i think that infinite is a concept that tells us that "something" will always extend nonstop but that it has a start and a negative 'something' exists with the positive matter of it
It seems logical to me that both time and space are infinite, and our universe is one of an infinite number of universes. As far as the Big Bang is concerned, that's just an expression of Newton's third law - for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Every universe goes through a cycle of rapid expansion starting with a "big bang", then it slows and stops, and then Newton's third law kicks in and the universe's contraction begins. This speeds up until the universe reaches a single mass, then another big bang occurs and the cycle starts all over again, over an over, an infinite number of times. What's really interesting though is the mysterious "dark matter" which seems to be a connection to a 5th dimension which isn't subject to time or space. No idea about that one but if there is a deity of some sort, I'd imagine that's where it/he/she will exist.
Is the idea the oscillating universe? Big crunches, then big bangs? Alexander Vilenkin says the VBG Theorem entails even those models have a beginning, though I’m no physicist and am not really qualified to interpret that. And I *definitely* don’t have much experience in multi-dimensional models!
@@ChicoThePhilosurfer well that’s also possible 😐however…..the universe won’t just stop expanding it will go on forever 😐most people think the Big Crunch like this …➡️⬅️➡️⬅️expanding and contracting 😐this is a possibly but maybe your looking at it wrong Beacuse sure the bug crunch explains the flow of time how you can only go forward it explains cause and effect of the Big Bang and it explains the collisions of galaxies😐however a problem is heat death the big rip and the big rip all say their was a tiny point in space but an objection I have is ware did the Big Bang happend? 😐front back ? Left right ? Top bottom ?😐it could be like this witch does not say anything about a big bang 😑⬆️⬇️⬆️⬇️?? ➡️⬅️➡️⬅️?😐also the Big Crunch will NOT happen in a trillion years 😑it could happen every 1 septillion years or every 1 trillion years 😐or every 1 goggle years 😐but some problems with the Big Bang theory is it does not explain why their are super clusters and why others don’t 😐the big bang also breaks a law that energy alone can NOT be created or destroyed 😐also another ironic thing is we say in the future the universe will be cold and dark forever and nothing will happen again however I find this ironic Beacuse open or close if the universe was truly dead then how are we alive ?😐and 2 we say it will be cold and dark but how was the whole universe CREATED if the universe was all ready cold and dark from the start?😐that’s like saying why worry about death if you were allready dead before you were even born ?😐it’s just a slap in the face 🙃but…if their was no beginning of the universe it means it will never end and we would know for sure we will be born again however if that’s the cause then the odds of us being born again decrease 😐
@@ChicoThePhilosurferspace has to have a beginning, but time does not. Therefore to create space you would need God, or a simulation. To create time you would also need God , or a simulation.😥
I found this video because I was curious about time as if it were framerate in a video game or movie. I was thinking whether there were infinite points of time between 1 second ago and 2 seconds ago, or if potentially there are only something like 10000 “updates” (for lack of a better term), per second which would be kind of confusing because technically your body would be teleporting between update 1 and update 2. it’s an interesting thing to think about.
I was thinking that the past could indeed be infinite. In your video you said that the future is infinite because we can't arbitrarily decide that a moment in time is the final one ever. What if we replicated that logic to explain the past? Even if the universe began at a certain point in time, the 'clock' could have been ticking before that. Even if we chose a particular point in time to be the first moment to ever occur, surely time could have been going on before that moment. Sorry idk if what I said makes logical sense 😅
Infinite memory response seems a bit too armchair for me. We need to account for how reality works. Any living being has a limited capacity in their memory, so the infinite time would never lead to infinite number of memories. Some would be lost, or overwritten.
Hey Daniel! I’m really sorry-I’m not following the argument. Is it that matter disproves the eternality of the universe, but matter could only exist if the universe is eternal?
@@ChicoThePhilosurfer if people say that the universe is eternal or mulitiverse exist, It is not a proof that it is eternal. If the universe is limited it has limits. And those limits limit the response for a acceptable rebuttal of the crazy 😜 eternal universe.
