Quote Originally Posted by ghollisjr
Time always exists because of the definition of "always." Something "always existing" means it exists for all time, so saying that time does not always exist means that time does not exist for all time, which means that there was a time when there was no time, which is a contradiction, which means that there is never a time when there is no time, which means that time always exists.
Time doesn't always exist just because someone says time always exists. You're confusing yourself. The argument remains as follows: If there was an infinite regress of cause and effects in nature, then you had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened, having had an eternity to do so; and you should never have existed because a past eternity would still be going on for eternity, thus, never reaching this point. You keep going off on your red herrings avoiding the point of the proof.

The example I gave where the time between causes is always half the proceeding time yields an infinite number of causes with a finite amount of time. You can call this timeless if you want, but it's not the same thing as existing outside of time.
Your intervals are irrelevant. It is still subject to the law of cause and effect, no matter how long or short your intervals are.

Evolutionary biology, anyone?
This is a mind creating a mind. Nowhere do we see a non-mind producing a mind. Since you can't recreate it where's your evidence?

WHAT??? I NEVER agreed that an infinite number of sequential causes ACTUALLY implies that there is a past eternity of time; I was restating your own argument.
You were questioning when you said, "What else does a 'past eternity' mean other than an infinite amount of time?" I couldn't agree more!

What I shot down was the second part of your argument, namely, when you said that a past eternity implies that the present moment cannot exist.
Saying you shot down something doesn't make it so. Reproduce it! The problem remains for you, if there was this infinite regress of past cause and effects, then you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened, having had an eternity to do so. And you should never have happened because a past eternity would still be going on, thus, never reaching this point. Since you introduce your theory of a past eternity you must abide in its eternal nature otherwise you contradict yourself. Think about it!

I had already shot down your claim that an infinite number of causes implies an eternity of past time with my geometric series example (look up "geometric series" if you want to see that it is, in fact, not fuzzy math at all). I'm really trying to be patient with you, but I don't think it is worth my time to keep spelling out my position just to have you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm done.
Your geometric series doesn't shoot down anything, nor do your intervals, for cause and effect remain in place. Cause and effect don't cease to exist, nor does time just because you shorten or lengthen the times between each cause or change the meaning of eternity. Eternity is eternity with eternal consequences if you want to incorporate eternity into your theory to reject God.

You're not ready to come to the truth to search it out with all you heart an soul, so you won't find it as you are now.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1.20).