Continued Discussion With Lnc

[Ouroboros]

I am curious as to how you know that anonymous people were writing this Gospel under the name of Matthew? How do you know that this passage was meant to be allegorical?

I think it's because that the earliest manuscripts didn't have an author's name attached to them, and the tradition arose in the 2nd century that Matthew was the original author, and also that many scholars consider the original Matthew was written in Greek and not Aramaic. Besides, there are arguments suggesting that Matthew took material from Mark, and not really a separate or original production. What evidence is there for the idea that Matthew was the original author?

[Shyone]

 

I don't see the main point of his comparison to be the time factor as we aren't even told in the book of Jonah how long he was in the fish, so somehow Jesus had special insight into the length of time that Jonah was in the fish. Anyway, those are some of my thoughts on the subject.

Your quoting was off a bit, so I thought you were actually expressing some concern about the problem.

 

Ah, but what you don't see is that the whole thing is a story made up after Jesus died in an attempt to make him look like he knew what the fuck he was doing.

 

The irony is that if he went voluntarily to the cross, then Judas was the hero that made it all happen. And the idea of Jesus on a suicide mission for God is just disgusting.

[LNC]

Because there is zero archaeological evidence of any cities ever existing in the area where the Bible says Sodom and Gomorrah existed.

 

In fact, the archaeological record rather consistently contradicts the Biblical record. Not only with regard to the existence of cities, but also the time and manner in which the cities which did exist were conquered, and the time and manner in which the Hebrews entered Israel.

 

Could you cite the evidence that consistently contradicts the Biblical record? BTW, you simply cannot say that we have archeological evidence that ancient cities, for which we have no solid coordinates for their exact location, don't exist simply because we have not yet found them. The only way that that would be possible is if we knew the exact location of where the should have been, dug there, and didn't find evidence there. However, we don't have coordinates of where these cities were as there were no maps left behind, only somewhat vague descriptions of landmarks that existed at the time but may have changed over the millennia since then. Unfortunately, it is not always easy to locate these ancient ruins.

 

That argument has been used many times regarding other sites and have later been refuted when the site turned up in a different location from where people thought it should be. It is accurate to say that the location of Sodom and Gomorrah has not yet been found, however, it is not accurate to say that it has been proved that they didn't exist.

[LNC]

Read again.

 

What I have written above is shorthand, but it's pretty much what all the writers you cite have to say on the subject. The nature of reality "prior" to the Big Bang (I put "prior" in quotation marks because time itself -- as we know it -- appears to have begun at the Big Bang) is unknown, but there is no theory I know of which states that the singularity came from nothing. Space/time/energy changed form, but it did not appear out of nowhere.

 

Hawking postulates a "dual cone" of existence, with space/time running "backward" on the other side of the Big Bang, but he does not postulate something from nothing, and neither do any other scientists I've read. There is speculation of a "first cause," but that is not the same as a creator.

 

Like I said, read again. You appear to have missed something.

 

You will have to actually cite references here as I have cited references that indicate that spacetime had a beginning at the BB. In fact, the evidence that I cited states that given our physics, it is not possible to avoid the singularity, meaning that matter, space and time came into existence at that point. What you refer to with Hawking is metaphysical speculation, but not backed by empirical data. I think what you are referring to is a hypothesis based upon the string hypothesis (it really cannot even be called a theory at this point since it is non-falsifiable). There is so little known about String and even less verifiable that to base a hypothesis on it puts you in a less justified position than to posit an intelligent agent which can also answer other problems that we have such as the existence of physical laws, fine tuning, moral laws, etc. In essence, you are appealing to metaphysics, and an apparently weaker one at that.

[NotBlinded]

You will have to actually cite references here as I have cited references that indicate that spacetime had a beginning at the BB. In fact, the evidence that I cited states that given our physics, it is not possible to avoid the singularity, meaning that matter, space and time came into existence at that point. What you refer to with Hawking is metaphysical speculation, but not backed by empirical data. I think what you are referring to is a hypothesis based upon the string hypothesis (it really cannot even be called a theory at this point since it is non-falsifiable). There is so little known about String and even less verifiable that to base a hypothesis on it puts you in a less justified position than to posit an intelligent agent which can also answer other problems that we have such as the existence of physical laws, fine tuning, moral laws, etc. In essence, you are appealing to metaphysics, and an apparently weaker one at that.

