8 Steps To The Existence Of God

[anEvilAtheist]

Why doesn’t the conclusion that there cannot have been an infinite number of events follow from the premise that an infinity is greater than any number of possible events?

Well either there has been a finite number of events that have occurred, or there have been infinitely many events. The argument attempts to show that there could not have been infinitely many events. I already explained why I thought that argument, in its original form, didn’t work.

In your version you seem to assume what you are trying to prove. You assume that there are finite events when you say that infinity is greater than any number of possible events. I guess you could define “number” to be something countable so there cannot be an infinite number of something even if there can be infinitely many of it, but in that case, saying that there cannot have been an infinite “number” of past events does not show that there could not have been infinitely many past events.

 

[punkforchrist]

anEvilAtheist:

I guess you could define “number” to be something countable so there cannot be an infinite number of something even if there can be infinitely many of it, but in that case, saying that there cannot have been an infinite “number” of past events does not show that there could not have been infinitely many past events.

Mathematically-speaking, this is correct. “Infinity” is really a set of numbers that can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with each other. I think what MindOverMatter has in mind is that even though the actualization of every number in the past is possible, that doesn’t mean the set as a whole (if it is infinite) can itself be actualized. Concluding otherwise would be an example of a composition fallacy.

Traversing an infinite past and arriving at the present is basically like counting down from infinity and ending in 0. There will always be another number to count before the next number can be counted, which means that 0 could never be arrived at. But, of course, the present has arrived, which is an implication of the past’s finitude.

If this is correct, then it confirms Bonaventure’s argument, but not Thomas’. The latter believed an infinite past could not be proven to be impossible. I think MindOverMatter is combining Bonaventure’s conclusion of a finite past with the metaphysics of Thomas, which is why he’s talking about potentiality and actuality.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Mathematically-speaking, this is correct. “Infinity” is really a set of numbers that can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with each other. I think what MindOverMatter has in mind is that even though the actualization of every number in the past is possible, that doesn’t mean the set as a whole (if it is infinite) can itself be actualized. Concluding otherwise would be an example of a composition fallacy.

But I think he’s trying to do more than this. It seems like he’s trying to show that there could not have been infinitely many past events.

Traversing an infinite past and arriving at the present is basically like counting down from infinity and ending in 0. There will always be another number to count before the next number can be counted, which means that 0 could never be arrived at. But, of course, the present has arrived, which is an implication of the past’s finitude.

I agree that if you start counting at a certain point (and it takes you at least a certain amount of time to count each number), there will never be a point at which you finished counting an infinite number of numbers. But this is consistent with there being an infinite past. Just as on a number line the distance between any two points will always be finite, the time between any two moments in time will always be finite (regardless of whether time extends infinitely into the past and future). Since we know that our lives began at some point, we can’t really imagine counting without ever having begun to count. But I think it is far easier to imagine an infinite past when dealing with the universe. Imagine a simple universe that has been eternally alternating between two states, or one that has been eternally expanding and then contracting. I see no problem with imagining that such a universe has been doing this infinitely many times.

It might seem a little weird to us, but I don’t think that’s a reason to rule it out. I see an infinitely old natural world as a little weird and a finitely old natural world as a little weird. But I also see it as weird to imagine that a disembodied mind completely outside the natural world can create matter from nothing merely by willing it to be so. Whatever the truth is, I think it is outside the realm of our everyday experience and may intuitively seem very weird (for example God’s relationship with time is definitely a strange one). So I accept that I don’t know what happened.

For an argument to prove that God exists, it has to show why God’s non-existence is impossible, not just show that it doesn’t match a certain element of our intuition (since I know my intuition isn’t very reliable when it comes to things far outside my experience).

If this is correct, then it confirms Bonaventure’s argument, but not Thomas’. The latter believed an infinite past could not be proven to be impossible. I think MindOverMatter is combining Bonaventure’s conclusion of a finite past with the metaphysics of Thomas, which is why he’s talking about potentiality and actuality.

 

[reggieM]

What is the difference between an “absolute” being and a “contingent” being? Can you give a real world sort of example of what that means?

