8 Steps To The Existence Of God

[snafu]

1. Its logically impossible and meaningless for there to be such a thing as an infinite “number” of events since an infinity transcends all numbers, and thus all events.

Suppose the universe consisted of one bit of information. All that existed was one “thing” that could take the values one and zero. Every time it took the value zero, that “caused” the next value to be one, and vice versa. We can call this progression of states “time”, if it makes the discussion easier. In this universe, time has gone on forever, and all that’s existed is this one ticking counter. Why is the universe this way? Because this ticking entity is a necessary ticking entity, of course.

Now, according to #5, there’s a logical contradiction in the paragraph above. Could someone point out what it is, and why a universe couldn’t have been this way?

I fully admit I’ve skipped over several pages of discussion, but I haven’t actually seen an argument against an infinite series of events. I’ve merely seen it asserted that infinity “transcends” all numbers, which I suspect may be a meaningless claim, but maybe someone can explain it to me.

[For what it’s worth, I also don’t see anything contradictory about an infinite number of events in finite time, but that’s a secondary discussion].

 

[Fran65]

You have missed the arguments that deal with your objection. It has been *very thoroughly *discussed.

 

[JDaniel]

Suppose the universe consisted of one bit of information. All that existed was one “thing” that could take the values one and zero. Every time it took the value zero, that “caused” the next value to be one, and vice versa.

Likewise, I can imagine that the earth is the center of the universe. I would be doing nothing more than having some fun with my “imagination”. But, from a strictly causational reference, a “1” cannot cause a “0”. It has been shown in many places within this forum that movement and causation is a transition (sorry, used a tautology in order to not have to repeat thousands of words already herein) from privation to possession. Now, a “1” cannot move to become a “0” as a “0” is the privation of “1”, but, a “1” is not the privation of “0”. So, a “0” is the privation of the “1”, therefore, a “0” can become a “1”, in our imaginations.

But, not really. A “0” is nothing. It is not even a discrete number. There is no such thing as “0” pigs, or “0” ears of corn. There is such a thing as “1” pig, or “1” ear of corn. To use the “0” became, in mathematics, useful as a place holder. Likewise, in mathematics, infinity can be useful as a place holder. ∞ is not the topmost “number” of a multitude of numbers. A “9” is the topmost number of a multitude of numbers. Under it are the numbers 1 through 8.

We can call this progression of states “time”, if it makes the discussion easier.

No we can’t. “Time” does not exist. It is merely the measure of motion. In the absence of motion, there would be no time. The instruments we usually use to measure time are mechanical or electrical devices we call clocks and watches. Besides, any rational contemplation of “time” indicates that it is more properly defined by mathematics as that which we call a “continuum”.

In this universe, time has gone on forever, and all that’s existed is this one ticking counter.

Probably not; but, there’s an outside chance of that being the case. Time started when motion began. For the universe, that was 10 - 20 billion years ago.

Why is the universe this way? Because this ticking entity is a necessary ticking entity, of course.

Clocks cannot be “necessary” beings.

Now, according to #5, there’s a logical contradiction in the paragraph above. Could someone point out what it is, and why a universe couldn’t have been this way?

Done.

I fully admit I’ve skipped over several pages of discussion, but I haven’t actually seen an argument against an infinite series of events. I’ve merely seen it asserted that infinity “transcends” all numbers, which I suspect may be a meaningless claim, but maybe someone can explain it to me.

Done.

[For what it’s worth, I also don’t see anything contradictory about an infinite number of events in finite time, but that’s a secondary discussion].

What is an event?

jd

 

[reggieM]

Suppose the universe consisted of one bit of information. All that existed was one “thing” that could take the values one and zero. Every time it took the value zero, that “caused” the next value to be one, and vice versa. We can call this progression of states “time”, if it makes the discussion easier. In this universe, time has gone on forever, and all that’s existed is this one ticking counter. Why is the universe this way? Because this ticking entity is a necessary ticking entity, of course.

Now, according to #5, there’s a logical contradiction in the paragraph above. Could someone point out what it is, and why a universe couldn’t have been this way?

