8 Steps To The Existence Of God

[anEvilAtheist]

Calling all posters, concerning the Question of an Infinite past. I think we have come to a point where we can move on no further, simply because a few posters refuse to acknowledge the legitimate meanings of an actual-Infinite and a potential infinite and their relationship to numbers. People are refusing to admit the boundaries of logic and how such logic applies to objective reality. Some people are claiming that i haven’t shown this to be the case to a sufficient degree. Personally, i agree with J.daniel when he says that people are confuesing the 3 levels of abstraction. In any case, I am no longer interested in proving my case, suffice to say that according to my understanding of an actual infinite i have shown to a sufficient degree why such a thing is impossible in principle and why it cannot be applied to past events.

I’m not refusing to acknowledge anything that there are good reasons to think is true. You have not proved your case and you are saying it’s our fault that we don’t understand it. I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that your proof is very confusing and there are a number of questionable assertions. At least when I read William Lane Craig’s work in this area, he presents his argument clearly and I am able to tell what I agree with and what I don’t agree with. So I guess there’s not much point with continuing the discussion.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I’m not refusing to acknowledge anything that there are good reasons to think is true. You have not proved your case and you are saying it’s our fault that we don’t understand it. I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that your proof is very confusing and there are a number of questionable assertions. At least when I read William Lane Craig’s work in this area, he presents his argument clearly and I am able to tell what I agree with and what I don’t agree with. So I guess there’s not much point with continuing the discussion.

I apologize if i haven’t been clear to you. But there are other posters who think my position is very clear and understandable. So unless you are willing to claim that they are liars, i suggest you try harder, or at least admit the possibility that you are incapable of understanding. Either that or stop trolling. Its seems to me that you have been twisting and turning and being very obscure about what you mean by many infinite past events. You refuse to accept anybodies definition outside of your own, and you haven’t justified your definitions as far as i can tell. Therefore you have chosen to be in a position where you cannot be spoken to.

If you’re not here to truly learn something, i suggest you simply leave the thread with out comment.

Peace.

 

[reggieM]

I agree that if something is not clear in the discussion, it is best to ask questions in order to increase understanding. If the original points are not understood, then there can’t be a discussion and there can’t be any worthwhile arguments against it – since the arguments would be based on a lack of understanding.

 

[MindOverMatter]

If infinity is not a number you must still recognize that it has some meaning to say that there have been infinite past events. We would then need to discuss whether this could have happened in reality.

Here is classic show of you inability to really grasp what is being said. First of all, objective reality is measurable; otherwise how would we distinguish between finite and infinite? Both concepts would become meaningless. Its not a product of our minds, we gain this understanding from being and change. Objective reality shows us the truth of the matter. If we can speak of events, if we can “measure” time and give an age to the universe or even the planet earth, then we can most certainly speak meaningfully of events in respect of numbers. We can say that there is an objective basis for knowing whether or not an actual infinite is meaningful. If an infinity is recognized as not being a number, then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to consider meaningful the proposition that there has been an infinite number of past events. If you agree that reality can be measured, then you must agree that adding and subtraction is meaningful in respect of actual events and has logical consequences. An infinite “duration” is dependent and contingent upon every event that makes up an infinite duration. Therefore if i subtract an event, if any time is removed, then it would become less then infinite. Thus it was not truly an infinite in the first place; since that which can be subtracted from, is in principle countable or measurable. We have shown you in numerous posts why you are wrong. If you wish to prove otherwise, you must show why numbers are not meaningful in terms of objective reality, you must explain why reality cannot be measured; since it is you that is making that claim; not us.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I agree that if something is not clear in the discussion, it is best to ask questions in order to increase understanding. If the original points are not understood, then there can’t be a discussion and there can’t be any worthwhile arguments against it – since the arguments would be based on a lack of understanding.

Then please help me to be clearer because i really don’t see what i have written that is unclear. Don’t get me wrong, i certainly see that the concepts i have given can be difficult. This is why its best just to move on to the other arguments. Agree to disagree. There wasn’t just one arguement; there are another seven that i am happy to discuss.

 

[MindOverMatter]

4. If there is an infinite chain of dependent causes, then one is admitting that none of the causes are truly the “cause” of the “change” which is occurring within that chain. In reality all the causes are effects because of there dependency on either their existential-environment or a previous cause. If the cause of change is none of the effects, this would mean that change is the cause of the effects, which makes no sense, since change in itself does not exist outside of that which is changing. We are trying to explain why there is that which is changing.

Remember 1. Out of nothing comes nothing. Since “potentiality” must be first founded upon being.

