God Must Exist: Infinite Regression is Impossible

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

First off, by "universe", I mean all physical reality govern by natural law. This would include universes that we know/don’t know about.

1. If God does not exist, then the universe is past eternal.

Justification: We know that the universe exist, and if there is no transcendent supernatural cause, then either

A. the universe either popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing.
B. OR, it has existed for eternity.

I think we can safely remove posit A from the equation (unless there is someone who thinks it is a plausible explanation).

Let’s focus on posit B.

Based on posit B, we need not provide any naturalistic explanation as to the cause of our universe, considering the fact that the term “universe” applies (as mentioned earlier) to all physical reality, which means that any naturalistic explanation one provides is already accounted for as “eternal”.

And if God does not exist, then physical reality (the universe) is all there is, and thus must be eternal.

2. If the universe is not past eternal, then God exists.

Justification: If the universe (all physical reality) is NOT eternal, then it had a beginning.

Since natural law (mother nature) cannot logically be used to explain the origin of its own domain, then an external, supernatural cause is necessary.

If “nature” had a beginning, one cannot logically use nature to explain the origin of nature, and to do so is fallacious.

So, where nature stops, supernatural begins.

3. The universe is not past eternal.

Justification: If the universe is past eternal, then the causal chain of events (cause and effect) within the universe is infinite. But this is impossible, because infinity cannot be traversed or “reached”.

If the past is eternal, that would mean that there are an infinite amount of “days” which lead to today. But in order for us to have “arrived” to today, an infinite amount of days would have to be traversed (one by one), which is impossible, because infinite cannot be “reached”.

Consider thought analogy..

Sandman analogy: Imagine there is a man who is standing above a bottomless hole. By “bottomless”, of course if one was to fall into the hole, he would fall forever and ever and ever.

Now, imagine the man is surrounded by an infinite amount of sand, which is at his disposal.

Imagine if the man has been shoveling sand into this hole for an infinite amount of time (he never began shoveling, or he never stopped shoveling, he has been shoveling forever).

Imagine if the man’s plan was to shovel sand into the hole until he successfully filled the sand from the bottom, all the way to the top of the hole.

How long will it take him to accomplish this? Will he ever accomplish this task? No. Why? Because the sand is bottomless, so no matter how fast he shoveled, or how long he shoveled, the sand will never reach the top.

So lets put it all together…

The sand falling: Represents time travel, and the trajectory of the sand falling south of the top represents time traveling into the past, which is synonymous with past eternity.

The man shoveling: Represents the “present”, as the man is presently shoveling without halt. This is synonymous with our present causal reality. We are presently in a state of constant change, without halt.

Conclusion: If the sand cannot reach the bottom of the hole (because of no boundary/foundation) and it can’t be filled from the bottom-up to the present (man), then how, if there is no past boundary to precedent days, how could we have possibly reached the present day…if there is/was no beginning foundation (day).

However, lets say a gazillion miles down the hole, there is a foundation…then the hole will be filled in a finite amount of time, and it will be filled from the bottom-up.

But ONLY if there is a foundation.

Likewise, we can only reach today if and ONLY IF there is a beginning point of reference, a foundation in the distant past.

4. Therefore, an Uncaused Cause (UCC) must exist: As explained, infinite regression is impossible, so an uncaused cause is absolutely necessary.

This UCC cannot logically be a product of any precedent cause or conditions, thus, it exists necessarily (supplementing the Modal Ontological Argument).

This UCC cannot logically depend on any external entity for it’s existence (supplementing the Modal Ontological Argument).

This UCC is the foundation for any/everything which began to exist, which included by not limited to all physical reality…but mainly, the universe an everything in it.

This UCC would also have to have free will, which explains why the universe began at X point instead of Y point...and the reason is; it began at that point because that is when the UCC decided it should begin...and only a being with free will can decide to do anything.

This UCC would have to have the power to create from nothing (as there was no preexisting physical matter to create from, before it was created).

So, based on the truth value of the argument, what can we conclude of the UCC?

