Finite past proves God exists

[TheTrueCentrist]

God did not always exist. He is outside of time and eternal.

The possibility did not always exist. It is outside of time and eternal.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Class one: a natural thing
Class two: a supernatural thing

I propose that existence itself is the PM. Does existence exist outside our universe? Yes. Is existence itself supernatural? I do not believe so.

Existence itself was not caused. It is outside of time.

 

[empther]

It is so easy to dismiss these atheists’s inanities:

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
God did not always exist. He is outside of time and eternal.

The possibility did not always exist. It is outside of time and eternal.

The “possibility” you’re talking about is something springing into existence from absolutely nothing without any cause other than chance.

God’s existence which is his own made it possible for him to create the universe from nothing. :extrahappy:

---

I have something to go do, now.
Sorry you don’t.

 

[Biblepoe]

Empther, these are the assertions that I could find that you have made without attempting to back them up. Your argument on this thread rests on them:

1 There cannot be an infinite regression.
2 A natural thing cannot be the cause of its own existence, but a supernatural thing can be the cause of its own existence. (special pleading)

In order for your argument to work, you would have to prove all of your premises, including these. That’s the nature of a logical argument. Good luck.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The “possibility” you’re talking about is something springing into existence from absolutely nothing without any cause other than chance.

If chance exists, then there was something instead of “absolutely nothing”

God’s existence which is his own made it possible for him to create the universe from nothing.

If God exists, then there was something instead of “absolutely nothing.”

 

[empther]

Well, folks, this one really takes the cake.
I hope nobody needs a reply at this stage of the game.
Save your sanity and leave this post now!

**Biblepoe **wrote:
Empther, these are the assertions that I could find that you have made without attempting to back them up. Your argument on this thread rests on them:

1 There cannot be an infinite regression.
2 A natural thing cannot be the cause of its own existence, but a supernatural thing can be the cause of its own existence. (special pleading)

In order for your argument to work, you would have to prove all of your premises, including these. That’s the nature of a logical argument. Good luck.

Never have I said God could cause his own existence or anything like that. ( I already know Babblepoo’s reply to that. )

I have never in my many years of battle on the internet seen anybody say anything like that until today.

---

Side issue: I’d like anybody to explain how there can be an infinite regression.

 

[empther]

If chance exists, then there was something instead of “absolutely nothing”

Chance doesn’t exist even in Los Vegas.

Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
God’s existence which is his own made it possible for him to create the universe from nothing.
If God exists, then there was something instead of “absolutely nothing.”

There was God but absolutely nothing else. So absolutely nothing else could not turn itself into something, unless God created something.

That was a waste of one minute of my time. But I’m collecting social security.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Chance doesn’t exist even in Los Vegas.

You just need faith.

Your trite answer, however, does not at all weaken the possibility that chance is the PM.

There was God but absolutely nothing else. So absolutely nothing else could not turn itself into something, unless God created something.

Irrelevant. There was not “nothing” you claim there was something, and that the something was God.

In a state of nothingness, the answer to the question “does x exist?” where x is anything you like, is no. Therefore, if the answer to the question “does God exist” has always been “yes,” then there has never been a state of nothingness.

 

[empther]

In a state of nothingness, the answer to the question “does x exist?” where x is anything you like, is no. Therefore, if the answer to the question “does God exist” has always been “yes,” then there has never been a state of nothingness.

I doubt that anybody is fooled by this quibbling.

There was a state of nothingness with respect to the natural world. The whole point of this thread is to point out that the natural world could not have existed from infinity. Not even God could have caused a natural event an infinite time ago because that would be a self-contradiction. Therefore, God had to create the universe at the beginning of*** its*** time
God’s time never begins because something that is necessary and unchanging is not bound by time… He is outside of it. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be God and we wouldn’t be here to talk about it.

Looked at another way…

God’s mode of existence is completely different from ours.
We exist and have existence in the sense of enjoying because of something else, that it, God.
God does not exist because of something else. His existence is his own. His essense is existence.
From this, Aquinas and other writers deduce much that is true about God.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I doubt that anybody is fooled by this quibbling.

There was a state of nothingness with respect to the natural world. The whole point of this thread is to point out that the natural world could not have existed from infinity. Not even God could have caused a natural event an infinite time ago because that would be a self-contradiction. Therefore, God had to create the universe at the beginning of*** its*** time
God’s time never begins because something that is necessary and unchanging is not bound by time… He is outside of it. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it.

Good! You’re saying that all the PM argument shows is that our universe, as bound by our timeline could not have existed from infinity. If there are existences outside our universe they may or may not be bound by the PM argument. That these other existences are God is not immediately obvious. There could exist a timeless multiverse, a timeless chance for things to pop into existence, etc. There might be other universes, each with their own timeline, completely independent from ours.

However, you say that there could not be an infinite timeline. I think you will have to prove that is true; I am not saying that our timeline is infinite, but that there may exist one that is.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

God’s mode of existence is completely different from ours.
We exist and have existence in the sense of enjoying because of something else, that it, God.
God does not exist because of something else. His existence is his own. His essense is existence.
From this, Aquinas and other writers deduce much that is true about God.

Ok, so lets say that the PM is existence itself. I proposed that earlier. Why must the PM also be God?

 

[empther]

Ok, so lets say that the PM is existence itself. I proposed that earlier. Why must the PM also be God?

