Finite past proves God exists

[AnAtheist]

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.

If I would accept your argument (although it has some flaws which maybe a thirty years old adult can understand) and there is this God who “started” the past, the next question arises: Why should I become a Muslim?

 

[ASimon]

If I would accept your argument (although it has some flaws which maybe a thirty years old adult can understand) and there is this God who “started” the past, the next question arises: Why should I become a Muslim?

LATER! LATER! Didn’t you hear the man??? We’re dealing with that one LATER!!!

 

[AnAtheist]

LATER! LATER! Didn’t you hear the man??? We’re dealing with that one LATER!!!

Holy eternal quantum foam, I didn’t hear that. Sorry.

 

[empther]

After being stunned by the unbelievable stupidity of post 54,
I took a closer look at the other atheists’s posts generated since and concluded they’re no better.

There is not a single thought in all their trash that I or somebody else hasn’t already addressed in this thread or elsewhere. The atheists find these answers very inconvenient. So what do they do? They completely ignore the answers and repeat their stupid claims at a later date.

This is stupid and dishonest. Atheists are a waste of time. :takethat:

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

After being stunned by the unbelievable stupidity of post 54,
I took a closer look at the other atheists’s posts generated since and concluded they’re no better.

There is not a single thought in all their trash that I or somebody else hasn’t already addressed in this thread or elsewhere. The atheists find these answers very inconvenient. So what do they do? They completely ignore the answers and repeat their stupid claims at a later date.

This is stupid and dishonest. Atheists are a waste of time. :takethat:

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.

You again fail to affect this conclusion.

 

[SteveGC]

Ok, I’ll say it…

this thread is gradually becoming engaging to read, but I must say to empther, that your condescension and mocking of others is quite distasteful, and I would imagine you would be above that.

I note how those you dismiss as authors of “stupidity” are thus far taking a much more nobler path in ignoring your snide remarks towards them, and continuing in charitable debate. Perhaps you should take some cues from them in that regard?

Just a thought. Carry on.

 

[empther]

I note how those you dismiss as authors of “stupidity” are thus far taking a much more nobler path in ignoring your snide remarks towards them, and continuing in charitable debate. Perhaps you should take some cues from them in that regard?

I build. The atheists destroy. If they don’t believe in God they shouldn’t care what we think. So why are they here? What are they doing?

They assume an air of a college professor talking rationally to a class,
and they fool people like you.
They don’t care about truth. They contradict each other. They change positions to counteract the flow of believers’s talk. They change definitions of the non-existent things they throw in your face. They don’t explain anything. They can’t because there’s not a word of truth in the nonsense they throw in your face. They ignore important points about a complex idea to mislead you down the wrong path.
And you want to play tiddlywinks with these people!

Join in the battle. YOU take some of the heat for a change! Or else get out of the way and let other soldiers stand on the wall for you. :banghead: :hammering:

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If they don’t believe in God they shouldn’t care what we think. So why are they here? What are they doing?

The motivations of people of various religious and non-religious classifications are many. There’s another thread in these forums that discusses that. It was some time ago though, so you may also want to consider starting a new thread asking of one’s interest in the forums.

 

[Candide_West]

I build. The atheists destroy. If they don’t believe in God they shouldn’t care what we think. So why are they here? What are they doing?
*
They assume an air of a college professor talking rationally to a class,
and they fool people like you.*
They don’t care about truth. They contradict each other. They change positions to counteract the flow of believers’s talk. They change definitions of the non-existent things they throw in your face. They don’t explain anything. They can’t because there’s not a word of truth in the nonsense they throw in your face. They ignore important points about a complex idea to mislead you down the wrong path.*
And you want to play tiddlywinks with these people!
*
Join in the battle. YOU take some of the heat for a change! Or else get out of the way and let other soldiers stand on the wall for you. :banghead: :hammering:

Hi Empther,

I’m curious why you are so aggressive here. You seem to genuinely have the impression that you are desperately defending Christianity against the ravening hordes of atheists and therefore need to lash out verbally to defend your position. Why such aggression?*

With regards to why atheists come here, clearly I cant answer for others. But For what it is worth my own reason for being on this site is for my interest (to develop my understanding and knowledge of others) and to test my ideas against open challenge from people with different views. I am not here to destroy anything and certainly not Christianity (personally I think that religious faith is very comforting to a lot of people so I would never seek to take it away from someone against their will.)

As for atheists talking condescendingly well you get people doing that on all sides of the fence I’m afraid. I don’t think it helps dialogue in any case. To be fair though I haven’t seen your interlocutors doing so on this thread at least.

