In the beginning ...

[Andrew D]

The non-believer (admit it or not) must argue that time has no beginning – that the universe (or call it what you will) has infinitely existed in some form or another – a singularity, an eternal oscillation from one state to another. It ignores the inconvenient fact that in infinite time (and they mean an infinite regression into the “past”), all that could possibly happen must have happened.

For a so-called "inconvenient fact" to be ignored, it must first be a fact. The claim that in infinite time, all that could possibly happen must have happened is merely an unsubstantiated assertion.

Theism explains the facts of life far better than non-theism, whether it be Buddhist mumbo-jumbo ....

I do not know much study of Buddhism you have undertaken, General, but that statement suggests that it must have been rather little. Buddhism makes at least as much sense as does Christianity (or any other monotheism). And in terms of morality, Buddhism has a very strong claim to superiority over Christianity. In Buddhism, people suffer adverse consequences only because of bad things they have done, and no suffering is eternal: People always have another chance to do better. In Christianity, on the other hand, people are condemned to eternal suffering for the misdeeds of others which they had nothing to do with.

[thestoat]

For a so-called "inconvenient fact" to be ignored, it must first be a fact. The claim that in infinite time, all that could possibly happen must have happened is merely an unsubstantiated assertion.

Actually, this is one of the few areas where Meade is sort of right (at least the closest Meade gets). Obviously Meade is wrong that the atheist must argue the universe has infinitely existed, but in a system that contains infinite time, everything that can happen will have happened.

Of course, the rest of the assertions are wrong

The non-believer (admit it or not) must argue that time has no beginning (wrong) – that the universe (or call it what you will) has infinitely existed in some form or another – a singularity, an eternal oscillation from one state to another (wrong). It ignores the inconvenient fact (wrong) that in infinite time (and they mean an infinite regression into the “past”), all that could possibly happen must have happened.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Actually, this is one of the few areas where Meade is sort of right (at least the closest Meade gets). Obviously Meade is wrong that the atheist must argue the universe has infinitely existed, but in a system that contains infinite time, everything that can happen will have happened.

Of course, the rest of the assertions are wrong

The non-believer (admit it or not) must argue that time has no beginning (wrong) – that the universe (or call it what you will) has infinitely existed in some form or another – a singularity, an eternal oscillation from one state to another (wrong). It ignores the inconvenient fact (wrong) that in infinite time (and they mean an infinite regression into the “past”), all that could possibly happen must have happened.

Close isn't all bad. That line gave me a chuckle though! I'm glad that on this at least we have some form of agreement over against Andrew's position. The fact that we are here (it is a fact right AGD?) proves that the universe has not infintely existed and came into existence.

How am I wrong that the atheist must (in the end and logically) end up at an infinite regress? If the origin of the universe is a singularity, that singularity IS at that point "the universe" in potential or whatever word should be used - I'm not concerned about the term. Either the content of the singularity existed for all "time" (i.e actually infinite) or it came to exist from nothing. Is that the argument?

Clarification on "why". I don't mean such a facile thing as "why do things fall down?" - which really is an investigation of how things fall down - the mechanism by which it occurs. I mean "why are there things at all?" Why are the "laws" of nature as they are and not something different?

I can't recall if it was you who made a comment about life on other planets. The prospect doesn't bother me. The Bible makes no statement at all about what God has done in other places and never has. No revision needed. And no, the Bible hasn't been changed in the least to accommodate new ideas in science. Man's understanding of the Bible has been much improved by studies by beleivers and non-believers of manuscripts, translation advancement and so on. But my old example remains true: the sun did not stop moving in the sky for Joshua. But that's what it looked like to the writer and that's what he wrote. I don't think the earth stopped rotating either. I think it's as much a figure of speech as "the landscape turned red" to describe the battle of Antietam. (Which was also described as a battle during which the sun didn't move - meaning it went on and on relentlessly). If simpler people thought the sun did stop - then science shows their understanding was wrong - not that the Bible is wrong.

But these discussions inevitably encompass too many points for a post to handle.

Cheers
Meade

[Sue U]

Man's understanding of the Bible has been much improved by studies by beleivers and non-believers of manuscripts, translation advancement and so on. But my old example remains true: the sun did not stop moving in the sky for Joshua. But that's what it looked like to the writer and that's what he wrote. I don't think the earth stopped rotating either. I think it's as much a figure of speech as "the landscape turned red" to describe the battle of Antietam. (Which was also described as a battle during which the sun didn't move - meaning it went on and on relentlessly). If simpler people thought the sun did stop - then science shows their understanding was wrong - not that the Bible is wrong.

