Jesus as Lord - why is this appealing to so many?

[polymath257]

Once again, there is no *logical* problem with an infinite regress. Mathematics deals with the set of negative integers all the time. It isn't a logical problem. This is one example of the problems with ancient philosophy: we have learned a LOT about how to deal with infinities over the last 150 years or so. Yes, they don't act the same way as finite things do. But that isn't a contradiction.

You are imagining a problem (counting from negative infinity) where there is none. At each point, the 'counting' has been going on forever. So? The only problem with that is that there is no start. And that is not a *logical* problem. We are here and the clock has always been ticking.

This is getting tiring. Look back over your posts. I give reasons why an infinite series of past causes are logically impossible and all you keep coming back with is "no it's not". SHOW ME SOMETHING. A syllogism would be great. Post a link from a respected source if you can't articulate it. Until then, you are simply making assertions with no reasons to believe them. I want to see something that says there can be an actual infinite number of anything.  

Every single cause we have ever seen has been a physical cause. Since there is no reason to even assume the existence of a supernatural, it is reasonable and valid to say that all causes are natural. In fact, I strongly suspect you can't give a coherent definition of what it means to be supernatural.

You have NO IDEA if every single cause we have seen has been a physical one. The people in the NT think otherwise. The billions of Christians who believe they have a relationship with God or feel God has changed them, or has performed this or that miracle in their lives or someone close to them think otherwise. 

To say "all causes are natural" is the very height of a question begging argument! I have pointed out this very logical fallacy over and over, yet you still repeat it. Smart people would read up on it and adjust their arguments to they don't through out textbook fallacies. 

Sure I have a definition of supernatural: Not natural. Not originating nor belonging to the natural order of things. 

As for OT vs NT, there is some valid history in the OT. Some historical persons are mentioned in the NT (Pilate, Herod), but many of the facts are wrong about them (timing of census that never happened?). Past that, it is stories and expositions of religious positions.

LOL. There are a thousand articles and books written about the census. Have you actually read one or are you just reading off an atheist internet bullet list? There were regional census all the time plus there were enrollments where people would be compelled to go and pledge loyalty to Caesar. It is entirely possible one of these happened in Palestine in 6-4 BC. Luke was not an eyewitness--he was investigating and writing. He had records and people available to him that are long gone. 

I don't know what your last sentence is supposed to mean.

I gave the example of the negative integers to show how an infinite regress is *logically* possible. Did you not understand the example?

The distinction between potential and completed infinities is part of the philosophical problem: it is a false dichotomy. There is no logical problem with a completed infinity.

OK, so what does it mean to be 'part of the natural order of things'? How is that any different than simply existing? Anything causally connected to something natural is itself natural.

---

Why do we always speak of eternally going back instead of eternally going forward or the notion of time going in two separate directions at the same time .

About the perceived directionality of time, Sean Carroll says this intuition has something to do with the universe starting at low entropy. As far as the laws of physics themselves are concerned, time can move both ways. There is nothing in the formulas and equations that say otherwise. But because the universe is structured in a way where low entropy is at the start and then increases, we're conditioned to see time as flowing in one direction.

I don't know the specifics, by the way. So perhaps polymath can provide more elaborate input on this, unless he happens to disagree with Sean Carroll, of course.

In the most basic equations of physics, as we now understand them at least, there *is* a slight difference between the 'forward' and 'backward' direction of time. This is seen in the weak nuclear force. But this is such a small thing, it is difficult how it translates into the large scale differences we all appreciate.

So, that bringsus down to entropy. And here, the issue is that entropy describes the number of microscopic states that are equivalent to a given macroscopic state: it is a statistical law and NOT a fundamental one. But, yes, there is good reason (based on how thebrain works) to think that the direction of consciousness (memory) is the same as the direction of entropy increase.

And no, there is no real difference between postulating infinite time into the future and infinite time into the past, at least in terms of the models we use (which encompass ALL space and time into a single spacetime).