1. It is a supernatural, metaphysically necessary being
2. A being of whom has existed for eternity and can never cease existing
3. A being with the greatest power imaginable (being able to create from nothing)
4. A being with free will, thus, a being with a mind

This being in question is what theists have traditionally recognized as God. God exists.

In closing, I predict the whole "well, based on your argument, God cannot be infinite".

My response to that for now is; first admit the validity of the presented argument, and THEN we will discuss why the objection raised doesn't apply to God.

[Paul of Tarsus]

It depends on how many days we go back. If we go back one hundred days for instance, then we've waited one hundred days to get to the present.

What? Soo, we just completely ignore the infinite amount of days which lead up to the one hundred days to get to the present day?

In my example we go back a finite amount of time, one hundred days. We can go back that far into the past because the duration is finite. You respond by substituting a time you imagine is infinite between a day in the past and the present day. Your mistake there is to assume that a day can be infinitely far back into time. Your assumption can easily be proved false. The time between any two different days at times a and b, respectively, equals |a - b|. Since a and b are specific numbers, the value |a - b| is finite. Therefore, no day can be infinitely in the past. Time doesn't need to start on any day and can be infinite.

"We did not need to traverse an infinite number of days".

contradicts...

"The present is just another point in time out of an infinite number of such points".

That is a blatant contradiction if I've ever seen one.

The two statements are not contradictory regardless of what contradictions you think you've seen. If there are an infinite number of days, and logically there can be an infinite number of days in time as a whole, as I have just proved mathematically the time between any two of them is finite. Traversing an infinite number of days cannot be done because the time between two days is always finite. Now, we can be at any day in an infinite time. To get to that day we don't go from a day an infinite amount of days in the past--there is no such day.

So to summarize, here's where you're going wrong:
1. You assume that if time is infinite there was a day an infinite amount of time ago. This assumption is incorrect because if time is infinite, then there is no and can be no such day.
2. You conclude that if time is infinite there is an infinite amount of time between that day and now. As I have proved, whether time is finite or infinite, no duration is infinite. Between any two days the amount of time is always finite.

Taxi cab fallacy.

I assume you agree that yesterday was traversed to get to today....yet, you want to suddenly get off of the taxi once this same logic is applied to an eternal past...when the same exact logic applies.

As I have explained and proved, any day in the past like yesterday is a finite amount of time ago. From any day in the past, whether time is finite or infinite, the time between two days is finite. We can logically traverse a finite amount of time between any two days. Since in an eternal past there is no day an infinite amount of time in the past, there is no "starting day" to begin our traversing.

That's the age of the universe, not how old it can possibly be. It is possible that there is a physical limit to how old our cosmos or any cosmos can be, but as I have demonstrated, there is no logical limit to how old it can be.

If the past is eternal, why did the universe begin to exist only 14.7 billion years ago? Why not sooner, why not later?

You see, that is all part of the absurdity; the universe had an infinite amount of time to begin to exist, yet it only began to exist a finite time ago.

Do you not see the problem with that?

Yes. The problem with that is that some people apparently cannot understand it. I don't know why the universe is as old as it is, but however old it may be, its age in no way demonstrates that a universe cannot be older than that. I'm fifty nine--is that as old as I could be? Both the cosmos and I and you and everything else gets older every second. A thing's age in no way demonstrates that it could be no older.

"I said I was done.." <---you admitted that you said this.

So again, you said you were done, not I.

I said I was done explaining infinite time to you, and there I was obviously wrong because here I am still trying. I don't know why I do it. I suppose I love teaching math and believe that nobody is hopeless--another assumption where I might be wrong.

[Kenisaw]

I can't speak for Eddie, but it seems to me that your argument here is equivocating a bit on the term 'nothing'.

Saying that two things offset each other is not the same as saying that there is no thing.

This isn't a sleight of hand trick, Historia. It is the literal truth of the reality of the universe. If you brought the entire universe together, it could cancel itself out. Poof. Gone. No more.