So obviously you're willing to take at least some portions of the Bible literarily rather than literally. But where do you draw the line, and why? If the sun and moon did not stand still for Joshua (after all, isn't it so written in the Book of the Upright/Straightened/Righteous?), then why are other fantastical accounts not simply literary devices and figures of speech?

[Big RR]

ctually, this is one of the few areas where Meade is sort of right (at least the closest Meade gets). Obviously Meade is wrong that the atheist must argue the universe has infinitely existed, but in a system that contains infinite time, everything that can happen will have happened.

why is that? Time is defined in our frame of reference, reckoned from the beginning (however that occurred) and moving forward as it does. If time is infinite it need not be that every that can happen will have happened.

[thestoat]

why is that? Time is defined in our frame of reference, reckoned from the beginning (however that occurred) and moving forward as it does. If time is infinite it need not be that every that can happen will have happened.

Indeed - what I mean by that is only true if and only if an infinite amount of time has already passed .

[thestoat]

How am I wrong that the atheist must (in the end and logically) end up at an infinite regress? If the origin of the universe is a singularity, that singularity IS at that point "the universe" in potential or whatever word should be used - I'm not concerned about the term. Either the content of the singularity existed for all "time" (i.e actually infinite) or it came to exist from nothing. Is that the argument?

I think that when you say

The non-believer (admit it or not) must argue that time has no beginning

this is not the case because it could be that before the universe existed there was nothing at all. Time is very much wound up with the universe and has no meaning before the universe existed. It also has no meaning inside a black hole - but that is for another thread

And no, the Bible hasn't been changed in the least to accommodate new ideas in science

That is part of the problem I have with the bible. It hasn't changed at all. For many hundreds of years. People simply chose to interpret it in different ways depending on the times we live in. One century people day "this passage means this". Another century they say "this passage means that". Basically it is so open to interpretation as to be meaningless. There is no rigour there, so I don't find it useful. Actually, not quite true. Thinks like the ten commandments are useful, but of course they were plagiarised.

Out of interest - do you follow the old or new testament, or just take pieces from both?

But my old example remains true: the sun did not stop moving in the sky for Joshua. But that's what it looked like to the writer and that's what he wrote

So is the word of god wrong? Or the interpretation of man wrong? Because either way it is pretty worrying for the content of a book so many people follow.

But these discussions inevitably encompass too many points for a post to handle

Absolutely. But it is fun to try

[MajGenl.Meade]

Obviously the Bible itself cannot change – it am what it be. Jefferson’s “no miracles” gospel rather missed the entire point of Christianity. One can readily imagine the derision of atheists (and any thinking Christian) if say, an ecumenical council agreed to rewrite the book of Daniel to remove all references to lions, furnaces and dreams. In this regard, the Bible is no different to “the world” which also hasn’t changed (in essence) in the past 5,000 years (say) but has been reinterpreted by successive generations in the light of greater (not lesser, mostly) understanding.

I don’t take pieces from either OT or NT but take them both entire. The word of God is not wrong. Men are often wrong – whether about religious matters or not. The Bible explains why that is so. English translations are of varying quality – I think most have both strong and weak points although none contradict each other. Of course, misprints can occur too – look at the “Wicked” Bible that missed the word “not” out of “Thou shalt not commit adultery”.

Sue asks where does one draw the line between the literary and the literal. I have before stated that I regard the Bible as absolute truth but not necessarily absolute fact. I don’t think I buy the alarmist argument that “Oh if we say one thing is not a fact then we have to admit it all might not be fact”. Does it matter if the book of Jonah is factual or a story? What difference does that make to the entire purpose and point of the book? If it doesn’t make any difference, then that’s where the line may go (or not depending upon one’s own thought or feeling of being threatened by thought).

For example, I don’t care a bit if the 7 days of Genesis are 7 x 24 or 7 x 24million or whatever. It’s good enough for me that God inspired the writer to give information that he and his people could handle. I’ve often said, what would be the point of God explaining all scientific facts to Moses and expecting him to write it down and the people to understand it? Is the story of the Fall literal or a literary device to describe how the separation of man from God occurred? (BTW I am convinced that the “serpent” of Genesis is in fact a dragon, as evidenced by God’s condemning it henceforth to crawl upon its belly 3:14 but it’s not very important is it?). Either way, these things tell the same truth.

