That's the question. A 5D quantum vacuum can be thermodynamical timeless and infinite in extent. — Hillary

sorry but I'm layman for these things.

But what about a universe with a beginning and no end? — Hillary

I think it's logically possible because time moves forwards, meaning events add up to finite number rather than infinite number which is the case for universe without beginning.

Why is that logically impossible? — Hillary

Universe without a beginning means a universe with infinite past events, which means there is no space for new event to add up to infinite number of events.

I never asserted the idea of an infinite universe. — Jackson

Therefore we agree universe has a cause, that is a beginning?

Please explain. There is nothing inherently contradicting. — Jackson

See video and problem of Hillbert's hotel

Infinite time and space can have a beginning on one side. — Hillary

Yes, indeed, but this would imply that universe has a beginning but no end, which is logically possible, however saying that there is no beginning is logically impossible.

Events don't have to be quantified by an ordering system. — Jackson

Of course they do, how else would you count the number of past events?

So I never would say infinity exists — Jackson

infinity indeed does not exist - it's unreal, and so is the idea of infinite universe.
My video explains the problem pretty well, I suggest you watch it.

I think of time as indeterminate here. Not "infinite" but "indeterminate." — Jackson

What do you mean by time is "intermediate", we are talking about number of past events.
how many past events (of the universe) are there?

how do you add to infinity please?
or how do you add an event to infinite amount of events?
This is the problem of Hillbert's hotel.

:up:

The issue in it's core is the following:

1. Universe is infinite
2. therefore the number of past events in history is infinite
3. therefore there is no space for any further events because infinity can't be used in mathematical operations. (Hillbert hotel problem)
4. Therefore universe is not infinite, that is it has a beginning and thus cause.

Can you tell me? Not watching the video. — Jackson

If the universe did not have a beginning, then the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But that’s a problem because the existence of an actually infinite number of past events leads to absurdity. It’s metaphysically impossible.

No beginning, no origin. — Jackson

Which is absurd and here is why:

If the universe was not caused then it is not self--caused. — Jackson

If the universe is not caused nor self-caused then what is it? eternal?

Not correct. A finite past with initial conditions entails existing at all times. — Relativist

A "finite past" means it's caused at some finite point, you're contradicting yourself.

Why does the universe have to be caused? Not rhetorical. We know there is a universe, so why does it have to have a cause. — Jackson

because self-causation is unreal.

To be clear, I'd define "eternal" as existing at all times - which does not require an infinite past. — Relativist

existing at all times = eternal = infinite
correct?
if not what do you mean?

Reality didn't come into existence.

If material reality is the totality of reality, then it exists uncaused, and at all times. — Relativist

Right, "IF", but what is your argument for eternal universe.

God is creator of all things
Light is energy and thus created
Therefore God cannot be light

Furthermore light can not create anything

One way to think about nothingness is to associate it with randomness. Things occur without without being caused by prior events. — Jackson

randomness requires things to manifest random behavior, nothing does not require anything since nothing is not-a-thing.

nothing doesn't even require a creator, because it's not a thing.
nothing just exists as nothing.

My argument is that is has never been proven. It is just a tenet. — Jackson

The fact that never anything come from nothing is proof of itself. don't you think?

Nice, it implies that existence of universe without a supreme being is inexplicable and holds no ground
https://theresidenttheologianblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/16/on-the-existence-of-god-leibniz-contingency-argument/

But I don't see how his argument is against "nothing comes from nothing"

Ah, why is there something rather than nothing?
Because of God.
Awesome reason indeed! :up:

Your "proof" depends on the assumption that, in the absence of a god, nothingness should be expected. Can either of you defend that assumption? — Relativist

Yes, because, nothing comes out of nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing

The universe can exist without being caused. — Jackson

Only if universe is eternal, that is exists since ever, there is no beginning and no end.
This is infinite regress which is not a solution to any problems.

