Four proofs of the nonexistence of God

[SteveII]

Have you ever read about Hilbert's Hotel?

Yes, I have. 'Logically absurd' is not a synonym for 'intuitively absurd'. Hilbert's Hotel is a thought experiment. Thought experiments are not logical proofs. They aren't even close. But they can rise to the level of being part of an argument, as you're doing here. The argument basically amounts to:

If an actual infinite number of things existed, it would be absurd.
Since it would be absurd, it's impossible.

There are some corollaries necessary. For example, Platonism must be false because in Platonism numbers are 'things' and there is an actual infinite number of them (I imagine you don't have a problem with actual infinites of abstractions). It must be incorrect that the universe contains an actual infinite number of dimensionless points (or one-dimensional lines, or two-dimensional planes), or that there could be an actual infinite set of possible worlds, but those are also abstractions. Hilbert is talking about infinite series of physical objects, and I agree (intuitively) that infinity and objects leads to absurdities.

But are past events 'physical objects'? There are no objects in the past or future, only in the present. Objects once existed in the past, but they no longer exist in the past, now they exist in the present. If you conduct a similar thought experiment based on events, the intuitive absurdity is greatly reduced. Of course you can always stuff more things into an infinite future. Of course you can always discover more about an infinite past. Time travel stories are a form of thought experiment, and it isn't absurd for time travelers to have done an infinite number of things in the past that we don't know about, as long as we wound up with the present that we have, and that's even with a finite past. [1]

Another thought experiment would be of a finite object that experiences an infinite number of changes, because the changes aren't objects, they're events, and our intuition works quite differently regarding events than objects. What Hilbert doesn't address is that temporal events are like physical objects, which wasn't what he was trying to do in the first place; although that's the wagon WLC tries to get him to pull. [2]

But the main flaw with Hilbert's Hotel is just that it's an appeal to our intuitions rather than a sound logical argument. And a sound logical argument is what I asked for.[3]

1. Why wouldn't past events by physical objects? With sufficient knowledge, you can count the causes of each effect all the way back. And that's the problem. If there were an infinite number of causes/effects, the current causes/effects would not have happened yet--because there would have always been one more to consider at the other end of the whole causal chain. There would never be a '3...2...1...now'.
2. An infinite number of changes means the same thing as existing an infinite amount of time. What Hilbert's Hotel illustrates is there is no such thing as an actual infinite quantity of anything. Sequential events can certainly be counted so qualify as as quantity. 
3. Here is your sound logical argument:
IF
infinity + infinity = infinity
infinity + infinity = infinity/2
infinity - 1 = infinity
infinity / 2 = infinity
infinity - infinity = 3
CONCLUSION: An actual infinity is not a rational thing.
In addition, you do not have a defeater for the above. To deny it with no reasons is special pleading for your infinite physical reality for which it's sole purpose is to avoid the uncomfortable conclusion there had to be an uncaused first cause.

---

I was explaining a math problem on using a infinite number of something that would be analogous to the original post discussing an infinite number of causes and effects. God, as a timeless and changeless being, does not run into the logical absurdity that the math illustrates.

Well, timeless beings are changeless by definition. Change is something that happens in time. A timeless being can't take an action or have a thought, because those are events, and events require time. Although it also seems clear that 'timeless beings' can't actually be 'beings' in the sense of 'something that exists'.

That is, a 'timeless being' is an absurdity. How long can a timeless being exist? No time at all.

The only thing that could be timeless is an omniscient immaterial mind. God's decision to create was a timeless one in that there was no period of indecision preceding it. God could not have created the universe sooner. It simply is that God was timeless and changeless sans the universe and temporal and changing with the universe.

---

I was explaining a math problem on using a infinite number of something that would be analogous to the original post discussing an infinite number of causes and effects. God, as a timeless and changeless being, does not run into the logical absurdity that the math illustrates.

You (and Dr. Craig) need to stop thinking of infinite sets as being a one-sized-fits-all (or, equinumerous); that's a 19th-century view.  Of course, mathematicians know better:



Remember Craig's quote from Vilenkin, "A proof is what it takes to convince an unreasonable man..."

Cosmological models are countable infinities.  Just as space may be without beginning or end, so, too, time may be without beginning or end.  As Professor Wes Morriston has conclusively shown (and, Craig has hardly responded to Morriston), actual infinities exist in the realm of theism, and so, the existence of an "actual infinite" is not a logical impossibility:

http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/selected-papers.html

Craig loves to equivocate; it's his favorite logical fallacy, however, no one within the Academy is buying it:

http://www.skepticink.com/reasonablyfait...-infinity/

How about you put each of those arguments in a few sentences and I will rebut them? I am not going to debate via Youtube/link proxy.