Looks good. Keep up the good work!

Mac OS X -- half a dozen known viruses.

Windows -- 15000 known viruses.

'nuff said.

Here is where I think we agree...

-the big bang happened, likely around 14 billion years ago.

-the Big Bang had something profound to do with the universe as we know and can measure it today.

-time, space and matter are properties of the universe

-the conditions prior to t=0 are not detectable through the scientific method or direct observation

Where we disagree...

-whether or not anything existed prior to the big bang

-whether or not the universe is or could be eternal

-whether or not we can induce logically what could or could not have happened prior to the big bang.

Is that a fair assessment so far? Would you add anything?

I'll agree to that! Cheers.

I really don't think that I am merely assuming that the universe is finite in time. A quick google search should confirm that for you.

You say that the Big Bang obviously had a cause, and I agree. That is the central tenet of my argument. When astronomers and astrophysicists speak of the big bang, they are speaking about the beginning of the universe. So you are right in saying that the Big Bang does not equal the universe. But you are assuming that something physical , the singularity, existed prior to the beginning of matter. That is simply absurd.

In cases like this, logic and the laws of logic are all we have to talk about the beginning of time, space and matter. Science is blind prior to t=0.

Again, I am not merely assuming God's timelessness, it is established by the arguments. The fact that the universe is finite in time is well established in scientific literature. Again, these are not assumptions. And you labeling them assumptions does nothing to reduce their truth value.

God didn't begin to exist without cause. The premiss is that everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause for its existence.

God's begininglessness is not assumed by the argument, it is established by it.

Examples of things that begin to exist without cause, please...(not God as established by my arguments)...under your view, this should happen all the time.

The universe can't be infinite in the past because an infinite regress of cause and effect is an actually infinite set of events. Any mathemetician knows that an actually infinite set of anything is impossible. Therefore an eternal universe is impossible. This is not speculation.

Time and matter came into existence at the same moment. Consult Einstein.

I already told you about an impersonal set of mechanical causes. Are you seriously talking about a personal set of mechanical causes?? Read my arguments carefully.

You have done nothing to show that my premisses are faulty.

No, one God, three persons.

You seem to provide a pretty decent explanation of the Trinity here, xaeon.

I heard the Trinity described as being similar to Fluffy, the three-headed dog in Harry Potter. One being, or substance, with three loci of consciousness.

Your statement that the doctrine of the Trinity is inconsistent throughout the Bible doesn't hold water though. The idea is communicated quite consistently throughout the Bible.

I explain why this is not the case in my response to xaeon above.

Those aren't logical flaws or assumptions my friend.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence"

It is absurd to deny that something that begins to exist can do so without a cause. Please provide some examples of things that have begun to exist without cause. (Obviously you can't say the universe because that is exactly what is up for debate here.) Maybe you have a horse that began to exist without cause (no parents, no magician, no illusionists...it just appeared in your living room while you were trying to watch TV.) Maybe a car? Your only response to my premiss is to say "It could have existed forever", or "It couldhave been a previous universe." You posit fanciful imaginary scenarios to try and get around the fact that my premiss is plainly true.

"It must be immaterial because it existed in the absence of all matter."

How is this an assumption? We cannot talk about 'before the universe' because time and matter came into existence at the same moment. If the cause of the universe existed without the universe, as it must have because the universe could not cause itself, then the cause of the universe existed in the absolute absence of matter. Something that exists in the absence of matter is necessarily immaterial.

Same goes for the 'timelessness' of the cause.

It must be personal...

We know this because an impersonal set of mechanical causes could not exist without their resulting effect. If this were the case, then the universe would have always existed, which is mathematically impossible as it would constitute an infinite regress of cause and effect.

Enormously powerful...you seem to agree, although you don't want to.

Why am I comfortable with an eternal God but not an eternal universe? As I mentioned previously, the physical universe, if it existed eternally, would constitute an eternal regress of cause and effect. This is mathematically impossible as it lead to several contradictory conclusions, all of which must be true, but some of which are mutually exclusive. An eternal, immaterial, timeless being is certainly logically plausible as established by my arguments previously.

The plain science says that the universe had a beginning in the finite past. This fact is just not up for debate among serious scientists. Your oscillating universe idea was debunked long ago, you should drop that one from your list of rebuttals.

Sorry xaeon, but your comments do not demonstrate that my premisses are flawed. You seem to think that we can only know things that we can detect empirically. This is far from the truth. There are many things that we know that are impossible to detect empirically, things like the laws of logic ('A' cannot be 'Not A'). The things that we know about what could have existed without the universe are well established by the laws of logic.