0:34 Atheism doesn't say that universe didn't had a beginning,... Even Stephen Hawking said that universe had a beginning.....but as the time didn't existed before the beginning...... So how a creator (precisely God) got the time to create a universe....atheism is about disbelief in a creator and criticism of religion beliefs ( coz obviously science is always under criticism and always progressive).......😉😉
Great point! Atheists don’t need to claim the universe had no beginning; only that God wasn’t the beginning. However, this does tend to be the standard position to avoid the following problem. If (1) Everything that begins to exist was caused to exist, and (2) The universe began to exist, it follows that (3) The universe was caused to exist. Whatever caused the universe must not itself have begun to exist-otherwise we’ll have to posit an infinite regress of causes, which is absurd. So, the cause of the universe would have to be an atemporal (outside of time) being, which theists call God. In other words, the creator of the universe wouldn’t require time to create, but would rather create time. Hawking tried to avoid this by claiming the beginning of time is rounded, not a point. However, this is still a beginning, and hence falls prey to the aforementioned argument. The only other option is to reject proposition (1) mentioned above, but that’s a fundamental assumption of science and seems absurd to reject. So although claiming time is infinite isn’t necessary for atheism, I think the alternatives are much worse
Dan Can But I don’t understand when all this stuff could’ve happened w/ out time. Come to think of it, an event off the timeline is like an imaginary number. It’s like a number off the real number line.
Chris Kastner great question! This is venturing into pretty deep theological territory, but the idea would be something like this. Time is really nothing more than change. In the physical world, anything that affects a change undergoes a change itself. God, however, doesn’t change in any way when He acts. Rather the change is all in the thing created. This idea is impossible to picture and there is nothing analogous in the world of our experience. It may help to make sense out of it to note that agents in the physical world only affect change on pre-existing material, so it affects them back, whereas God doesn’t work on pre-existing matter, but rather creates everything from nothing.
Chico the Philosurfer It still makes no sense though, because if you try to find out when it happened you can’t. You can’t date something with no time. The other way around it doesn’t make any sense as well, so I’m not going to say that this is wrong either.
In another comment, a commenter claims "If its infinite, this video will never end lol". This right here is what I'm struggling with. I used to believe this, but now I'm not so sure. Assuming time is infinite, couldn't that just imply infinite days? Why must infinite time require everything you do to take forever? This whole thing is incomprehensible to me!!
There are two ways it could be infinite: infinitely divisible or infinite as in ‘goes on forever.’ The first way would make it a problem for the video to never end because in order for it to get to the end of the video, it would have to go half way, but before it could go half way, it would have to go half of that, so on to infinity. Aristotle solves this by saying it is potentially infinitely divisible, but not actually. What he means by that is that there is no theoretical limit to the number of times you could cut it in half, but that doesn’t mean you could cut it in half an infinite amount of times because you could never get to infinity. Does that make sense?
But if there is no past then that could mean there is infinite present meaning that there is infinite time because the present never stops changing and it never stops moving on to the
It seems that time, space, and matter had to come into existence simultaneously. In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and the Earth (matter).
If time is infinite then we existed infinite times. Its too much coincidence that we exist in the PRESENT for the first and last time. Its like winning lottery 100 billion times in row with the sane numbers
I say yes not Beacuse I want to but I all ready know this 😐is finite and only relate to the observer in fact my TIME was at when I was born in 1999 and I have Ben alive for 23 years 😐HOWEVER I have Ben dead BEFORE I was born for who knows how dam long 1 septillion years? 1 goggle years ?😐I don’t know I was allready dead and yet I just woke up in this world without any memory who are what I was before 😐
Ok so lets say the future is infinite Let's take your lifespan to equal 1 The time you are alive and the time you are dead is 1/infinity but anything divided by infinity is 0. Therefore your life does not exist. Where am I going wrong here?
The future would only be potentially infinite, so although your lifespan would be more and more insignificant, there would never be a time when you actually hit infinity
@@ChicoThePhilosurfer one more thing... Am I right in saying that the present is actually infinitely small (in that it doesnt need more time to get bigger/smaller)? And if so does the present exist?