I fully admit I’ve skipped over several pages of discussion, but I haven’t actually seen an argument against an infinite series of events. I’ve merely seen it asserted that infinity “transcends” all numbers, which I suspect may be a meaningless claim, but maybe someone can explain it to me.

[For what it’s worth, I also don’t see anything contradictory about an infinite number of events in finite time, but that’s a secondary discussion].

I will just amplify JDaniel’s excellent response (which doesn’t need amplification – but just for the sake of adding another voice to his) …

You are supposing (through imagination) that the universe “consists of one bit of information”.

Before going any farther, your argument breaks down right here.

Information must be carried (held, communicated, preserved, transmitted, resident within) some medium (media). “One bit” of information is necessarily contingent on some means of transmission – it cannot exist by itself.

Numbers are symbolic for aspects of physical nature. Even numbers that cannot be found in nature are built on concepts related to physical reality.

As JDaniel points out – there is no such thing as zero anything (“0” pigs, etc). There can be “1” pig.
But notice that also – there can be “1” pig, but there is no such thing as one “1”.

A “1” is a symbol. We could call it by another word or use an entirely different symbol (or any number of symbols and words). But it refers to something in nature – a single thing (“1” pig).

So, to say that the universe consists of “a ‘1’ and a ‘0’” is illogical. The one and zero would refer to nothing.

And, as said simply and clearly before – a 0 does not cause a 1 to occur.

That is actually at the heart of the argument, in real terms.

If you truly have zero of anything and everything – then you can never get a “1”.

Where would the “1” come from? It requires something to create it, and “nothing” is not capable of creating anything.

It’s good that you tested your idea here. I hope you can see that you are proposing an idea that literally contains no content. It is totally illogical even before you get past the first sentence.

I note your religion as “none” and if you have not chosen to consider God because you believe an infinite universe could “consist of one bit of information”, then I think you have a very good reason to explore the nature and meaning of God – as the greatest minds in human history have always done.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

 

[snafu]

But, from a strictly causational reference, a “1” cannot cause a “0”. It has been shown in many places within this forum that movement and causation is a transition (sorry, used a tautology in order to not have to repeat thousands of words already herein) from privation to possession. Now, a “1” cannot move to become a “0” as a “0” is the privation of “1”, but, a “1” is not the privation of “0”. So, a “0” is the privation of the “1”, therefore, a “0” can become a “1”, in our imaginations.

Ok, we’re getting bogged down with numbers here, which is something I really didn’t intend. I’m not talking about zero “of anything”, or one “of anything”, I’m giving the two states that can exist labels. From now on, let’s just call them “state A” and “state B”. And as this is my hypothetical pet universe, I don’t see why I can’t say that the one state causes the other.

No we can’t. “Time” does not exist.

Right, let’s play the same move again. It’s my universe and I can make the rules as I please, but if an A-B-A-B succession can’t be labelled “time”, then let’s just call it the “state-progression”.

You are supposing (through imagination) that the universe “consists of one bit of information”.
Before going any farther, your argument breaks down right here.

Sorry, that last one’s my fault - I really did mess up how I stated it. To satisfy you, my wording should have been that the universe consists of one state-bearing entity.

Hell, let’s go one step further. My single entity is the only thing in existence that could possibly be described as having causal power, so it’s on the table to describe it as a deity. I’ll call it GodX.

Restated:

GodX is the only thing that exists. It can have two states, A and B, and switches from one to the next in an endless state-progression. The whole package exists necessarily.

---

What strikes me most of all about your responses is the metaphysical certainty with which you pronounce various things:

Where would the “1” come from? It requires something to create it

Clocks cannot be “necessary” beings.

a 0 does not cause a 1 to occur.

I’m not the one pulling metaphysical certainties out of my hat here. All I’m saying is that I still can’t see an obvious logical contradiction in my pet universe (which I fully admit bears little to no resemblance to our one).

