Finite past proves God exists

[Candide_West]

Already covered many times. And already ignored many times. This is just one more.
*
Something other than God could not have existed from eternity and had to be created. It would itself be part of the universe, or if you want, an earlier form of the universe, but not the PM.*
*
There has been nothing new in this thread for a long time. Maybe it’s time to turn out the lights.

I think everyone is waiting for you to attempt to support your assertions, instead of just repeating them (and no repeating your assertion again is NOT supporting it).

Until you do so there doesn’t appear to be much else to say.*

…

Right – I’m just using the term that I’m familiar with (from my recollection of Aristotle’s Physics)…

If you’re still around Gorgias, I’m still interested in the discussion we started. It seemed like it had the potential to go somewhere interesting.

Thanks

 

[empther]

If you’re still around Gorgias, I’m still interested in the discussion we started. It seemed like it had the potential to go somewhere interesting.

There is never any progress towards the truth. The A-team just ignores points made that disprove their ideas and ask the same basic questions again and again and again as if it was the first post.
This is not philosophy.

 

[Candide_West]

There is never any progress towards the truth. *The A-team just ignores points made that disprove their ideas and ask the same basic questions again and again and again as if it was the first post. *

I cannot speak for others, as obviously there is no “A-team” to the best of my knowledge at least.*

However, if you would answer the questions that I asked you with reasoned arguments instead of repeating the same bald assertions again and again, I would not keep asking the same questions.*

Why not give it a go at least once before you “turn out the lights” on your “proof”.

This is not philosophy.

Exactly, philosophy requires logic and justification. Bald assertions on their own do not cut it.*

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

There is never any progress towards the truth. The A-team just ignores points made that disprove their ideas and ask the same basic questions again and again and again as if it was the first post.
This is not philosophy.

The way you’ve phrased the point ignores a lot. Here is the original assertion:

Granted that the universe could not have existed for ever but had a start…
The first cause of the universe must belong to one of two classes:
Class one: a natural thing
Class two: a supernatural thing

But it is impossible that a natural thing could be the cause of the universe without itself being part of the universe! Something may have caused the universe in the form we see it now. But this natuiral ‘something’ would have been the universe before that which we see now. You can’t go back to infinity.

Therefore, the first cause has to be supernatural.

First, it is not impossible that a natural thing might exist outside the universe, do you have some argument to contradict this? I claim that being outside the universe is necessary, but not sufficient, for a thing to be supernatural. If you are claiming that all things outside our universe are supernatural, then I think you are departing from traditional definitions of the word and we would be better off sticking with “inside the universe” and “outside the universe.”

Second, we have agreed that our timeline is finite (it is included in the title of this thread.) However, there are other possibilities which have been raised. There might be infinitely nested timelines, or an infinite timeline outside of our finite timeline.

 

[Micorhizea]

Already covered many times. And already ignored many times. This is just one more.

Something other than God could not have existed from eternity and had to be created. It would itself be part of the universe, or if you want, an earlier form of the universe, but not the PM.

There has been nothing new in this thread for a long time. Maybe it’s time to turn out the lights.

“Say goodnight, Gracie”