Okay, but to even draw this distinction between the state of the universe as it exists now versus it be being "gone" or "no more" is precisely the distinction between "something" versus "nothing," as those terms are normally used.

So, to then say that the universe as it exists now is also "nothing" is to use that term in a non-standard way.

I wasn't using the word in a standard way. I was using it in a mathematical way, a point that was made abundantly clear in my original post on the topic.

I appreciate that fact. But this is precisely the point I made in my initial reply. You're using the term "nothing" in a different sense from how it is being used in Statement A in the OP, and so you are equivocating on the term "nothing."

If you were just making a casual observation about the total energy in a closed universe, that would be one thing. But, as you will recall, you used this observation to support the assertion that Statement A in the OP is "inaccurate." But, since you're equivocating on the term "nothing," your observation here, no matter how mathematically precise it may be, simply cannot logically substantiate that assertion.

The more I think about it, I'd say that the mathematical meaning and the OP meaning ARE exactly the same. Nothing, as in lack of something. Zero means nothing in math, and that is what was being discussed, correct?

So you could say the universe is something from nothing as long as you understand that the something is the nothing broken up into a lot of pieces, like the mathematical equation example I used in my earlier post. What is inaccurate is the idea that the "stuff" in the universe is something that came from outside the universe. It isn't. It's just the universe with the pluses and minuses separated out.

If you want to call the pieces of the universe "something", that's fine

I should hope so, since if the "pieces of the universe" are not "something," then what is?

The universe is something if you'd like, and that "something" is just another state of nothing. Mathematically true, and an accurate description of the reality of the universe.

But this is really just an awkward way of saying that there are two states of existence: either a thing exists, in which case we call it "something," or it does not exist, in which case it is "nothing."

I agree that it is awkward. That doesn't, however make it any less true. This universe as it currently is another state of the nothing that the universe was before it got broken up into pieces.

Did the universe appear as an effect of a cause? Dunno. Did the universe appear uncaused? Dunno. Does there need to be a cause for a universe to appear? Dunno. Can true "nothingness" even actually exist? Dunno (because, if it can't, then you can't have something coming from nothing because nothing is not an actual state in reality). Although we live in a cause and effect universe (thanks to entropy), we have no way of knowing what the rules were before the universe. If entropy is unique to our universe then the idea of cause and effect doesn't mean much, because when the universe appeared it did so under a different set of rules that we know nothing about. Which is why any attempt to "logic" a god into existence is silly, because there is too much missing data on the matter.

First, resorting to atheist sloganeering, like "logic a god into existence," does little except weaken your argument, in my opinion.

Is that an inaccurate statement on my part? I did not write it to offend. I don't think gods exist, and I know of no empirical evidence for the evidence of any god. So in my viewpoint this thread is an attempt to logic a god into existence. You thing there is a god, so you see it as an attempt to show that the god does exist, through logic. I don't see where my statement is an inaccurate slogan.

Second, there is a conceptual difference between God and a god, so using the latter here in an attempt to score some rhetorical points just distracts from whatever point you are trying to make.

In your mind perhaps there is a conceptual difference. Again, I am writing my thoughts, as I see things. I don't see any substantial difference between any of the gods in human history, so I don't see the need to differentiate between them. I want a Buddhist or a Zoroasterist to see that the arguement applies to their god as well.

Finally, and more substantially, you're veering into a straw man argument here.

I appreciate the fact that certain message board symbiotes are likely overstating their argument in this thread, but prominent Christian proponents of these (and other) arguments, like William Lane Craig, are not arguing that we can be certain about how the universe came into existence or whether God ultimate exists. If you imagine they are, then you haven't read them carefully enough.

In the kalam argument, for example, Craig is not setting out to "prove" (in some absolute sense) that God is the cause of the universe. For starters, the argument is supported in large part by an inductive argument from accepted cosmogenic theories, and so his conclusion that the universe has a cause is, at best, only probably true. So too, Craig's concluding conceptual analysis, from which he derives several properties of the cause of the universe (which Venom borrows in the OP), is also clearly an inference to the best explanation, and so does not "prove" the cause is God.

