drafterman

Jesus Christ is the hypostasis that unites creation with divinity. The Incarnate Truth. 

Divine nature is very different from created nature.

Then you believe God exists, and simply have an aversion to the word "God".

Okay, but what is the difference between "reality" and "Reality"?

The Ultimate Reality is self existing, Uncreated, eternal. It is a specific reality.

When we speak of a reality that is not God, we are talking about reality that exists contingently, is created, and temporal. 

All reality that is not God is contingent on God. If something exists independent of Ultimate Reality, it is ultimately unreal. It doesn't even exist.

That is not what nihilism is, no.

"That there is no truth; that there is no absolute state of affairs  no 'thing in itself This alone is Nihilism, and of the most extreme kind. " ~Friedrich Nietzsche.

To deny that there is absolute truth is Nihilism in the truest sense.

Nihilism can be best described as the doctrine of negation. In the end, it brings everything to nohing, including itself. It is the prevailing spirit of the modern age, a sort of blind nihilism.

And sure enough, to deny the existence of God is to profess nihilism. It is no strange thing that I am saying.

The Ultimate Reality is not a proposition, but reality as it truly exists in its totality.

If you don't believe in absolute truth, but only believe in relative truths, your belief undermines the veracity of relative truths.

That is nihilism.

It is making specific the reality we are speaking of.

Not "reality", but "Reality".

Not facts, truths, and realities. Reality itself.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

Excuse me for pointing at the Soviet Union as an example of what happens when people who take our faith as mental illness take power. In effect that is what you are doing by dismissing it outright.

Our doctrine is older than the English language. The words we are using right now to communicate are what are new.

What this does is make specific that we are talkimg about what is eternally reality, and not simply temporal reality.

For example, it is true that Donald Trump is the president of The United States. This is reality. 10 years ago, it was not reality. 10 from now it will not be reality.

The Eternal Reality is always true, never not true. It is not a created reality, it is The Uncreated Reality.

The Ultimate Reality is what is meant by God.

The Ultimate Reality exists. By definition it is reality in the truest sense of the word. That which is ultimately real.

There is no reasonable doubt about God's existence.

Startling finding #1 - Subtracting elements from an infinite set does not make it smaller.

Startling finding #2 - Adding infinite sets to infinite sets does not make them any bigger! Infinite sets cannot be reduced OR increased!

Startling finding #3 - Infinite set are all identical. Each element in one infinite set can be paired with elements in another infinite set such that all infinite sets have a 1 to 1 correlation. They are all the same size!

God is the absolute infinite set, with The Father, the son, and the Holy Spirit being proper subsets of the set "God".

All three sets are equal. The same size. Each one is equal to God, exactly in a 1 to 1 correlation with God. God does not diminish by removing one subset, or increase when one subset joins the Godhead.

Infinite subsets of infinite sets have a quality called "reflection", which means they have the same qualities of the original set.

You said there's no rule that says because you cant do certain operations on something doesn't mean it can't be instantiated, the point is not we can't do operations on it, it's that when we try to do operations on infinity the answers are undefined or contradictory.  That's not the case with things that are actually instantiated. Two hundred tomatoes minus 100 hundred tomatoes always equals a hundred tomatoes.

You said the answer isn't logically contradictory, just physically contradictory. What's the difference? How can a contradiction be instantiated no matter what we call it?

It's interesting you bring up Zeno's paradox. Aristotle actually takes my side here in answering that:

For motion…, although what is continuous contains an infinite number of halves, they are not actual but potential halves. (Physics 263a25-27). …Therefore to the question whether it is possible to pass through an infinite number of units either of time or of distance we must reply that in a sense it is and in a sense it is not. If the units are actual, it is not possible: if they are potential, it is possible. (Physics 263b2-5). 

Hmm, that line of reasoning sounds familiar....

You keep saying we can't say anything about the universe beyond a certain point.... What point exactly are you referring too?

That the laws of physics break down may be entirely true, but we're dealing with math and metaphysics at this point, it's just frankly not relevant.

