Apologetics open challenge

[Mystic]

I still don't understand what it's supposed to mean. Are you saying each point in time is created as a result of the previous point in time? Or someone is creating each point? I really don't know.

Just that each point of time came to being (past to present). So all points of time must come to being. So that all of time must of came into being.

[robvalue]

Time is an abstract concept, though. I don't know what it even means for it to come into being. Coming into being is itself a temporal description... are you saying there is some other timeline behind our timeline?

As for the infinite past, I'm not claiming there is an infinite past, I just don't see any grounds to rule it out yet.

[Mystic]

Would you agree each point of change in the universe came to be?

[robvalue]

Time is what use to measure things coming to be. It's an abstract concept we create in order to build models. Time moves forward, generally, yeah, again abstractly. I don't see any reason to try and guess what might be "behind" it all, if anything.

I don't claim to have the answers. I don't have any. I am simply suspicious of arguments that try to show very simply what all of science cannot fathom.

[Esquilax]

Would you agree each point of change in the universe came to be?

I don't think any of us could state an answer to that, honestly: there were plenty of points of time that we can't even properly measure, yet. The theistic need for definite, declarative statements from which to hang their arguments from ignorance will have to wait, I'm afraid.

[robvalue]

If nothing else comes of this, I'm really impressed a point was actually conceded. It's a big deal! I've seen some members here stubbornly refuse to concede any point ever even when the irrefutable evidence that they are wrong is dangled in front of them.

Being prepared to change your mind based on new arguments and evidence is what is important.

[Mystic]

Ok you said time seems to move forward. Can we say then at least say time appears to have came to being even if it's not a certainty due to it's abstract nature (I'm not saying it's not for certain, just saying this for the sake of argument)?

[Mystic]

If nothing else comes of this, I'm really impressed a point was actually conceded. It's a big deal! I've seen some members here stubbornly refuse to concede any point ever even when the irrefutable evidence that they are wrong is dangled in front of them.

Being prepared to change your mind based on new arguments and evidence is what is important.

Thanks for your kind words.

[ignoramus]

My old classic.

Jesus was a man
Stimbo is a man
Therefore Stimbo is blown out of Min's arse!

Sorry Stim, just trying to get a point across, your name came up.

There is no evidence for your initial premise.

You are correct once again Min.
How about this one.

If Jesus could've been a man
And Stimbo could've been a man
Then Stimbo may have been a couldabeen?

[Pyrrho]

I thought if the word. Sound. Yeah? The argument can be sound, but the conclusion may be invalid.

You might want to review your logic terms:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/tvs.html

A sound argument necessarily has a true conclusion.  A sound argument is defined as a deductively valid argument whose premises are all true.