But it would not be correct to say that when the Bible says God is (e.g.) eternal this might be just a figure of speech for “very long-lived but going to die one day”.
“It could be that before the universe existed there was nothing at all”. OK or it could be the spaghetti monster. Does science address how something can come from nothing at all? (Aside from Scooter’s posts). Compared to “suddenly there was something” the theistic explanation of origin is positively scientific!

Granted that our concept of time is bound up with the existence of at least two material objects (it seems to me that time must be a function of distance and vice versa – it is at any rate a measure of relationship). However I don’t accept that the concept of time (even though we are forced to use the word) is the same thing as (i.e. governs, creates, regulates, applies to, etc. – whatever word is better) the concept of infinity.

If by infinity you mean an unending linear progression of time as we measure it, from a particular point of beginning, then of course you have defined it to have no meaning prior to the existence of the universe and therefore have begged the question. I believe that the definition of an actual infinite is both “directions” encompassing all past and all future including before and after “time”.

BTW doesn’t your usage mean that time cannot be infinite even in one direction because at the point of entropy all things, including the ones who measure time, are cinders? Can time survive the end of all things?

And FWIW I am still undecided about the original post and the entire matter of what four year olds should or should not be taught in pre-school.

Regards
Meade

[Andrew D]

... but in a system that contains infinite time, everything that can happen will have happened.

An unsubstantiated assertion does not become a fact (inconvenient or otherwise) by virtue of having been asserted by more than one person. Anyone care to demonstrate the truth of the assertion?

[thestoat]

As I mentioned a few posts above ...

what I mean by that is only true if and only if an infinite amount of time has already passed .

[thestoat]

I don’t take pieces from either OT or NT but take them both entire. The word of God is not wrong. Men are often wrong – whether about religious matters or not. The Bible explains why that is so. English translations are of varying quality – I think most have both strong and weak points although none contradict each other

Some questions spring to mind here. If men can be wrong (and maybe have written wrong things in the bible) then how do you know when you read it whether you are reading your god's word, or yet another misinterpretation? Also, if you take both the OT and NT in their entirety, how do you square the contradictions in them? What about the evidence that the bible is simply a collection of older stories nicked from others?

Does it matter if the book of Jonah is factual or a story? What difference does that make to the entire purpose and point of the book?

It makes a huge difference. If a fact then we can rely on it. If allegorical then we can make up out own meaning. So we can interpret the bible to mean "burn witches", "start a Jihad", anything we like. The book becomes meaningless if you can't draw a conclusion from it.

BTW doesn’t your usage mean that time cannot be infinite even in one direction because at the point of entropy all things, including the ones who measure time, are cinders? Can time survive the end of all things?

From what I understand (and far greater brains than mine are still working on understanding time properly), time only exists in space - not outside (though if there is a universe outside space, a different "time" might be in operation). It breaks down completely in black holes. Time may only be accurately described by maths, and maths itself breaks down inside black holes (essentially you start dividing by zero).

We all know (or have heard) "Time is relative". It means it is relative to the observer. If I was travelling near the speed of light, my concept of time would be very different to yours, watching me shoot past. But, as I actually hit the speed of light, we get "divide by zero" challenges, and in this case it would suggest that for me, time stops and my mass becomes infinite. All good stuff, but the main point is that it doesn't make sense to talk about time in environments where it doesn't exist (eg outside space).

FWIW, I have huge problems imagining an infinite universe, but similarly huge problems imagining a finite universe, since in that case I inevitably ask what is beyond the implied boundary.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Good stuff

If men can be wrong (and maybe have written wrong things in the bible) then how do you know when you read it whether you are reading your god's word, or yet another misinterpretation?

Men can be wrong but “wrong things” are not written in the Bible. What is written is not interpretation but inspiration. We always interpret written material and two people may interpret the same material in different ways, whether the Bible or the US Constitution. I wouldn’t throw out the latter because of it.

if you take both the OT and NT in their entirety, how do you square the contradictions in them? What about the evidence that the bible is simply a collection of older stories nicked from others?

No contradictions exist – only difficulties of understanding. How about OT “great fish” and NT “whale”?. Clearly not a whale so why did Jesus (apparently) use that word – or did he use a word in Aramaic that in Greek was closer to “whale”? Or did the writer simply use a word to mean the greatest “fish” he’d ever seen? God not giving lessons in taxonomy. Whale or great fish, it doesn’t change a thing. I reject the claim of “older stories nicked from others” unless details are provided.

