Proof of the existence of God set down on paper

[ick]

Your claim is that a reading of the verses demands the conclusion that the two books necessarily conflict. This is not the case.

Furthermore there is no requisite requirement that all accounts must be identical in emphasis, word choice, or focus.

[Selectedmarksman]

Your claim is that a reading of the verses demands the conclusion that the two books necessarily conflict. This is not the case.

Furthermore there is no requisite requirement that all accounts must be identical in emphasis, word choice, or focus.

All this is in the context of CallMeShooter challenging anyone to disprove a single verse of the bible, but here's the response anyway.

Yes, absolutely, my claim is that the reading of the verses demands the conclusion that the two verses conflict. I make this positive claim by citing the two passages specifically. Logically, they are in opposition. If you claim this is not the case, feel free to show it in some means that is reasonable. Simply saying it is not the case is insufficient.

This is a little bit different than word choice or emphasis. In one book Judas kills himself. In the other, he spontaneously disembowels while enjoying the fruits of his betrayal. So, we see two different versions of Judas. One is a wicked man who does not regret his actions, the other is repentant. We also see two versions of God. One does not seek worldly vengence on Judas, the other makes his intestines explode from his body. As I've said in the previous posts, the discrepency here is non-trivial to the foundation of the Christian faith.

If I were arguing something like did Jesus pet a goat or a sheep at some point I grant you this would be an unimportant difference acceptably written off as mistranslation. This, however, is significant. I dare say it is even more significant than the challenge that the word used to describe Jesus' mother as a Virgin could actually have meant "Maiden" as this is much less important than whether or not Judas had free will in his actions and how he felt about them afterwards.

And once again, I'm not trying to destroy someone's faith. CallMeShooter asked for a single verse of the Bible to be disproved. There are many to choose from, but I chose this one and stick to it for fear of changing to other flaws being interpreted as me somehow conceding that this is not a case of two verses directly contradicting eachother.

Apple != Orange

[Islander]

Disprove one single verse in the Christian Bible.

This is a joke, right?

[Islander]

All 3 are logically valid. If you want to deny the conclusion you have to deny one of the primacies.

Kalam Cosmological argument.

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

Going from that, one can then determine that the first cause is a necessary, eternal, timeless, changeless, immaterial cause. It also follows that this cause must be an intelligent being, because if a cause is eternal, then the effect should be eternal. The only way for a cause to be eternal, but the effect to not be eternal is for that effect to be an intelligent being which can choose to create a finite time ago. Example: A man who has been sitting from eternity can suddenly choose to stand up. Likewise, an eternal intelligence can choose to create only a finite time ago.

I'll bite on the first one. Logical validity does not equate to logical soundness. But giving all benefit of doubt, and agreeing that all three bullets are valid, it's your "Going from that..." statement that is neither valid nor sound. There is no reason to leap from "The universe has a cause" to that cause being necessarily eternal or intelligent. The cause could have itself been caused, and the creation of the universe could be inevitable, based on the physics of the cause. There is no segue way between God and cause in the Cosmological argument. I'm not going to provide analogies, just this statement. There is absolutely nothing about the Cosmological argument that implies that "God created the universe".

[CallMeShooter]

In Acts, Peter never said anything about Judas's disposition.

[Illuminated_one]

This is a fun thread

Let the fallacies begin:

Kalam Cosmological argument.

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

As scientists and mathematicians are unsure what happened approaching the Big Bang, we cannot be certain that the process of expansion and implosion of our universe isn't cyclic. Also, we are not certain our universe is the only universe. Point being, it is not safe to assume that either our universe had a beginning or that all potential universes/existence had a beginning. So, this is flawed.

I thought the 'cycle' theory fell out of favor when we discovered that all stars, solar systems, and galaxies are accelerating away from each other. Meaning that not only is the universe still expanding, but it's expanding faster and faster.

[Islander]

This is a fun thread

Let the fallacies begin:

Kalam Cosmological argument.

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

As scientists and mathematicians are unsure what happened approaching the Big Bang, we cannot be certain that the process of expansion and implosion of our universe isn't cyclic. Also, we are not certain our universe is the only universe. Point being, it is not safe to assume that either our universe had a beginning or that all potential universes/existence had a beginning. So, this is flawed.