@@wilko_3142 Everyone agrees that there is no theoretical limit to the number of times you can cut a length--in this case, time--in half. Some assume this means that lengths are made of an actually infinite number of divided parts. If that's the case, then either those parts have zero length or not. If zero length, then they can't come together to make a length (an infinite number of zeros is still zero). If not zero length, then every length would be infinite (an infinite number of any-sized lengths added together would be an infinite length). Some people have theorized there might be an "infinitesimally small" length that isn't zero and also doesn't add up to infinity, but aside from being totally ad hoc, that just isn't what a length is. The other option is that we don't have to assume that lengths are actually made up of an infinite number of divided parts. Remember that the only thing everyone agrees on is that there is no theoretical limit to the number of times you can cut a length in half. I actually think this proves lengths can't be made up of an infinite number of parts, but at the very least, it's not necessary to assume there are an actually infinite number of parts. I think this gets harder to see when we talk about past present and future, but that's only if we see time as some kind of matrix that events get put into. Instead, I think what we call time is just a measure of the rate of change of one thing compared to the rate of change of another (e.g., rotation of the earth vs. time it took me to write a paragraph). We can quantify this duration and split it up into parts, but that doesn't mean there are an actual infinite number of parts. I'm not sure if that's a good enough explanation so let me know if you want me to put it another way. But, basically, I think that if our philosophy tells us the whole world is an illusion, then we went wrong somewhere. In this case, I'd say we made a mistake in our view of time.
I don't think so, but it's not because I think a beginningless time makes sense. First, there's the argument that you can't traverse an infinite: 1. An infinite series is endless 2. To traverse a series is to reach the end of it 3. So, it is impossible to traverse an infinite series That shows the impossibility of reaching infinity from any point on the timeline. To show the impossibility of a beginningless time, it seems like all we have to do is run the argument the other way around, but there's no clear way to make it work because time only goes one way (assuming A-time, of course). And yet, I don't think the result is that a beginningless time is possible, but rather that it is either more impossible (speaking hyperbolically) or incoherent. The reason this argument won't work the other way around is that proceeding endlessly makes sense (always add one), but how are we to make equal sense of a series having no beginning? William Lane Craig puts it like this. It's impossible to write down all the numbers from 0 to infinity. Things seem *worse* for writing down the numbers from negative infinity to 0. So, I think this shows the concept fails to live up to a logical impossibility, not that it is possible.
Personally, I don’t think time is infinite in the past and I think it’s only potentially infinite in the future. Is there a reason you believe it to be obviously infinite in both directions?
@@ChicoThePhilosurfer Time is definitely infinite. There does not have to be anything happening, or even any matter at all, for time to be passing. Even if everything in existance started all at once, time was still passing up until it happened. And when everything potentially is gone, time will still be passing, there just won’t be anything happening in it.
@@ChicoThePhilosurfer If you started travelling back in time, i would need a good explanation of why you wouldn’t just keep going. What is it that would force you to stop ? A wall ? That wall took time to build beforehand. I joke of course, but the argument is sound. Events do not just start without a cause. Even the smallest atom started somewhere. You cannot go from absolute nothingness to a Universe, or Multiverses full of stuff. So there must have always been something. Which means there must have always been time. I admit, it messes with my head to imagine that scenario. But it is, and will always be, what i believe. Though clearly if i am ever shown indisputable evidence, rather than just opinion and guesswork, that time is not infinite, i will happily accept that. 👍
I think you can make sense of there being no time before the Big Bang if you posit an atemporal cause of the Big Bang. This is the crux of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. Everything that begins to exist requires a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe required a cause. If that cause were temporal, it would itself also require a cause, ad infinitum. Therefore, if must not be temporal.
If time is infinite, then since all things can be assigned odds of eventual existence, everything is eventually true.
i think that infinite is a concept that tells us that "something" will always extend nonstop but that it has a start and a negative 'something' exists with the positive matter of it
Interesting! Do you mean that there will always be an infinite reaction?
One day everything will go *ZA WARUDOOO* and time stops.
I confess: I had to look that one up!
yeh time will be worthless but not usind za warudo cuz we ant bring dioo here dumb assss
It seems logical to me that both time and space are infinite, and our universe is one of an infinite number of universes. As far as the Big Bang is concerned, that's just an expression of Newton's third law - for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Every universe goes through a cycle of rapid expansion starting with a "big bang", then it slows and stops, and then Newton's third law kicks in and the universe's contraction begins. This speeds up until the universe reaches a single mass, then another big bang occurs and the cycle starts all over again, over an over, an infinite number of times. What's really interesting though is the mysterious "dark matter" which seems to be a connection to a 5th dimension which isn't subject to time or space. No idea about that one but if there is a deity of some sort, I'd imagine that's where it/he/she will exist.
