STT. Is the idea that time is a constant thing which always exists, what we are going for with this argument? I would also agree with Gorgias in the above post. If you say something like the word sequence in the premise you don’t have to make any further claims. You could just say:
There is a sequence so time exists.
If when you say time cannot be created do you also imply that time cannot have a beginning?
Do all sequences have a beginning? If time is a sequential thing then how do we make the argument that this thing has no origin?
It seems that you have two arguments to make. One, time is a thing, and two, it has no origin.
Both seem pretty hard to prove. Would it be reasonable to say, “In order for something to begin, something must precede it?” For a beginning is the first in a sequence. Yet if something is first, then nothing must precede it. So nothing is that something. So in a sequence it is [nothing, beginning, middle, end]. Or in terms of time it is, [before time, beginning of time, middle of time, end of time, and presumably after time]. Yet, if I understand you correctly, if anything is a part of a sequence, it has a place in time. So you conclude that that it is illogical that time begins? Is this anywhere near a correct understanding of your thoughts?
I would also add that the religious view is like this, as I understand it. [God is before time, beginning of time, middle of time, end of time, and God is after time]. Alpha and Omega. The beginning and the end.