Apologetics open challenge

[robvalue]

Uhm... I don't know what that means

I know time is relative. Also, whatever it is that we are abstractly modelling with time is probably more complex than we are aware of.

MK: This is the special pleading I was talking of. You're inventing a solution to the problem by just defining it to apparently solve the problem. That's not an indication that such a thing is in any way possible.

Here is the question:

Is there anything that can have always existed?

Yes: How do you know the universe is not one of those things?

No: Infinite regress of creators.

The difficulty in imagining an infinite past is not a reason for it to be untrue. I don't see any paradox, you just keep describing it as if it's also finite, and so can't be infinite. Of course it can't, if you impose that restriction. But there is no need to, that is the whole point. "The universe has always existed." How is that paradoxical? I'm not saying it's true, but it's internally consistent. You seem stuck on the idea that it "must have had a start point" or "must have been set going". I don't see why these are necessary. You seem to be implying that the very nature of infinity is paradoxical, because it doesn't fit with how you would imagine it.

How is "the universe always existing" a paradox, but a "being always existing" not a paradox? Just because you say it isn't, because he's really special, basically. I'm not being petty, but that's what is going on here. You are claiming that an infinite past is a paradox. Your creator has an infinite past, so this is also a paradox, by your own argument. You're then simply stating that the paradox doesn't apply to him because of [strange reasons]. That is special pleading. If not even time applies to him, he can't act. Acting is temporal. His state would remain the same. If you're just going to say "he's special and doesn't need time" then again, it's just inventing properties to try and deal with your own proclaimed paradox; one I don't agree even exists.

God doesn't consist of all points that came to be? I have no idea what this is even meant to mean I'm afraid. Neither does the universe, if there is something outside of it.

PS: This is why philosophical arguments are not enough to establish the existence of something. You need some evidence, at some point. Otherwise you can never be sure that you're not trying to define things into existence that cannot possibly exist.