Can an acorn sprout an apple tree?

Can a lion give birth to a blue whale?

Something about God can be known from his works.
How to explain a mother’s love for her children, a soldier dying for his country, Einstein’s understanding of the universe’s mysteries,
if God didn’t have all these things in superabundance?
Nothing can create something that has some of what it does not have in any way.

( I can hear TheTrueCentrist’s jaw drop to the floor! :extrahappy: )

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Can an acorn sprout an apple tree?

Can a lion give birth to a blue whale?

Something about God can be known from his works.
How to explain a mother’s love for her children, a soldier dying for his country, Einstein’s understanding of the universe’s mysteries,
if God didn’t have all these things in superabundance?
Nothing can create something that has some of what it does not have in any way.

I notice that you started out very logical, but are now resorting to imprecise language and implication. If you are resorting to these sorts of arguments, I think ASimon’s criticisms are legitimate, and we can get started on his line of reasoning. However, by doing so, you will have failed to prove that the PM is God simply based on finite past, as promised in the title of this thread.

Have we any idea of when it’s scheduled to be later? These “problems” you speak of are, in fact, the whole ballgame, and I want to make sure I get good seats for when they get worked out.

Indeed existence itself is not a good candidate for the PM. I was trying to help you out by proposing it. Simply positing eternal and timeless existence does not explain our universe. Our universe is finite, and existence infinite. Therefore, there must be something capable of causing our universe existing outside our universe but inside existence. However, you still have not provided and indication that you know what attributes such a PM must have.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Nothing can create something that has some of what it does not have in any way.

I still propose random chance as the reason for the origin of our universe. There existed a timeless possibility that anything could spring into existence. Our universe did.

In a sense, the chance is omnipotent, as all things are possible. However, it does not have a will or awareness.

 

[AnAtheist]

Now the atheists will try to talk about “non-linear time” or “imaginary time” or some nonsense like that.

Ok, I don’t know what “the” atheists usually talk about and frankly I have no idea what “non-linear time” is supposed to mean, but “imaginary time” is just a mathematical trick to make the Euclidean scalar product Lorentz-invariant. Every first year physics student knows that, so “nonsense” is quite a bold statement.

 

[empther]

However, by doing so, you will have failed to prove that the PM is God simply based on finite past, as promised in the title of this thread.

That there could not be an infinite past is irrefutable and proves the existence of God.
There is nothing more that needs to be said.
The concept is so simple, a ten year old child should understand it.

Of course, you will never accept that. You and all atheists don’t accept anything that supports belief in God.

But you don’t prove anything either.
You make all kinds of claims but never prove anything.
You can’t because your claims are nonsense. They cannot be proved. There isn’t even partial evidence for them.

 

[empther]

Unbelievable stupidity! ( So you won’t think I made it up, it’s from post 54 )

I still propose random chance as the reason for the origin of our universe. There existed a timeless possibility that anything could spring into existence. Our universe did.

In a sense, the chance is omnipotent, as all things are possible. However, it does not have a will or awareness.

It requires real stupidity to write this nonsense!

I’m going to print it out and frame it. Every time I make a dumb mistake I’ll look at the above quote and I’ll feel good about myself.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

That there could not be an infinite past is irrefutable and proves the existence of God.
There is nothing more that needs to be said.
The concept is so simple, a ten year old child should understand it.

Of course, you will never accept that. You and all atheists don’t accept anything that supports belief in God.

But you don’t prove anything either.
You make all kinds of claims but never prove anything.
You can’t because your claims are nonsense. They cannot be proved. There isn’t even partial evidence for them.

We’re not discussing other evidence. Your point was that the finite past was sufficient proof. So far you have failed to even offer a case as to why God is a more plausible cause than chance, let alone any other possible cause. You have not even made a case that there are no other possibilities. Simply stating that it is a fact is not sufficient proof.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

But you don’t prove anything either.
You make all kinds of claims but never prove anything.
You can’t because your claims are nonsense. They cannot be proved. There isn’t even partial evidence for them.

My claim is that the finite past does not prove God exists. I proposed that while it is evidence of a prime mover, it does not allow us to conclude anything about this prime mover. As evidence I proposed an alternative PM, which you were unable to disallow reasonably (i.e. without unsubstantiated declarations of impossibility.) Therefore, I conclude that you have failed to defend your original premise, and the finite past is insufficient to prove God exists.

 

[Biblepoe]

Biblepoe;9016241:

Empther, these are the assertions that I could find that you have made without attempting to back them up. Your argument on this thread rests on them:

1 There cannot be an infinite regression.
2 A natural thing cannot be the cause of its own existence, but a supernatural thing can be the cause of its own existence. (special pleading)

In order for your argument to work, you would have to prove all of your premises, including these. That’s the nature of a logical argument. Good luck.

Never have I said God could cause his own existence or anything like that. ( I already know Babblepoo’s reply to that. )

I have never in my many years of battle on the internet seen anybody say anything like that until today.

You never said that, but your argument rests on it. Back in post 31, you were applying the “it cannot be the cause of its own reality” argument to material things, but not to “supernatural” things:

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.

You say that it is impossible for something natural to start reality (the first universe in a potential chain of universes), yet you give god a free pass. That is called special pleading.

Now you may be tempted to justify this special pleading by simply defining god as outside of time, but this same made-up excuse could apply to a hypothetical natural universe that caused this universe.