I thought the 'cycle' theory fell out of favor when we discovered that all stars, solar systems, and galaxies are accelerating away from each other. Meaning that not only is the universe still expanding, but it's expanding faster and faster.

May be true, but we really don't know. This could be the only universe that ever existed, or our understanding may be incorrect regarding cycling of THIS universe. This could be the last cycle of a formerly cycling universe for all we know.

It seems to me that the KCA is used often to argue using a "fallacy of definition" where the process that created the universe is defined as God. This is very different from the Judeo-Christian God supposed to be proven. If folks want to define "all the processes that control the universe" as God, they lose the argument, because they're talking about a totally different thing.

[Illuminated_one]

May be true, but we really don't know. This could be the only universe that ever existed, or our understanding may be incorrect regarding cycling of THIS universe. This could be the last cycle of a formerly cycling universe for all we know.

It seems to me that the KCA is used often to argue using a "fallacy of definition" where the process that created the universe is defined as God. This is very different from the Judeo-Christian God supposed to be proven. If folks want to define "all the processes that control the universe" as God, they lose the argument, because they're talking about a totally different thing.

An infinite cycle of expanding and contracting universes is perpetual motion. We know that there are no perpetual motion machines, no matter what scale we try to imagine them at. Entropy implies that the universe had have a beginning. Every system decays, there is constantly less usable energy. We know that there is a limit to how much energy we have in the universe (even at so grand a scale). Therefore there had to be a beginning to that energy.

So it seems that we can agree that the argument stops being 'if the universe began to exist' and becomes 'what caused the universe to exist'.

[Blaubart]

An infinite cycle of expanding and contracting universes is perpetual motion.

You were the first to introduce the possibility of an "infinite cycle" into this discussion. Selectedmarksman and Islander mentioned cyclic, you made the leap to infinite and perpetual motion.

The seasons on Earch are cyclic, yet they are not infinite. As far as we're concerned though, they might as well be infinite because they will far outlive any of us. What if the expansion of the universe is part of a cyclic event and each cycle takes a trillion years, but is a smaller event than the preceding cycle? That wouldn't be "perpetual motion", but again, as far as we're concerned, they might as well be infinite because most of us won't live to be 100.

Every system decays, there is constantly less usable energy. We know that there is a limit to how much energy we have in the universe (even at so grand a scale). Therefore there had to be a beginning to that energy.

Do we know everything there is to know about energy and matter yet? I'd venture a guess at "No". Some believe we do, and I believe this type of arrogance is partly to blame for the story of creation and many of the other events in the Bible that get attributed to God: "We fully understand everything there is to know about energy, yet there is no explanation for how the universe began, so there can be no other explation than God made it so."

I don't know how the universe began. I don't know if there is any cycle to it, infinite or otherwise. There are a lot of things that I, and mankind as a whole, do not yet fully understand and I'm comfortable with that. I don't feel the need to tell anyone that we have all the answers. I don't want to tell anyone that God is responsible for doing whatever it is that I don't understand. I would rather that we assume there are other answers and keep looking for them.

[Islander]

An infinite cycle of expanding and contracting universes is perpetual motion. We know that there are no perpetual motion machines, no matter what scale we try to imagine them at. Entropy implies that the universe had have a beginning. Every system decays, there is constantly less usable energy. We know that there is a limit to how much energy we have in the universe (even at so grand a scale). Therefore there had to be a beginning to that energy.

So it seems that we can agree that the argument stops being 'if the universe began to exist' and becomes 'what caused the universe to exist'.

Entropy is only valid in a closed system. We have no idea if there is a forcing function outside of what we perceive as the universe. But as other (wiser) folks have already pointed out, this doesn't have to be an infinite cycle, and I never mentioned it. If you read my post again, my suggestion was that this could be the last of many cycles.

Again, I made my argument based on complete acceptance of all three premises in the original argument, so we were already in agreement regarding THIS universe being created.

