8 Steps To The Existence Of God

[wanstronian]

Please explain what is wrong with his logic.

If you are unable to do so and are merely repeating other posters’ assertions that is not helpful.

What do you think are the errors in MoM’s logic?

BTW not posting immediately or to someone else’s timetable is not a sign of avoidance. I have noticed for example that as I’m the UK the time zone difference means that I’m away from the computer when many others are here. In addition, there are things to do in life outside the forum!

Fran, you can posture and prevaricate all you like. The fact is that MoM made an assertion that he has, so far, refused to justify. In fact, he seems to have abandoned this thread altogether. I can only assume that he is simply unable to justify his assertions, and only started the thread as a sideshow.

A lot of the threads on this forum start (or include) something like this:

1. Theist: God exists because of x
2. Atheist: Can you provide evidence for that assertion?
3. Theist: Can you provide evidence that my assertion is wrong?
4. Atheist: No, but that’s not the point…
5. Theist: La la la, I’m not listening.

At step 3 and beyond, the theist appears to think he/she has won the argument (or is at least holding their own), whereas all they have really done is expose themselves as evasive and illogical. Other theists then quickly rally round, but the plain fact is that if these threads were subject to independent review, it would quickly become obvious that the theists are, to adapt a phrase, “writing cheques that their logic can’t cash.”

It’s just very bad form.

 

[Fran65]

Fran, you can posture and prevaricate all you like.

I’m not.

I’m just asking a question. I didn’t start the thread. I don’t know if I agree with MoM’s logic. I know that I have faith in the existence of God and I know that I cannot demonstrate his existence to the satisfaction of some people. However, as I have little education in philosophy (I’m a psychologist) and I enjoy developing my knowledge and understanding I’m following the thread. That’s why I use this board. Its the best place I’ve found to discuss these kinds of questions.

What is wrong with an ‘observer’ asking a question of another poster?

Do you actually understand the problems with MoM’s logic? If you say yes, I would like you to post your understanding, just as AnEvilAtheist has done (and without repeating his argument!)

Thanks

 

[Fran65]

Out of curiosity, do you think that it is logically impossible for God to be inside time? If God is inside our time, or even inside other dimensions of time, a similar argument would apply. The point at which he created the universe never could have been reached.

Being outside space/time is a given characteristic of God (as conceptualised by Catholics).

 

[TheWhim]

Sorry to say, EvilAtheist, but your answer is perfect rubbish. I’m not going to waste my time on this. “If the universe is infinite, it had no point at which it began”, you wittly oberserve. Unhappily, you haven’t actually read my post. As I said, in an infinite universe there won’t be any points at all(neither past nor present). Therefore, it is an impossibility.

Dr. Craig has largely dwelled on this argument.

If God is inside our time, or even inside other dimensions of time, a similar argument would apply. The point at which he created the universe never could have been reached.

For an answer, go to: reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5673
The last paragraph sums up Craig’s opinion.

I’d advice a careful perusal of his scholarly articles on this topic.

 

[geometer]

[This is what i understand to be God.

If you really would like to tell us something new about God, you should first get that from God…

 

[MindOverMatter]

Okay. I’m back. Hello everyone and thanks for you interests. I hope that you haven’t abandoned this thread on the account of my absence.

It will take a bit of time to answer everyone, as it largely means educating allot of people about the very basics of logic. This is unfortunate, but i still think a few of the questions that have been made by genuinely interested people, such as Fran, are fair and are worth answering. Thanks for your kind interest Fran.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Sorry to say, EvilAtheist, but your answer is perfect rubbish. I’m not going to waste my time on this. “If the universe is infinite, it had no point at which it began”, you wittly oberserve. Unhappily, you haven’t actually read my post. As I said, in an infinite universe there won’t be any points at all(neither past nor present). Therefore, it is an impossibility.

I have read your post and I understand that it is your opinion that eternal time is simply impossible. I disagree. Unless you can show that it is impossible, I will continue to see it as possible.

Dr. Craig has largely dwelled on this argument.

That’s certainly the impression I got based on my reading of his work.

For an answer, go to: reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5673
The last paragraph sums up Craig’s opinion.

I’d advice a careful perusal of his scholarly articles on this topic.

I know Craig’s opinion on this. I never claimed that my statement was an argument against God; I was merely curious about your beliefs. I think that a lot of people want to think of God as someone who has thoughts and emotions like we do, even though a series of different mental states is not possible if God is outside time.

 

[geometer]

Why are arguments being made based on impossiblities. Metaphysics can not be based on the ascertion that something is imposible.