In terms of the specific discussion on this thread I have been reading along with interest since it started but do tend to agree with Steve GC, I have found your dismissal of others views to be rather uncharitable and unlikely to advance the discussion.*

At the end of the day you have taken on a very challenging objective here (proving that a God exists). Something that people have been trying to do for thousands of years. To my knowledge nobody has succeeded as yet, perhaps you will be the one to do so. But I do not think you stand much chance if you proceed by simply dismissing the objections as stupidity etc.

Take care

 

[SteveGC]

I build. The atheists destroy. If they don’t believe in God they shouldn’t care what we think. So why are they here? What are they doing?

They assume an air of a college professor talking rationally to a class,
and they fool people like you.
They don’t care about truth. They contradict each other. They change positions to counteract the flow of believers’s talk. They change definitions of the non-existent things they throw in your face. They don’t explain anything. They can’t because there’s not a word of truth in the nonsense they throw in your face. They ignore important points about a complex idea to mislead you down the wrong path.
And you want to play tiddlywinks with these people!

Join in the battle. YOU take some of the heat for a change! Or else get out of the way and let other soldiers stand on the wall for you. :banghead: :hammering:

Last I checked, this is an internet forum, and you invited the conflict by way of your thread title. Seems to me you actively seek the arguments, but only to belittle and undermine the character of those who take your bait.

Or, are you perplexed by the very idea that people of all types of belief and non-belief would frequent the pages of a popular forum that discusses and debates these issues? Would you rather have it that only theists participate?

All I’m saying is that comments like these:

empther:

Friends, you must wonder how I can put up with these clowns

I already know Babblepoo’s reply to that

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.

This is stupid and dishonest. Atheists are a waste of time

have no place in any type of discussion, and I’m simply surprised that you’re the only one stooping so low as to actually use them.

I suppose you would say that I am being fooled by them, or am “playing tiddlywinks” with them, but the funny thing is that I’m not shaken at all in my beliefs, and find the atheistic argument rather lacking. And yet I find, atleast in this thread, the atheist’s maturity and tolerance in the midst of childish character attacks more compelling and admirable than your more logical arguments for the existence of God.

 

[SteveGC]

Hi Empther,

I’m curious why you are so aggressive here. You seem to genuinely have the impression that you are desperately defending Christianity against the ravening hordes of atheists and therefore need to lash out verbally to defend your position. Why such aggression?*

With regards to why atheists come here, clearly I cant answer for others. But For what it is worth my own reason for being on this site is for my interest (to develop my understanding and knowledge of others) and to test my ideas against open challenge from people with different views. I am not here to destroy anything and certainly not Christianity (personally I think that religious faith is very comforting to a lot of people so I would never seek to take it away from someone against their will.)

As for atheists talking condescendingly well you get people doing that on all sides of the fence I’m afraid. I don’t think it helps dialogue in any case. To be fair though I haven’t seen your interlocutors doing so on this thread at least.

In terms of the specific discussion on this thread I have been reading along with interest since it started but do tend to agree with Steve GC, I have found your dismissal of others views to be rather uncharitable and unlikely to advance the discussion.*

At the end of the day you have taken on a very challenging objective here (proving that a God exists). Something that people have been trying to do for thousands of years. To my knowledge nobody has succeeded as yet, perhaps you will be the one to do so. But I do not think you stand much chance if you proceed by simply dismissing the objections as stupidity etc.

Take care

 

[samiam1611]

I propose that existence itself is the PM.

A finite past proves nothing about God. There are so many different conceptions of God, that we can believe whatever we want to believe about the start of the universe and call it God.
Those guys say there is one God. Those other guys say there is lots of Gods. Those guys over there say God is the universe. Those other guys say God is outside the universe.

A finite past does not prove God is sentient. God could be the universe itself. Consider pantheism. God could be a single entity but impersonal (deism) or used to be single entity (a PM) but is now the universe (pandeism). What is dark energy? I dunno, so I’m going to call it God.

Empther, you dismissed ASimon’s statement

Your strategy is to focus on a solution that doesn’t actually solve anything, and deal with the rest of it “later.”

and True Centrist’s

In other words, ascribing the name “God” to this perpetual existence does not solve any problems or answer any questions

and Biblepoe’s

Even if you somehow established that something outside the universe created the universe, you still have all of your work in front of you to demonstrate that this thing is a god.

as stupid and nonsense. Those statements are not stupid at all and are right on point.

If (since) you can’t prove God is sentient, what exactly have you even proved?

 

[empther]

Candide West,

Before I became active on this Philosophy section a couple of months ago,
the section was dominated by threads started by the atheists.

