Book of Acts: Pure Fantasy

[brotherlylove]

Nonsense. You can traverse an infinite past if you have infinite time to do so - which you do. The number line is infinite, it is still possible to traverse it.

You're talking about a potential infinite rather than an actual infinite. Check aristotles refutation of zenos paradox.

The writing of the vedas dates back to 1500 BCE. The scriptures and oral traditions are even older than Judaism. Therefore Hinduism is older than Judaism

If you want to argue it that way, the scriptures and oral traditions of judaism go back to Adam and Eve. Hinduism is a post-flood religion.

---

Let me give you a tip: the key to interesting apologetics is to refrain from relying on medieval arguments such as the first cause. The discussion has evolved from there, including the theological side of the argument. There's a reason your talking points are covered in freshman classes: a hell of a lot has come after them.

If you have a subject in mind, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. I think its a powerful argument, and it is one that philosophers debate extensively. I am well versed in many other arguments, logical and otherwise, for the existence of God. I am not all about arguing, though. I'm happy to discuss whatever is on peoples minds.

---

Actually I'm just not impressed with your logical arguments. Garbage in, garbage out. You begin by presuming to impose constraints on the origins of the universe when science has not finished telling that story. You assume that what is true of infinite sets applies to the prior states of the universe even when the complete story of the universe is not known. Even if anyone wanted to grant you this point (which I do not) your conclusion is still wildly unsupported. [I suppose you do not think I can ever cross the room either since to do so I would have to traverse an infinite series of halfway points.

The evidence is pointing to an absolute beginning, and at the least a finite beginning for time space energy and matter. I am not imposing any constraints that aren't already part of well established theories:

http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/stephen70/talks...lenkin.pdf

I am not assuming anything of infinite set theory other than it demonstrates that an actual infinite number of things does not exist in reality, and leads to obvious contradictions, like my example of Hilberts Hotel. If you're okay with logical contradictions, then you cease to have an argument. Your infinity example is merely potential instead of actual and doesn't represent anything real; check out aristotles refutation of zenos paradox

You'd like to conclude that therefore everything owes its existence to something outside of cause of effect, that only what had no beginning could create things which do have a beginning. How do you know such a thing exists or is possible? You infer it by default. How else could it be when we're all wrapped up in these horrible paradoxes?

I deduce it from the evidence of a beginning to the Universe in which time, space matter and energy themselves had a beginning.

Let me paraphrase your argument and you can tell me where I have it wrong:

1. Nothing can come from nothing.
2. That is unless something eternal existed before everything else.
3. Everything that is not eternal must have been created from nothing by the eternal something, which implies the eternal something must have the power to make up shit out of nothing.

Step one is falsified if magic genies can make things out of nothing. It is also falsified if eternal genies can exist who do not owe their existence to prior creator genies.

God isn't making things out of nothing, He is created the Universe by His own power. An uncaused cause didn't come from nothing; that's the point, God is eternal.

Step two is wrong if in fact everything that exists is recycled from something that existed before it. Everything is eternal but it changes over time, sometimes quite radically.

It has been demonstrated that in the cyclic universe model, the entropy would increase in every cycle until it ended in heat death; it couldn't be eternal. We already discussed the impossibility of an infinite amount of past events.

Step three begs the question of how anything ever comes out of nothing. Either the "nothing" is more than it seemed (air, microbes, gamma rays) or someone needs to explain how anything at all can be fashioned from absolutely nothing.

This is your misconception; again, God had something (His power) which created the Universe. There never was "nothing".

You haven't shown that the universe was created by an eternal genie. You have simply argued (poorly) that that is the only possible explanation. If you can't think up anything better than that maybe you should leave it to the adults.

I don't think you've understood the subject matter. You have yet to admit that time space matter and energy had a finite beginning, even though it is widely agreed upon by cosmologists. I have shown evidence that the Universe does have a beginning, and simple logic tells you everything which begins to exist has a cause. We can infer quite a bit from these simple facts, such as that the cause of the universe is necessarily timeless, spaceless, extremely power and transcendent. I am not arguing that it is the only explanation, I am arguing it is the best explanation.

---

What is your view of origins?

Listen very, very closely.

I do not know. Astrophysicists make a compelling argument for the Big Bang theory - certainly far more compelling than your ever-eternal sky-daddy - but the matter is not yet settled.

I do not have to pretend that I have an answer to EVERYTHING. Certainly I find your answers to be utterly ridiculous but that does not mean that there may not be another answer which science has yet to discern. The matter is still under consideration at this point in time as far as I am concerned.

Now do you get it?

Does this mean you are open to the existence of a Deist God?