My main point is that the KCA has nothing to do with God. The poster added many premises and conclusions onto the end of this argument that it never addressed.

Reason and evidence fail miserably when trying to support the God of the Bible. Faith is the only path to that or any other God, and it works just as well no matter which God you choose to follow. I think for many people faith in God is a wonderful, powerful, important and valuable attribute.

[Blaubart]

An infinite cycle of expanding and contracting universes is perpetual motion.

Actually, in hindsight, I can think of an infinite cycle. One that seems to have no end.

God exists.
God does not exist.
Does too.
Does not.
Uh-Huh.
Nuh-Uh.
Uh-Huh.
Nuh-Uh.
Uh-Huh.
Nuh-Uh.
Uh-Huh.
Nuh-Uh.
Uh-Huh.
Nuh-Uh.
Uh-Huh.
Nuh-Uh.
Uh-Huh.
Nuh-Uh.
Uh-Huh.
Nuh-Uh.
etc...

(Doesn't mean it isn't fun though!)

[Islander]

An infinite cycle of expanding and contracting universes is perpetual motion.

Actually, in hindsight, I can think of an infinite cycle. One that seems to have no end.

God exists.
God does not exist.
Does too.
Does not.
Uh-Huh.
Nuh-Uh.
Uh-Huh.
Nuh-Uh.
Uh-Huh.
Nuh-Uh.
Uh-Huh.
Nuh-Uh.
Uh-Huh.
Nuh-Uh.
Uh-Huh.
Nuh-Uh.
Uh-Huh.
Nuh-Uh.
Uh-Huh.
Nuh-Uh.
etc...

(Doesn't mean it isn't fun though!)

And a finite cycle:

My cat exists.
Your cat does not exist.
Here, hold him.
Hmm. I see you have a cat.

[Selectedmarksman]

In Acts, Peter never said anything about Judas's disposition.

We don't really need a Children's book version of "Johnny felt sad" do we? In Acts, Judas uses the silver he received in exchange for betraying Jesus to purchase a field. Land meant wealth, prestige, and power. He did not purchase it and give it to some charity, use the silver for some other selfless purpose, or return it (as he is said to in Matthew). Again, lets return to the text:

(With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

Acts 1:18-19, NIV

These are not the actions of a repentant man. These are not the actions of a man with a guilty conscience. These are selfish actions of a man who felt well enough about his 'earnings' to use them for selfish ends. Judas' disposition need not be bluntly stated for us to understand what the author intended. Now, having addressed this claim, being the only one in that post, do we take this to mean you accept that the descriptions of Judas' death and dispensation of his silver are contradictory? You don't have to renounce your Religion to do this, just accept that the statements do not coincide. Keep in mind, if you hold this to be the Word of God, it would be a weak argument indeed to claim some elaborate BS like Albert Barnes does (and fails to support with any evidence).

Regarding the accelerating expansion of the universe. It is too simplistic to say that this means the universe can never collapse again. In fact, last I checked, astrophysicists were still debating the issue. The acceleration is thought to be the result of some force still acting upon the Universe as a result of the Big Bang. Google Dark Energy.

Islander and Blaubart covered the arguments against the false perpetual motion analogy pretty well. Keep in mind that approaching the singularity, s--t gets real. What I mean is the four forces we have identified in the Universe begin to behave identically in a way we can only describe up to a certain point towards the beginning. This is why physicists are still searching for a unified theory.

And finally, as to the infinite cycle of "There is no god" and "Yes there is", that is only infinite if you ignore logic and reason. Someone here asserted that not one verse of the Bible could be disproven. I provided such an example (which really contains two examples). I provided positive evidence by citing the text itself. As the statements are contradictory, at least one must be inaccurate. Thus, as both are sourced from the text claimed to be infallible, I have shown it to be incorrect in at least once instance.

To generalize, if you claim there is something beyond the scientifically observable, such as God, you are making a positive claim. You need to supply positive proof. Until such evidence can be supplied, the person who says "Nuh-uh" is in the right and justified in not believing your assertion. It would be no more logical for me to claim a sexually deviant anteater named Larry humps your mailbox when you're not looking if I cannot provide evidence. All you have to say is "TITS OR GTFO". The onus is on me to provide proof.