Oh, stop with the "metaphysical" name-calling LNC. All of this is metaphysical, which means "after the physical". We can perceive through the senses that effect follows cause, but how do we "measure" the dependence of the effect on the cause? Is this dependence verifiable through scientific means? No. If the dependence does actually exist, how do we know that it has existed in the past and will continue to exist in the future? We use our intellect and arrive at these metaphysical truths.

 

So, stop with the metaphysical blame game. It's not appealing and makes you look funny.

[Mriana]

...or a person who gets physically ill in the face of dogmatic religious ideology (I'll raise my hand on this one and admit I have this issue) are also examples of extremes of the norm.

Damn, I resemble that remark too.

 

I can't see it as being the norm and a little help for it can't hurt. I don't think so at least.

[NotBlinded]

...or a person who gets physically ill in the face of dogmatic religious ideology (I'll raise my hand on this one and admit I have this issue) are also examples of extremes of the norm.

Damn, I resemble that remark too.

 

I can't see it as being the norm and a little help for it can't hurt. I don't think so at least.

I agree. We must get rid of this disease! No, that's not the good kind of help is it? I can understand that I should accept it and I'm getting better, but it still turns my stomach when the arrogance arises whether they mean to or not. Maybe that is what makes me feel ill...the ignorance about it and the harm it does to people emotionally.

[mwc]

I guess that Paul would not consider that he was losing out, but instead, the gospel was being abandoned. The other group was made up of the Judaizers who are spoken about often in the book of Acts. They weren't so much upset that they were losing out to Paul, but that the gospel was succeeding. I don't think the Judaizers were interested in the gospel, but in bringing the people back under the auspices of the Law.

Yes...Acts...of course.

 

Gospel. Abandoned. Clearly.

 

mwc

[mwc]

I am curious as to how you know that anonymous people were writing this Gospel under the name of Matthew? How do you know that this passage was meant to be allegorical?

I curious as to why you would "attack" such a clearly sarcastic statement?

 

However your own answer a couple of posts back attempts to argue for a non-literal interpretation of this passage. So I guess you'll have to tell me? Only I'm so not interested...

 

mwc

[centauri]

The problem I've always had with this issue is that Jesus specifically stated he would be in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights.

Matt 12:40

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

 

That promise is only found in Matthew but it often gets overlooked.

Jesus was only in the grave for 3 days and 2 nights according to Matthew, Luke, and Mark, and 2 days and 2 nights according to John. Although Jesus didn't have to be in the grave for 72 hours, he did have to be there on portions of 6 separate 12 hour time periods.

That would total a minimum of 50 hours.

Jesus was only in the grave approximately 38 hours.

Even accommodating Jesus by counting a portion of a 12 hour period as a full period doesn't help Jesus.

 

First, you have to realize that in that culture they didn't have the precise timekeeping standards that we do. They didn't have clocks and wristwatches, or as we do now, cell phones to keep time.

Thanks for enlightening me about people not having cell phones or wristwatches 2,000 years ago.

You need to realize that precise time keeping isn’t required here.

The stipulation revolves around two segments of time, day and night, which in this case involves 6 segments in total.

Jesus defined a day as having 12 hours in John 11:9.

Night would contain the other 12 hours.

 

With that said, it still appears that Jesus said three days and three nights, which seems to be an apparent contradiction. I believe that the answer to this was that Jesus was making more of a rhetorical comparison than a specific time comparison. As Jonah was in the fish, which he considered to be a means of judgment, God used it as a means of his deliverance; so, the Son of Man was in the heart of the earth which his enemies considered his place of judgment, but which God used as a means of salvation, however, in this case for us, not him.

You can believe anything that makes it all work out for you.

If you don’t want it to really mean 3 days and 3 nights, then it doesn’t.

 

I don't see the main point of his comparison to be the time factor as we aren't even told in the book of Jonah how long he was in the fish, so somehow Jesus had special insight into the length of time that Jonah was in the fish.

Yes, we are told how long Jonah was in the fish.

In Jonah 1:17 we are told that Jonah was in the fish three days and three nights and that’s enough information to establish a minimum time spent there.

That’s 6 distinct time periods that would comprise a minimum of about 50 hours, which includes giving credit for partial time spent at both the beginning and end of the time span.

[Shyone]

 

I don't see the main point of his comparison to be the time factor as we aren't even told in the book of Jonah how long he was in the fish, so somehow Jesus had special insight into the length of time that Jonah was in the fish.

