But the question is whether they are *necessarily* related or the same event. Nothing you have said requires that.<quoted text>
I never said taht that cannot happen.
I said if x, y and z happen in the SAME PLACE at the SAME TIME; x=y=z.
Moreover, if two things happened at the same time at different places; you will not be able to say that they are not directly connected or are the same event anyway.
But it does open up the possibility of more than one 'first thing' and hence destroys your claim of only one God.Furthermore, that case of different things happening in different places does not in any way contradict the idea of God as the very first thing.
The problem you have is that you defined God to be 'Almighty'. That does not necessarily require a first thing, only a most powerful thing. So you are going away from your original definition.
And, even if you try to shift definitions and use 'first thing' as the definition of God, you still have not shown there is only *one* such first thing or that this first thing is powerful or has an intelligence. For that matter, because of issues with the nature of time, even defining a 'first thing' is problematic. Different observers could say that different things are 'first'.
That is your claim, but that was neither in your definition or in anything you established. Are you attempting to change your definition?Because if God is eternal, he/it would have no beginning nor end; therefore nothing could have began the same time that he/it began, because he/it never began.
No, they *are* in the same place at the same time. So your claim that things at the same time and in the same place must be equal is shown empirically to be false.But the lapping of the electron clouds does not suggest that they were formed at the same time in the same place; which is what my argument is concerned with.
When you want to claim that something is 'first', you have the problem that there is no universal time, meaning that even the order of events can be different for different observers. You need a *single* thing that is first for all observers, but all your logic can do, at best, and assuming a linear time, is show that there is a first for a single observer.I'm sure that meant something; i'll find out later.
And you still haven't addressed the question of why there cannot be an infinite sequence of events into the past with *no* first.