 

[JDaniel]

Ok, we’re getting bogged down with numbers here, which is something I really didn’t intend. I’m not talking about zero “of anything”, or one “of anything”, I’m giving the two states that can exist labels. From now on, let’s just call them “state A” and “state B”. And as this is my hypothetical pet universe, I don’t see why I can’t say that the one state causes the other.

Right, let’s play the same move again. It’s my universe and I can make the rules as I please, but if an A-B-A-B succession can’t be labelled “time”, then let’s just call it the “state-progression”.

Sorry, that last one’s my fault - I really did mess up how I stated it. To satisfy you, my wording should have been that the universe consists of one state-bearing entity.

Hell, let’s go one step further. My single entity is the only thing in existence that could possibly be described as having causal power, so it’s on the table to describe it as a deity. I’ll call it GodX.

Restated:

GodX is the only thing that exists. It can have two states, A and B, and switches from one to the next in an endless state-progression. The whole package exists necessarily.

---

What strikes me most of all about your responses is the metaphysical certainty with which you pronounce various things:

I’m not the one pulling metaphysical certainties out of my hat here. All I’m saying is that I still can’t see an obvious logical contradiction in my pet universe (which I fully admit bears little to no resemblance to our one).

The obvious contradiction occurs the moment you posit a single thing in your pet universe. There are two contradictions at this point then: (1) motion (which is the ground and precursor of time) is relative. Your one thing would be where? Just out there? Somewhere? In space? Where would it move? In relation to what? If just one thing existed, how would space be defined? Not as a dictionary definition, but rather, what would its points be in relation to?

(2) As I said, whatever is moved or changed, is moved or changed by something other than itself. Your singular-item universe would still require something outside of itself, God, in order for there to be motion or change. A thing cannot come to be first, then come to be, or move itself, second - particularly in a primary way. The thing would have to exist first. Thus, it would already “be”.

Secondly, if something, an “A” for example, did exist, it would require a second something more powerful than itself, capable of causing it to move or change, in order to change or move. If “A” and “B” were merely the same, but with differing naming conventions, how would “A” change into “B”, or “B” into “A”. More importantly, why? And, Time would simply stand still. Time would alternate back and forth, from timeslice “0” to timeslice “1” to timeslice “0” because movement would alternate back and forth, past to present to past, and so on. There would exist no continuum; no always forward motion, or no always backward motion - thus, no continuum.

jd

 

[snafu]

(1) motion (which is the ground and precursor of time) is relative. Your one thing would be where? Just out there? Somewhere? In space? Where would it move? In relation to what? If just one thing existed, how would space be defined? Not as a dictionary definition, but rather, what would its points be in relation to?

I didn’t specify any concept of an extended spatial dimension(s). I don’t believe space is a necessary property of a hypothetical possible world. Do you?

Your singular-item universe would still require something outside of itself, God, in order for there to be motion or change. A thing cannot come to be first…

Why? Why can’t this setup simply be that way as a matter of brute fact? You can call this unparsimonious if you wish…but that’s not enough - it has to be illogical to prove your point.

And, Time would simply stand still. Time would alternate back and forth, from timeslice “0” to timeslice “1” to timeslice “0” because movement would alternate back and forth, past to present to past, and so on. There would exist no continuum; no always forward motion, or no always backward motion - thus, no continuum.

Well, I deliberately moved away from the concept of time, because defining in a meaningful way is perhaps misleading in such a simple universe that I’m pushing. Again, I don’t think the concept of time (let alone continuous time) is a necessary thing to have.

Don’t think I’m trying to be slippery here. I’m picking you up because you insist on using analogous concepts from our universe (space, time) to knock holes in the pet universe.

But you can’t do this. The premiss (#5, OP) was that this setup was impossible as a matter of logic, not as a matter of empirical comparison to our universe.

 

[reggieM]

Don’t think I’m trying to be slippery here. I’m picking you up because you insist on using analogous concepts from our universe (space, time) to knock holes in the pet universe.

But you can’t do this. The premiss (#5, OP) was that this setup was impossible as a matter of logic, not as a matter of empirical comparison to our universe.