You first said that subtraction is not a valid operation you can perform on infinite quantities. That's exactly my point. That's the whole issue. If a mathematical quantity could be instantiated in the actual world, not just in abstracts, and we couldn't perform a most basic and fundamental operation on it, that becomes a problem very quickly. This is confirmation of my point.

You stated that mathematicians would have to throw out all of set theory if what I said was logically contradictory. Well for starters, what I said is logically contradictory, it's mathematically provable. But more importantly, you have to remember I said there are two types of infinites.

A potential infinite (represented in math by the lemniscate)

An actual infinite (represented by the aleph null

Set theory and things like transfinite arithmetic deal with potential infinites all the time, and there is no logical contradiction or any problem in doing this because they're abstract ideas. Even the aleph null and any operation done on that would be abstract.

The question is can an infinite be exemplified outside of the world of abstracts. When we try to conceive of that, when we try to put them in the space time world, we get logical contradictions as my above operation showed.

You stated my contention with an infinite past only works if I presume some starting point. There is no starting point, and that is exactly the problem. Think of it this way

If we are at zero right now, that means we traversed ALL the negative numbers. Now let zero be the present. And all the negative numbers be past events.

If we're at zero we traversed all past events. If they're infinite that's not possible.

You stated that whatever applies to the past must apply to the future, and if there couldn't be an actual infinity there couldn't be an infinite future. But again, the future is only potentially infinite. One more event can always be added, it's not that we have to traverse one more event that had already been added.

And since God by definition is outside of time, whatever applies to time does not necessarily apply to Him.

In regards to your argument from ignorance analogy, I never stated that we have never seen anything come from nothing, therefore it's not possible, so I'm just going to leave that one off to the side.

It seems to me you seem a little biased against the big bang and relativity. I think this might be the heart of the issue.

So I will ask what model do you personally prefer?

Why are parables and poetry confusing?

Some of the best communicated ideas were given through parables and poetry.

Sure parables and poetry can be confusing, but it seems you want a dialogue on your terms.

Too often the atheist pretends that metaphors, similes, and figures of speech don't exist and feigns confusion. 

If God does exist, it seems highly logical that He would be the ultimate reality, as all reality would have flowed out from Him.

If you do not believe God exists, then OK, but if you allow the possibility, then the most reasonable extended conclusion is mopac's argument that the ultimate truth is God.

If you allow for the possibility of God existing, but deny He is the ultimate truth, why do you refer to Him as God?

That is not what is essential.

You are confused by parables and poetry.

What is essential is that God is The Truth in the realest sense.

1. ronjs started with the claim: "All you have to do is sincerely invite Him in."
   
2. To which I replied: "And then what?"
   
3. To which ronjs continued: "He will let you know what's next."
   
4. And I followed up: "Oh? How long does that usually take? I'm going on 3 decades almost. I hope he decides to do it before I die, since my immortal soul and eternal torment are on the line here."
   

No, I describe God as The Ultimate  Reality.

The Ultimate Reality Is What it Is.

That is God.

The Ultimate Reality is God as I describe it.

If it is both simultaneously true that radioactive isotopes decay without a cause, and we cannot apply the law of physics to the early universe, then there is no reason to apply the facts about radioactive isotopes as being relevant to this discussion in regards to causality and the early universe. Whatever models we have of physics or causality, or lack thereof will not be relevant based on this reasoning, because they, according to you, break down. This sword cuts both ways...

Secondly, you  say that it has not been demonstrated that everything that exists has been actualized by a prior cause... Unless you can empirically provide an example of being coming from non being, or something being actualized from nothing, this is really just an argument from ignorance. What you're in essence arguing in this:

We have not seen every single example of a triangle, therefore the claim triangles have three sides is unproven.

Well that would be fallacious. We don't need to experience every single triangle before we can state they have three sides. It's definitionally true. Whether we accept the axiom or not.

As I argued earlier, the causal principle is confirmed by inference, but it's definitionally true based upon what we are dealing with. Non being cannot bring about being... It's non being.

In regards to premise two, did the universe have a beginning, you seem to have cast doubt on the BGV theorem...I am not a cosmologist so I will grant you this. What we still have though is the second law of thermodynamics.