Yes, we are told how long Jonah was in the fish.

In Jonah 1:17 we are told that Jonah was in the fish three days and three nights and that’s enough information to establish a minimum time spent there.

That’s 6 distinct time periods that would comprise a minimum of about 50 hours, which includes giving credit for partial time spent at both the beginning and end of the time span.

You would think that LNC would have known that. Wouldn't you? Jesus knew it, and that is supposed to have been the reason he said what he said.

 

Of course, it's a fabrication; words put into Jesus' mouth "in order to fulfill the prophecy..."

 

["Matthew" and "Luke" find a problem...]

 

"It looks like Jesus didn't have a clue about his death and resurrection from these writings."

 

"Hmmm. Surely he did. Let's see, three days... three days. Wasn't Jonah in the fish's belly for three days?"

 

"Yeah, right. I'll bet he said something that they didn't write down. You know, like, 'I will be dead for three days like Jonah was in the fish.'"

 

"Ok, well, if he said it, we'd better put it in there or people will think he was clueless."

 

"Right.... Done!"

[Mriana]

...or a person who gets physically ill in the face of dogmatic religious ideology (I'll raise my hand on this one and admit I have this issue) are also examples of extremes of the norm.

Damn, I resemble that remark too.

 

I can't see it as being the norm and a little help for it can't hurt. I don't think so at least.

I agree. We must get rid of this disease! No, that's not the good kind of help is it? I can understand that I should accept it and I'm getting better, but it still turns my stomach when the arrogance arises whether they mean to or not. Maybe that is what makes me feel ill...the ignorance about it and the harm it does to people emotionally.

 

I know and I have a name for such an illness that affects the head, stomach, and other parts of the body- mental stigmata. The name fits all too well, even though the symptoms (migraine, stomach upset, tension in the neck and back...) are very real. However, as much as LNC annoy us and alike, try to avoid puking on him.

[NotBlinded]

I know and I have a name for such an illness that affects the head, stomach, and other parts of the body- mental stigmata. The name fits all too well, even though the symptoms (migraine, stomach upset, tension in the neck and back...) are very real. However, as much as LNC annoy us and alike, try to avoid puking on him.

But...but...I have been waiting a long time to use this:

 

*sulks off*

 

 

[Ouroboros]

LNC,

 

Some time back in one of these threads you mentioned that you used to believe in the new Earth, and you now believe in an ancient Earth.

 

Why, in your opinion, does the new Earth concept remain strong for so many Christians?

 

Phanta

What really confounds me is that he can believe in a new Earth, but he can't believe in a Multiverse. If a different universe can exist in the form of Heaven, Hell, and New Earth, then we're already 3 universes away from a complete series of universes. I'd say "multi" means many, and 3 is several.

[Ouroboros]

LNC doesn't believe in new Earth any more. He changed his mind after too much evidence pointed to an ancient Earth.

Oh, I see we have a little misunderstanding. I was thinking of New Earth, as in after apocalypse, Revelation style, when all is said and done, God has judged the world, and Universe has been crumbled up as a cloth, and God creates a new world, and that's the New Earth. Sorry.

 

What you were talking about is the 6,000 years old Earth, which I usually hear is referred to as the Young Earth. Is that the one we're talking about?

 

Because I'm sure he believes in a new heaven, new Earth, new Universe, Heaven, Hell, yada, yada, even though he might not believe in the 6,000 years young Earth.

 

(And he is a he)

[LNC]

"recorded"?

 

Not really. Recording would imply a first-person historical narrative. We don't have that. We have third- and fourth-hand accounts, written decades after the events they purport to describe. It would be better to say that it is "claimed" that many saw the risen Christ.

 

What's more, that claim says that a crowd of around 500 saw Jesus physically ascend into the sky. Yet this claim is not repeated anywhere outside of the Gospels - and neither is another astonishing claim of an even witnessed by hundreds of people, the claim that when Jesus dies on the cross there were tombs opening all over Jerusalem and the dead walking in the streets.

 

The complete lack of extra-Biblical corroboration for these astonishing events is unfathomable. Unless, of course, they did not actually take place.

 

Why must a record be written by a first person? Would that eliminate most of our recorded history? John was a first person witness and writes of actually touching the risen Jesus (1 John 1:11), so you are wrong in your assertion.