[Illuminated_one]

We were discussing this:

Kalam Cosmological argument.

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

If it's not infinite, then it began to exist. This means meaning something caused it to begin to exist.
Either insert "universe" in the above, or "cycle".
You say the cycle is finite, and as such it at one point BEGAN to exist.

This was something I had thought I had typed out, sorry for that.

[Selectedmarksman]

Illuminated_one reminded me. Regarding the Kalam Cosmological argument, how is God exempt? If everything that exists must have a cause, what was God's cause? If you say God existed infinitely, why go the extra step? Could not all existence (all universes) be infinite?

[Islander]

Illuminated_one reminded me. Regarding the Kalam Cosmological argument, how is God exempt? If everything that exists must have a cause, what was God's cause? If you say God existed infinitely, why go the extra step? Could not all existence (all universes) be infinite?

Remember the premise is "Anything that begins to exist has a cause". The premise is correct (in the context of KCA) if THIS universe began to exist. But we really don't know if this universe is just a change from one form to another. For the sake of argument, we can accept that the premise is correct. In that case, the extension of the argument is that God is eternal, and therefore that premise does not apply to God. If God is the thing that always existed, and does not need a cause, God is the cause of the universe which requires a creator.

Nevertheless, God in this instance is simply a redifinition of "cause of THIS universe". We know virtually nothing about this cause, and there is a huge leap (begging the question) and no obvious bridge of logic to say God is this cause and is also the Judeo-Christian God of the bible. Also, we have no idea if the cause of THIS universe also had a cause, since we do not know what the cause was.

The real fallacy of KCA is that it assumes that the ONLY thing outside of THIS universe is God, which is "begging the question", a type of logical fallacy. In this case Premise 2 begs the question by implicitly assuming that there is nothing outside this universe that has been or must be created. If you change the premise to its correct form "THIS universe was created," then we are free to assume that even if "something" created this universe, that "something" could also have been created.

PLAIN LANGUAGE VERSION
I always hate reading a bunch of math-like logical statements (plus I frequently make mistakes in classifying fallacies), so here is my plain language version. We don't know how this universe was formed. We don't know whether or not the process that formed it was itself formed by another process. All our experience says it was. But we don't know, yet. To say God did it is just a substitute for "I don't know how it happened". You can argue that the bible says it happened like X, but there are literally thousands of stories, both oral and written that say it happened like A, B, C,...,N. None can be assumed "true" unless you can test them and show them to be true. And "true for you" is NEVER a reason for anyone else to believe anything.

[Blaubart]

We were discussing this:

Kalam Cosmological argument.

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

Why not write the fourth step that most people of faith include:
4. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.

This is a conclusion that does not follow from the premises. The others are false in that it would be more accurate to say:

1. All of the things we've studied that began to exist, as we understand them, had a cause.
2. The universe might or might not have begun to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe might or might not have had a cause.
4. We don't really know anything for certain how our universe came to be, or what, if anything, existed before it.

#4 is the only logical conclusion that can be made to this argument.

You say the cycle is finite, and as such it at one point BEGAN to exist.

Actually, you said the cycle is finite. We simply said cycle or cyclical. I postulated that if it is cyclical, it could be either finite or infinite. I said I don't know, which is something people of faith don't seem to be comfortable doing.

[Islander]

Blaubart, keep spewing that kind of valid logic and I predict we'll have nobody to argue with pretty quickly.

[Blaubart]

Blaubart, keep spewing that kind of valid logic and I predict we'll have nobody to argue with pretty quickly.

OK, I'll check in tomorrow.

[Selectedmarksman]

I've not even mentioned the problem of what would happen if we just flat-out accepted any of these arguments to be true. If I set my reasoning brain aside long enough to do that, I would then have the bewildering task of figuring out just which god or gods was the creative force behind existence. If you somehow decide on the Christian God, you then have to decide which version of the Christian God you mean. Don't say there's only one, unless you lump Mormons in with Catholics and Quakers.

[Illuminated_one]

An infinite cycle of expanding and contracting universes is perpetual motion.