Conclusion: Change cannot give cause to itself, neither can it exist outside of a preceding existential-environment or cause, just like potentiality. Therefore there must be an unmoved-mover or an uncaused cause, in order to explain that which is changing. Thus change is ultimately caused by a being that is not changing; transcending the potentiality and being of that which changes.

Change is not itself a being, but is the product of beings. Beings are changing. If change is a product of being, then one must admit that being ultimately precedes change.

Step 9: One could put it in another way. Anything that begins to exist, needs a existential-cause, since out of nothing comes nothing. If every being is dependent on the existence of a previous being ad infinitum, then none of the beings are the givers of that which is being, because they are all dependent. Therefore the chain ought not to exist.

The chain does exist, therefore there must be a being that is being by nature of its being, and not by a cause. Such a being would be a necessary, perfect, and absolute being, and thus would transcend the imperfections of change and potentiality, and would in effect transcend the nature of any being that changes; all space/time and energy.

 

[reggieM]

Conclusion: Change cannot give cause to itself, neither can it exist outside of a preceding existential-environment or cause, just like potentiality. Therefore there must be an unmoved-mover or an uncaused cause, in order to explain that which is changing. Thus change is ultimately caused by a being that is not changing; transcending the potentiality and being of that which changes.

Again, that seems very clear and understandable.
The function we call “change” could not exist before there was something to change (being). The cause of all changes (even an infinite amount) must be a pre-existing, necessary being.
This is the same as potentiality. The potential cannot exist before there is being which can possess potential.

The origin of an infinite set of changing, contingent beings remains unexplainable unless there is a prior, unchanging, non-contingent, necessary being that is the origin of the set of changes.

The counter argument to this seems to be: “Well, an infinite set of changing beings just exists – it just is. It doesn’t have a cause.”
But this does not explain the origin of this set. It claims a contingent series exists without a cause, even though it remains contingent on something for its existence.
So that reply is not a logical or valid argument but merely an assertion.

Step 9

 

[MindOverMatter]

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.

An absolute nothing is not a being. If there were an absolute nothing, then it would be true that there was absolutely nothing, but there can be no such thing as truth if there is absolutely nothing. Nothing is nothing. Hence there is an internal contradiction when one pairs the words “absolute” with “nothing”. In fact one can never speak truthfully or positively of “nothing” except in reference to “being”. I can say that i have nothing, such as no money for example; but “being”, as the subject “i”, will always precede the meaningful use of the word nothing, which is the predicate. Thus nothing is not real. Thus there is a being that is “most real”, an absolute being, a necessary being, a perfect being, which transcends all of that which begins to exist, change, or is contingent upon existence. Thus such a being is existence by nature of being, and every contingent being is in fact receiving its existence from this necessary being. Absolute being is ultimate truth and at the same time the root and creator of all contingent truths.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Again, that seems very clear and understandable.
The function we call “change” could not exist before there was something to change (being). The cause of all changes (even an infinite amount) must be a pre-existing, necessary being.
This is the same as potentiality. The potential cannot exist before there is being which can possess potential.

The origin of an infinite set of changing, contingent beings remains unexplainable unless there is a prior, unchanging, non-contingent, necessary being that is the origin of the set of changes.

The counter argument to this seems to be: “Well, an infinite set of changing beings just exists – it just is. It doesn’t have a cause.”
But this does not explain the origin of this set. It claims a contingent series exists without a cause, even though it remains contingent on something for its existence.
So that reply is not a logical or valid argument but merely an assertion.

I’d only change the above to say that “every *contingent *being is dependent on the existence of a previous being”. The logic is clear. An infinite set of changing beings is a contingent being in itself. Since it changes, it is dependent on something to cause it to exist and to change. This set of changes cannot create itself. If there was no pre-existent, necessary, non-changing being, then this infinite set of changing beings would have no origin.

Additionally, the quality of “change” had to come into existence only after being existed. Since change follows being in a sequence of time, then it cannot be of infinite existence (without a beginning). If change never had a beginning, then it could not follow after being.

But beings do exist and change follows them in time, so change cannot be infinite or self-caused but must have an origin in time.

Thus, there cannot be an infinite regression of contingent, changing beings (as the universe).

Thanks. I could not have said it better my self.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I agree that if something is not clear in the discussion, it is best to ask questions in order to increase understanding. If the original points are not understood, then there can’t be a discussion and there can’t be any worthwhile arguments against it – since the arguments would be based on a lack of understanding.

