Analysis of My Philosophical Proof of a Creator, by Anonymous (continued)
how could it have done so from a state of timelessness? Is it physical or non-physical? What does "before" and "after" mean when talking about the relationship between the outside cause and the inside effects?
Now the question becomes: What conclusions can we draw from the causes that lie outside of the universe? I haven't read Hugh Ross' argument, so I don't know what conclusions he draws or what line of reasoning he uses to draw them. Must the cause be God? Can it be some other universe with different physical properties? Must it be an intelligent being? Must it be a non-physical being? Must it be one being rather than many? Why?
You admit on the last page that you can't solve the problem of infinite regress and that it's a mystery. That leaves you open to the rejoinder that any termination of an infinite regress is arbitrary and that we might as well end it with the universe. Then a person could go on to say the existence of the universe is a mystery, and its properties are a mystery. If mystery can be invoked to deal with the problem of infinite regress, why not just invoke mystery to deal with the problem of the existence of a static universe?