 

You are also wrong in your second paragraph assertion. It is nowhere recorded that 500 people saw Jesus ascend, it is said that 500 saw Jesus at one time and it is said that many were living at the time that 1 Cor. was written, so they could verify the statement personally. So, let me ask you, do you accept every statement within the NT that has multiple attestation?

 

I think that you assume a lot with your statement that either these events had extra-biblical attestation or they didn't happen, it seems that there are plenty of other alternatives. You set up a false dilemma.

 

Why should you believe this supposed "record" any more than the Book of Mormon? Both have the exact same degree of verifiability.

 

Well, we have multiple attestation for the key points of the account. We have outside verification of events recorded within the record (archeological and otherwise). The Bible also harmonizes with the OT writings that preceded it. I don't find these to be the case with the Book of Mormon. There is no multiple attestation, no archeological confirmation of basic claims, and it contradicts writings that it claims to be authoritative and that preceded it. So, again you are wrong in your assertion regarding verifiability.

 

No, one of those who claimed to have seen the risen Christ was the author of the fourth Gospel, a man who claimed to be John. Since the earliest fragments we have of the Gospel of John were written down around a hundred years after the disciple named John was dead, it hardly constitutes a compelling proof.

 

Again: there is NO PROOF that anything written in any of the Gospels actually took place. Events of that scope and magnitude would surely have been spoken of--and written about--throughout the Roman Empire, yet they were not. Huh.

 

You make the assertion that John didn't see Jesus, so can I ask what is your proof that he was lying? Can you give your evidence that John didn't write the Gospel in his name and the letters in his name? You are also wrong in your claim about the earliest fragments, P52 dates to about 125 and contains John's writings. That would put it within a couple of decades of his death. You are on the outer fringes in your beliefs as very few historians would claim that none of these events took place. In fact, it is quite the opposite and I gave some key facts tied to Jesus' life, death, and resurrection with which most historians agree.

 

Your claim that there is no proof is specious as well as we are discussing some of that evidence in the NT writings.

[bdp]

The ascription of 'John' to the gospel and the revelation is mere tradition. As to the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith had signed affadavits - that's more than we have for any of the gospels.

 

...so, because someone in one document said that 500 people saw a risen Jesus, that means 500 people attest to it hence 'multiple attestation'? I have to reject that, what we have is one attestation to a rumored 500 people.

[LNC]

Look up the work of Vilenkin, Borde, Guth, Hawking, Davies, and others and you will find that they all generally agree that the universe had a beginning (in fact, had to have a beginning).

 

Read them again. And again. And take a class on astrophysics.

 

What they say is that the universe as we know it had to have a beginning. In fact, they say that TIME as we know it had to have a beginning. That is not the same as saying that it came from nothing. Nowhere do any physicists support an "ex nihilo" creation.

 

Read my post again. As you see in my post, which I left attached, I said that they agree that the universe had a beginning and your reading seems to agree with my statement. I never claimed that they said how the universe came to be, that is a straw man that you built.

 

I am not saying that the universe is "past eternal." That implies a completely different conceptualization of time. Time as we know it began with the Big Bang. But according to Hawking, "before" the Big Bang there was something. We simply do not know what that something was.

 

What exactly do you believe Hawking is claiming existed "before" the big bang and how does he verify this?

 

Sure it might. But in this case, it doesn't. You just can't see that because you're too attached to your god-centric viewpoint.

 

OK, if you believe that your view has explanatory scope and power, maybe you could explain from where the laws of physics arose, why we see order in the universe, why we can comprehend anything (i.e. what our minds are and how they could arise via naturalism). Please explain these without using teleological terms as that is not allowed given naturalism. If you can, then we can move onto other issues that must be explained.

 

This reads like an oxymoron. I have no idea what you are trying to ask.

 

How does one cross an infinite to arrive at today? It is a pretty simply concept to understand in philosophy, it is another thing to explain it. Give it a try.

 

Actually, the world we live in is grounded in uncertainty. We pretend otherwise for the sake of sanity. But in reality, there is nothing we can be certain of other than our own individual existence.

 

Then why are you looking for independent attestation of past events? How can we be certain about anything if we live in a world grounded in uncertainty? How can you even be certain about your own existence given such a scenario? In fact, how can you be certain that we live in a world grounded in uncertainty with only the appearance of sanity? It seems to be self-refuting to suggest this.

 

I challenge you to give me a single example of such an underlying principle which is not treated situationally in the Bible itself.