Hegel brought this to my attention. The ancient greeks asked what the nature of God is. The Christians (Moderns) made God into a proposition about whether God exists or not. — Jackson

It's easy to construct argument about God's existence, but existence and presence of God is 2 fold thing.
1 ) Argument about God only, ex. philosophical argument of O-O-O God
2.) Revelation of God, ex. scriptures.

Issues with No. 2 are motives behind scriptures since we know scriptures are man made texts, what were their motives, divine revelation or ancient wisdom is beyond our ability to prove.

I find your argument in OP compelling because, the only thing that could make it wrong is biological phenomena of how intelligent life come to existence, out of water.

A good thing is that life out of water can't be reproduced with all the technological advancements we have.

I think it's either biological phenomena or God, but how to construct arguments on these 2 hypothesis is beyond my imagination.

God explains why there is existence. — Jackson

Ah, why is there something rather than nothing?
Because of God.
Awesome reason indeed! :up:

Theological arguments assume existence must have a cause. — Jackson

what? how?

But also, the falacious argument that existing is better than not existing, there fore God exists. — Jackson

I think existing is better than not existing is subjective because:
A person having trouble living life will favor non existence, while a person living in welfare will favor existence.

That than which nothing greater can be conceived. — Jackson

the meaning here is that, God is a superior being, a superior being mean there is no grater because if it is then a being that is grater is God rather than inferior being.

so the eternal gods could watch them over and over again — Hillary

One problem is that big bang is modern theory of universe, therefore a God which is the creator of big bang (or a series of big bangs) does not fit into any of the revelations about God that we have today.

In other words with such hypothesis you're creating a new religion.

Our Sun (the star) will eventually die out, therefore we (planet Earth) is doomed for certain at some point if the far future.

Proofs of God are deductive because one has to start already believing God exists — Jackson

I don't agree, proof of God (ex. philosophical) doesn't require belief but rather logical set of premises that lead to logical conclusion.

My favorite is Anselm's argument.

-The universe is made from non-intelligent dead basic material
-Dead, non-intelligent basic material can't bring itself into existence. It's simply not smart enough.
-Conclusion: intelligent gods have brought the basic material into existence. They are the reason of existence, whatever that reason might have been. — Hillary

Awesome argument.
But how do you deal with theory of evolution?

Theory of evolution claims life come out of water, which is a non intelligent material.
If we exclude animals and humans and assume there is none for now, then plants are living but non-intelligent.

if god(s) are as great as we think they are, they should be able to do the impossible!!! — Agent Smith

God can not do what is logically impossible, such as making 1 + 1 = 3

I'm not expert in definitions but I think philosophy of religion considers wide range of religions including all concepts of religion such as faith, dogma, God etc.
Theology on another hand is only about specific religion and only about dogma or doctrine based on scriptures.

I am morally superior to any god who promotes slavery, genocides, gender and social inequality, eternal punishment for finite crimes, who accuses his creations for his screwups for not foreseeing how scarce and competitive environments enable bad behavior, human sacrifice, bigotry.
I am not just far more moral than you made up god, I am also far more educated to know human biology and behavior.
So when the time comes he will be in a big trouble. He will have to give answers for his stupidity, his immorality and his ignorance to me..... — Nickolasgaspar

Therefore please lay down your life so that I can start to believe what you say.

Preferably do it by crucifixion so that I can watch crows pecking you during 3-5 day period, which is approx. time that crucified persons spent on the cross, if you didn't know that.

And during that time you're supposed to keep saying how morally perfect you are so that no one gathered stops believing your words :wink:

-"morally superior to whom? "
-to the god of the bible... — Nickolasgaspar

Then why don't you lay down your life for all of us in the name of moral perfection? if you're morally superior.
It shouldn't be that hard.

...not an argument. — Nickolasgaspar

how is fabrication an argument?

-because I am morally superior. — Nickolasgaspar

morally superior to whom?