The difference is that absolute being is being itself. It is existence. All other things are contingent – because they depend on something else to give them existence. They possess the quality of existence, but they did not and could not give it to themselves.
Existence itself cannot be created by anything else. So, the absolute being is existence itself – it is the source of this quality we call existence or being. That source cannot be created.

Why does being have to be caused by an unchanging being? Why, philosophically, does God have to be unchanging to be real?

There are several arguments for this. The one which may be easiest to get is that change is a movement from one condition to another. It requires a lack of something. God cannot lack anything.

Why is “truth” founded on being? What do you mean by that?

Without being, there can be no truth. Without being, there can be no being. The fullness of truth is the fullness of being – because the fullness of being (absolute being) cannot be lacking anything. Nothing can provide “extra being” to the source of existence.

Those were good questions. If I get more time I can provide more details and better examples. MoM has some very good explainations on this topic also.

 

[TheWhim]

But this is consistent with there being an infinite past. Just as on a number line the distance between any two points will always be finite, the time between any two moments in time will always be finite (regardless of whether time extends infinitely into the past and future).

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.

Since we know that our lives began at some point, we can’t really imagine counting without ever having begun to count.

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.

 

[Fran65]

I already explained why I thought that argument, in its original form, didn’t work…

No, you haven’t explained it. That’s why I’m asking.

In your version you seem to assume what you are trying to prove. You assume that there are finite events when you say that infinity is greater than any number of possible events. I guess you could define “number” to be something countable so there cannot be an infinite number of something even if there can be infinitely many of it, but in that case, saying that there cannot have been an infinite “number” of past events does not show that there could not have been infinitely many past events.

First of all, its not ‘my argument’. Its an argument that I have taken an interest in, just as I have taken an interest in your argument.

Second of all, saying that the finite is countable and then saying that as events are always countable, this then means that an infinity cannot exist seems reasonable to me (as a non mathematician). So, for the last time, I repeat, what is the problem with that logic? Specifically?

In addition, scientific findings indicate a point at which the universe (in its present form) began. Doesn’'t this also support the argument that an infinite number of events does not exist in this universe? This triangulation supports the original argument doesn’t it?

Thanks Whim, you have explained much of what I’m trying to understand! The conclsuion felt right, but your explanation tells me why it is right - no infinity of events or time.

 

[wanstronian]

I would like you to explain why Mind’s reasoning is fallacious. Let’s start with the idea of an infinite past. Why and how is that illogical?

It is the conclusion that I and others have come to as we are unable to understand MoM’s logic. He, in turn is unwilling or unable to explain it. Instead, he prefers to turn the argument around and try and make those questioning him somehow remiss.

All we’re asking him to do is explain. If he can’t, he should admit it. If he can, why would he not?

 

[wanstronian]

Personally, I couldn’t prove my own existence in 8 steps, and certainly not to a skeptic’s satisfaction. I know this whole “proof of God’s existence” thing has a long history, but I’m not sure it’s ever very convincing.

But there are plenty of reasons to doubt atheism – perhaps even reasons to doubt the existence of atheism.

This is a good point, and it depends on the view of atheism. If one takes the view that the atheist says, “I know God doesn’t exist,” in the same way that many (most?) theists, say, “I know that God exists”, then the atheist is an idiot, and so is the theist. By that definition of atheism, and the theistic corollary, all atheists and theists are actually agnostic.

Nobody can know that God exists; nobody can know he doesn’t. All you can do is take either an evidential (scientific) view or a philosophical (supernatural) view. In my opinion, the scientific view carries far more weight because (properly held) it makes no assumptions in the absence of observable evidence. From an evidential perspective, there is no logic to the assumption that God exists. Theists may try and dodge this fact by claiming that God is ‘outside science’ or whatever, but in reality this brings no validity to their point of view, other than *from *their point of view.

 

[Fran65]

It is the conclusion that I and others have come to as we are unable to understand MoM’s logic.

