you can laugh at that all you want but the alternatives are time goes back infinitely and that is just as laughable because that is an impossible scenario, another option is time had a beginning which is equally as laughable because that too is an impossible scenario.
The term "beginning" implies a causal relationship that only has meaning within a framework in which causal relationships exist; can you define causal relationships divorced from the concept of time? Remember, once you're divorced from the concept of time, words like "before" and "after" don't have any meaning.
Sidenote: People, generally, have significant issues with concepts involving infinities. You ought to see students whose eyes glaze over when you tell them that there some infinities that are bigger than others, that some infinities are countable and others aren't. It's particularly funny to see them struggle to understand a classic thought experiment involving a hotel that has infinitely many rooms, all occupied, especially when you tell them that the hotel, despite being full, can still accomodate one more guest, and one more, and one more, and, indeed, countably infinitely many more.
But I digress... time
is infinite in the sense that it has always existed and always will exist; it's a fundamental property of the fabric of the Universe: space-time.
"Ahh!" you might say, "What about outside the Universe? There was no time there." It's important to remember that what's outside the Universe is (for now, anyways) outside the realm of science, and outside the realm of logic. Science concerns itself with the natural. Not the supernatural. If you're interested in the supernatural, by all means, seek the mystics who gain knowledge in unknowable ways using unknowable means.
No matter how you slice it, all possibilities lead to laughable, irrational and illogical scenarios.
Not really. If I may ask, how do you know that all possibilities lead to "laughable, irrational and illogical scenarios?" Do you really know all the scientific theories, the mythos and lore surrounding cosmogony? Do you fully understand all those things? Something tells me the answer to both questions is "no."
So laugh away at a the concept of a creator when any concept you come up with is laughable as well, very logical ND
I laugh at the concept of a creator because it's a "concept" that is proposed as an explanation and which explains nothing. It's a concept that starts with the notion that
everything requires a creator, including the Universe, before turning around and asserting,
unconditionally that the creator doesn't require a creator.
Despite your particular religious beliefs, you can see how that is, at least, contradictory. Right?