I reject god and I can fix mistakes — universeness

Really? I think you misunderstood, how do you reconcile with God if you reject God for good?

Just type 'Adams first wife Lilith,' into a search engine. You will get plenty about her. — universeness

In the Hebrew bible mate!Adam was "married" twice! — Nickolasgaspar

hah right, and I'm santa claus.

- If I reject god will be his fault because he was unable to provide the evidence needed to convince me. — Nickolasgaspar

Why would creator have to do what creation says? or why would parent listen to commandments of a child?

His first wife Lillith was a rebel as well. Eve was its second attempt and she was a rebel too. — universeness

I have no idea where did you get that from...

So why are you threatened with punishment and judgment if you don't make the choices your god requires? How can this god give you freedom of choice and then punish you for eternity if you choose to use that choice to reject god? — universeness

rejecting God is one thing, making wrong choices is unrelated:
if I make a wrong choice I can fix it.
if I reject God then I gave up my freedom because I can no longer fix my mistakes.

God must have made the snake and allowed it to tempt Eve. — universeness

The snake is the devil embodied, and we know (according to scriptures) that God did not create the devil, instead God created an angel who later desired to be God and so he was cast out of heavens.

Yes it did make people flawed. god is described as omniscient so original sin was part of its design.
Free will cannot exist if the omnis are true. — universeness

God surely knew what would happen with Adam and Eve, no doubt about that, but A&E freedom is not contradictory to God's omnis.

God could have prevented A&E trouble with the snake, but then there would be no true freedom for A&E.
Freedom of free will clear - it's my own, and my own only choice - not up to anyone else but me.

What you're saying is that God's omnis should have prevented him giving freedom to people which is contradictory to his omnipotent dimension.
Giving such an absolute freedom to people is not contradictory to omnibenevolence either because God didn't condemn A&E for good. people still have the freedom of choice to fix the problem if they so desire.

Yes but that does not imply that a man cannot copulate with other women during that period. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

it can, but there is a big "but"...

1. other females may already be conceived by other males, I mean any further copulation would bring no benefit for reproduction or survival.
Copulation is possible whether a female is conceived or not, by both male and female.
2. if other females are already conceived by other males then copulation will likely result in failure since the male is evolutionary close to female during that 9 moth period providing protection for embryo during 9 month period.

We are talking about humans here, but I also take into account animals and how evolution and reproduction is supposed to naturally work, among humans it's not all the same as with animals but the point is almost the same.

Taking into account that people do the thing whenever possible is not according to evolution or how it's supposed to be, if you understand what I mean?

Women are more necessary in biological terms than men. So, they somehow have to have more chance of survival. Reason being that a woman can have 1 child in a year, while a man can have more than 1. So, women are more important for survival of the human species. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

This would be true if humanity faced an extinction, but this is far from being the case. — SpaceDweller

The thing is that nature does not distinguish very well between having an extinction or not. Evolution itself is not intelligent — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

your men\women ratio includes 2 things:
1.) reproduction
2.) sex

... And you seem to imply because female requires 9 months to finish procreation that male needs to wait 9 months or look for other female else were.
Which is not evolutionary correct, sex is possible within all 9 months of procreation phase.

Otherwise your point is that 9 months required for procreation is too long compared to male's job therefore female is of more worth.
Which is also false because evolutionary male is supposed to protect female during that 9 months period.

That could be one of the reasons He very rarely intervenes, despite our earnest prayers, in the affairs of humans (we're not even alive to Him). — Agent Smith

Pretty much true, but it's more correct to say: "we're not godly enough to Him"

Well you better prove first that such entities are real — Nickolasgaspar

the snake is from my understanding evil (the devil) embodied, ex. not literarily a snake.

But then even if one does not believe in God or the devil, one can not deny the presence of good and evil.

The point being, it's up to you (or anyone) to choose their side, not up to God\devil or good\evil.
That's the whole point of freedom or free will or the story of garden of Eden.