Perhaps we will have to disagree on that. If I was debating prominent Christian proponents here, perhaps you would be right. But I'm not. Even if I were though, I don't think that pointing out pertinent information that wasn't included in something like the Ontological argument is strawmanning. I'm not changing what they are arguing, I am pointing out additional information that has a bearing on the topic. I like it to Craig looking at it narrowly, while I am bringing in the 10,000 foot overview. Perhaps he doesn't see the forest for the trees, as the say.

An example specific to this thread is that I've pointed out that the claim that an MGB is possible is not actually substantiated. Being able to imagine something doesn't make it possible, even if the OP defines it as such. It's not a strawman if the definition is bad, that is just bad defining...

[We_Are_VENOM]

I would agree it is absurd that the universe is infinite.

Props to you for acknowledging this.

That is just as absurd as a god creature being infinite.

Unfortunately, that props couldn't be extended to the next sentence.

Why? Because you are incorrect. Why are you incorrect?

Answer: Because when we say "God" is infinite, we are talking infinite in terms of quality, not quantity.

You do see the difference there, don't you?

The idea that anything infinite could reach a point in its existence that gave rise to this universe is irrational to the core.

Ok, back to the props

Given that the data, and the math, show that this universe did have a beginning, the real question then becomes how did that beginning happen. I replied to Historia earlier today about this. Allow me to copy and past part of that here:

Did the universe appear as an effect of a cause? Dunno. Did the universe appear uncaused? Dunno. Does there need to be a cause for a universe to appear? Dunno.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause".

Do you, or don't you agree with the above premise? Or is the taxi cab fallacy going on here?

Can true "nothingness" even actually exist? Dunno (because, if it can't, then you can't have something coming from nothing because nothing is not an actual state in reality).

Sounds like you've answered your own question to me.

Although we live in a cause and effect universe (thanks to entropy), we have no way of knowing what the rules were before the universe.

If the universe is all physical reality, then what could be "before" the universe?

If entropy is unique to our universe then the idea of cause and effect doesn't mean much, because when the universe appeared it did so under a different set of rules that we know nothing about.

Again, "when the universe appeared" <---implies something was before it.

Either you need one uncaused cause which springed the universe into existence, or you have an infinite regression problem.

Either way, you've got problems here.

Which is why any attempt to "logic" a god into existence is silly, because there is too much missing data on the matter.

Too much missing? We have all the data we need...

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

Sounds like you already acknowledged #2...so from there, the question is; what could give rise to space, time, energy, and matter (STEM)?

The answer cannot lie in the physical realm, because that is precisely what began to exist.

An external cause is needed. It is inescapable.

Not that the logic of the ontological argument, or Kalam, is good anyway. People in this thread have ironically objected to an always existing universe, yet think of nothing of an always existing god being (or the other way around). People in this thread think something as complex as a god can just happen, whereas something simpler like a universe cannot. There is plenty of bad logic to go around".

Um, I don't recall anyone suggesting that God has always existed in time. If that were the case, then sure, the same problem of infinite regression would apply to God.

But no one is suggesting this, though. Thankfully.

The problem with calling the universe popping out of "nothing" absurd is that we don't actually know that it is absurd. No one knows the rules before the universe began, and no one knows what is and isn't possible.

On top of that there are mathematics that show not only is it not absurd, it should be possible for a universe to begin abruptly. Quantum mechanics doesn't have a problem with it. At the same time however, in the interest of intellectual honesty, there is so much we DON'T know that we have no ability to put a level of confidence on all this.

As I stated before, the problem with the universe popping out of nothing is the fact that the state of "nothingness" is selective or deterministic. So why would "nothingness" allow for universes to pop in to being, and not other things? Why not bikes? Money? Apples? Vending machines?

And why did it pop in to being when it did? Why not sooner? Or later?

