I don't really see why some form of casuality cannot exist without time. Event A may still precede event B in the sense that A caused B. It don't see any contradiction. You can define casuality in a consistent manner that holds with or without time in place.

I really don't understand why time is necessary. You can think about cause and effect in terms of logic. Given the existance and nature of A, it logically follows that B must also exists. In that sense, A causes B.

Why does it have to "happen"? Thing A exists, therefore thing B exists. No before or after.
For example, given the infinite nature of natural numbers, there exists a prime larger than 10,000.

Well I don't get it. Are you just trolling?

Its in the language. For something to cause something else to happen it has to happen after. Which definitely implies time exists.

Deep thoughts there Tretzker...I wish that more of us humans would embrace such possibilities.

I had an experience very much like the one described here, which I would further describe as "the realization of the interconnectedness of all things". Replace physics degree with "TTC lectures I pirated" and "Week long David Attenborough marathons".

However, I was also conflicted with crap like this at the time. I moved away from that, and after creating a website for a local woo-woo-voo-doo centre for massage and things like "chakra balancing", I really started thinking differently than I did when I was a self-proclaimed atheist. It's not that I started believing in deities or anything... but I started to believe in phenomena that go somewhat against the typical "atheist scientist paradigm" that Evert is often representing.

But the chicken didn't want to cross the road it was the pervert who couldn't get his... sorry wrong joke.

Originally I meant what if all the energy/matter was 'created', and then just did whatever it did and here we are billions of years later...I knew what I meant at the time but again, I was very, VERY high.

Pretend there is a picture of an orange, on a table, with a lamp in the background. Most people will say there is (an orange shaped) shadow on the table, because there is an orange on table, between the light source. Given images of other objects on said table similar conclusions can be made. On the other hand the opposite statements "there is an object of Shape X, because there is a shadow of shape X" would also seem valid. This has a name... "dependency"? It is generally not called " "causality".
The fact that we can put an orange on the table, and causatively form a shadow, makes us inclined to interpret the dependence that way around.
It might illustrate your point, though. If we are presented with 'pictures' only, we could still speculate a causality.

Any 'complete' reasoning of how the universe was created should boil down to "it was created, because it exists", so you might as well accept that answer now

Any concept your mind allows to be applied to everything you know will seem beautiful. That's what I think. Math can be ugly IIRC the formal definition of addition is butt-ugly.

The nature of light and the nature of opaque objects necessitate the existence of shadows. It's not the logical relationship that requires time but the nature of light and opaque objects. There's no reason why such relationships could not be formed between objects with a nature independant of time.

Human reasoning assumes that the existence of anything in the universe is necessitated by the nature of something else. Reasoning differently about the universe itself is special pleading.

Light travel itself is bound by time so I think that discussion is nonsense. :P I think the entire discussion is so theoretical that it is no more useful than guessing. There's probably only a couple of people in this community that have studied this level of physics and fewer still that are experts on it. I am neither.