 

[JDaniel]

I understand that you believe that an actual infinity cannot exist, but if you want to convince anyone else of that you have to give a solid explanation of why it can’t.

Actually, I have - perhaps dozens of times within the past year. But, all you have to do is think about it. If it is physical, it has “bounds”, or “boundaries”. In fact, even the universe, as physical, is bounded. It is said that the Hubble is able to “see” out to the very edges of the universe’s boundaries and perhaps slightly beyond, into the void.

What is the modern definition of “infinity”? It is that which is unbounded or, has no boundaries. If a thing is actual, then it is either physical or metaphysical. If it exists in the physical realm, it cannot possess the determinate, infinite. If a thing is metaphysical, it is not constrained by the definition. Therefore, a metaphysical thing has no bounds, or boundaries, also by definition, and can possess the attribute of infinity.

In mathematics, the concept of infinity is precisely that: it is a concept. In other words, it is a second order abstraction. This means that there are two steps our minds must make in order to apprehend it: (1) it must leave behind the sensible world to go to the order of individual intelligible matter, and, (2) it must go from individual intelligible matter to the universal or common consideration of intelligible matter itself. This is a very important point. Without a real understanding of the mathematical order of abstraction, we can incorrectly be led to the conclusion that our minds have never left the realm of the real and physical.

Another way of perceiving that mathematics is a second order abstraction is to recognize that there is no motion in the intelligible matter of mathematics. None whatsoever. If there is no motion, it cannot be physical and, therefore, real in the sense of real, sensible matter. All real, sensible, physical matter moves, i.e., undergoes some sort of change of being or place - no matter how rapidly. But the intelligible matter of mathematics (and science, for that matter) does not change in this sense.

Consider an infinity of space. If there existed an infinity of space, it could not include matter within it. On the other hand, if there existed an infinitely large material object, it would consume all, everything. There could be no room for space or anything else.

Something isn’t impossible just because it seems weird. I don’t claim that Christianity must be false just because the trinity doesn’t make sense to me.

The Trinity concept is no doubt one of those concepts that must be taken on pure Faith, as uttered from the mouth of Christ and the Church Fathers. I agree, it is a tough concept to grasp for the non-Christian or non-theist. However, “infinity” isn’t weird. It is what it is. It must not be incorrectly defined just to make it appear possible to be other than it is.

BTW, you don’t seem evil!

jd

 

[MindOverMatter]

If MindOverMatter wants to explain the intervening steps that he uses to get to that conclusion then I’d be happy to look at them at that time.

Okay. You say that an infinite “number” is possible. This is basically saying that there is an actual number, a “sum-total” , that can describe infinity. Unless, of coarse you are speaking about an ongoing set of numbers that are potentially infinite. I agree there could be such a thing as forever in terms of “potential duration”. But thats one thing.
You and i should know that one cannot have an inverted “potential infinite” in the past, since the past has already happened. This is the real definition of the past, since the present moment including the future is founded upon it. This means that we are coming from the past into the future. The future is potential, the past is actual, which means that there is a definite and total number of events in the past. If there was a potential infinite in the past, that would mean that there is an event in the past which does not exist yet and thus cannot be reached; which means the past is founded upon nothing, since it certainly isn’t founded upon the present, and out of nothing comes nothing.

I don’t believe in “objective integers”, as i am not one to confuse the mathematical order with the order of being/ as in past present and future. But being so logical as you claim to be, you could not have possibly meant that you believe in an inverted future!!! So i will shy away from accusation and just put that aside for now.

I think you will agree with me that you cannot “count” to infinity. So in principle it is impossible for there to be a number which describes infinity, since there is always one more number or event that you can add to it, and it is a number that you can principally count to. The person who claims that there is an infinite number in the past, is saying that the past is infinite because of numbers it contains. This means that there is a sum total of numbers which describes an infinite. This also means an infinite past is contingent upon the numbers it contains. Thus if i take away one number, it will no longer be infinite. But if i can take away a number to such an extent as to render an infinite number finite, then in principle it was never infinite to begin with simply because that which can be reduced or added to is by ontological definition finite. It is meaningless to say that one can complete or exhaust all numbers, which is what an actual infinite of numbers implies. If i can count to an actual infinity then it is not infinite. In other words there is no such thing as an actually infinite number and so in principle the concept cannot be applied to the actual past. In other words an actual infinite is meaningless since it results in contradiction. Thus a true infinite is not made of numbers, since there is no such thing as “all numbers” to the extent that i cannot count them all in their entirety. There is no such thing as a sum total of all numbers. There are only potential infinites and the transcendent actual infinite that describes God. This is why i said that an infinity transcends all countable numbers, and thus cannot be infinite because of the numbers it contains. Only when you can transcend all possible numbers can one speak of an infinite, but then we would no longer be speaking about numbers or events.