I addressed this in the OP and I've yet to see a response. Those are in fact legitimate questions if that is the route which is taken.

[We_Are_VENOM]

In my example we go back a finite amount of time, one hundred days.
We can go back that far into the past because the duration is finite.

The only reason you can go back is because you have two points of reference. If the past is eternal, there aren't two points of reference.

What I am trying to get you to understand is; if the past is eternal you would not be able to arrive at any point.

If you were to go back in time and travel the same distance into the past that it took to get to the present...and stop at the point/day of equal distance....what point would you stop at??

Answer; NO POINT.

But, if time has a boundary and you were to do the same thing, you WOULD have a point to stop at, which is how we can determine the age of the universe.

You respond by substituting a time you imagine is infinite between a day in the past and the present day. Your mistake there is to assume that a day can be infinitely far back into time. Your assumption can easily be proved false. The time between any two different days at times a and b, respectively, equals |a - b|. Since a and b are specific numbers, the value |a - b| is finite. Therefore, no day can be infinitely in the past. Time doesn't need to start on any day and can be infinite.

What?? I fail to see how anything you said negates the fact that, if the past is eternal, an infinite amount of hours, minutes, seconds, centuries, millenniums, years, months, days would have to be traversed in order to arrive at any single day.

If you can understand how, in order to arrive at today, tomorrow had to be traversed...if you can understand that, then why are we having this discussion on an infinite amount of days being traversed in order to arrive at today on a past eternal universe.

I just fail to see why this is a point of contention.

The two statements are not contradictory regardless of what contradictions you think you've seen.

Well, I don't expect you to say "Oh, you are right, I blatantly contradicted myself...my bad".

Take it to the grave.

If there are an infinite number of days, and logically there can be an infinite number of days in time as a whole, as I have just proved mathematically the time between any two of them is finite. Traversing an infinite number of days cannot be done because the time between two days is always finite. Now, we can be at any day in an infinite time. To get to that day we don't go from a day an infinite amount of days in the past--there is no such day.

__________________0

^The above represents a timeline, with the line to the left of the 0 representing the past.

0 represents today.

Now, if you were to go back in time and stop at equal distance into past, relative to the distance traveled to get to 0..

What point would you stop at?

Tell me.

And just in case there is any confusion, let me give you a little breakdown..

If you were to travel 10 steps forward...and you were tasked to travel backwards, of equal distance relative to distance you stepped forward...what would you do? Take 10 steps backwards, right?

Because 10 steps backwards is of equal distance relative to steps taken forward (10 steps).

Same concept with the timeline. Tell me what point would you stop at.

So to summarize, here's where you're going wrong:
1. You assume that if time is infinite there was a day an infinite amount of time ago. This assumption is incorrect because if time is infinite, then there is no and can be no such day.

You say that, yet, here we are at today. Makes no sense. If there is no and can be no such day, then we wouldn't be sitting here at today, would we?

2. You conclude that if time is infinite there is an infinite amount of time between that day and now. As I have proved, whether time is finite or infinite, no duration is infinite. Between any two days the amount of time is always finite.

Ok, so based on your logic, you should be able to tell me the point of equal distance...because after all, there is always a finite distance between two points (whether finite, or infinite, according to you), right?

As I have explained and proved, any day in the past like yesterday is a finite amount of time ago. From any day in the past, whether time is finite or infinite, the time between two days is finite. We can logically traverse a finite amount of time between any two days. Since in an eternal past there is no day an infinite amount of time in the past, there is no "starting day" to begin our traversing.

Yeah, but on an infinite timeline, there are an infinite amount of "finite" days...each one would have to be traversed one by one to arrive at any single, discrete day.

Yes. The problem with that is that some people apparently cannot understand it. I don't know why the universe is as old as it is, but however old it may be, its age in no way demonstrates that a universe cannot be older than that.

As I previously stated, it makes no sense as to why, if the deterministic factor of what allowed to the universe to "begin" has existed for eternity, it only begin a finite time ago.

