The beginning of matter and energy. What I call the natural world. So it is the beginning I mean. But even if the beginning science talks about isn't good enough, the question can still be asked, "Is the natural world past-finite?" Science may not know the answer, but we can still think about the implications of a past-finite or infinite universe.
How do you know it is the 'beginning' in the sense in which you mean it? Just to clarify, by 'beginning' you mean the
creation of matter and energy
from nothing, correct?
It's impossible for one to reach an actually infinite quantity of something by successive addition. For instance, counting 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., until you reach an actual infinite. What you'd get instead is a very large number that you could always add 1 more to. But if the universe is past-infinite, then you'd have to believe that there is an actual infinite number of past events; and if there isn't an actual infinite number of past events, then it is a very large number and thus finite. What's more, this 'actual infinite' number of events would perpetually grow because new events are always occurring, but that appears logically incoherent as well. If there is an 'actual infinite' number of something, then adding to it shouldn't make it any bigger. And if it does, then wouldn't that mean it wasn't an actual infinite before? The logical problems with a past-infinite universe are endless. It would take a lot of faith to believe the universe is past-infinite.
I'm not following what exactly you find incoherent about the idea of infinity. That you can't
count to infinity, that you can't "reach it", to use your words, is a given, because you are not infinite. But why should the human inability to "count" an infinite quantity constrain the possibility of infinite sets actually existing?
It would explain the origin of the universe and if the Bible is God's word, then we would know the purpose of it and us.
How would it explain the origin of the universe?
I don't think there is any point here though.
The agnostic would say you cannot demonstrate the existence or nonexistence of God; therefore, they neither believe or disbelieve in God. At least that's what the rational agnostic would do. On the other hand, the atheist seems to think there are good reasons to disbelieve in the existence of God. I haven't seen any of them though, just a lot of bad ones.
You're making an inappropriate distinction. Gnosticism pertains to claims of knowledge. It's not a middle-ground where one neither believes nor disbelieves.
Isn't this argument from ignorance? "There is no evidence of God; therefore, God doesn't exist"?
No more than the lack of evidence for unicorns makes it an argument from ignorance to with-hold belief in unicorns.
What kind of evidence would you expect if God did exist?
Personally, it wouldn't be enough for me to merely say, "There arguments for such and such are weak; therefore, such and such doesn't exist--or I don't believe it exists." That seems weak. I'd try to make some arguments against whatever it was I was trying to disprove. "If X existed, then wouldn't there be Y? But there isn't Y; therefore, X probably doesn't exist."
Trying to disprove? You seem to be confused about where the burden of proof lies. It lies with the theist.
The burden of proof - YouTube
One can see something as the best explanation without knowing how it works.
Besides, I don't see any reason to think there would be a problem with another category of existence interacting with physical existence. Could you please explain why you think there would be?
I'll get to this further down...
True, they could stick their head in the sand or say "I don't know," but nobody can deny that atheism has implications just like any other belief system.
But it's not a belief system. Since when is
not believing in something a
belief system?
If God doesn't exist then the universe either popped into being uncaused from nonbeing or it is past-infinite. If you think this is wrong, then please provide another possible explanation. Maybe there's another one I'm not thinking of.
I don't pretend to know with any certainty either. I deal in plausibility and I don't think the possible explanations that atheism leaves us with are plausible.
I wouldn't really say it exists, at least in the sense we normally describe how things exist. I would say nonbeing is nonexistence. The absence of existence. If everything that existed ceased to exist then that would be an example of nonbeing, would it not?
Again, it's not clear to me whether that kind of pure Platonic nothingness is even possible. 'Nothing' is a useful concept in the context of everyday language. The statement "There is nothing in the box" is meaningful because in everyday usage 'nothing' typically means "nothing of importance." However, when nothing is defined as the absence of everything, then the concept is rendered unintelligible; it is far removed from the context in which it finds meaning.
If the natural world is past-finite then prior to the existence of it there was not anything (if you're a naturalist, anyway).
It is problematic to speak of "prior to the existence of it", as if the word "prior to" could apply if nothing were to exist, not even time.
An eternal flame would be physical and thus would run into the same issues as a past-infinite universe. Anything physical can be broken down into internal events and processes and if something physical has been around for an infinite time, then that means the flame has been through an infinite number of states. Then one can ask how is it in its present state if it has gone through an infinite number of past states. Then you start to realize the flame would have to be completely static for it to make any sense, but then one has to wonder how a completely static physical manifold could cause anything.
Would that not also apply to an immaterial, spaceless and timeless mind? It would have to be completely static and unchanging, which would then lead one to wonder how such a 'thing' could even qualify as a 'mind', much less a causal agent.
A necessary universe would be even more nuts because when you say something exists necessarily, then what you're saying is it couldn't have failed to exist. And when you analyze that statement even more, that means that the universe and all it's properties, including fine-tuning, couldn't have been different. That's if the universe is necessary.
And that's problematic because...?
It's unfortunate so many people misuse Occam's razor. Occam's razor is but one of many ways one is supposed to evaluate a possible explanation. If we just used Occam's razor to evaluate explanations, then we would have never made any progress in science because the correct explanation isn't always the simplest. Then you also have to evaluate what one means by simple. Is the universe popping into existence from nonbeing simple? I guess it's simple in the sense that it invokes magic...
Magic? Like creatio ex nihilo?
To be honest, I don't see where you're coming from on this one. Like I said before, I don't have any issue imagining another plane of existence that could interact with physical existence.
Could interact? How? When I push against the keys on the keyboard, letters appear on the screen. We can characterise the interactions that make this happen and tell a story about it on multiple levels of analysis. How would you characterise the interactions between this other "plane of existence" and our own? What do 'things' in this other plane consist of?
Let me ask you something. Can you imagine another kind of existence that wouldn't fall into the category of nature? If so, could you imagine it producing or forming something that could behave or act in a way similar to how the brain acts?
What do you mean by another
kind of existence? Tell me about it. So far theists have only been able to define this other "kind of existence" by what it's not (i.e., not nature).
I see this as dishonest because we wouldn't be able to test God. I believe He exists, but let's say He certainly exists for the sake of discussion. Even if He certainly existed, science would be unable to test Him because He would be in a category that falls outside of nature; science is a methodology for observing and testing nature.
Exactly. That's what I said.