It makes a huge difference. If a fact then we can rely on it. If allegorical then we can make up our own meaning. So we can interpret the bible to mean "burn witches", "start a Jihad", anything we like. The book becomes meaningless if you can't draw a conclusion from it.

Pshaw! The meaning of Jonah is found in verses 10 and 11 of chapter 4. Whether fact or parable, God’s message is the same – He is concerned for all mankind, not just the “chosen” people of Israel. It cannot be interpreted to mean “God hates Eskimoes” or anything else contrary to what the book says (not how people interpret it). People can and have interpreted Origin of the Species to mean eugenics is the best way to go – Darwin certainly opened that door wide (see the original full title of the book). Am I to discard Darwin then?

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” is the KJV rendition (Ex 22:18) and that’s what is written – nowadays more likely perhaps to be written as “sorcerers”. The Greeks used “pharmakoi” meaning poisoners – probably to do with wrongful use of drugs and potions. The question of interpretation obviously arises – is Ex 22:18 a law that God intends should be obeyed for all time or was it specific to the nation of Israel at that time? In places like Uganda that is significant even today. If (of course) there is no such thing as a witch (now) then the law is moot.

So if we discard the infinite regress (“the universe has always existed”), then we are left with “nothing existed and then suddenly the universe did”. And I use the word “universe” to encompass all that there is – perhaps a singularity to start with, becoming what we have now. Something from nothing sounds suspiciously like sneaking god in under the guise of science. Or is there another scenario?

Cheers
Meade

[thestoat]

Men can be wrong but “wrong things” are not written in the Bible.

But my old example remains true: the sun did not stop moving in the sky for Joshua. But that's what it looked like to the writer and that's what he wrote

There's a wrong thing right there.

No contradictions exist – only difficulties of understanding

Eye for an eye versus turn the other cheek. When I looked at the bible (many moons ago) there were loads of such examples.
In Genesis 19 it seems to be that offering your daughters up for rape is condoned, as is paternal incest. And there is loads more of that throughout the OT.

I reject the claim of “older stories nicked from others” unless details are provided.

I can provide examples of where the bible nicks ideas and stories. But typically when I do the post just gets ignored. For example, a load of Christ's details (born in humble circumstances, died for our sins, 3 wise men, rose 3 days later, etc etc) can be found in loads of much older texts, relating to Dionysis, Mithras, etc. And the Egyption Book of The dead has the 10 commandments - it came out something like 400 years before the OT.

Am I to discard Darwin then?

You can discard the parts of this theories that have been superseded by new science, based on new observation and fact.

If (of course) there is no such thing as a witch (now) then the law is moot.

Witches still very much exist to this day. Do you think it is okay to burn them?

Something from nothing sounds suspiciously like sneaking god in under the guise of science. Or is there another scenario?

That is actually an observable phenomena, described in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This could actually apply to the universe (if there is a large negative portion of the universe out there somewhere).

But that aside, if the universe has to have been created since it cannot come from nothing, surely the same applies to god?

[Andrew D]

As I mentioned a few posts above ...

what I mean by that is only true if and only if an infinite amount of time has already passed .

Which changes nothing. Even if an infinite amount of time has already passed, the claim that everything that could possibly have happened must have happened remains an unsubstantiated assertion. I see no reason whatsoever to accept it. And without it, Meade's argument against a universe with no beginning and no end falls apart.

The entropy component of that argument does not work either. After all, entropy means merely that energy becomes unavailable, not that it ceases to exist. Unavailable energy, along with everything else, collapses into a singularity in a Big Crunch and explodes into availability in a Big Bang.

Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, Big Crunch ... the cycle never ends, and it never began.

[Andrew D]

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” is the KJV rendition (Ex 22:18) and that’s what is written – nowadays more likely perhaps to be written as “sorcerers”. The Greeks used “pharmakoi” meaning poisoners – probably to do with wrongful use of drugs and potions. The question of interpretation obviously arises – is Ex 22:18 a law that God intends should be obeyed for all time or was it specific to the nation of Israel at that time?

And how should we go about answering that question? From what I have seen, the typical Christian approach is to say that those laws which Christians of our time approve of -- and there is considerable disagreement among Christians even about that -- are the ones that should be obeyed for all time, and those laws which Christians of our time do not approve of are the ones that were specific to the nation of Israel at that time.