You were the first to introduce the possibility of an "infinite cycle" into this discussion. Selectedmarksman and Islander mentioned cyclic, you made the leap to infinite and perpetual motion.

The seasons on Earch are cyclic, yet they are not infinite. As far as we're concerned though, they might as well be infinite because they will far outlive any of us. What if the expansion of the universe is part of a cyclic event and each cycle takes a trillion years, but is a smaller event than the preceding cycle? That wouldn't be "perpetual motion", but again, as far as we're concerned, they might as well be infinite because most of us won't live to be 100.

Is your point that a long enough cycle may as well be infinite? This makes no sense. Either it IS or it ISN'T. A miss is a good as a mile.
It's either infinite or it's not, there is no in between.

Every system decays, there is constantly less usable energy. We know that there is a limit to how much energy we have in the universe (even at so grand a scale). Therefore there had to be a beginning to that energy.

Do we know everything there is to know about energy and matter yet? I'd venture a guess at "No". Some believe we do, and I believe this type of arrogance is partly to blame for the story of creation and many of the other events in the Bible that get attributed to God: "We fully understand everything there is to know about energy, yet there is no explanation for how the universe began, so there can be no other explation than God made it so."

I don't know how the universe began. I don't know if there is any cycle to it, infinite or otherwise. There are a lot of things that I, and mankind as a whole, do not yet fully understand and I'm comfortable with that. I don't feel the need to tell anyone that we have all the answers. I don't want to tell anyone that God is responsible for doing whatever it is that I don't understand. I would rather that we assume there are other answers and keep looking for them.

Why do we have to know everything there is about matter and energy to expect them to behave by observed scientific law? If we throw out that law in our reasoning we never WILL understand everything about matter and energy.

Entropy is only valid in a closed system. We have no idea if there is a forcing function outside of what we perceive as the universe. But as other (wiser) folks have already pointed out, this doesn't have to be an infinite cycle, and I never mentioned it. If you read my post again, my suggestion was that this could be the last of many cycles.

Saying that the universe is not a closed system supposes an even greater force outside our universe.
Which... seems to be what religion has been saying from the start.

[Islander]

An infinite cycle of expanding and contracting universes is perpetual motion.

You were the first to introduce the possibility of an "infinite cycle" into this discussion. Selectedmarksman and Islander mentioned cyclic, you made the leap to infinite and perpetual motion.

The seasons on Earch are cyclic, yet they are not infinite. As far as we're concerned though, they might as well be infinite because they will far outlive any of us. What if the expansion of the universe is part of a cyclic event and each cycle takes a trillion years, but is a smaller event than the preceding cycle? That wouldn't be "perpetual motion", but again, as far as we're concerned, they might as well be infinite because most of us won't live to be 100.

Is your point that a long enough cycle may as well be infinite? This makes no sense. Either it IS or it ISN'T. A miss is a good as a mile.
It's either infinite or it's not, there is no in between.

Every system decays, there is constantly less usable energy. We know that there is a limit to how much energy we have in the universe (even at so grand a scale). Therefore there had to be a beginning to that energy.

Do we know everything there is to know about energy and matter yet? I'd venture a guess at "No". Some believe we do, and I believe this type of arrogance is partly to blame for the story of creation and many of the other events in the Bible that get attributed to God: "We fully understand everything there is to know about energy, yet there is no explanation for how the universe began, so there can be no other explation than God made it so."

I don't know how the universe began. I don't know if there is any cycle to it, infinite or otherwise. There are a lot of things that I, and mankind as a whole, do not yet fully understand and I'm comfortable with that. I don't feel the need to tell anyone that we have all the answers. I don't want to tell anyone that God is responsible for doing whatever it is that I don't understand. I would rather that we assume there are other answers and keep looking for them.

Why do we have to know everything there is about matter and energy to expect them to behave by observed scientific law? If we throw out that law in our reasoning we never WILL understand everything about matter and energy.

Entropy is only valid in a closed system. We have no idea if there is a forcing function outside of what we perceive as the universe. But as other (wiser) folks have already pointed out, this doesn't have to be an infinite cycle, and I never mentioned it. If you read my post again, my suggestion was that this could be the last of many cycles.

