Proposed: Causation-Based Arguments Collapse if Time Is Nonlinear

Many theological arguments for a Creator, such as the Cosmological Argument, pivot on causation, asserting that everything has a cause, leading back to a First Cause. But these arguments inherently assume linear time, where causes always precede effects in a unidirectional sequence. If time is nonlinear (e.g., circular, branching, static, modifiable through time travel), causation as we understand it unravels, voiding such arguments.

Here are the terms:

  • C: Theological arguments relying on causation (e.g., “Every event has a cause, thus a First Cause exists”).
  • L: Time is linear (events occur in a single, unidirectional sequence: past → present → future).
  • N: Time is nonlinear (e.g., circular, simultaneous, or multidimensional).
  • S: Causation is coherent (causes precede effects in a way that supports C).
  • T: Theological arguments (C) are valid.

The argument proceeds thusly:

  1. C → S Premise: If theological arguments rely on causation, then causation must be coherent. (C assumes a chain of causes, like “X causes Y, Y causes Z,” leading to a First Cause.)
  2. S → L Premise: Causation is coherent only if time is linear. (In linear time, causes strictly precede effects; nonlinearity—e.g., effects looping to causes or events coexisting—disrupts this ordering.)
  3. C → L (from 1 and 2, Hypothetical Syllogism) Conclusion: If theological arguments rely on causation, they require linear time.
  4. L¬N Premise: Linear time and nonlinear time are mutually exclusive. (L means a single, forward arrow; N allows loops, branches, or no sequence.)
  5. C → ¬N (from 3 and 4, substituting L) Conclusion: Causation-based theological arguments require time to be non-nonlinear (i.e., linear).
  6. T → C Premise: If theological arguments are valid, they include causation-based ones. (C is a subset of T, as many classic arguments—e.g., Aquinas, Kalam—use causation.)
  7. T → ¬N (from 5 and 6, Hypothetical Syllogism) Conclusion: Valid theological arguments require nonlinear time to be false.
  8. N → ¬T (from 7, Contraposition) Final Conclusion: If time is nonlinear, theological arguments (relying on causation) are invalid.

This logic shows that causation-based arguments (C)—like “the universe began, so it must have a cause”—presume a linear timeline where causes precede effects. Nonlinear time (N) breaks this, so that if N holds, S collapses, and C-based arguments (thus T) fail.

The dependency on L is a hidden premise which theology assumes without justification, due to limitations in the scope of human observation. Humans experience a seeming linearity of time in the same way in which we experience the local "flatness" of the Earth. Indeed, picture an ant (not even one of those big ants, but one of the tiniest ones you can see, the ones crawling delicately on flower petals and tiny leaves). But this ant is not on any leaf or petal, it is sitting at the very center of a well-polished regulation basketball court, in a typical sports arena. To this tiny ant, the floor itself goes on beyond the edges of perception. Its world is flat, and not even "flat" in the way it is to humans, but flat with a flatness that eludes even the plains and the deserts as perceived by man. That is how we perceive time.

And yet, both science and the human imagination bolster this critique by questioning time's linearity. Einsteinian Relativity shows that time is relative, not absolute. In special relativity, simultaneity depends on the observer; in general relativity, spacetime curves, and events near massive objects (e.g., black holes) experience time differently. This challenges a universal, linear "arrow." Experiments with clocks on satellites and in different places on the Earth support relativistic time. Quantum mechanics likewise offers an entanglement which suggests "spooky action at a distance," wherein events may correlate instantaneously without clear temporal precedence. Some interpretations (e.g., Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment) imply retrocausality, with effects influencing past causes.

Models like eternal inflation or cyclic universes (e.g., Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology) propose time broadly looping or lacking a singular start, defying linearity. While not conclusive (and there may be no conclusiveness here), these suggest N is plausible. Linear time (L) is an highly localized intuitive assumption, not a proven fact, and physics increasingly leans toward complex, nonlinear models. Time travel has become a staple of science fiction, with various accounts of figures going backwards in time to the beginning and kicking things off, even if accidentally. Could these imaginings be informed by some subtle undercurrent of reality?

In sum, First Causes need a “first,” but nonlinear time denies such an anchor. Theists must prove L or abandon C. Can they?