I'm fifty nine--is that as old as I could be? Both the cosmos and I and you and everything else gets older every second. A thing's age in no way demonstrates that it could be no older.

If the past is eternal, then why did you begin to exist 59 years ago? Why not a century ago...or a millennium?

The factors were always in place, yet, you began to exist only 59 years ago? Makes no sense.

I said I was done explaining infinite time to you, and there I was obviously wrong because here I am still trying. I don't know why I do it. I suppose I love teaching math and believe that nobody is hopeless--another assumption where I might be wrong.

Gotcha. Props

[brunumb]

Because when we say "God" is infinite, we are talking infinite in terms of quality, not quantity.

What, pray tell, does infinite in terms of quality actually mean and how was this established as fact?

[We_Are_VENOM]

What, pray tell, does infinite in terms of quality actually mean and how was this established as fact?

"Infinite" in this context is just a blanket term used to cover all of Gods attributes/characteristics (all knowing, all powerful, necessary, etc).

I prefer to use the terms "omnibutes" or "omni-being" to avoid the confusion...but either way, the "infinite" term isn't being used in any mathematical or counting sense..otherwise, the "God" concept would be subjected to the same absurdities that an eternal universe finds itself in.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #85]

Yeah, but on an infinite timeline, there are an infinite amount of "finite" days...each one would have to be traversed one by one to arrive at any single, discrete day.

This is just the countably infinite set again. A number of days (assuming our present definition) maps 1:1 to the set of integers in that it is a countably infinite set. There is defined difference between any two elements and the individual elements can be counted. The number of time intervals within a day maps to the set of real numbers as there are an infinite number of time intervals within a day (the time interval can be made arbitrarily small), so it is an uncountably infinite set.

You can start counting backwards from 0 (today) and the potential number of days would map to the set of negative integers (and 0), so can extend infinitely far back in terms of number of potential days. But the actual number of days that the universe has existed would depend on what "date" you believe it began at. If the universe is 13.7 billion years old, then the number of days you can count into the past is 1.37e10 years * 365.25 days/year (accounting for leap years) = 4.962825e12 days, or about 5 trillion days. If the universe were infinitely old, then the number of days you'd have to count back into the past would also be infinite.

[Paul of Tarsus]

In my example we go back a finite amount of time, one hundred days.
We can go back that far into the past because the duration is finite.

The only reason you can go back is because you have two points of reference. If the past is eternal, there aren't two points of reference.

Actually, whether time is finite or infinite, we have an infinite number of pairs of times we can choose as our beginnings and our ends. For instance, if we choose the present as the end, then one day ago can be the beginning. We can also choose for the beginning 1.1 days ago or 1.11 days ago or 1.111 days ago, and so on. Just append another 1 as the rightmost digit, and you have another beginning. Since you can create as many numbers and hence as many beginnings this way as you wish, then there is no limit to the pairs of numbers you can choose as points of reference to use as beginnings and as ends. And you can do all this in less than two days ago!

So contrary to what you say, not only do we have two reference points for time durations, we have an infinite number of pairs whether time is finite or infinite.

What I am trying to get you to understand is; if the past is eternal you would not be able to arrive at any point.

No. As time progresses, we arrive at points in time continually, and we do so whether time is finite or eternal. Clocks will tick away not caring if the past is eternal or not, and neither will those ticking clocks care if apologists tell them they cannot tick.

If you were to go back in time and travel the same distance into the past that it took to get to the present...and stop at the point/day of equal distance....what point would you stop at??

Answer; NO POINT.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Can you post an example?

But, if time has a boundary and you were to do the same thing, you WOULD have a point to stop at, which is how we can determine the age of the universe.

If the universe has an age, then time is finite. Logically, however, the universe doesn't need to be a finite age. I think you may be confusing the possible with the actual. If time is actually finite, that fact in no way proves that time must be finite. It's still logically possible that time is infinite.