Of course, Christians of an earlier time (say, a few centuries ago) approved of different laws, so those different laws were the ones that should be obeyed for all time. The opinions of human Christians changed, and -- presto! -- which laws are in which category changed as well. The opinions of human Christians will surely change again, and I think we all know what will happen then.

[thestoat]

Which changes nothing. Even if an infinite amount of time has already passed, the claim that everything that could possibly have happened must have happened remains an unsubstantiated assertion. I see no reason whatsoever to accept it

You need to understand infinity. There is an old adage that given infinite time, 12 monkeys and 12 typewriters could type out all the plays of Shakespeare. That is what is going on here.

[MajGenl.Meade]

There's a wrong thing right there.

Re Joshua; not it’s not a “wrong thing” – it’s poetic description of a seemingly endless day of battle. A common device in ancient writings and through to today.

Eye for an eye versus turn the other cheek

.

Not understanding is not the same as contradiction. Eye for an eye is a limitation in a societal penal code; punishment should not be excessive but meted out in relation to the crime. That’s a good liberal principle even today. Turn the other cheek has to do with a personal reaction to a personal offence, in opposition to seeking vengeance – pursuing forgiveness rather than anger.

Genesis 19: it “seems” to me that offering daughters up for rape and incest is not condoned. It is reported as having happened, to which your objection is…….? (I don’t mean objection to rape and incest – I mean objection to reportage).

The Book of the Dead has far more than 10 commandments and yet does not have the same 10 as the Bible. Prohibitions against profaning God, murder, false witness are common to both – probably theft too. BoD forbids fornication whereas the Bible forbids adultery – that’s interesting. I see nothing odd in people sharing in similar “rules” if those rules are universally moral. Are we to accuse the legislatures of USA, UK, France etc etc etc of “nicking” ideas from dead Egyptians as well? No – God’s rules are discernible even to pagans and atheists.

As to the “load of Christ’s details”, one big difference is that Jesus was an actual person – Mithra, Bacchus/Dyoniusius, etc. were not. The alleged similarities with Mithra for example are based on fragmentary evidence of the Roman version of Mithra which can equally be concluded as imitative of Christianity. The tremendous differences are far more numerous and early church fathers were among the first to note and discuss similarities. I’d be interested in more detail of how the pagan gods (who never existed) died for our sins? (If perhaps this is in connection with the corn gods then I think C S Lewis wrote well on that).
My question about Darwin was to point out the double standard of praising “science” for advanced understanding of its own field while condemning better understanding of ancient texts (be it the Bible or any other text for that matter).

Oh pshaw (again). Witches don’t exist. People who call themselves witches do and they run about parts of New England waving smoke to the four corners of the world in determined manifestations of wackiness – good luck to them. My ex-wife goes. When they start sacrificing children to the devil, and killing people by spells – then maybe they are real witches and someone should do something about it – a trial and incarceration would seem appropriate. Burning is not socially acceptable, even for an ex-wife. Here in SA mind you, there is a determined belief in witchcraft; I’ve not seen it in operation although I’ve met a few sangomas (mostly more like herb healers) and people assure me that curses and so on really do work. The rule seems to be, get your own magic to hurl right back at ‘em.
The question re beginning of Universe/beginning of God rests on whether the universe is contingent or necessary. If the universe is contingent, then it had a cause (and a beginning).

God is not contingent but necessary. Was that the same weasels that ripped my flesh?

Andrew: Possible things might not happen in finite time; given enough time they might happen. Given infinite time they must happen. If a possible thing cannot happen in infinite time, then it is not possible is it? It is impossible. (And I don’t mean such a triviality as “Hitler is reborn as a philanthropist” or “The Cleveland Browns win the Super Bowl”). If the universe has existed through infinite time, the amount of time that has “passed” is no less than the amount of time that has not yet “come to be”. Therefore, since we are here (and the universe is not dead) an infinite amount of time has not preceded this moment. A series of oscillating universes might resolve that problem since you appear to posit the whole show as a perpetual motion machine. However, that’s not science as far as I understand current theory – oscillation is an old idea, one which I think Fred Hoyle despatched, but hey…

Oh and I didn’t say the universe has no end. I said the opposite – that a single-direction infinity (time beginning back ‘then’ but continuing unending out toward the future) cannot exist because everything goes black. Time is finite in the future direction.

