying an effect must follow its cause in time. If so, then time must be uncaused. This is true whether time began or not.
Without a moment preceding time’s beginning in which a cause could operate, time must be uncaused if time began. Similarly, without a beginning, time cannot have a cause preceding it.
Thus, time can’t be an effect if it has no beginning.
And if time can’t be an effect, then it must be uncaused.
But if time must be uncaused, not even God can be time’s cause.
Can this be avoided by positing time as a divine attribute? No, that’s a category mistake. Eternity is a divine attribute, which describes God’s relation to time. However, the Bible teaches that God is the sole source of all things, and it strongly implies that time began.
Nonetheless, we can give examples of simultaneous causation: e.g. a ball sitting on a cushion. This example goes back to Immanuel Kant.
In this example, the depression in the cushion (the effect) lasts as long as the ball is sitting on the cushion (the cause). This would be true even if the ball had been sitting on the cushion forever, or if God had created them ex nihilo so that they began to exist simultaneously. As such, at any given time cause and effect are both occurring; i.e. they are occurring simultaneously. Thus, far from being “a philosophical fudge factor”, simultaneous causation is both coherent and even something we regularly experience.
Of course, if time began, then the atheist’s only way out is to say that time began uncaused. But if time began uncaused, it would be an inexplicable brute fact. And why think time’s beginning is inexplicable? Nothing comes from nothing. If it did, then anything could come from nothing, not just time or universes.
Now, you ask: “If God is outside of time, he can create time and have a motive to do so without time passing, correct?"
First, if God is outside time, can He be in time? If He can’t, can He create time?
God is responsible for time’s beginning. But that means at least one effect occurred when its cause occurred. It could be no other way for time’s beginning. And there’s no logical problem with saying so. We thus can’t say that effects must follow their causes in time. As such, we can use causality and time’s beginning as arguments for God. God is the only plausible candidate for causing time to begin." CMI