Do you want to go back to that? It’s easy to do so. Just don’t challenge them. They’ll gladly take over. It’s easy to write tons of the kind of stuff they write until other people get tired of the endless argument and give up to them.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Before I became active on this Philosophy section a couple of months ago,
the section was dominated by threads started by the atheists.

Is that a bad thing? I scanned through the threads that you’ve responded to that were started by people that didn’t identify themselves as Christians and the opening messages in the threads suggest the threads are meant to be analytical or genuine questions. The one’s I know of that have left (Spock and Bohm Bawerk) seemed to do so after not finding the persuasive answers they were seeking (Bohm had been Catholic when he first came to this forum but left after he settled on being an Atheist).

 

[SteveGC]

Candide West,

Before I became active on this Philosophy section a couple of months ago,
the section was dominated by threads started by the atheists.

Do you want to go back to that? It’s easy to do so. Just don’t challenge them. They’ll gladly take over. It’s easy to write tons of the kind of stuff they write until other people get tired of the endless argument and give up to them.

So, you find it difficult to challenge them without resorting to calling them clowns, stupid, and wastes of time?

Is that how an intellectual discussion works?

Seriously, consider the lurkers here, empther, many of whom are fence-sitters with regard to their beliefs - not biased one way or the other. I can promise you that you lose some to the atheist argument based solely on your juvenile ad hominems. Is it worth it?

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Stay on Topic

 

[inocente]

The universe could not have existed through an infinite past. Therefore, God had to start it.

Georges Lemaître, the priest and scientist who originated the big bang theory, said himself that the big bang may not be the beginning, but may instead represent a reset of the physical clock which hides evidence of anything before from us. Lemaître even warned his pope not to draw any conclusions about God from the theory.

So unfortunately your OP was disproved long ago by a very famous Catholic priest.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Georges Lemaître, the priest and scientist who originated the big bang theory, said himself that the big bang may not be the beginning, but may instead represent a reset of the physical clock which hides evidence of anything before from us. Lemaître even warned his pope not to draw any conclusions about God from the theory.

So unfortunately your OP was disproved long ago by a very famous Catholic priest.

Right on time after the Moderator warning to jump into the fray.
I see some programs of Science narrated by a wonderful black 60 and so years old narrator.
And they say that the beginning of the Universe could have been the end of a previous Universes. That you cannot go from Universe to Universe. That each black hole is and end of part of the Universe but Hawkings defends that could also be the reverse, the beginning of one.
Another was saying that our Universe was created to go forward in time, so maybe there was another Universe going backwards in time to balance.

For me, Big Bang was wonderful. God created the world with the Big Bang. But, as we learnt in the past. let us not put much faith on nature and science, for what it is today, may not be tomorrow. If today the sun gyrates around the Earth, tomorrow it may be the contrary.

So, let is keep Faith where Faith is. Faith is believing without seeing: Watch out, Thomas, they who did not see and believed are the happy ones.
Trying to scientifically prove God is an impossible task.

But knowing by Belief and Faith is of no less value as Scientifically proofs.

That God is the Supreme Creator is said in the Creed: “Creator of Heaven and Earth”. Let us enjoy the modern gospel writers, the scientists, who are trying to discover the mind of God, and let’s enjoy the beauty of the Universe as a pale image of the beauty of God.

 

[empther]

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The universe could not have existed through an infinite past. Therefore, God had to start it.

Georges Lemaître, the priest and scientist who originated the big bang theory, said himself that the big bang may not be the beginning, but may instead represent a reset of the physical clock which hides evidence of anything before from us. Lemaître even warned his pope not to draw any conclusions about God from the theory.

So unfortunately your OP was disproved long ago by a very famous Catholic priest.

I have pointed out at least a dozen times on these forums that the Big Bang could have been the explosion of something pre-existing, what, we can’t know. And that pre-existing thing may have been preceded by something else. And so on through a thousand cycles ir you want.
But every such thing, universe, whatever-you-want-to-call-it existed a finite time ago. There could not have been anything that existed an infinite time ago.
Therefore, God who lives in eternity started it all.

 

[Candide_West]

There could not have been anything that existed an infinite time ago. *
Therefore, God *who lives in eternity started it all.

This seems to be the connection that needs to be made. If we accept that something could not have existed an infinitely long time ago, WHY does that mean that a God must have started it?*

As far as I can see if we use that starting point then all we can logically deduce is that there must have been one or more prime movers at the start of the sequence at some finite time in the past. Of course it’s possible that PM (or PM’s) were sentient being(s), or they could have been something else entirely (ie chance as suggested by TheTrueCentrist).

If you can get from your starting point to your conclusion then by all means, please demonstrate.*