Is the idea the oscillating universe? Big crunches, then big bangs? Alexander Vilenkin says the VBG Theorem entails even those models have a beginning, though I’m no physicist and am not really qualified to interpret that. And I *definitely* don’t have much experience in multi-dimensional models!
@@ChicoThePhilosurfer well that’s also possible 😐however…..the universe won’t just stop expanding it will go on forever 😐most people think the Big Crunch like this …➡️⬅️➡️⬅️expanding and contracting 😐this is a possibly but maybe your looking at it wrong Beacuse sure the bug crunch explains the flow of time how you can only go forward it explains cause and effect of the Big Bang and it explains the collisions of galaxies😐however a problem is heat death the big rip and the big rip all say their was a tiny point in space but an objection I have is ware did the Big Bang happend? 😐front back ? Left right ? Top bottom ?😐it could be like this witch does not say anything about a big bang 😑⬆️⬇️⬆️⬇️?? ➡️⬅️➡️⬅️?😐also the Big Crunch will NOT happen in a trillion years 😑it could happen every 1 septillion years or every 1 trillion years 😐or every 1 goggle years 😐but some problems with the Big Bang theory is it does not explain why their are super clusters and why others don’t 😐the big bang also breaks a law that energy alone can NOT be created or destroyed 😐also another ironic thing is we say in the future the universe will be cold and dark forever and nothing will happen again however I find this ironic Beacuse open or close if the universe was truly dead then how are we alive ?😐and 2 we say it will be cold and dark but how was the whole universe CREATED if the universe was all ready cold and dark from the start?😐that’s like saying why worry about death if you were allready dead before you were even born ?😐it’s just a slap in the face 🙃but…if their was no beginning of the universe it means it will never end and we would know for sure we will be born again however if that’s the cause then the odds of us being born again decrease 😐
Each big bang is a creative cycle of the infinite
@@ChicoThePhilosurferspace has to have a beginning, but time does not. Therefore to create space you would need God, or a simulation.
To create time you would also need God , or a simulation.😥
@@thejellybeangamer3284No.
I found this video because I was curious about time as if it were framerate in a video game or movie. I was thinking whether there were infinite points of time between 1 second ago and 2 seconds ago, or if potentially there are only something like 10000 “updates” (for lack of a better term), per second which would be kind of confusing because technically your body would be teleporting between update 1 and update 2. it’s an interesting thing to think about.
That’s a very interesting analogy! I never thought Amit or that way
technically we do teleport? well... the least we can move is planck's length, so think of it as universe's pixels
Like moving in digital as opposed to analog?
@@ChicoThePhilosurfer i dont know, i just like the pixel analogy, makes it easy for me to understand how things work... Kind of
I was thinking that the past could indeed be infinite. In your video you said that the future is infinite because we can't arbitrarily decide that a moment in time is the final one ever. What if we replicated that logic to explain the past? Even if the universe began at a certain point in time, the 'clock' could have been ticking before that. Even if we chose a particular point in time to be the first moment to ever occur, surely time could have been going on before that moment. Sorry idk if what I said makes logical sense 😅
If its infinite, this video will never end lol
'Time being infinite in both directions', isn't it the answer to death?
The time we've been not born = the time we will be dead
Infinite memory response seems a bit too armchair for me. We need to account for how reality works.
Any living being has a limited capacity in their memory, so the infinite time would never lead to infinite number of memories. Some would be lost, or overwritten.
If the universe is not eternal then their could not be the matter to disprove the crazy idea of it being eternal.
Hey Daniel! I’m really sorry-I’m not following the argument. Is it that matter disproves the eternality of the universe, but matter could only exist if the universe is eternal?
@@ChicoThePhilosurfer if people say that the universe is eternal or mulitiverse exist,
It is not a proof that it is eternal.
If the universe is limited it has limits.
And those limits limit the response for a acceptable rebuttal of the crazy 😜 eternal universe.
Mostly I was tired and trying to be funny.
@@danielcooke9974 Oh, haha! That totally makes sense! I'm just a little slow on the uptake!
0:34 Atheism doesn't say that universe didn't had a beginning,...
