quote:You're talking about the first moment in time, so shouldn't the reason why no cause is needed be that there was no prior time for a cause to operate?
The premise of a 'beginning' is more aligned with time than matter. The matter represents a secondary action in time.
Analogy. The first car out of the factory was a blue pontiac. Here, 'first' represents time, more than the car; the latter car is subsequential.
It raises the question whether time is an abstract premise or a definitive phenomenon which does not require any action to make it real. This raises the question, is 40 weeks the measure of a human pregnancy - or is the pregnancy subject to the 40 week time factor? Here, if we say a host of other factors determine the pregnancy, such as copulation, one can also say that cause could not activate a pregnancy if there was no time. We end up in a circular arguement - proof it is the wrong path.
IMHO, both time and matter, based on a finite universe, is irrefutably the result of an external, precedent factor, and I know of no alternative to this premise.
quote:Actually our boys are working on a theory that time and space are intertwined, basically one cannot exists whiteout the other.
Intertwined is valid logic. In fact, everything the universe now contains is intertwined, and all its contents would have become existent simultainiously, then became definitive entities via some form of evolving. How else - there is nowhere else for something new to come from?
Well super string theory talks about a collision between 2 universes that produced space-time and matter in our universe.
MV violates the finite factor of this universe. Also, it ends in a circular premise, negating itself from science. There is good reason behind the avoidance of a finite universe!
You are being unscientific when omitting the finite evidence of the universe. I challenge you to state any scientific reasoning while addressing this universe as absolutely finite - anyone can wax poetic of an infinite realm, but it is not science!