Which is exactly why I had been asking so many questions. When people throw out terms like “objective integer” without explaining what they mean, I really need to find out what they mean before I can accept or criticize it.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

The counter argument to this seems to be: “Well, an infinite set of changing beings just exists – it just is. It doesn’t have a cause.”
But this does not explain the origin of this set. It claims a contingent series exists without a cause, even though it remains contingent on something for its existence.
So that reply is not a logical or valid argument but merely an assertion.

Right, the series would be contingent on the existence of the natural world. Whether or not you believe God exists, I don’t think there’s an answer to the question of why there is something (either God and the natural world, or just the natural world), or nothing.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Here is classic show of you inability to really grasp what is being said. First of all, objective reality is measurable; otherwise how would we distinguish between finite and infinite? Both concepts would become meaningless.

Since humans cannot observe an infinite number of things, we cannot distinguish between an absurdly large number of things and an infinite number of things, as I said before. So we can’t ever observe infinity, even if our theories indicated that something infinite existed. By the way, do you really realize the implications of your statement that “objective reality is measurable; otherwise how would we distinguish between finite and infinite?” Based on that, I could say that since God is not measurable, God is not real, otherwise how could we distinguish between God and an imaginary entity.

Its not a product of our minds, we gain this understanding from being and change. Objective reality shows us the truth of the matter. If we can speak of events, if we can “measure” time and give an age to the universe or even the planet earth, then we can most certainly speak meaningfully of events in respect of numbers. We can say that there is an objective basis for knowing whether or not an actual infinite is meaningful. If an infinity is recognized as not being a number, then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to consider meaningful the proposition that there has been an infinite number of past events.

Again, you do not provide evidence to support your last statement (unless you’re saying there’s no reason to consider it meaningful but also no reason not to consider it meaningful).

If you agree that reality can be measured, then you must agree that adding and subtraction is meaningful in respect of actual events and has logical consequences.

I agree that addition and subtraction are meaningful. By the way, I just can’t get over that it seems like your statements mean that God does not exist. Since prayer studies and other studies have found no evidence of God and there is no way to directly measure God, it seems like you’re saying he doesn’t exist in reality.

An infinite “duration” is dependent and contingent upon every event that makes up an infinite duration. Therefore if i subtract an event, if any time is removed, then it would become less then infinite.

No. Infinity – infinity = infinity. Even if you look at the real numbers between 0 and 1, which you term potentially infinite, if one of them is removed, there are still potentially infinite numbers.

Thus it was not truly an infinite in the first place; since that which can be subtracted from, is in principle countable or measurable. We have shown you in numerous posts why you are wrong.

You have asserted that I am wrong, but have not shown that I am wrong.

If you wish to prove otherwise, you must show why numbers are not meaningful in terms of objective reality, you must explain why reality cannot be measured; since it is you that is making that claim; not us.

I did not make either of these claims. Although I do think that some reality cannot be measured, for example it is likely that the observable universe is not the entirety of the actual universe, since it would be some luck if we just happened to be in the exact center. Also, I would be interested in either hearing your proposal for how God can be measured.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I apologize if i haven’t been clear to you. But there are other posters who think my position is very clear and understandable.

This doesn’t mean that it is. If I made a flawed argument from evil attempting to prove God’s non-existence and posted it on an atheist site, would the fact that some people might consider it a solid argument mean that it is? I don’t think this conversation will get anywhere when you assume that your argument is perfect, so any criticism from me must be invalid.

So unless you are willing to claim that they are liars, i suggest you try harder, or at least admit the possibility that you are incapable of understanding. Either that or stop trolling.

Well if you’re going to accuse me of trolling for attempting to honestly engage with your argument, then I’m done here. I’m not going to waste any more time on this thread.

Peace.

 

[JDaniel]

Well, yesterday I came down with the flu. So, I’ve been struggling to stay awake throughout the past 36 hours and, therefore haven’t read all of the ensuing posts. I’m still half dead but will take a shot at answering as many of your questions as I can.

Calling all posters, concerning the Question of an Infinite past. I think we have come to a point where we can move on no further, simply because a few posters refuse to acknowledge the legitimate meanings of an actual-Infinite and a potential infinite and their relationship to numbers. People are refusing to admit the boundaries and the legitimacy of logic and how such logic applies to objective reality. Some people are claiming that i haven’t shown this to be the case to a sufficient degree. Personally, i agree with J.Daniel when he says that people are confusing the 3 levels of abstraction. In any case, I am no longer interested in proving my case, suffice to say that according to my understanding of an actual infinite i have shown to a sufficient degree why such a thing is impossible in principle and why it cannot be applied to past events.

I agree, particularly in spirit! This cold is not helping my mind!

