Well, I had planned to wait until you had completed responding, but seeing as others are already responding, I'll make a quick point.

Things in a timeless state do not have beginnings, nor do they lack beginnings, as a beginning is a transition in state and that only occurs in time. So it's incoherent or, at the least, not particularly meaningful to say that a necessary being that exists in a timeless state is beginningless. It simply doesn't apply. I see this as a part of the larger problem of coherently conceiving of a necessary being as well as the problems with timelessness. It's an attempt to address that problem and as such it doesn't succeed in doing so.

(August 13, 2018 at 6:22 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: That doesn't strike you as an ad hoc way of getting out of the past infinite problem at all to you? It sounds to me like you're just assigning your God the characteristics it needs to make your arguments work.

It seems to be hardly ad hoc; if the eternalness of God goes back milenia. This is not something that was just made up, as a solution to a problem.

Quote:It seems to be hardly ad God; if the eternalness of God goes back milenia. This is not something that was just made up, as a solution to a problem.

Nope it ad hoc filler to save your religion from an issue

(August 13, 2018 at 7:53 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 13, 2018 at 6:22 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: That doesn't strike you as an ad hoc way of getting out of the past infinite problem at all to you? It sounds to me like you're just assigning your God the characteristics it needs to make your arguments work.

It seems to be hardly ad hoc; if the eternalness of God goes back milenia. This is not something that was just made up, as a solution to a problem.

The eternalness of God goes back millennia?
Now give me your understanding of 'beginninness'. And yes, you may speak on Stevell's behalf.

(August 13, 2018 at 9:11 pm)Succubus Wrote:

(August 13, 2018 at 7:53 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It seems to be hardly ad hoc; if the eternalness of God goes back milenia. This is not something that was just made up, as a solution to a problem.

The eternalness of God goes back millennia?
Now give me your understanding of 'beginninness'. And yes, you may speak on Stevell's behalf.

First I’ve heard the term “beginniness”, but I would gather that it means having the property or characteristic of beginning. And I don’t wish to speak for Steve, he can speak for himself. I was just commenting that the eternal nature of the Judeo/ChristianGod is not something new to resolve an objection. To say so, makes me think that one is either unfamiliar with the topic or the term.

(August 13, 2018 at 9:20 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 13, 2018 at 9:11 pm)Succubus Wrote: The eternalness of God goes back millennia?
Now give me your understanding of 'beginninness'. And yes, you may speak on Stevell's behalf.

First I’ve heard the term “beginniness”, but I would gather that it means having the property or characteristic of beginning. And I don’t wish to speak for Steve, he can speak for himself.  I was just commenting that the eternal nature of the Judeo/ChristianGod is not something new to resolve an objection. To say so, makes me think that one is either unfamiliar with the topic or the term.

Google.

Quote:In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 9 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.

Beginniness is not a real word. Not even theologians use it.

No problem... I meant to say that I never heard of the term.

Edit: seem to have more issues typing on the ipad

(August 13, 2018 at 7:53 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 13, 2018 at 6:22 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: That doesn't strike you as an ad hoc way of getting out of the past infinite problem at all to you? It sounds to me like you're just assigning your God the characteristics it needs to make your arguments work.

It seems to be hardly ad hoc; if the eternalness of God goes back milenia. This is not something that was just made up, as a solution to a problem.

If God exists eternally in the past, he's a past-infinite himself, and the same argument against the universe ever occurring because the past is infinite applies to God. Making God 'timeless' is clearly an attempt to have your cake (eternal God) and eat it too (can somehow begin a universe without time being involved beforehand). It has the advantage of sounding profound and the disadvantage of not making any additional sense if you think about it for ten seconds.

(August 14, 2018 at 8:52 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(August 13, 2018 at 7:53 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: It seems to be hardly ad hoc; if the eternalness of God goes back milenia. This is not something that was just made up, as a solution to a problem.

If God exists eternally in the past, he's a past-infinite himself, and the same argument against the universe ever occurring because the past is infinite applies to God. Making God 'timeless' is clearly an attempt to have your cake (eternal God) and eat it too (can somehow begin a universe without time being involved beforehand). It has the advantage of sounding profound and the disadvantage of not making any additional sense if you think about it for ten seconds.

Thanks for clarifying my mistake. There is some scripture which suggest that God is not bound by time and interacts with time differently, but it’s not nearly as strong as his eternalness. In any case, this doesn’t remove the arguments against a past infinite number of events, and not being able to traverse an infinite. If time is a physical property of the universe (which I believe), then it would have began with the universe. It would also follow that something which is non-material, would not be constrained by time if it is a physical property.

The impossibility of a past infinity has never been proven. It is counter-intuitive but can't be logically deduced without assuming the conclusion. I'm agnostic about whether it's possible. From my point of view, theologians tie themselves in knots over this seeming paradox unnecessarily. Zeno presented us with paradoxes, but the paradox doesn't actually keep us from overtaking and passing the slower runner or keep the arrow from reaching its target. The paradox of an infinite past never catching up to the present may be similar in nature. Even if time is past infinite, there has to be a present time somewhen, right?