You respond by substituting a time you imagine is infinite between a day in the past and the present day. Your mistake there is to assume that a day can be infinitely far back into time. Your assumption can easily be proved false. The time between any two different days at times a and b, respectively, equals |a - b|. Since a and b are specific numbers, the value |a - b| is finite. Therefore, no day can be infinitely in the past. Time doesn't need to start on any day and can be infinite.

What?? I fail to see how anything you said negates the fact that, if the past is eternal, an infinite amount of hours, minutes, seconds, centuries, millenniums, years, months, days would have to be traversed in order to arrive at any single day.

I proved that it's nonsense to assume that an infinite amount of time needs to be traversed to get to the present if the past is eternal. If time is infinite, then there was no beginning, and you need a beginning to traverse a span of time.

If you can understand how, in order to arrive at today, tomorrow had to be traversed...

I don't know about you, but in my time I spent yesterday, and I'm still waiting for tomorrow! It sounds like you have time in reverse.

Well, I don't expect you to say "Oh, you are right, I blatantly contradicted myself...my bad".

I'm not going to admit an error I didn't make, but I can see why you might want me to.

__________________0

^The above represents a timeline, with the line to the left of the 0 representing the past.

0 represents today.

Now, if you were to go back in time and stop at equal distance into past, relative to the distance traveled to get to 0..

What point would you stop at?

Tell me.

And just in case there is any confusion, let me give you a little breakdown..

If you were to travel 10 steps forward...and you were tasked to travel backwards, of equal distance relative to distance you stepped forward...what would you do? Take 10 steps backwards, right?

Because 10 steps backwards is of equal distance relative to steps taken forward (10 steps).

Same concept with the timeline. Tell me what point would you stop at.

If we could travel back in time a duration a, and then spent that duration a, we'd be at the time we are at now. What's the point?

If there is no and can be no such day, then we wouldn't be sitting here at today, would we?

We'd be at the present time whether time is finite or eternal. You keep assuming that there was a "day one," but a day one is only necessary if the past is not eternal. You are then assuming what you are trying to prove which is begging the question, an elementary error in reasoning.

2. You conclude that if time is infinite there is an infinite amount of time between that day and now. As I have proved, whether time is finite or infinite, no duration is infinite. Between any two days the amount of time is always finite.

Ok, so based on your logic, you should be able to tell me the point of equal distance...because after all, there is always a finite distance between two points (whether finite, or infinite, according to you), right?

What is a point of equal distance?

Yeah, but on an infinite timeline, there are an infinite amount of "finite" days...each one would have to be traversed one by one to arrive at any single, discrete day.

No, there is no day an infinite time ago in an infinite past, so time in an eternal past has no beginning. The idea of "traversing" an eternal past is nonsense because there was no beginning to start from!

If the past is eternal, then why did you begin to exist 59 years ago? Why not a century ago...or a millennium?

I could have been born at those times in an eternal universe, so I fail to see your point.

So to review, your major error is your assumption that there had to be a first day in time. If I say the past can be eternal, you cling to that assumption not able to comprehend how a time span that began on a day an eternity ago can be "traversed" to get to the present. If you drop the assumption of a first day, then the pieces should fall into place. If there was no first day, then no eternity was traversed to get to the present, and time can be infinite into the past.

Besides, as I have explained, to assume a first day is begging the question because by assuming a first day, you assume what you are supposed to prove.

[brunumb]

What, pray tell, does infinite in terms of quality actually mean and how was this established as fact?

"Infinite" in this context is just a blanket term used to cover all of Gods attributes/characteristics (all knowing, all powerful, necessary, etc).

I prefer to use the terms "omnibutes" or "omni-being" to avoid the confusion...but either way, the "infinite" term isn't being used in any mathematical or counting sense..otherwise, the "God" concept would be subjected to the same absurdities that an eternal universe finds itself in.

And how was it established that God actually had any of those attributes? Or is it just a case of wishful thinking?

[We_Are_VENOM]

And how was it established that God actually had any of those attributes? Or is it just a case of wishful thinking?

We are to the point where the same question is being asked in different ways.

See P1 of the argument and your question is answered.