I’m answering here rather than on your reply to me because I was confused about your point until I read this. You’re looking at #5 …

1. Its logically impossible and meaningless for there to be such a thing as an infinite “number” of events since an infinity transcends all numbers, and thus all events.

So the challenge is not just one of logic, but also of not being “meaningless”. This is difficult with a hypothetical pet universe which doesn’t exist.

But even in your world, the change from State A to State B creates a succession. The succession can be measured (counted) and thus there would be an infinite number of events. This is where we run into the same problem. We could not observe a change from State A to State B today since it would require the passing of an infinite number of such changes.

And like any infinite string of events, it cannot have a beginning. If it has no beginning, it cannot be observed or measured numerically.

An infinity transcends this numeric succession of events.

Now you could propose that exactly the same State A occurs after the existence of the exact same State B.

But this is not possible either. If the same State A existed, caused State B to exist and then went out of existence until State B caused it to return to existence – then State A has been changed. The new State A existed before (a certain number of times). It has a history. This means it cannot be exactly the same State A which comes into existence again.

This then leaves a measureable event (the one billionth reoccurence of State A, for example). But a string of measureable events must have a beginning or it would not exist today. If it was infinite in the past, it never would arrive at a “next” event since it must pass an infinite number of changes until it gets to an “next” event. It must have a beginning in order to have an “after the beginning” event.

In order to observe the change from State A to State B today, it would need to traverse an infinite number of changes – and thus, never arrive at today.

This says nothing about what State A and B actually are. If they are physical entities, then they are contingent and can deteriorate. They must rely on an energy or force to move (as JDaniel points out). More importantly, they must rely on something to give them existence since they are contingent beings.

But if these things are not part of the physical universe are are the GodX you mention, then that is a different argument.

MOM’s #5 above is not referring to the “events” in the existence of a supernatural being, but in a natural progression.

One could argue that the “events” in the existence of God are an infinite number of things, thus disproving #5. But #5 was an argument towards proving the existence of God so one cannot use the existence of God to disprove it.

 

[snafu]

Right, lots has been said about traversing an infinite series already. I’m (sadly) going to skip that, because something really interesting’s going on towards the end of your post.

Firstly, a comment on this:

If they are physical entities, then they are contingent and can deteriorate. They must rely on an energy or force to move (as JDaniel points out). More importantly, they must rely on something to give them existence since they are contingent beings.

You’re still very much using empirical comparisons with our universe to drive this.

You say that my states might be physical and hence contingent. I don’t think my GodX universe contains enough complexity for the term ‘physical’ to be meaningfully applied. I haven’t specified any extended spatial dimensions, for example. The only relevant thing about State A is that it’s different from state B.

You say that my (contingent) states must rely on something to give them existence. Well, they rely on GodX, and he’s not contingent, he’s necessary.

You talk of energy, force and deterioration. These are clear appeals to similar concepts in our universe: drawing comparisons with them isn’t going to get us anywhere; there’s no logical reason why energy, force and deterioration have to be meaningful concepts in the pet universe.

---

Secondly:

MOM’s #5 above is not referring to the “events” in the existence of a supernatural being, but in a natural progression.

Frankly, it doesn’t say that the premiss applies to “natural” things only and has an exclusion carved out for “supernatural” ones. It would have saved us all a lot of time if this had been stated up front. It also sounds like you’re starting to think that this premiss isn’t quite so universal after all…

One could argue that the “events” in the existence of God are an infinite number of things, thus disproving #5.

Yes, one could argue that, and I’d agree with it. It’s logically possible that there’s a deity, somewhat similar to the Christian God, who is eternal and of whom it makes sense to talk of events, states, etc.

[Only somewhat similar, of course, because traditional doctrine is that the Christian God (we’ll call him GodC) is unchanging. So GodC never changed from a state of not having a son, to a state of having one…digression over…]]

But notice what you’ve done: you’ve now directly entertained the possibility of an eternal “thing” that trundles along from one state to the next. And do you object to this thing? Well, the reason you give next is:

#5 was an argument towards proving the existence of God so one cannot use the existence of God to disprove it.

