The absolute absurdity of God

[Mister Agenda]

You are welcome to interact with my syllogism I wrote above (which I think addresses your point). 

Deductive Argument:

1. The cause is past-eternal
2. The effect (the universe) is not past-eternal 
3. The cause exists prior to the effect (from 1-2)
4. If a cause is sufficient to produce its effect then if the cause is there, so is the effect.
5. The cause-->effect was not deterministic (from 3-4)
6. A mind with intention (libertarian free will) is the only completely non-deterministic cause
7. Therefore the cause is a mind with intention (personal).

1. There doesn't seem to be much need for it to be past-eternal, but if it is, there is the obvious problem with past-infinites that many take it as a brute fact that if anything is past eternal it is impossible to ever get to the present. I have a counter-intuition that there has to a present at some point, and now is as good a time as any; but that is also a premise I can't support any further. In any case, 1. could be a 'causeless cause' without being past eternal (or personal).
2. The current cosmos is not past-eternal, but to the best of our knowledge it is a transformation of a previous state and what came before that is a mystery. If 1. can be past-eternal, so can the universe, in the broad sense of something having always existed in some form. It may have existed statically forever until something changed (causeless cause), have undergone many transformations, etc. The alternative to something existing is 'philosophical nothingness' which strikes me as an incoherent concept.
3. Within the universe, that's how it works. But it is a fallacy of composition to assume that the way things work within the universe is the way things worked prior to the universe. Just because a wall is made of indestructible bricks doesn't mean the wall is indestructible. Cause proceed effect within the universe, but even then there seem to be exceptions on the quantum level, where events can occur without a proceeding cause, according to quantum mechanics. And the state of the universe prior to the initial expansion was small enough for quantum affects to apply, according to the available evidence and (I'm told) the math.
4. I see no problem with this one.
5. 1-3 were a mess in my opinion, so I can't agree that this has been proven.
6. This is an additional premise/unsupported assertion.
7. You might as well have dumped 1-5 and started with 6 and you'd have just as good a case.

[SteveII]

Yes, it is proven to be impossible. By logic. If there are infinite series of events in the past, we could never have gone through them one after another to get to the current event. At any step in the series, there would always be an infinite more events that needed to be traversed. 

Zeno proved nothing. His examples were dividing. We are talking about addition: one event added at a time in a series. 

Saying a past infinite may still be possible is a high intellectual price to pay in an argument. That's why most back away and claim the universe is a brute fact. Not that we don't know the explanation, but there is no explanation.

Then present the proof, in formal logic. I am prepared to be amazed and for you to make history. As I predicted, so far you've only assumed your conclusion, essentially 'a past infinite is impossible, therefore a past infinite is impossible'. That's what accepting it as a brute fact means. You've started and stopped at your premise and proven nothing.

I'm not sure where you think there is an objection that you can defend. 

1. An event is a change in a real object
2. From any point in the past, there is a finite amount of events to the present and can be counted down en...e3...e2...e1...e0(now).
3. If there are an infinite amount of events in the past, we could never count down from infinity to e3...e2...e1...e0 because there would always be an infinite amount of events that would still have happened on the leading edge of the series.
4. With an infinite series of past events we could never arrive to the present. 
5. Therefore an actual infinite series of past events is impossible.

[pocaracas]

Then present the proof, in formal logic. I am prepared to be amazed and for you to make history. As I predicted, so far you've only assumed your conclusion, essentially 'a past infinite is impossible, therefore a past infinite is impossible'. That's what accepting it as a brute fact means. You've started and stopped at your premise and proven nothing.

I'm not sure where you think there is an objection that you can defend. 

1. An event is a change in a real object
2. From any point in the past, there is a finite amount of events to the present and can be counted down en...e3...e2...e1...e0(now).
3. If there are an infinite amount of events in the past, we could never count down from infinity to e3...e2...e1...e0 because there would always be an infinite amount of events that would still have happened on the leading edge of the series.
4. With an infinite series of past events we could never arrive to the present. 
5. Therefore an actual infinite series of past events is impossible.

There are countable infinities... that alone destroys your point 2.

[SteveII]

I'm not sure where you think there is an objection that you can defend. 

1. An event is a change in a real object
2. From any point in the past, there is a finite amount of events to the present and can be counted down en...e3...e2...e1...e0(now).
3. If there are an infinite amount of events in the past, we could never count down from infinity to e3...e2...e1...e0 because there would always be an infinite amount of events that would still have happened on the leading edge of the series.
4. With an infinite series of past events we could never arrive to the present. 
5. Therefore an actual infinite series of past events is impossible.

There are countable infinities... that alone destroys your point 2.

Not with real objects (1). Premise 2 still intact.

[pocaracas]

There are countable infinities... that alone destroys your point 2.

Not with real objects (1). Premise 2 still intact.

Define real and object.
Can you say that spacetime is a real object? how?

[SteveII]

Not with real objects (1). Premise 2 still intact.

Define real and object.
Can you say that spacetime is a real object? how?

I mean concrete objects (object with a physical referent or having the ability to affect objects with a physical referent) versus abstract objects (everything else).  

Spacetime is a mathematical model. Not a concrete object.

[pocaracas]

Define real and object.
Can you say that spacetime is a real object? how?

I mean concrete objects (object with a physical referent or having the ability to affect objects with a physical referent) versus abstract objects (everything else).  

Spacetime is a mathematical model. Not a concrete object.

And yet, evidence suggests that spacetime can generate concrete objects...
How do you wrap your head around this fact?

[Neo-Scholastic]

1. An event is a change in a real object
2. From any point in the past, there is a finite amount of events to the present and can be counted down en...e3...e2...e1...e0(now).
3. If there are an infinite amount of events in the past, we could never count down from infinity to e3...e2...e1...e0 because there would always be an infinite amount of events that would still have happened on the leading edge of the series.
4. With an infinite series of past events we could never arrive to the present. 
5. Therefore an actual infinite series of past events is impossible.

The classical arguments of Necessary Being and Prime Mover work regardless of whether the universe had a temporal starting point or receeds into an infinite past.

“The members in an essentially order sequence exist because of ontologically dependency. This stands in contrast to a temporal and accidental series. Gavin Kerr illustrates the ontological relationship as (v-->(w-->(x-->y)))  and a temporal series as (v-->w)-->(w-->x)-->(x-->y).*  Remove the unchanged changer/first cause/necessary being and all dependent members of the essentially ordered series disappear. Thus every essentially ordered series is sustained by a first member…footnote: Aquinas's Way to God, The Proof in De Ente et Essentia by  Gavin Kerr.” – taken from archived debate

[SteveII]

I mean concrete objects (object with a physical referent or having the ability to affect objects with a physical referent) versus abstract objects (everything else).  

Spacetime is a mathematical model. Not a concrete object.

And yet, evidence suggests that spacetime can generate concrete objects...
How do you wrap your head around this fact?

Sounds fishy that a mathematical model can affect anything in the real world. Links?

[pocaracas]

And yet, evidence suggests that spacetime can generate concrete objects...
How do you wrap your head around this fact?

Sounds fishy that a mathematical model can affect anything in the real world. Links?

Didn't I already show you this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation