8 Steps To The Existence Of God

[MindOverMatter]

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

Life isn’t a game. The question of Gods existence is a serious and potentially life changing question that effects the destiny and the lives of the entire human race. Introducing confusion and fallacies that blur the path to God, to eternal fulfillment, is the game of a brute.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

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.

I agree that the universe is bounded, but don’t see any support for your statement that everything physical must have boundaries.

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.

Really? My understanding was that the observable universe is likely only a tiny portion of the universe as a whole. Could you point me to the scientist who said this rather than just say “it is said.”

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.

You keep asserting that an infinity cannot exist without providing any kind of proof.

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.

How does this prove that infinity cannot exist? I agree that the existence of something as a mathematical concept does not prove that something like it can exist in reality.

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.

I agree that empty space does not contain matter and matter is not empty space. How does this prove that time must have had a beginning?

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.

I agree that getting from the existence of some God to the existence of the Christian God is probably a more difficult step to make, and I would have a lot of issues to resolve before ever making that leap. I’m much more open to the existence of a first cause, but I’m not yet convinced that there must have been one.

BTW, you don’t seem evil!

jd

Just wait until you get to know me better.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

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.

Some people do not think that the future is any less real than the past (such as four dimensionalists). I haven’t studied it enough to have an informed opinion about it so I’ll lay that aside. You say that “the past is actual, which means that there is a definite and total number of events in the past.” You seem to be merely presupposing that there cannot have been an actually infinite number of past events.

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 don’t know what you mean by inverted future.

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.

I agree that you cannot count to infinity and ever get there since it’s not a specific number. I think there’s some ambiguity about the use of the word number, but if I say an infinite number, what I mean is infinitely many. The lack of an integer to represent the number of past events doesn’t prove that there could not have been infinitely many past events.

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.

How do you reach that conclusion? Infinity is not a specific number.

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.

No, you can have infinitely many numbers without coming close to exhausting all of them (the evens for example).

If i can count to an actual infinity then it is not infinite.

I agree that if you can count to infinity then it is not infinity.

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.

Your argument didn’t establish this at all.

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 can claim that there cannot be an actual infinity, but you still haven’t provided any reasons to think it is impossible.

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.

I know. I was explaining why someone else’s argument failed. I was not claiming that your argument was of this variety.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

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?

We do not know what happened before Planck time. Until we have a good theory of quantum gravity, we cannot know whether space/time and energy began with the Big Bang.

I never asserted that there were other space times, so I don’t know why you brought it up. I agree with you that there is no reason to think that other space/times existed.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

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.

This doesn’t make any sense to me. There could be multiple things which move relative to each other even if space or time was infinite. For example, if space was infinite, you could still have two objects move away from each other.

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.

That is one theory. However, under cyclic models things would not cease.

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]

How do you reach that conclusion? Infinity is not a specific number.

To say that there is an infinite number of events in the past, is to say that the past is infinite because of the numbers it contains. Why is that difficult for you to comprehend?

At least Fran understood it. I’m happy for that much at least.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

To say that there is an infinite number of events in the past, is to say that the past is infinite because of the numbers it contains. Why is that difficult for you to comprehend?

At least Fran understood it. I’m happy for that much at least.

For one thing, I don’t know what you mean by time containing numbers. Also, infinity minus one is still infinity.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I don’t know what you mean by inverted future.

A potentially infinite past.

I agree that you cannot count to infinity and ever get there since it’s not a specific number.

Its not a number.

I think there’s some ambiguity about the use of the word number,

There is no ambiguity. You just refuse to understand, or worse, you are incapable of understanding.

but if I say an infinite number, what I mean is infinitely many.

What do you mean by infinitely many and what difference does it make? The fact is, when we speak about numbers we are always talking about a definite amount, and no amount of numbers can make up an infinite. So in principle, it is meaningless and impossible to apply an infinite number to the past if one cannot in general make up an infinite by addition. If you are saying that there is a potential infinite in the past then be clear about it. But if you are saying that there is an actual infinite, then you are saying that all logically possible numbers have been transversed and transcended before this point in time. But there is no such thing as all numbers for the simple fact that numbers cannot be completed, there is no highest number or numbers after which there is an actual infinity. Therefore you cannot have an actual infinite of numbers. Why is that difficult for you to understand? The Number is always going to be finite. Thus the universe is finite.

The lack of an integer to represent the number of past events doesn’t prove that there could not have been infinitely many past events.

Who is speaking about integers? I’m talking about the objective past, not some mathematical concept that has only a tautological value in regards to the real world. The fact of the matter is, i have proven that its logically impossible to have an infinite number of events. The sooner you accept that the better for you.

Please don’t reply if you are not going to acknowledge this. As i fear that its just going to be more assertions which will prove nothing accept to irritate.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Also, infinity minus one is still infinity.

If thats true, then it follows necessarily that the past is not infinite because of the numbers it contains, but it is infinite for some other reason that doesn’t involve any number of events. In other words, there is not an infinite number of events in the past.

 

[reggieM]

“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.

Right. In other words, the fact that a basketball has an outer edge, beyond which the basketball cannot reach – means that the basketball is not infinite. It is bounded and limited – thus, finite. An infinitely large basketball could never be identified as a basketball because it could not have an exterior skin.

 

[MindOverMatter]

For one thing, I don’t know what you mean by time containing numbers.

Well, we were talking about an infinite number of events in the past. And i was describing why it is impossible in principle. The past is something that is added to. It is therefore not meaningless to speak of past events in terms of numbers.

 

[MindOverMatter]

"An infinitely large.

Hello reggie. I don’t know whether or not if you have been following my debate (if you can call it that) with evil atheist, but have i said anything that is not understandable or consistent or reasonable to the extent that evil atheist should fail to recognize the truth in it?

 

[Detales]

MoM, re your post #59:

Originally Posted by Detales
*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, *

MoM~~Why?

Because I think he woke up. Private opinion.

 

[TheWhim]

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.

Thanks, jdaniel. In fact, I’m all in wonder and marvel at your patience and true geniality in dealing with chaps like e.Atheist. I myself have long grown too tired of this. ‘I understand that you believe an eternal time is impossible’, he enunciates boisterously. Superfluous to say, I never said such a thing. I was talking about points(that is, events) and infinity and he jumps to he inference that I disbelieve in an eternal time. I’m sorry, but I cannot make the connection. I was talking about the impossibility of an actual infinite series of events(that is, points), like the days and moments in our lives that are passing by.

But, of course, since I believe in relative time(as Leibnitz did, opposed to Newton), time cannot be divorced from events happening(that is, motion) and, in consequence, an eternal time is impossible.

Thanks again for your explanation to him - and all your other explanations on this topic. You seem to be a model figure in controversial debate. - Perhaps some years hence I’ll also be able to face such nonsense with sang-froid and give an unbothered and minute reply even to the most glaring example of wilful ignorance.

This, by the way, turns out to be another thread where MindOverMatter entirely disregards my objection. Like hell. Perhaps I should change my nick-name. I really believe it’s all about my nick-name.

 

[TheWhim]

I don’t know whether or not if you have been following my debate (if you can call it that) with evil atheist, but have i said anything that is not understandable or consistent or reasonable to the extent that evil atheist should fail to recognize the truth in it?

Oh, hang it all, MoM. You have been crystal clear, and more than that. He drains our time-resources, that’s pretty all he does. He does not even try to get a more critical view of his ideas. - In sum: It’s time you turn to my objection. Not that I’m advertising

 

[Charles_Darwin]

This is flawed thinking. Of course the distance between any two points will always be finite. Nobody questions this. The theists, indeed, rigorously affirm this in saying that the universe is finite, began a finite time ago and thus it was possible that the present moment could have been reached. - The problem with an eternal universe is this: you’ve got an infinite distance between points. Such a distance, of course, cannot be traversed. This brings one into a strange position. You cannot just arbitrarily pick up a point on this infinite line and thus cut the infinite distance short into a finite one. In doing so you merely assert that the theists are right in saying that the present moment could only have arrived if finitude, and not infinity, lies in the past. The moment you thus arbitrarily pick up is like the moment of creation: a finite time ago. Do you believe in creation? Certainly not. So come on and face reality and face the infinity you believe in. How could today have possibly happened if infinite events had to be traversed ere today could have been reached? This is logically impossible.

Oh, for heaven’s sake, you cannot even pick up your arbitrary point. You cannot say: I certainly was born some finite time ago. Yes, you were born some finite time ago but only because the universe is finite! **In an infinite universe not even your birth, your arbitrary picking-point, could have happened at all because the infinite past would never have arrived at it! ** You try to assert the possibility of an infinite universe in saying that if you pick a point on the infinite line as a moment of time, like your birth, you will arrive at the moment of time called present. But once stick to your infinite universe and your picking-point vanishes. You would never have been born. It would not have happened yet. Nor will it ever happen because there always is an infinity to precede it. And thus with every other point you could pick.

However this may be, I’d like to hear MindOverMatter. We’re all quite in the dark so long he does not elucidate some points that have been raised.

Infinity is a mathematical construct and can be very problematic when applied to time, to the staget where it can be pointless.

For example how many real numbers are there between 1 and 2? Well there are an Infinite amount. Lets assign every one of those mumbers a period of time. Well we know the time gap is going to tend to zero, but mathematically it will never reach zero, for i can add an infinite amount of decimal points. However that infinite amount of numbers did pass in the last second.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

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

You argument breaks down at stage one. The origin of the universe is unknown, therefore your claim “nothing comes nothing” is utterly unfounded and irrelevant.

 

[Fran65]

You argument breaks down at stage one. The origin of the universe is unknown, therefore your claim “nothing comes nothing” is utterly unfounded and irrelevant.

But nothing does come from nothing!

First you want to argue against the existence of God by appealing to physical laws and saying that they can explain human existence and nothing outside them can or does exist; then you want to argue against physical laws and state that ‘nothing can come from nothing’ to support your argument against God’s existence.

That could be called cherry picking. When it suits you physical laws exist and are pre-eminent; then in the next breath physical laws don’t exist and we can accept ‘twelve impossible things before breakfast’ - as long as you think that it supports your ‘position’.

Inconsistent.

 

[tjm190]

But nothing does come from nothing!

First you want to argue against the existence of God by appealing to physical laws and saying that they can explain human existence and nothing outside them can or does exist; then you want to argue against physical laws and state that ‘nothing can come from nothing’ to support your argument against God’s existence.

That could be called cherry picking. When it suits you physical laws exist and are pre-eminent; then in the next breath physical laws don’t exist and we can accept ‘twelve impossible things before breakfast’ - as long as you think that it supports your ‘position’.

Inconsistent.

Actually small numbers of quanta are permitted to come into existence for short periods of time by the uncertainty principle

 

[Fran65]

Actually small numbers of quanta are permitted to come into existence for short periods of time by the uncertainty principle

You missed my reply to the last time you said that?

I’ll repeat it for you.

How does a principle concerning pairs of physical properties apply to the production of matter?

On the face of it, it appears completely irrelevant, but I look forward to your explanation and references. Thanks.