Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
You don't like "event"? Fine. We'll use linear time (ALL time is linear and there isn't a SHRED of evidence of ANY "time" that isn't linear). There CANNOT be an ACTUAL infinite amount of days PRIOR to the present day we are currently experiencing. For if there WERE an ACTUAL infinite amount of days PRIOR to this day, then no more days could be ADDED. If you can ADD a finite number of days *TO* an ACTUAL infinite (not a POTENTIAL infinite) number of days, then the past number of days cannot be ACTUAL. Notice we're dealing with LINEAR TIME (if you're going to argue for a nonlinear view of time and that our universal experience of time is an illusion, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that). Hence, there CANNOT be any ACTUAL infinite amount of ANY linear sequence of time prior to now. Hence, the universe CANNOT be eternal because the universe *IS* time, space and matter. No infinity of time in the past = No infinity of the universe in the past (that is, unless you can demonstrate that linear time is an illusion AND that you can have a naturalistic universe WITHOUT linear time).
Three problems:

1) The past does not exist as an "actuality." So the set of past days is not "actual" whether it is finite or infinite, so no problem exists.

2) Your assertion implies that time cannot be continuous because if time is continuous, then there are an infinite number of moments between any two points in time and a second would represent an actual infinity of moments.

3) Your arguments are highly speculative and prove nothing. They are obviously self-serving. The only reason you push them is because you think they support what you want to believe. You would be arguing the opposite if you thought it supported your case for God.

Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
Another argument against an eternal universe shows that EVEN IF THERE COULD BE AN ACTUAL INFINITE NUMBER OF DAYS, such a sequence COULD NEVER BE TRAVERSED to reach the present moment. For example, if you asked me for a dollar, and I told you I had to borrow it from someone, who had to borrow it from someone else and down to INFINITY, would you ever get your dollar??? No. An ACTUAL infinite amount of linear time can NEVER be traversed to reach the present moment. And again, no linear time = NO TIME AT ALL (unless you can demonstrate our universal experience of linear time is an illusion).
And I can create any number of paradoxes with your concept of an "eternal, unchanging, timeless, person" you call God. So again, we see you invent arguments to support what you want to believe. It's nothing but an exercise in cognitive bias. It is obvious you are not open to dealing with real logic and facts. You begin with absolutely unsupportable religious dogmas and invent pseudo-logic to support them. Your bias is palpable.

Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
BULLSHIT!!! The BVG theorem = *EVIDENCE* that time, and hence the universe (or even an imaginary "multiverse"), is FINITE in the past.
No it doesn't. It only applies to the tiny little "observable universe" in which we find ourselves. And it applies only if that universe has been in a constant state of expansion (on average). It says nothing about the universe and/or natural laws that gave rise to this universe.

Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
Again, the universe *IS* time, space and matter (an origin of time = An origin of space and matter as well). Craig is NOT misrepresenting Vilenkin. In fact, Vilenkin COMMENDED Craig in an email (which Craig made public on his website) for his ACCURATE representation of his paper! WHOOPS!!! Hell, Vilenkin actually calls the BVG theorem a *PROOF* against a past-eternal universe in his own book Many Worlds In One (page 176)!!!
There you go again. Your triple exclamations reveal your irrational and hysterical state of mind. I can't count the number of times you made demonstrably false and absurd assertions followed by three exclamation points.

Here is what Velenkin said ON THE SAME PAGE of the same book that Craig and you quoted:
Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God… So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist. As evidenced by Jinasena’s remarks earlier in this chapter, religion is not immune to the paradoxes of Creation.
And what were Jinasena's remarks? Here they are in part (from his 9th century writings):
The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected.
If God created the world, where was he before creation? …
How could God have made the world without any raw material? If you say he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression…
Thus the doctrine that the world was created by God makes no sense at all
To think that this kind of speculative philosophy could "prove" or even give "evidence" for a "God" is simply absurd. Philosophers cannot even agree about simple things like morality, epistemology, reality. To think that you could prove the ludicrously ignorant iron age religious dogmas about some gawd that went about abusing women to punish a man is absurd beyond description. The biblegawd acts like a primate who displays power by sexually abusing the women "owned" by the man. In effect, biblegawd was "raping" David in this verse:
Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
This is why it is so absurd to try to prove the existence of the modern sanitized God of philosophy as if it had anything to do with the biblegawd.

Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
At the 2012 state of the universe conference honoring Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday (with Hawking in the building), Vilenkin said "ALL THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE SAYS THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A BEGINNING". Notice he used the word *EVIDENCE*. And a New Scientist editorial on the conference ("In the Beginning", New Scientist, 14 January 2012, page 3) commented ...
Again, that refers only to the tiny little "observable universe" in which we find ourselves. It is absurd in the extreme to draw conclusions about the ultimate origin of everything from our current ignorance. We know almost nothing. But curiously, one thing we do know for sure is that if there is a God, it can't be the immoral and incoherent biblegawd.

Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Your assertion that a timeless God created the universe "ex nihilo" is incoherent for two reasons: 1) You assert that the universe was created by the command of an existing God which is not "nothing".
What are you talking about??? Nobody is saying God is nothing. The argument is God created the universe OUT OF NOTHING (through the causal power of his being). YOU are the one who is left with the idea that nothing created everything, which is LITERALLY the most absurd proposition imaginable.
You missed my point. The "causal power of his being" is not "nothing" so you assertion that God created "out of nothing" is false. Your assertion that God "created out of nothing" means only that he did not create out of previously existing physical material, but rather, he created out of his own power, which is not "nothing."

Why do you even bother with this pseudo-philosophy? Your language and thinking are much too sloppy and you constantly LEAP to conclusions in an entirely unwarranted fashion. You are not a careful thinker.

Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
2) Any act, including the act of the creation of time, entails that time already existed. A timeless being cannot "act" in any way at all. Calling it "simultaneous" entails time and so contradicts your assumption that there was no time.

1) Quantum mechanics DEMONSTRATES that THINGS THAT EXIST (notice I said THINGS THAT EXIST) can have seemingly "bizarre" properties. If the universe ITSELF has seemingly "bizarre" properties, then it's only logical that the SOURCE of the universe (God) would have seemingly "bizarre" properties (given our finite understanding). NOTHING demonstrates that nonbeing can give birth to being. THAT is a logical impossibility.
This exemplifies the ludicrous sophistry of Christian apologists. When asking the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" God must be put on the side of "something" and so his existence demands an explanation every bit as much as everything else. I've known this since I was a child, when I used to enjoy imagining a piece of paper with a line down the middle. On the left was the word "Nothing" and on the right the word "Everything" like this:

NOTHING () vs. SOMETHING (cars, trees, me, TV, God, etc., etc., etc.)

That's the real question. It used to give me a very strange tingling sensation in my brain to contemplate it (at age 7 or so).

But legitimate philosophical questions like that are of no interest (or use) to apologists like you or Craig, so he changed the question to create the ludicrous "Kalam Cosmological Argument" which begins with the blatantly contrived assertion "Whatever begins to exist has a cause." What a freaking BRAIN DEAD MORONIC MOVE! It's so obvious he was trying to remove the question of God's existence from the real question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Any answer to that question would have to include an answer to why God exists. But no one has an answer to that question. The existence of God must be taken as a brute fact. But then people see the same could be said of reality itself, and that wouldn't serve your purposes to prove your primitive ignorant immoral and absurd Iron Age tribal war gawd.

Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
2) There are TRILLIONS of examples where there is NO FLOW OF TIME *BETWEEN* THE CAUSE AND THE EFFECT (where both exist INSTANTLY). One example is a chandelier. Again, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NONLINEAR "TIME". NONLINEAR "TIME" = NO FREAKING TIME (unless you can demonstrate linear time is an illusion). If the causal relationship *BETWEEN* the cause and the effect is INSTANT (as in a chandelier), then there is NO TIME between them.
Philosophers have been terribly confused about the meaning of "causality" for millennia and there is no consensus on the matter. So once again, we see you appealing to speculative and unknowable philosophy in your vain effort to prove your biblegawd. Give it up already. It is an absurd approach that will never convince anyone but those who have chosen to believe without evidence in the first place.