Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[polymath257]

But if there was no beginning, then the time interval between any two *actually existing* times is always finite.

So what ? In an eternal past, there are infinitely many segments of finite time. 

Yes, I am talking about an *actually infinite* past. In other words, that there i no beginning. In other words, that there is an infinite regress of causes.

Why would *that* imply we 'could never get here'?

Because if there is no finite past, there can't be a present moment. An actually infinite past will take an infinite amount of wait by definition. Waiting infinitely for X means that X never happens, period.

Give a detailed argument why there could not be an infinite past that doesn't simply claim that we could not 'get here' without an argument *why* we couldn't.

In particular, when you say we couldn't 'get here', exactly *from where* are you saying it is impossible?

Precisely, because there is no *from where*. There is no starting point when we assume an infinite past. You can't just pick a moment and start with it, if you do that, you are not talking about an actual infinity any more, you will be considering the past a potential infinity, just like numbers. It's as if you skip all the (infinitely many) negative numbers and start from 0, false.

---

Which means that the 'God Hypothesis' is inherently untestable. And *that* is enough to disqualify it as a reasonable explanation of anything.

The God hypothesis is not empirical by definition. Testability/falsifiability/explanatory power criteria can only be applied to empirical hypotheses.

Why is that? It seems to me that it can be applied to pretty much any hypothesis.

For example, mathematics is not an empirical endeavor. But testability and falsifiability is a part of it: the goal is to prove things from a recognized set of axioms. if the rules of deduction are violate, the claim (of a proof) is invalidated and the problem remains open.

In order to be a 'truth claim' at all requires that there be some collection of principles that allow one to discard falsehoods. That in and of itself is a form of testability. So, if I say that Thor exists, is there a way to show that wrong if, in fact, it is wrong? if not, then it can't even be said to have a truth value at all.

---

If a mundane (inside the world) explanation is possible, why would a non-mundane one be required? It's like saying that angels are guiding the planets in such a way that it *looks* like there is gravity.

Because the world in itself warrants a cause. Angels guiding planets isn't exactly the same as the designer of the universe. Angels didn't cause the existence of planets, they are a simple substitute (or a complement) to natural laws. God, on the other hand, is posited as a lawgiver.

I disagree. First, all causality we have ever seen has been *inside* of the universe. hence, it is reasonable to assume that is always the case. Empirically, it is certainly correct.

The angels cause the motion of the planets in my scenario. As such, the fact that there are alternatives shows the hypothesis to be unnecessary.

in regard to evolution, the fact that mutation and natural selection are enough to explain the observed variations is enough to show that the 'God Hypothesis' is unnecessary to explain the diversity of life. And that shows that beautiful fish *cannot* be evidence of a deity.

Yes, God is posited as a 'law giver', but through what process does that happen? What more fundamental law allows for such a lawgiver to exist? And how does a mere postulation of such a lawgiver show that such a thing actually exists? The evidence has to come about *without* assuming the existence ahead of time. otherwise you simply have a circular argument.