In short, the universe is rapidly approaching a state of complete entropy. If the universe were eternal, we would have been in that entropy by now. Another way of looking at it, the usable energy in the universe is running out. If the universe were eternal, we would have run out by now.

Now, moving on to the possibility of an actual infinite:

There are several different ways this can be fleshed out, but to be succinct, there are two types of infinity. A potential infinity and an actual infinity. An actual infinity  is never instantiated. There are several reasons:

1. It would lead to absurd and impossible consequences.

Suppose I had a library with an actually infinite number of red and blue books. Now suppose I subtracted all the blue book (an infinite amount) from all the red books (an infinite amount). How many books are left? An infinite amount still.

So in this instance infinity - infinity = infinity.

But now let's say, I subtracted every book greater than 3

How many books do I left? 3.

So in this instance infinity - infinity = 3.

This leads to a logical contradiction

And because logical contradictions cannot be instantiated in reality, it follows an actually infinite series of things, cannot be instantiated. But it gets worse. Suppose for a minute we imagine the universe as past eternal. That would mean that everyday prior to today went on into infinity. If we look at the reverse of this, in order to get to today, there would be an infinite number of past events to traverse.

And that simply isn't possible. There would always be one more event to cross and complete before we could arrive at the present. Which means we would never arrive at the present. But we are in the present. So the number of past events leading up to today was finite. We couldn't traverse an infinite.

Our doctrine is older than the English language. The words we are using right now to communicate are what are new.

What this does is make specific that we are talkimg about what is eternally reality, and not simply temporal reality.

For example, it is true that Donald Trump is the president of The United States. This is reality. 10 years ago, it was not reality. 10 from now it will not be reality.

The Eternal Reality is always true, never not true. It is not a created reality, it is The Uncreated Reality.

The Ultimate Reality is God.

That is all there is to it. 

It is a complete waste of time to try and kill God. In fact, it is in every way harmful. 

Those who kill God are crucifying The Truth itself. Naturally, this is destructive and misguided. In the end though, you can't kill The Truth. 

The Ultimate Reality exists. It is not simply an error to state otherwise, it is a patently idiotic position. The Ultimate Reality is God, and disputing this is in every way an attempt at being subversive to our doctrine. Subversive in the manner that is dismisses it, and isn't capable of knowing it.]]

What does that lead to? Gulags and re-education camps. The classifying of religious belief as mental illness. It leads to my people beimg oppressed, and certainly we have had plenty of that in recent  times.

Not elaborations. Explanations of what these descriptions look like.

I maintain that your interpretation of these "attributes" is superstitious.

The Ultimate Reality is God. If God does not have these attributes, it doesn't change the fact that God exists.

Good atheistic arguments can only at best show what God isn't. It isn't possible to disprove God. It is hardly even readonable to be in doubt about God's existence.

Ok so, I agree with your definition of prove. I think we can work from there. In regards to the beginning two premises:

My understand of spontaneous radioactive decay is that it means nothing external caused the isotope to decay, that doesn't mean there's not an internal cause or explanation.

But even if that wasn't the case, I still don't see this as being relevant to the first premise. The first premise, although it has confirmation from inference, is a metaphysical truth.

And that is being cannot come from non being. Nothing cannot create or actualize something because nothing has no properties and no causal relation to any thing. It's non being.

The decay of isotopes doesn't really negate this principle. So really, this principle is definitionally true. Non being by definition of what it is, has no ability to bring anything into being. No scientific truth or discovery could negate that.

So it seems to me the first premise is definitionally true.

In regards to the second premise, as Dr Franklin alluded to, there are both philosophical and scientific reasons why the universe began to exist.

Firstly, the scientific evidence is there in the Borde, Vilenkin, Guth theorem.

The big bang, the fact the universe is expanding, and perhaps most strongly the second law of thermodynamics.

Philosophically, to say the universe is past eternal would mean an actual infinite can and has been instantiated. We argue that's just not possible.

There can never be an infinite amount of events in the past

It has to start somewhere