Terrible Atheist Argument #1

[Ryantology]

Ryantology, your post was refreshing to read.

But what does "has not been established" mean? Do you expect scientists to get photographic evidence of the finitude of the past? Perform experiments to prove it? Show that a past-finite regress is logically necessary? Have atoms rearrange themselves to say "Past-finite-regress?"

I don't know, but it's not up to me to establish whether there is an ultimate beginning or not, because I'm not making the claim of a first cause.

The vagueness of your criteria makes me skeptical. It also raises the question of whether it is even relevant- perhaps one does not need to "establish" a past-finite chain at all, but merely to show that it's more rational to believe in finitude than infinitude. So why must finitude be established?

The vagueness of my criteria is an unfortunate consequence of the vagueness of the concept we're discussing. I can't help that.

I'm not particularly interested in whether someone can rationalize the concepts necessary for this idea to work, because there's virtually no solid ground upon which to build a rational argument. Those who want to believe in God will simply invent out of whole cloth whatever they require to make an argument that convinces themselves.