This, I disagree with. It’s irrelevant that #5 can be used as part of an argument towards existence of God. I can make #5 part of an argument for the existence of butterscotch sauce and it’s neither here nor there. The point is that I (and, just about, you*) have now conceived of universes/possible worlds/deities that cast doubt on the logical necessity of #5.

Besides, there may be other reasons for believing something like a deity exists (and apologetics books are full of such reasons). Surely if such reasons are good, then #5 looks shakier than ever?

---

*Please don’t think I’m putting words in your mouth to score points. I’m genuinely trying to deconstruct exactly what you said towards the end of your post. I fully admit that I haven’t touched the infinite series arguments in the top half.

 

[reggieM]

RighFrankly, it doesn’t say that the premiss applies to “natural” things only and has an exclusion carved out for “supernatural” ones. It would have saved us all a lot of time if this had been stated up front. It also sounds like you’re starting to think that this premiss isn’t quite so universal after all…

The reference to natural or physical reality was assumed in MOM’s premise. It was not stated explicity, true. But if he joins in here I think he’ll say that was part of the argument.

The reason this has to be the case is because entirely different arguments and definitions are required to discuss the nature of God (in the Catholic sense). That is a theological discussion, not a philosophical one.

In any case, I think the argument remains universally true even if talking about gods or non-material beings.

One could say , for example, that God the Father is eternally begetting his Son Jesus and that is an infinite string of events.

But for reasons given, if we are not talking about any physical matter in a hypothetical universe – then we cannot speak about time or change or measurement.

In that case, MOM’s #5 would stand:

1. Its logically impossible and meaningless for there to be such a thing as an infinite “number” of events since an infinity transcends all numbers, and thus all events.

If there is nothing that can be measured empirically then there cannot be an infinite number of events.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I will just amplify JDaniel’s excellent response (which doesn’t need amplification – but just for the sake of adding another voice to his) …

You are supposing (through imagination) that the universe “consists of one bit of information”.

Before going any farther, your argument breaks down right here.

Information must be carried (held, communicated, preserved, transmitted, resident within) some medium (media). “One bit” of information is necessarily contingent on some means of transmission – it cannot exist by itself.

Numbers are symbolic for aspects of physical nature. Even numbers that cannot be found in nature are built on concepts related to physical reality.

As JDaniel points out – there is no such thing as zero anything (“0” pigs, etc). There can be “1” pig.
But notice that also – there can be “1” pig, but there is no such thing as one “1”.

A “1” is a symbol. We could call it by another word or use an entirely different symbol (or any number of symbols and words). But it refers to something in nature – a single thing (“1” pig).

So, to say that the universe consists of “a ‘1’ and a ‘0’” is illogical. The one and zero would refer to nothing.

And, as said simply and clearly before – a 0 does not cause a 1 to occur.

That is actually at the heart of the argument, in real terms.

If you truly have zero of anything and everything – then you can never get a “1”.

Where would the “1” come from? It requires something to create it, and “nothing” is not capable of creating anything.

It’s good that you tested your idea here. I hope you can see that you are proposing an idea that literally contains no content. It is totally illogical even before you get past the first sentence.

I note your religion as “none” and if you have not chosen to consider God because you believe an infinite universe could “consist of one bit of information”, then I think you have a very good reason to explore the nature and meaning of God – as the greatest minds in human history have always done.

I don’t mean to dig up old graves, but i was reading through this thread and i realize that I had totally forgot to say that this is a great post. There are no actually infinite numbers.

The reason why i like it is because it shows when and where one would be correct in using numbers as an expression of objective reality, and when it is not. A lot of misunderstandings is due to our mistreatment of language in regards to objective reality.

 

[James_S_Saint]

If you truly have zero of anything and everything – then you can never get a “1”.

Where would the “1” come from? It requires something to create it, and “nothing” is not capable of creating anything.

This statement is not exactly true.

If you could actually for a moment have a universe of absolute nothingness (0 of everything, everywhere) or an infinite void, before you got your finger off of the button that caused such a state, that void would already have something in it.