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!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This is a good point, and it depends on the view of atheism. If one takes the view that the atheist says, “I know God doesn’t exist,” in the same way that many (most?) theists, say, “I know that God exists”, then the atheist is an idiot, and so is the theist. By that definition of atheism, and the theistic corollary, all atheists and theists are actually agnostic.

I would generally agree to this. I believe that God revealing Himself, beyond any shadow of a doubt, effectively strips the human being of his free will. So I think that all theists are actually saying amounts to: “I am convinced of God”, “I have experienced God”, “If God does not exist, I do not understand my experience”.

The “atheist” could say the inverse: “I am not convinced of God”, “I have not experienced God”, “If God does exist, I do not understand my experience”.

These are wildly divergent agnosticisms, but they are agnosticisms.

Nobody can know that God exists; nobody can know he doesn’t. All you can do is take either an evidential (scientific) view or a philosophical (supernatural) view. In my opinion, the scientific view carries far more weight because (properly held) it makes no assumptions in the absence of observable evidence.

But this is true of all skepticism. But why draw the line at “observable” evidence? Our senses may be deceived; indeed, they often are. The problem is: what assumptions are acceptable? The empiricist assumes that things that cannot be observed are not true – but this leaves him the troubling problem of how mathematics are true. The rationalist assumes that the most reliable truths can be determined without any evidence (a priori reasoning) – but we cannot justify a priori reasoning with reference to itself nor anything other than itself. We have no way to choose which assumptions are best - the empiricist’s or the rationalist’s.

Pascal says, “The heart has its reasons, which the reason knows nothing of.” Perhaps belief in God isn’t a head decision, but a heart decision. That is another assumption, I know, but I am willing to stake my life on it.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

No, you haven’t explained it. That’s why I’m asking.

Why do you think that you can conclude that there cannot have been infinite events merely from the fact that infinity is greater than all finite numbers? This in no way rules out infinite events. Of course it may be possible that there are some other premises which do allow you to make that link. But I am not a mind reader and do not know how he thought you could make the link. 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.

First of all, its not ‘my argument’. Its an argument that I have taken an interest in, just as I have taken an interest in your argument.

Second of all, saying that the finite is countable and then saying that as events are always countable, this then means that an infinity cannot exist seems reasonable to me (as a non mathematician). So, for the last time, I repeat, what is the problem with that logic? Specifically?

For one thing, I should have been more careful when I used the term countable. I should have said that “I guess you could define “number” to only include finite numbers so there cannot be an infinite number of something even if there can be infinitely many of it.” Mathematically speaking there are countably infinite sets such as the set of natural numbers.

The argument you just suggested is as follows:

1. The finite is countable. (Premise)
2. Events are always countable. (Premise)
3. An infinity cannot exist. (Conclusion)

The problem with this is that even if I granted that the premises were true, the conclusion would not follow. For one thing, I think step 3 should be changed to “There cannot have been infinitely many events.” Infinity could still exist as a concept even if there could not be an infinite number of things. However, your argument would still be logically fallacious. This is like saying that rats are mammals and whales are mammals, therefore rats are whales.

In addition, scientific findings indicate a point at which the universe (in its present form) began. Doesn’'t this also support the argument that an infinite number of events does not exist in this universe? This triangulation supports the original argument doesn’t it?

Science is unsure exactly what happened before Planck time because we do not yet have an established theory of quantum gravity. There are cyclic models of the universe, as well as models in which the universe was once a singularity. Even under singularity models, we do not know what existed before the Big Bang. So I don’t see any reason to think that the entire natural world must have had some beginning.

 

[JDaniel]

Mathematically-speaking, this is correct. “Infinity” is really a set of numbers that can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with each other. I think what MindOverMatter has in mind is that even though the actualization of every number in the past is possible, that doesn’t mean the set as a whole (if it is infinite) can itself be actualized. Concluding otherwise would be an example of a composition fallacy.

Traversing an infinite past and arriving at the present is basically like counting down from infinity and ending in 0. There will always be another number to count before the next number can be counted, which means that 0 could never be arrived at. But, of course, the present has arrived, which is an implication of the past’s finitude.