You could, however, argue that the past is infinite, but not because of the events it contains, which the theist has no problem with, since that means that the cause is not a number or an event, but rather it is the cause of the infinite set of events, which is what one means by an unmoved-mover. The unmoved mover is the all embracing being we call existence, and time is that which is transcendentally caused by existence and exists because of existence, whether it is finite or infinite, or trans-infinite or what ever your mind can conceive of.

However, your argument would still be logically fallacious. This is like saying that rats are mammals and whales are mammals, therefore rats are whales.

I agree that your arguement would be fallacious. But we are not talking about which category a rats fits into, but rather we are talking about the impossibility of an infinite past.

Even under singularity models, we do not know what existed before the Big Bang.

The space/time and energy of our universe did not exist before the Big-Bang, and there is no reason to think that other space/times existed either. What does it mean for space/times to exist individually from each other?

 

[geometer]

Actually, I have - perhaps dozens of times within the past year. But, all you have to do is think about it. If it is physical, it has “bounds”, or “boundaries”. In fact, even the universe, as physical, is bounded. It is said that the Hubble is able to “see” out to the very edges of the universe’s boundaries and perhaps slightly beyond, into the void.

What is the modern definition of “infinity”? It is that which is unbounded or, has no boundaries. If a thing is actual, then it is either physical or metaphysical. If it exists in the physical realm, it cannot possess the determinate, infinite. If a thing is metaphysical, it is not constrained by the definition. Therefore, a metaphysical thing has no bounds, or boundaries, also by definition, and can possess the attribute of infinity.

In mathematics, the concept of infinity is precisely that: it is a concept. In other words, it is a second order abstraction. This means that there are two steps our minds must make in order to apprehend it: (1) it must leave behind the sensible world to go to the order of individual intelligible matter, and, (2) it must go from individual intelligible matter to the universal or common consideration of intelligible matter itself. This is a very important point. Without a real understanding of the mathematical order of abstraction, we can incorrectly be led to the conclusion that our minds have never left the realm of the real and physical.

Another way of perceiving that mathematics is a second order abstraction is to recognize that there is no motion in the intelligible matter of mathematics. None whatsoever. If there is no motion, it cannot be physical and, therefore, real in the sense of real, sensible matter. All real, sensible, physical matter moves, i.e., undergoes some sort of change of being or place - no matter how rapidly. But the intelligible matter of mathematics (and science, for that matter) does not change in this sense.

Consider an infinity of space. If there existed an infinity of space, it could not include matter within it. On the other hand, if there existed an infinitely large material object, it would consume all, everything. There could be no room for space or anything else.

The Trinity concept is no doubt one of those concepts that must be taken on pure Faith, as uttered from the mouth of Christ and the Church Fathers. I agree, it is a tough concept to grasp for the non-Christian or non-theist. However, “infinity” isn’t weird. It is what it is. It must not be incorrectly defined just to make it appear possible to be other than it is.

BTW, you don’t seem evil!

jd

Where did you get all of these ideas? Honestly, you are very creative but none of what you have said is true.

I don’t know where to begin. It has been said that the universe is finite but unbounded, because it is expanding.

A given sphere is finite in three dimensions, but its surface has no linear boundary. It is an unbounded surface.

If the universe is expanding into the void, does the void have a boundary or is it infinite?

Infinity and boundedness are seperate concepts. Cantor gives modern defintions of infinities, and boundaries are defined in the study of topology.

Physical space must contain matter in order to have a shape, so it is thought by some that infinite space would have to contain an infinite amount of matter. There is a conjecture that space is not infinite, because there would be an infinite number of stars making the sky infinitely bright. However, it might be that shining stars are rare.

An infinitely large basketball could contain an infinite space, with plenty of room for everything.

 

[Fran65]

The person who claims that there is an infinite number in the past, is saying that the past is infinite because of numbers it contains. This means that there is a sum total of numbers which describes an infinite. This also means an infinite past is contingent upon the numbers it contains. Thus if i take away one number, it will no longer be infinite. But if i can take away a number to such an extent as to render an infinite number finite, then in principle it was never infinite to begin with simply because that which can be reduced or added to is by ontological definition finite. It is meaningless to say that one can complete or exhaust all numbers, which is what an actual infinite of numbers implies.