Now i think it would be more productive and interesting if we move on to some of the other Question in the OP, such as this one here…

1. 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.

I can fairly say that this is difficult to understand since you must first comprehend being as being. Perhaps, my friend J Daniel will help with this. He is far more patient with people then me!!

My take on this - and please correct me if I am wrong - you are saying that ultimate being must include everything that is possible to it, since it is able to include everything there is. It lacks of nothing whatsoever. It possesses all without any potency anywhere within it. There are no privations; nothing it needs; it can’t ever be said “that if only it had . . . . . it would be so much better.” If such a limited being or process was in existence, it would lack attributes that it absolutely must possess in order for it to be ultimate being.

For example, if we envision a causal chain as an incredibly tall, thin stick, consisting of an arbitrary number of efficient causes, that ends at the ** (potential) effect** (the effect doesn’t exist yet!) here on earth and reaches up into the universe, towards “infinity”, we will always have ONLY a transfinite number of secondary efficient causes, but, never get to a terminating first cause. Therefore, we would find ourselves with nothing but a worthless stick as it would do nothing. It would cause nothing. Like the little, pink bunny, on TV, it would keep going and going and going - straight up - FOREVER. If this were the case, this “stick” and its entire matrix of secondary efficient causes would receive no impetus to start any motion or make any change. In order for any change or causation to occur there must be a terminating cause from whence causal action begins. The chain cannot simply keep growing and growing, and the secondary causes can do nothing without the first, in the same way that subcontractors cannot just start building something until they are told what to build, are given the plans, and delivered some raw materials. The prime mover/first cause terminates the “chain”, not in terms of stopping some sort of local motion, but, in terms of terminating the metaphysical “number of links in the chain” in order that it may start the causal action.

An (infinitely) changing, or changeable being would not be an ultimate being as it would possess privation(s). It would contain “holes” where something more should or, could, be. If it has “holes,” where additional substance or attributes could or should be, it is not absolute. It would be a contingent, finite being. Furthermore, its privations would precede its being because such a being must depend upon its causes, each with its own privations, perhaps to potential infinity. We could never arrive at this so-called ultimate being. Therefore a being must exist that is: (1) changeless and motionless, and, (2) is preceded, presupposed, and dependent upon nothing else.

Continued…

 

[j1akey]

Mathematically speaking infinity can be observed. 1 divided by 3 = .3333333333333333333333333333333 forever (infinity). Obviously you could never actually complete the equation but it does show and demonstrat that infinity is possible.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Since humans cannot observe an infinite number of things, we cannot distinguish between an absurdly large number of things

I agree, it is absurd, thats why i wonder continuously why you believe it.

and an infinite number of things, as I said before.

But we can discern a finite number of things and thus come to understand the difference. I’m still waiting for you to understand. I won’t hold my breath.

By the way, do you really realize the implications of your statement that “objective reality is measurable; otherwise how would we distinguish between finite and infinite?” Based on that, I could say that since God is not measurable, God is not real, otherwise how could we distinguish between God and an imaginary entity.
.Please explain how your so called logical thinking led you to the conclusion that if we cannot measure an infinite that therefore God doesn’t exist? Don’t you know that there is a difference between an infinite number and an actual infinite being?

There is a difference. Maybe you will understand this one day; then again, maybe you will not.

Again, you do not provide evidence to support your last statement.

Yes i did.

(unless you’re saying there’s no reason to consider it meaningful but also no reason not to consider it meaningful).

There is every reason to consider the idea of an infinite duration or number of events as being meaningless.

I agree that addition and subtraction are meaningful.

Then you must admit that an infinite past is impossible

No. Infinity – infinity = infinity.

I don’t deal in make-belief numbers when speaking seriously about objective events. So you can keep saying this until you are blue in the face. It will never ever be a rational statement in regards to objective reality. An infinity cannot be made up of numbers

Even if you look at the real numbers between 0 and 1, which you term potentially infinite, if one of them is removed, there are still potentially infinite numbers.

But that is not an “actual infinite”. I suggest you learn the difference between an actual infinity and a potential infinity before presuming to be intelligent enough to dismiss any of my arguments.

You have asserted that I am wrong, but have not shown that I am wrong.

I have exposed your errors on a number of occasions; its just a shame that you do not get it.

I did not make either of these claims.

Evidence that you don’t read my posts properly.:nope:

Although I do think that some reality cannot be measured, for example it is likely that the observable universe is not the entirety of the actual universe.

Just because something is unobservable doesn’t necessarily mean that its not in itself “measurable”. Have you got any more tricks up your sleeve?