If this is correct, then it confirms Bonaventure’s argument, but not Thomas’. The latter believed an infinite past could not be proven to be impossible. I think MindOverMatter is combining Bonaventure’s conclusion of a finite past with the metaphysics of Thomas, which is why he’s talking about potentiality and actuality.

You are correct. There cannot be an “actual” infinity. It can’t exist. Period. Infinity can only comprise a potential for it as a “real” determinate or, predicate. In “reality” there can only be a “potential infinity.”

In mathematics, an infinity can be conceived of, sort of, but in this case, the concept does not prove or describe anything real.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

It is the conclusion that I and others have come to as we are unable to understand MoM’s logic. He, in turn is unwilling or unable to explain it. Instead, he prefers to turn the argument around and try and make those questioning him somehow remiss.

All we’re asking him to do is explain. If he can’t, he should admit it. If he can, why would he not?

I wonder if you understand that some of us cannot sit in front of our computers like puppets that jump to your exquisite whim (no pun intended!) - because we work, for example. I am sure MoM will be back as soon as he can. Your hasty accusations tell us a lot about you.

jd

 

[Fran65]

The argument you just suggested is as follows:

1. The finite is countable. (Premise)
2. Events are always countable. (Premise)
3. An infinity cannot exist. (Conclusion)
   This is like saying that rats are mammals and whales are mammals, therefore rats are whales.

Right, now I see.

However, how do you counter Whim’s argument?

Science is unsure exactly what happened before Planck time because we do not yet have an established theory of quantum gravity. There are cyclic models of the universe, as well as models in which the universe was once a singularity. Even under singularity models, we do not know what existed before the Big Bang. So I don’t see any reason to think that the entire natural world must have had some beginning.

Agreed, there are multiple models. It remains more than a possibility that the universe did have a beginning however - unless you’re suggesting an infinitely cycling universe. Using scientific models we simply don’t know how or why the universe is in existence.

 

[tjm190]

I thank you for not using St. Anselm’s ontological proof. And I believe the uncertainty principle allows for small amounts of matter/energy to come into existence from nothing for small amounts of time. While it hasn’t happened yet, I believe that will be the foundation of the future atheistic explanation for the existence of the universe.

 

[Fran65]

That’s extremely interesting.

The uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. It is impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty.

Just how does the uncertainty principle explain the production of something from nothing when it appears to be concerned only with pairs of physical properties?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I thank you for not using St. Anselm’s ontological proof. And I believe the uncertainty principle allows for small amounts of matter/energy to come into existence from nothing for small amounts of time.

If it happens for “small amounts of time”, it is happening **within time **-- that is, within space/time. But where does the medium of space/time come from? You’re just setting the question back one level, but you always end up with the same question: a philosophical, not a scientific, question.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Right, now I see.

However, how do you counter Whim’s argument?.

Oh, I must have missed his response. I’ll go back and take a look.

Agreed, there are multiple models. It remains more than a possibility that the universe did have a beginning however - unless you’re suggesting an infinitely cycling universe. Using scientific models we simply don’t know how or why the universe is in existence.

I am indeed suggesting an infinitely cyclic universe as one of the possibilities.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

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.

But you don’t have an infinite distance between points. If the universe is infinite, it had no point at which it began. You can’t say that if you start at the beginning you could never get to the present, because there is no beginning.

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.

I wouldn’t say that I believe the universe/natural world to be infinitely old. I just don’t think the data is in yet so I withhold judgment about whether the universe had a beginning. Please explain how it is logically impossible for there to be an infinite past. I agree with you that the distance between any two points in time cannot be infinite, but you haven’t explained how this leads to your conclusion.

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.

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.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

You are correct. There cannot be an “actual” infinity. It can’t exist. Period. Infinity can only comprise a potential for it as a “real” determinate or, predicate. In “reality” there can only be a “potential infinity.”

In mathematics, an infinity can be conceived of, sort of, but in this case, the concept does not prove or describe anything real.

jd

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.

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.