(May 30, 2020 at 11:40 pm)brokenreflector Wrote: First explanation. Ultimately, nonbeing produced being. The problem with this explanation should be obvious. How could nonbeing produce being? What would be producing it? Nonbeing is the absence of any kind of existence.
Second explanation. Something is past-eternal. This something could be the universe, multiverse, or one of its constituents. Or it could be something else entirely. Let's call it X. X would need to exist and there was never a point where the proposition "X exists" was false.
False dichotomy.
It is entertaining that you think an eternal deity is a more logically sound explanation than being arising from non-being. Have you considered the possibility that the beginning of the universe is almost certainly going to be counterintuitive and that you really ought to stop trying to apply common sense to the least common of events? If you ask meaningless questions you get answers like "42" or "God".
And I really wish that you lot could find something more interesting than reheated Craig to annoy us with.