 

[geometer]

I think you will agree with me that you cannot “count” to infinity. So in principle it is impossible for there to be a number which describes infinity, since there is always one more number or event that you can add to it, and it is a number that you can principally count to. The person who claims that there is an infinite number in the past, is saying that the past is infinite because of numbers it contains. This means that there is a sum total of numbers which describes an infinite. This also means an infinite past is contingent upon the numbers it contains. Thus if i take away one number, it will no longer be infinite. But if i can take away a number to such an extent as to render an infinite number finite, then in principle it was never infinite to begin with simply because that which can be reduced or added to is by ontological definition finite. It is meaningless to say that one can complete or exhaust all numbers, which is what an actual infinite of numbers implies. If i can count to an actual infinity then it is not infinite. In other words there is no such thing as an actually infinite number and so in principle the concept cannot be applied to the actual past. In other words an actual infinite is meaningless since it results in contradiction. Thus a true infinite is not made of numbers, since there is no such thing as “all numbers” to the extent that i cannot count them all in their entirety. There is no such thing as a sum total of all numbers. There are only potential infinites and the transcendent actual infinite that describes God. This is why i said that an infinity transcends all countable numbers, and thus cannot be infinite because of the numbers it contains. Only when you can transcend all possible numbers can one speak of an infinite, but then we would no longer be speaking about numbers or events.

This logic that you have applied is not the logic of infinities given by George Cantor. You have come to false conclusions. In cantoral logic the infinity of integers Aleph(0) is the first. It is a number, and if you subtract an integer from it it is still the same number, it does not change, etc…

 

[JDaniel]

I have read your post and I understand that it is your opinion that eternal time is simply impossible. I disagree. Unless you can show that it is impossible, I will continue to see it as possible.

Time is not a “real” exigency. Time is a concept used by our minds to understand motion and distance, with regard to mobile being. In fact, time is commonly defined as the measure of motion. Now, motion, per se, cannot exist in something that is infinite. Why? Because where can it move? In relation to what, would it move? Motion is relative; it only exists where a thing is relative to another.

All beings are either composite or not composite. A large being or thing is a composite of smaller things, which can be further divided into even smaller things. If a being is not composite, it cannot undergo any division. No physical thing is not composite. All physical things are composite(s). (Hence, quantum physics.) Anything that is a composite is subject to growth or deterioration, or neither.

The universe is subject to growth or deterioration, or neither. Since matter is merely changed energy, matter is subject to growth or deterioration, or neither. Energy is undergoing entropy. As it does, it is taking matter with it. Eventually, all energy will become heat energy and finally all heat energy will dissipate. When all the heat energy dissipates, the universe will no longer possess the forces necessary for it to expand. All motion will cease. When motion ceases, the ground of time will no longer be extant.

Furthermore, when all sensible creatures are no longer, it may also be said that time is no longer as the concept will die with the conceivers.

Therefore, eternal time is impossible.

jd

 

[MindOverMatter]

This logic that you have applied is not the logic of infinities given by George Cantor.

Precisely. Thats because, while i might be using mathematical language in order to explain my position, I’m not talking about mathematical concepts in general. I am talking about objective reality. I am talking about objective reality in regards to an infinite past.

You have come to false conclusions.

In regards to what exactly? Principally, i am not trying to disprove cantoral logic, as should be evident. It may be the case that George Cantors mathematical system is consistent within itself, but you have fail to show its logical connection with objective reality, beyond any tautological value, in so far as change is concerned.

In cantoral logic the infinity of integers Aleph(0) is the first.

This is irrelevant to my post. Explain how this conclusion effects the logic of my post in so far as i am describing past events? The concept of an infinite past doesn’t allow for a first or even a last.

It is a number, and if you subtract an integer from it it is still the same number, it does not change, etc…

Irrelevant. Read my posts properly please.

 

[MindOverMatter]

First of all, thank you for helping me out around these here parts.

When you say, “potentiality is a ‘product’ of being,” do you mean that it is an “attribute” of being? In other words, since all things are in some process of change then all things or beings (except a prime mover or first cause) have as a determinate of their being change and, therefore, potency or, potencies.

As far as i can understand, i agree with you. The potentiality of beings exist in regards to the attributes of being. Yes. For example, the oak tree has the potential to be because of the seed.

Now, I think you mean here that “potentiality” (or potency) does not have “being” by itself, but, only as part of something that has being, has actuality, such as primary or secondary matter would have the privation(s) necessary for change. Am I with you here?

Yes.

This is an interesting conception. I have more questions of you, but, need these answered first so that I am comfortable that we are on at least a similar wave length. Also, I am out of time for today and would hope to have your permission to resume tomorrow after I have read your reply.

jd

Yes please reply.