Saying that the universe is not a closed system supposes an even greater force outside our universe.
Which... seems to be what religion has been saying from the start.

Illuminated_one, I think you missed Blaubart's text that said "Actually, you said the cycle is finite. We simply said cycle or cyclical. I postulated that if it is cyclical, it could be either finite or infinite. I said I don't know, which is something people of faith don't seem to be comfortable doing."

You made the leap to perpetual motion for an infinite cycling universe. And while perpetual motion is not possible in a closed system (due to the same entropy that you mentioned earlier), you could definitely have an infinitely cycling universe perpetuated by an external forcing function. But this has no bearing on whether God exists, as has been pointed out repeatedly. I will concede that if the universe is finite, it had a beginning.

Regarding the universe not being a closed system, religion is adding another premise to this, actually several as follows:

1. What exists outside our universe is eternal
2. What exists outside our universe is intelligent
3. What exits outside our universe is all powerful
4. Therefore, God created the universe

There is no evidence to support any of those premises. Their argument is neither valid (the premises do not support the conclusion), nor is it sound (the premises are not known to be true). The KCA is really one of the weakest and most easily refutable arguments for the existence of a God. It is in fact not an argument for the existence of God at all, just a framework on which to add another argument, and a very poor one that has been refuted for literally thousands of years.

[Illuminated_one]

Illuminated_one, I think you missed Blaubart's text that said "Actually, you said the cycle is finite. We simply said cycle or cyclical. I postulated that if it is cyclical, it could be either finite or infinite. I said I don't know, which is something people of faith don't seem to be comfortable doing."

You made the leap to perpetual motion for an infinite cycling universe. And while perpetual motion is not possible in a closed system (due to the same entropy that you mentioned earlier), you could definitely have an infinitely cycling universe perpetuated by an external forcing function. But this has no bearing on whether God exists, as has been pointed out repeatedly. I will concede that if the universe is finite, it had a beginning.

As I said, it's either finite or infinite. Either one
Is there any remaining accepted theory that supposes that the universe is infinite?

Illuminated_one, I think you missed Blaubart's text that said "Actually, you said the cycle is finite. We simply said cycle or cyclical. I postulated that if it is cyclical, it could be either finite or infinite. I said I don't know, which is something people of faith don't seem to be comfortable doing."

You made the leap to perpetual motion for an infinite cycling universe. And while perpetual motion is not possible in a closed system (due to the same entropy that you mentioned earlier), you could definitely have an infinitely cycling universe perpetuated by an external forcing function. But this has no bearing on whether God exists, as has been pointed out repeatedly. I will concede that if the universe is finite, it had a beginning.

Regarding the universe not being a closed system, religion is adding another premise to this, actually several as follows:

1. What exists outside our universe is eternal
2. What exists outside our universe is intelligent
3. What exits outside our universe is all powerful
4. Therefore, God created the universe

There is no evidence to support any of those premises. Their argument is neither valid (the premises do not support the conclusion), nor is it sound (the premises are not known to be true). The KCA is really one of the weakest and most easily refutable arguments for the existence of a God. It is in fact not an argument for the existence of God at all, just a framework on which to add another argument, and a very poor one that has been refuted for literally thousands of years.

My argument is that whether the universe is infinite (some outside force sustains it) or finite (something caused it to exist), something outside our universe is not only affecting it, but holding it together. No matter how you cut it, this force is more potent than anything in our universe.

I don't mean to argue that God DOES exist, but that God CAN exist.

[Islander]

Illuminated_one, I think you missed Blaubart's text that said "Actually, you said the cycle is finite. We simply said cycle or cyclical. I postulated that if it is cyclical, it could be either finite or infinite. I said I don't know, which is something people of faith don't seem to be comfortable doing."

You made the leap to perpetual motion for an infinite cycling universe. And while perpetual motion is not possible in a closed system (due to the same entropy that you mentioned earlier), you could definitely have an infinitely cycling universe perpetuated by an external forcing function. But this has no bearing on whether God exists, as has been pointed out repeatedly. I will concede that if the universe is finite, it had a beginning.