Also, I would be interested in either hearing your proposal for how God can be measured.

God cannot be measured. I would like to see how logic has lead you to believe that this means that God doesn’t exist? In fact, I’d rather you didn’t waste my time.

 

[reggieM]

Mathematically speaking infinity can be observed. 1 divided by 3 = .3333333333333333333333333333333 forever (infinity). Obviously you could never actually complete the equation but it does show and demonstrat that infinity is possible.

If you used this as an analogy of the universe being infinite, for example, then it would show that the universe had a beginning. Because your infinite number starts when you divide one by three. Then you can see the numbers going to the future.

But it also doesn’t show that infinity is possible. First, it has a beginning so it’s not an actual infinite. Second, we could say theoretically that the number goes on for infinity but we do not know what the future will bring in reality. The number may not be calculated forever in reality because the calculator could break or the universe be destroyed.

You wouldn’t need a number to show that kind of infinity. You could say: “today was a day that passed by in time, therefore, an infinite number of days is possible”.

That doesn’t solve the problem or add anything.

Another interesting point is how we recognize that 1/3 is an infinite number. We do see that mathematically – in theory, not in actuality. But this is a non-material value. There is nothing in nature that is the number .33333333333333 to infinity. Nobody has ever seen it. But we propose it exists and human beings agree that logic dictates that number. That number does not reflect any neurons in the brain, or any combination of matter and energy. It’s a non-material concept.
This is a good proof that there are spiritual, non-material values such as intelligence, which are not dependent on physical matter or processes.

But overall, it’s important to understand what is being proposed.

1. We’re talking about an “actual infinite”. That is different than a mathematical or theoretical infinite.
2. We’re talking about an infinite regression – which means something that had no beginning. This is different than something that had a beginning but goes on forever (like the mathematical formula you gave).

The reason we talk about an “actual infinite” is because the universe is “actual”. It’s not a mathematical, theoretical formula.

That’s also why the question arose regarding the nature of an “integer”. A number is an intellectual concept – a symbol. It can relate to something in nature (2 apples plus 2 apples equals four apples), but there is no physical thing called “a four”. It’s a non-material concept. This is especially true with numbers which have no association with physical objects.

We can say that there are four apples. But when we say .33333333333 to infinity, that number is not representative of any physical thing.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Which is exactly why I had been asking so many questions. When people throw out terms like “objective integer” without explaining what they mean, I really need to find out what they mean before I can accept or criticize it.

This is just a suggestion. If you know what an integer means, then you can look up the term “objective”, and work out for your self what i mean by “Objective Integers”.

 

[JDaniel]

Mathematically speaking infinity can be observed. 1 divided by 3 = .3333333333333333333333333333333 forever (infinity). Obviously you could never actually complete the equation but it does show infinity.

Can we place that idea back into a real thing? Or, do we only imagine that we are dividing something up like that?

Can we type it out in the full lifetimes of a chain of people typing “.3’s” on the same keyboard until everything in the universe succumbs to entropy?

I’m only guessing, mind you, but, this view of so-called infinity would probably end in an odd number, right? How would we be sure? If we divided all of the “3’s” by their indivisible units, the “1”, would we have 3 infinities? Can 3 “infinities” co-exist? Can 3 extensible infinities coexist? Can they co-exist as real boxes?

How long would it take me to “observe” the aforementioned “infinity” in the form you have described? An infinitely long time? If I started at birth and ended at death, would I view all of the “…3’s”?

If we converted all of these “…3’s” into extensible exigencies, would there be any room left for an observer? If we kept dividing by tenths, hundredths, thousandths, at what point would we be unable to “observe” what we were dividing because we ran out of technology to be able to observe them?

If the particles of this division were extensible, would they move? Where would they move? Relative to what would they move? What would cause them to move? The solar winds maybe? If there was any room for solar winds, would we have an actual infinity of extensible pieces of a real, existing number 1?

Can you see the contradiction in your statement?
jd

 

[MindOverMatter]

This doesn’t mean that it is. If I made a flawed argument from evil attempting to prove God’s non-existence and posted it on an atheist site, would the fact that some people might consider it a solid argument mean that it is? I don’t think this conversation will get anywhere when you assume that your argument is perfect, so any criticism from me must be invalid.

Pardon me? Was it not you who first claimed, on the authority of other posters, that my arguments were unclear?

Well if you’re going to accuse me of trolling for attempting to honestly engage with your argument, then I’m done here.

To be honest, I’m not sure that you are being honest. Perhaps i am mistaken, but your behavior is to me very much like a troll.

I’m not going to waste any more time on this thread.

Goodbye.