Convince Me

<b>I forgot to note that I will not be addressing the audience but instead my opponent directly, due to the format of this debate.</b>"The fact that you said we know that infinity is a reality sets off red flags, because I do not know that infinity is a reality. This is going to have to have support for me to believe it."I apologize for not addressing this before I made the statement. I'll go into it deeper in response to some of your other statements."A question is not an argument. Therefore, this is not a convincing argument by definition."Perhaps, but the question was rhetorical."I am not convinced there is a problem of linear time. The B-Theory of time posits no linear time and it is Atheist-friendly. It would only be a problem if B-Theory was impossible. It would only seem to be impossible to me if an actual infinite was impossible (which is exactly what you are arguing against)."Are you truly not convinced of a linear time? Look to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. We know that there is a beginning and an end because the world is running out of energy. The world is winding down. For the world to be winding down, it must first have been winded up. If the earth has been here eternally, the Second Law of Thermodynamics would be null, void. There is no question that the earth is in linear time."Modern science tells us that the universe will keep on expanding forever. The idea that the universe will end in a Big Crunch or some other scenario is unlikely according to modern science. This means I am not convinced by the above."Modern science also tells us of how the universe will end. Maybe there will be a big crunch, however unlikely, before the universe runs itself down into the ground.astronomers claim not only that the universe is expanding but also that the expansion is accelerating. In order to make their observations fit the standard cosmology, they have had to add dark energy with a non-zero value for the cosmological constant and also a significant amount of dark matter.Together these comprise about 96% of the mass-energy content of the universe, yet they remain unknown entities.There is no sound scientific evidence for an expanding universe, as it is a theory, only observed once by redlights while observing a supernova. There isn't scientific evidence for the unknown of Dark Matter nor Dark Energy, which were principles created by scientists yet unknown, in an attempt to explain an expanding universe. Quasar proper motion, and the Quasar variations are very bad for the big bang model. You'd need an evolution of galaxy size to explain angular size and surface brightness versus the redlights. There are too many unknown factors in an expanding universe to be proven specifically by redlights in a supernova, and even with an expanding universe, it doesn't help your argument at all. It actually helps mine. Why? Because for the universe to be expanding, there needs to be a beginning point to when it started expanding. If the universe had been expanding for an eternity, where would we be? The earth would be infinitely expanded, instead of expanding infinitely, because we would be stuck in a timeless space."The statement "there was a point when there was nothing" is logically contradictory. To say there "was" and "when" necessitates time, which is something. A point is something as well. Thus to say there "was" "a point" "when" there "was" "nothing" makes no sense at all and is not a sentance that be viewed as coherent. In reality, there was a point but it was not nothing; it was the initial state of the universe which was somethnig. Therefore, I am not convinced."That is correct. It is logically incorrect for the universe to be here without a cause by an external, infinite being. Without an external, infinite being, there would be a necessity of time. You cannot have a universe without an external source because it would be 'logically contradictory'. We would need to necessitate time. And then for that, we'd need to necessitate more time. And it becomes either eternal, or a paradox, which is also logically impossible."This seems like circular reasoning. I am not convinced by circular reasoning. Regardless, my opponent has not shown what he means by the term "God is infinite". Does this mean:(i) His mind entails an infinite regress of causally prior thoughts whether temporally or atemporally?(ii) His mind entails that an infinite amount of thoughts exist timelessly?(iii) His mind entails that a finite amount of thoughts exists timelessly?(iiii) His mind entails one super-thought exists timelessly?Pro has left us without a meaning behind his view of an infninte God."I don't know how I can respond to this without using Biblical references, and/or digressing from the topic. So I'll simply say this: I do not know the mind of God. I can provide logical proof of an infinite being, but cannot provide a dissection of the mind of God. Logic is like time, science, and space. Restricted to our universe, restricted to our own set of rules. Here is an illustration: Angels and Demons are God's creations, they are finite, restricted by time as we are, yet are not bound to our universe. God, infinite in nature, must have a comprehension of time or else angels and demons would not be created. This is simply an illustration, not an argument.As concludes my rebuttal.