 

Easy, you shouldn't murder. Give me a justification for murder and remember, it has to be murder. You cannot classify justified killing (self-defense, war, etc.)

[Shyone]

 

I challenge you to give me a single example of such an underlying principle which is not treated situationally in the Bible itself.

 

Easy, you shouldn't murder. Give me a justification for murder and remember, it has to be murder. You cannot classify justified killing (self-defense, war, etc.)

The execution of children prisoners is, by every measure, murder. But God said (according to the Bible, which is a man-made document written to justify such wanton murder in the first place) that executing children prisoners is just fine and dandy.

 

"Thank God" we have outgrown this murderous activity. Well, of course, God is fictional, and there is no reason to thank a fictional being, and particularly one that is worse than the Emperor in Star Wars.

[Neon Genesis]

I love how LNC accuses Davka of setting up a false dilemma that either the stories in the bible have extra-biblical attestation or they didn't happen yet that's exactly what LNC is doing. LNC also goofed up and slipped in his last post, exposing his lies as to who he considers to be "real" scholars. Before he used to argue only that all scholars agree Jesus was crucified, now he's claiming they all believe he was resurrected which is not true, so LNC is showing his supernatural bias and admitting he thinks people like Ehrman are not real scholars after all.

[LNC]

Let me rephrase that: You do not appear to understand what the phrase "appearance of design" means as it is used by physicists.

 

Your above statement reinforces that perception.

 

Please enlighten me as to what you believe that physicists mean by appearance of design. I have read enough in this field to know what they mean, although, I am curious as to what you believe they mean.

 

LOL- and you claim to have read a lot of physics? Do you know what a "brane" is?

 

Can you give me the empirical data that verifies brane (M-theory)? If not, in what context do you bring this theory up? Are you saying that it gives concrete validation to multiple universes? If so, please point me to the data to verify this. If not, you are still in the realm of metaphysics as I originally stated.

 

I'm not going to chase through everything you've written. If you've made what you consider to be relevant points, at least have the courtesy to link to them instead of simply claiming they exist and asking me to slog though pages and pages of writing.

 

You can start with the writings of Lucian, Clement, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr (all late 1st and early 2nd century).

[LNC]

It just occurred to me, LNC - you are demanding a scientific basis for the assertion that the Universe has always existed in some form or another, yet you cannot even begin to come up with a scientific basis for the assertion that god exists, let alone that he has always existed.

 

If you take these statements alone, without demanding "proof" for either one, which is the simplest and most powerful explanation?

 

- The Universe has always existed.

 

- The Universe requires a creator. The creator has always existed.

 

Do you see the problem? The second statement merely introduces an unprovable being into the mix. We know the universe exists. We do not know that god exists, or that if such a being did exist, he would not in turn require a creator by the same logic. In which case it's "turtles all the way down."

 

Your attempt to sidetrack the conversation into a scientific pissing match avoids the central fallacy of your position: you have not demonstrated that it is a simpler or more powerful explanation to posit the existence of an invisible, unprovable being than to simply observe that existence - exists.

 

You seem base your beliefs on empirical evidential data, so I am simply asking on what empirical evidential data you base your belief that the universe is past-eternal. You can give me a philosophical basis, a scientific basis or a combination of the two if you prefer.

 

I have given abductive reasoning to infer that the best explanation for the existence of the universe, morality, minds, etc., is that God created them. Abductive reasoning is a valid form of reasoning, and quite contrary to the skeptic assertion that this is just a "goddidit" claim, it is not. It is called inference to the best explanation and is not God in the gaps, but rather God as the best explanation of the data. It is also how we determine the best explanation of past events for which we have no direct witnesses, e.g. the origin of the universe, minds, morality, etc.

 

The problem with your example above of the apparent dichotomy is that matter is contingent in nature and God is necessary in nature. Contingent entities, by definition, require explanations. Necessary entities, by definition, do not. It would be a case of special pleading to say that everything that we know of in the universe is contingent, yet the universe itself (being of the same kind and substance) is not. God, on the other hand, is not of the same kind and substance as the universe and so does not get trapped into that categorical error.

 

You also commit another fallacy in your two statements in stating that the universe has always existed. That statement is unproven and fails by the same reasoning that you use against the existence of God. You have not provided one piece of evidence either scientifically or philosophically to prove your assertion, therefore, it is a metaphysical assertion, not an empirical or scientific one. It also has a great deal of both scientific and philosophical evidence to show that it is most likely a false assertion. These arguments you have not answered, therefore, it is a more tenable conclusion to say that the universe, like the entities within it, is contingent.