Even Stephen Hawking said that universe had a beginning.....but as the time didn't existed before the beginning...... So how a creator (precisely God) got the time to create a universe....atheism is about disbelief in a creator and criticism of religion beliefs ( coz obviously science is always under criticism and always progressive).......😉😉
Great point! Atheists don’t need to claim the universe had no beginning; only that God wasn’t the beginning. However, this does tend to be the standard position to avoid the following problem. If (1) Everything that begins to exist was caused to exist, and (2) The universe began to exist, it follows that (3) The universe was caused to exist. Whatever caused the universe must not itself have begun to exist-otherwise we’ll have to posit an infinite regress of causes, which is absurd. So, the cause of the universe would have to be an atemporal (outside of time) being, which theists call God. In other words, the creator of the universe wouldn’t require time to create, but would rather create time. Hawking tried to avoid this by claiming the beginning of time is rounded, not a point. However, this is still a beginning, and hence falls prey to the aforementioned argument. The only other option is to reject proposition (1) mentioned above, but that’s a fundamental assumption of science and seems absurd to reject. So although claiming time is infinite isn’t necessary for atheism, I think the alternatives are much worse
Why would god need time to do anything
Dan Can But I don’t understand when all this stuff could’ve happened w/ out time. Come to think of it, an event off the timeline is like an imaginary number. It’s like a number off the real number line.
Chris Kastner great question! This is venturing into pretty deep theological territory, but the idea would be something like this. Time is really nothing more than change. In the physical world, anything that affects a change undergoes a change itself. God, however, doesn’t change in any way when He acts. Rather the change is all in the thing created. This idea is impossible to picture and there is nothing analogous in the world of our experience. It may help to make sense out of it to note that agents in the physical world only affect change on pre-existing material, so it affects them back, whereas God doesn’t work on pre-existing matter, but rather creates everything from nothing.
Chico the Philosurfer It still makes no sense though, because if you try to find out when it happened you can’t. You can’t date something with no time. The other way around it doesn’t make any sense as well, so I’m not going to say that this is wrong either.
In another comment, a commenter claims "If its infinite, this video will never end lol". This right here is what I'm struggling with. I used to believe this, but now I'm not so sure. Assuming time is infinite, couldn't that just imply infinite days? Why must infinite time require everything you do to take forever? This whole thing is incomprehensible to me!!
There are two ways it could be infinite: infinitely divisible or infinite as in ‘goes on forever.’ The first way would make it a problem for the video to never end because in order for it to get to the end of the video, it would have to go half way, but before it could go half way, it would have to go half of that, so on to infinity. Aristotle solves this by saying it is potentially infinitely divisible, but not actually. What he means by that is that there is no theoretical limit to the number of times you could cut it in half, but that doesn’t mean you could cut it in half an infinite amount of times because you could never get to infinity. Does that make sense?
But if there is no past then that could mean there is infinite present meaning that there is infinite time because the present never stops changing and it never stops moving on to the
That's very interesting. However, if the present "never stops" then it seems there would be a past to it, so there would be a past
This question seems impossible to even correctly reason about.
It seems that time, space, and matter had to come into existence simultaneously. In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and the Earth (matter).
No.
@@LordOfThePancakes God bless you
@@RedefineLiving I dont believe in Santa Claus 🤡
@@LordOfThePancakes Are you sure? You respond like a child.
@@RedefineLiving Whats childish is believing in a fictional character from European mythology about an evil sorcerer.
If time is infinite then we existed infinite times. Its too much coincidence that we exist in the PRESENT for the first and last time. Its like winning lottery 100 billion times in row with the sane numbers
No.
Wow
U should keep going man
Thanks! I will!
To infinity?
🤣🤣🤣
I say yes not Beacuse I want to but I all ready know this 😐is finite and only relate to the observer in fact my TIME was at when I was born in 1999 and I have Ben alive for 23 years 😐HOWEVER I have Ben dead BEFORE I was born for who knows how dam long 1 septillion years? 1 goggle years ?😐I don’t know I was allready dead and yet I just woke up in this world without any memory who are what I was before 😐
Ok so lets say the future is infinite
Let's take your lifespan to equal 1
The time you are alive and the time you are dead is 1/infinity but anything divided by infinity is 0. Therefore your life does not exist. Where am I going wrong here?
The future would only be potentially infinite, so although your lifespan would be more and more insignificant, there would never be a time when you actually hit infinity
@@ChicoThePhilosurfer cool! Thanks
Yeah for sure! Good question, btw
@@ChicoThePhilosurfer one more thing...
