That could be problematic?
What should we do? 
I think we can ask questions on what it means to say God is Being, and have discussions about it based on reasoning and even scientific and historical background.
Being can have many different forms and modes. Human person can be being. Why is it being? Because it has physical body and also mind with perception and thoughts.
In what sense God is Being? Does God have physical body and all the mental quality of humans? Or Is God spiritual being with no body and no mental qualities? Or is God some other form of existence than body and mind? Or is God the Hegelian spritual being?
I gather the OT doesn’t explain what God is in its form, and origin. Is it correct?
I am not a mathematician, but this is a very well-known property of infinity that the community agrees with.
I am not interested in showing whether the eternal past exists or not. All that I am interested in is to agree that now cannot be reached from the eternal past, assuming that the eternal past exists.
The B theory of time is atemporal, so it is not acceptable, since our reality is clearly temporal.
We are dealing with the eternal past again, even if the period of each cycle is finite, since the cycle repeats without any beginning from the past.
Within presentism, time exists only at the present and changes.
This is entirely wrong-headed. Members of actual monotheistic religions who claim to “believe in God” typically do not arrive at their belief via evidence or proof (although some will retrospectively describe it that way). This is simply not how actual monotheism works.
What you’re getting at is the “god of philosophers,” a type of god-belief that has no relevance and no power in the world.
You are introducing into the god-debate aspects that are extraneous to actual, historical monotheism.
What’s the point of talking about god apart from references to actual monotheistic religions?
1 Like
It also makes god into yet another figment of one’s imagination which one can dismiss at will.
The god of philosophers is an attempt to get peace of mind in regard to the god-problem. But this philosophical god belief is impotent and irrelevant in the real world, where people who believe in God in line with traditional religions throw bombs on other people, all in the name of their exclusive and superior knowledge of God.
1 Like
Restricting God discussion to one particular religion can lead to just a religious chitchat rather than critical arguments on God in the universe.
You seem to be forgetting the fact that in the universe there exists more than just one God.
ps: This reply was addressed to @baker, not @Delirium as appears in the post.
Oh dear. Looks like you’ve taken the religious/spiritual route, too, with your uncharitable reading …
Nobody restricted the god discussion to one particular religion. The distinction I make is
actual, historical monotheistic religions
vs.
stuff philosophers make up.
1 Like
I see. Sorry for misunderstanding. My point was just for suggestion. Please ignore it, if you thought it was irrelevant.
This is a philosophical argument on God, hence the suggestions was to see God under the philosophical eyes.
If anyone wants to bring in other Gods from other religions for discussion, that would be fine too as long as relevant to the topic. That was what I meant.
I don’t understand your response here. Your contention with an eternal past is that you couldn’t reach any point in time, but if the universe has an eternal past with a finite amount of repeating events then you could always reach any event.
This doesn’t address the fact that you created a new process of becoming the present which is something that presentists would deny.
All I am saying is that we are dealing with the eternal past in the case of a cyclic universe as well. So they are not acceptable either.
I am working with two points of time rather than one point, if that is your question.
but your contention with eternal past doesn’t apply, so how is it not acceptable? 
I don’t think your refutation to presentism is valid even though I’m not a presentist.
Can you explain this? Why do these theories need presentism?
Just sum over the time of each cycle!
I think it is valid. Do you understand my argument?