 

[reggieM]

If you could actually for a moment have a universe of absolute nothingness (0 of everything, everywhere) or an infinite void, before you got your finger off of the button that caused such a state, that void would already have something in it.

You’re confusing a number of categories and terms here. “A universe of nothing” has boudaries – thus it is not “nothing”. An “infinite void” does not permit one’s “finger” or “button” to do anything because neither exist.

Thus, the point stands – if you have zero of everything, you cannot achieve a 1 of something.

 

[James_S_Saint]

You’re confusing a number of categories and terms here. “A universe of nothing” has boudaries – thus it is not “nothing”.

Where did you get this thought?

Who says an infinite void has “boundaries”??

 

[reggieM]

Who says an infinite void has “boundaries”??

Notice that I was pointing out two different concepts in your post. One was a “universe” with nothing in it. In that case, anything called a “universe” has boundaries.
You then offered a second, different thought of an “infinite void”. That cannot be considered a “universe” and it would not have boundaries (if it was infnite in every way).

 

[James_S_Saint]

Notice that I was pointing out two different concepts in your post. One was a “universe” with nothing in it. In that case, anything called a “universe” has boundaries.
You then offered a second, different thought of an “infinite void”. That cannot be considered a “universe” and it would not have boundaries (if it was infnite in every way).

Trying disparately to not be insulting, but is there a reason why you insist on such semantics as to interject a necessary distinction in the obvious?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

1. Out of nothing comes nothing, for potentiality is a product of being.

2. Potentiality is not an actual being.

3. All beings that change are not absolute beings, for they are contingent on preceding events in order to be, and are gaining in being by proceeding into the future. Thus they proceed in being by potentiality, which is in itself founded upon a preceding reality.

4. There cannot be an infinite regress in which potentiality precedes being. Neither can time be synonymous with ultimate being/existence. In order for something to change, it must have the potentiality to do so, and its changing is evidence of that potentiality. Thus there cannot be such a thing as an infinitely changing being, since potentiality would have to infinitely precede being. Potentiality must be founded upon being. Thus change is ultimately caused by a being that is not changing; transcending the potentiality and being of that which changes.

5. Its logically impossible and meaningless for there to be such a thing as an infinite “number” of events since an infinity transcends all numbers, and thus all events.

6. Nothing is not a being or an actual thing. Therefore it is impossible for it to be positively true that there is such a thing as absolute nothingness, because “truth” is founded on being. That being the case, a positive nothingness is meaningless. Therefore there must be a necessary absolute eternal being that is existence by nature, is the immutable root of all truth, and is therefore perfect being, and is also the timeless principle by which things have the potential to be; for out of nothing comes nothing.

7. The first cause cannot be an accidental physical cause, since accidents require the potentiality to gain in space/time. Absolute Existence transcends all space/time, and thus all potentiality.

8. If a first cause cannot be an accidental cause in space/time, then there is only one other possibility. The first cause has a perfect, transcendent and personal will.

This is what I understand to be God.

This argument still hasn’t been refuted. Need I say anything more?

 

[netineti]

You acted like you wanted me to come to this thread to see your argument, so here I am.

I agree.

At this point, your statements are beginning to sound unnecessarily garbled. But if I understand what you mean by this premise, I agree.

It sounds like you’re saying there has to be an unchanging essence in every existing thing, am I right? I believe recent scientific discoveries (or at least theories) reinforce this idea. I hear that quantum physics proposes that everything, in essence, is made up of energy. And the Buddhists, whom I admire, theorize that the essence of everything is nothingness. It seems you’re not alone with this conclusion that everything is alike in essence.

I wouldn’t say it’s logically impossible, but it is meaningless.

I agree that truth is founded in being, but why does there have to be truth? You haven’t proven that.

Objectively speaking, it makes no difference whether the first cause was only physical or was accidental and physical. There’s no need to use “accidental” in your description.

You might have provided a valid (not necessarily sound) argument for the existence of a common essence, but you haven’t proven that this essence must have willpower or any other attributes.

Well said.