 

So, as much as you think that simply asserting that because the universe now exists, it is therefore past-eternal, serves as any type of evidential support for your assertion, you are simply mistaken. You have to do more than assert the past eternal universe, you have to give some type of evidence or philosophical reasoning to make your case.

 

I have given this valid reasoning for the existence of God and therefore, it is more reasonable to posit that God exists than to posit a past-eternal universe.

[bdp]

I have given this valid reasoning for the existence of God and therefore, it is more reasonable to posit that God exists than to posit a past-eternal universe.

 

You believe you have done this. And yet somehow I still find your god extremely unreasonable to believe in. Beyond that I don't care a bit about where anything came from, it's completely irrelevant to my day to day existence, which will pass (not) soon enough anyway.

[Kuroikaze]

You are also wrong in your second paragraph assertion. It is nowhere recorded that 500 people saw Jesus ascend, it is said that 500 saw Jesus at one time and it is said that many were living at the time that 1 Cor. was written, so they could verify the statement personally. So, let me ask you, do you accept every statement within the NT that has multiple attestation?

 

The claim that people could verify this is a bit of a misnomer. If I told you saw some unbelievable thing, and there were 500 people out there who saw it too, would you be able to verify this? With no names or information about where these 500 lived? Sorry, the claim has all the marks of someone who is making shit up.

 

Paul might as well have told us about his Canadian girlfriend. She totally exists....really.

 

I think that you assume a lot with your statement that either these events had extra-biblical attestation or they didn't happen, it seems that there are plenty of other alternatives. You set up a false dilemma.

 

Except the claim is not that it is certainly false, but that there is simply no good reason to believe it is true. It "might" be true...but only in the same sense that big foot "might" exist. Do you believe everything you cannot PROVE is false is actually true?

[NotBlinded]

You seem base your beliefs on empirical evidential data, so I am simply asking on what empirical evidential data you base your belief that the universe is past-eternal. You can give me a philosophical basis, a scientific basis or a combination of the two if you prefer.

 

I have given abductive reasoning to infer that the best explanation for the existence of the universe, morality, minds, etc., is that God created them. Abductive reasoning is a valid form of reasoning, and quite contrary to the skeptic assertion that this is just a "goddidit" claim, it is not. It is called inference to the best explanation and is not God in the gaps, but rather God as the best explanation of the data. It is also how we determine the best explanation of past events for which we have no direct witnesses, e.g. the origin of the universe, minds, morality, etc.

 

The problem with your example above of the apparent dichotomy is that matter is contingent in nature and God is necessary in nature. Contingent entities, by definition, require explanations. Necessary entities, by definition, do not. It would be a case of special pleading to say that everything that we know of in the universe is contingent, yet the universe itself (being of the same kind and substance) is not. God, on the other hand, is not of the same kind and substance as the universe and so does not get trapped into that categorical error.

 

You also commit another fallacy in your two statements in stating that the universe has always existed. That statement is unproven and fails by the same reasoning that you use against the existence of God. You have not provided one piece of evidence either scientifically or philosophically to prove your assertion, therefore, it is a metaphysical assertion, not an empirical or scientific one. It also has a great deal of both scientific and philosophical evidence to show that it is most likely a false assertion. These arguments you have not answered, therefore, it is a more tenable conclusion to say that the universe, like the entities within it, is contingent.

 

So, as much as you think that simply asserting that because the universe now exists, it is therefore past-eternal, serves as any type of evidential support for your assertion, you are simply mistaken. You have to do more than assert the past eternal universe, you have to give some type of evidence or philosophical reasoning to make your case.

 

I have given this valid reasoning for the existence of God and therefore, it is more reasonable to posit that God exists than to posit a past-eternal universe.

And on and on it goes...to infinity and beyond!

 

I was reading that if it is possible for any nesessary entity to exist then all necessary entities must exist, including mutually contradictory ones.

 

Enter Antigod/s...

 

Oh, by the way, the cosmological argument is a metaphysical argument.

 

What you want is a metaphysical argument for the existence of an uncaused universe don't you? I'll have search around and see what I can come up with. Although in Western thought, the focus has been on dualism and is highly reflected in philosophical thought. There are a few non-dual philosophers such as Hume, I believe, but there may not be any arguments per-say.