As to Mosaic law, Jesus himself said he didn’t come to change it. And he didn’t. He superseded it with a new covenant. I think you err; nominal Christians have been far more prone to misapplying the Word of God in order to exert dominance and power (such as the issue of chattel slavery) than they have to making (implied hypocritical) adjustments to God’s moral requirements for society. You are in the position of criticizing Jews for what you regard as awful behaviour (B.C.) and then criticizing Christians for not continuing the awful behaviour (A.D.). Apparently enlightenment only comes to atheists? Or should perhaps a foolish consistency require me to burn a witch (but only if I can find a real one in Africa)?

Cheers
Meade

[Andrew D]

You need to understand infinity. There is an old adage that given infinite time, 12 monkeys and 12 typewriters could type out all the plays of Shakespeare. That is what is going on here.

Andrew: Possible things might not happen in finite time; given enough time they might happen. Given infinite time they must happen. If a possible thing cannot happen in infinite time, then it is not possible is it?

Both of you are indulging effectively the same fallacy, although expressed somewhat differently. The adage says twelve monkeys "could" type out all the plays of Shakespeare. Even if that is true, going from there to saying that twelve monkeys must type out all the plays of Shakespeare is a wild, unsubstantiated leap.

Likewise, the statement that "[ i]f a possible thing cannot happen in inifinite time, then it is not possible" is simply a straw man. It is, of course, true that if a thing cannot happen, then it is not possible. We do not need to explore infinite time to grasp that: It is self-evidently true even in finite time. But it does not follow that everything which is possible must become actual. I have seen nothing by way of demonstration that a thing which is possible but not actual now cannot have always been possible but not actual or cannot forever remain possible but not actual.

In both cases, the proposition that every possible thing might happen -- which surely ought to be noncontroversial -- becomes the proposition that every possible thing must happen without anything's being offered to support that radical change in meaning. Absent such support, there is no reason to accept the radically changed proposition.

Moreover, even if it were true that in infinite time, every possible thing must become an actual thing, that would not disprove an infinity of time in the past. For all we know, every possible thing has happened an infinite number of times. For all we know, the universe which we inhabit in our little moment between the last Big Bang and the next Big Crunch is identical to the universe which existed in the corresponding moment between the before-last Big Bang and the last Big Crunch. And identical to the universe which existed in the corresponding moment in the cycle before that. And so on without beginning.

If you can demonstrate that in an infinitude of time, every possible thing must, rather than may, happen, please have at it. Until such a demonstration is forthcoming, however, the proposition remains merely an assertion.

[loCAtek]

Well, not exactly. Fanaticism is 'fanatical devotion' done to the extreme of ANY subject or object.

The point is *still* it is spawned from religion and done under its name. T

As it is spawned/done by Sports, celebrities, politics, what-have-you, etc.

For example: 'Fans' of atheism, seem to think that since they like it, everyone should like it, 'eh?

Personally, I am not a fan of atheism any more than I am a fan of gravity. Both deal in facts without superfluous stuff tacked on

However, gravity is largely superfluous, no one knows what is it, or where it came from. Ask Hawkings

You just have to be devoted to believing in it; faith in other words.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Andrew

Well done - seized on the word "could" which is no doubt an error. Thestoat meant "will". The rationale is this:

Given sufficient time (and hardware), the hypothetical monkeys WILL type randomly every possible combination of letters that exists. One of those combinations is "The God Illusion". Admittendly that only took one monkey but the point is made. In infinite time, the monkeys MUST "eventually" hit upon any and all combination of letters. Your argument only holds for finite time.

As to the second part, as I said: "A series of oscillating universes might resolve that problem since you appear to posit the whole show as a perpetual motion machine. However, that’s not science as far as I understand current theory – oscillation is an old idea, one which I think Fred Hoyle despatched, but hey..."

It seems abundantly clear to me that something which is claimed to be "possible" but never actualises, even given infinite time to do so, is a thing for which the claim of "possible" is false. It is on a par with flying horses. Nothing can remain "possible" for infinity - because by definition if it does not happen (is unable to actualise) in infinite time then there is no time in which it is able to happen. A thing that cannot happen is an impossible thing. Your argument of unactualized potential only holds for finite time. Which is what we have - finite time.

Why do you put forward oscillating universes to explain away the problems of infinity if in fact there is no problem? You want to allow entropy in an infinite past by declaring it to have happened over and over. Speaking of "god of the gaps....."

Cheers
Meade