Am I right in saying that the present is actually infinitely small (in that it doesnt need more time to get bigger/smaller)? And if so does the present exist?
@@wilko_3142 Everyone agrees that there is no theoretical limit to the number of times you can cut a length--in this case, time--in half. Some assume this means that lengths are made of an actually infinite number of divided parts. If that's the case, then either those parts have zero length or not. If zero length, then they can't come together to make a length (an infinite number of zeros is still zero). If not zero length, then every length would be infinite (an infinite number of any-sized lengths added together would be an infinite length). Some people have theorized there might be an "infinitesimally small" length that isn't zero and also doesn't add up to infinity, but aside from being totally ad hoc, that just isn't what a length is.
The other option is that we don't have to assume that lengths are actually made up of an infinite number of divided parts. Remember that the only thing everyone agrees on is that there is no theoretical limit to the number of times you can cut a length in half. I actually think this proves lengths can't be made up of an infinite number of parts, but at the very least, it's not necessary to assume there are an actually infinite number of parts.
I think this gets harder to see when we talk about past present and future, but that's only if we see time as some kind of matrix that events get put into. Instead, I think what we call time is just a measure of the rate of change of one thing compared to the rate of change of another (e.g., rotation of the earth vs. time it took me to write a paragraph). We can quantify this duration and split it up into parts, but that doesn't mean there are an actual infinite number of parts.
I'm not sure if that's a good enough explanation so let me know if you want me to put it another way. But, basically, I think that if our philosophy tells us the whole world is an illusion, then we went wrong somewhere. In this case, I'd say we made a mistake in our view of time.
Do you know of some argument which you think shows that a beginningless past is logically impossible?
I don't think so, but it's not because I think a beginningless time makes sense. First, there's the argument that you can't traverse an infinite:
1. An infinite series is endless
2. To traverse a series is to reach the end of it
3. So, it is impossible to traverse an infinite series
That shows the impossibility of reaching infinity from any point on the timeline. To show the impossibility of a beginningless time, it seems like all we have to do is run the argument the other way around, but there's no clear way to make it work because time only goes one way (assuming A-time, of course). And yet, I don't think the result is that a beginningless time is possible, but rather that it is either more impossible (speaking hyperbolically) or incoherent. The reason this argument won't work the other way around is that proceeding endlessly makes sense (always add one), but how are we to make equal sense of a series having no beginning? William Lane Craig puts it like this. It's impossible to write down all the numbers from 0 to infinity. Things seem *worse* for writing down the numbers from negative infinity to 0. So, I think this shows the concept fails to live up to a logical impossibility, not that it is possible.
Yep
No I wasted time j want time back guys u don’t do that 😓😥🥺
Time is infinite in both directions, Obviously.
Personally, I don’t think time is infinite in the past and I think it’s only potentially infinite in the future. Is there a reason you believe it to be obviously infinite in both directions?
@@ChicoThePhilosurfer Time is definitely infinite. There does not have to be anything happening, or even any matter at all, for time to be passing. Even if everything in existance started all at once, time was still passing up until it happened. And when everything potentially is gone, time will still be passing, there just won’t be anything happening in it.
I disagree for the reasons given in the video. Are there any reasons you have for believing time to be infinite in the past?
@@ChicoThePhilosurfer If you started travelling back in time, i would need a good explanation of why you wouldn’t just keep going. What is it that would force you to stop ? A wall ? That wall took time to build beforehand. I joke of course, but the argument is sound. Events do not just start without a cause. Even the smallest atom started somewhere. You cannot go from absolute nothingness to a Universe, or Multiverses full of stuff. So there must have always been something. Which means there must have always been time. I admit, it messes with my head to imagine that scenario. But it is, and will always be, what i believe. Though clearly if i am ever shown indisputable evidence, rather than just opinion and guesswork, that time is not infinite, i will happily accept that. 👍
I think you can make sense of there being no time before the Big Bang if you posit an atemporal cause of the Big Bang. This is the crux of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. Everything that begins to exist requires a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe required a cause. If that cause were temporal, it would itself also require a cause, ad infinitum. Therefore, if must not be temporal.
Whoa! steady on you're going too fast.
Sorry!
Pi