 

[JDaniel]

Where did you get all of these ideas? Honestly, you are very creative but none of what you have said is true.

Geometer:

You are making the unfortunate, and, sad to say, not atypical assertions of a person who has long since forgotten the difference between reality and abstraction. In reality, none of what you said it true. Think about it.

I don’t know where to begin. It has been said that the universe is finite but unbounded, because it is expanding.

I did not say this. The universe is bounded. Yes it is expanding, towards a potential infinity, but, said potential infinity has not yet arrived, does not have existence - nor will it ever have existence as an actual infinity.

A given sphere is finite in three dimensions, but its surface has no linear boundary. It is an unbounded surface.

Really? No linear boundary. Hmmm. So, in reality, as opposed to conceptually, you should be able to slice and dice a basketball into an infinity of yet smaller sections. Right? Or, a tennis ball? Or, a moth ball? Or, a point? Surely someone has done this by now. Can you point me to who, when and where?

Can you find for me that very tiny slicer that can cut right through the smallest conceivable slice of the aforementioned sphere? Can you demonstrate the technique for the use of that slicer? Where can I get one?

The sphere’s outer surface has boundary AND, since it is a basketball, its inner surface has boundary. There is no infinite extension of either of these two surfaces. In fact, the definition of PLACE, with regard to the air inside the basketball, is that the basketball’s inner surface is the air’s innermost surface of a surrounding body. I am looking at the sphere in REAL LIFE. You are looking at it as a mathematical concept, an abstraction. An abstraction has no live existence. It only has existence when it is placed back into sensible matter. Then that’s when the problems begin, for your theory.

If the universe is expanding into the void, does the void have a boundary or is it infinite?

The concept of the “void” is merely that: a concept. I use the word because some scientists like to use it. Is it really real? Neither I nor they have any earthly idea. If “void” is simply a poorly chosen word for God, then, no, He has no boundary. And, yes, He is infinite.

Infinity and boundedness are seperate concepts.

Well, let’s just see:

From dictionary.com:

Infinite –adjective

1. immeasurably great: an infinite capacity for forgiveness.
2. indefinitely or exceedingly great: infinite sums of money.
3. unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature of outer space.
4. unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless: God’s infinite mercy.
5. Mathematics.
   a. not finite.
   b. (of a set) having elements that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a subset that is not the given set.

–noun
6. something that is infinite.
7. Mathematics. an infinite quantity or magnitude.
8. the boundless regions of space.
9. the Infinite or the Infinite Being, God.

From New Advent Encyclopedia:

“The infinite, as the word indicates, is that which has no end, no limit, no boundary, and therefore cannot be measured by a finite standard, however often applied; it is that which cannot be attained by successive addition, not exhausted by successive subtraction of finite quantities. Though in itself a negative term, infinity has a very positive meaning. Since it denies all bounds – which are themselves negations – it is a double negation, hence an affirmation, and expresses positively the highest unsurpassable reality. Like the concepts of quantity, limit, boundary, the term infinity applies primarily to space and time, but not exclusively, as Schopenhauer maintains. In a derived meaning it may be applied to every kind of perfection: wisdom, beauty, power, the fullness of being itself.”

I can give you a lot more . . .

Physical space must contain matter in order to have a shape, so it is thought by some that infinite space would have to contain an infinite amount of matter. There is a conjecture that space is not infinite, because there would be an infinite number of stars making the sky infinitely bright. However, it might be that shining stars are rare.

Absolutely false. INFINITE SPACE cannot contain anything except SPACE. If it does contain something other than SPACE, that PLACE, occupied by the foreign substance, is no longer SPACE. SPACE does not permeate the matter. The matter, in a sense, pushes SPACE aside and inserts itself into that PLACE. It reduces the full actualization of the SPACE.

An infinitely large basketball could contain an infinite space, with plenty of room for everything.

That a basketball that large has plenty of room, there is no doubt. That something bounded by an exterior skin can be infinite and contain another infinity is, again, an incorrect manner of understanding the concept.

jd

 

[MindOverMatter]

Geometer:

You are making the unfortunate, and, sad to say, not atypical assertions of a person who has long since forgotten the difference between reality and abstraction. In reality, none of what you said it true. Think about it.

, i know i shouldn’t laugh as i am not perfect my self, but i couldn’t help it. You hit the nail on the head. He made the same error with me.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I wourld conjecture that, at the end of his life, St Thomas would have agreed with the first of those five, dismissed the middle three, and modified the last,

Why?

 

[geometer]

You both should take some courses. You really don’t know how accademic games are played.