As I said, it's either finite or infinite. Either one
Is there any remaining accepted theory that supposes that the universe is infinite?
[/b]

Illuminated_one, I think you missed Blaubart's text that said "Actually, you said the cycle is finite. We simply said cycle or cyclical. I postulated that if it is cyclical, it could be either finite or infinite. I said I don't know, which is something people of faith don't seem to be comfortable doing."

You made the leap to perpetual motion for an infinite cycling universe. And while perpetual motion is not possible in a closed system (due to the same entropy that you mentioned earlier), you could definitely have an infinitely cycling universe perpetuated by an external forcing function. But this has no bearing on whether God exists, as has been pointed out repeatedly. I will concede that if the universe is finite, it had a beginning.

Regarding the universe not being a closed system, religion is adding another premise to this, actually several as follows:

1. What exists outside our universe is eternal
2. What exists outside our universe is intelligent
3. What exits outside our universe is all powerful
4. Therefore, God created the universe

There is no evidence to support any of those premises. Their argument is neither valid (the premises do not support the conclusion), nor is it sound (the premises are not known to be true). The KCA is really one of the weakest and most easily refutable arguments for the existence of a God. It is in fact not an argument for the existence of God at all, just a framework on which to add another argument, and a very poor one that has been refuted for literally thousands of years.

My argument is that whether the universe is infinite (some outside force sustains it) or finite (something caused it to exist), something outside our universe is not only affecting it, but holding it together. No matter how you cut it, this force is more potent than anything in our universe.

I don't mean to argue that God DOES exist, but that God CAN exist.

To make this discussion more productive, it would really help if you would not put words in my mouth, something you have done several times to me and others. I never said anything about anything holding the universe together. If you want to propose that, great, but don't attribute your thoughts to my statements. It makes the discussion unclear.

Regarding your above statement that "God CAN exist", that statement is not very meaningful. We do not know if that is true (valid) or not, because we do not know what is required for God to exist as defined by those who define God. An accurate form of your statement is "God might exist", just as unicorns, ferries, FSM, etc., might exist. What is required for a statement to be valid is to know it is true, otherwise it is just white noise.

The bottom line in the KCA argument, which we continue to discuss, is that it neither indicates a God exists, nor does it indicate that a God CAN exist, nor does it indicate that a God might exist. It says absolutely nothing about God in general and absolutely nothing about the God of the bible specifically. The only way to know that a God CAN exist is to know what is required for a God to exist.

If your entire point is that the universe could have had a beginning, and that God might have caused this beginning, I agree. But that is purely speculation, and nothing in our experience indicates that anything supernatural or transcendent has ever occurred. The real answer as to how the universe began is "We don't know...yet". We may never know. I'm okay with that.

[Blaubart]

Is your point that a long enough cycle may as well be infinite? This makes no sense. Either it IS or it ISN'T. A miss is a good as a mile.
It's either infinite or it's not, there is no in between.

My point is that it doesn't have any impact on me since 100 years is hardly a blip on a billion year timeline. So if the universe is cyclical, it doesn't matter to me if it collapses every million, billion or every trillion years. It doesn't really matter to me if it's finite or infinite. Nor does it really matter to me if it isn't cyclical and isn't going to collapse. I do think it's a good idea to continue studying it though, because we still have a lot to learn and something we learn about the universe might turn out to be of great benefit to us.

Why do we have to know everything there is about matter and energy to expect them to behave by observed scientific law? If we throw out that law in our reasoning we never WILL understand everything about matter and energy.

Oh, we don't need to know everything to make assumptions. For example:

You can assume that your ship will fall off the edge of the world if you stray too far from shore.

You can assume that since the Sun revolves around the Earth that the Sun will set tonight and will rise again tomorrow morning.

You can assume that witches float.

What's the harm in assuming that we don't know everything there is to know about energy?

Saying that the universe is not a closed system supposes an even greater force outside our universe.
Which... seems to be what religion has been saying from the start.

Yes, indeed. But that isn't the only thing religion is saying, is it?