Finite past proves God exists

[inocente]

So, let me get this straight: does the total energy of the universe have to do with whether or not energy exists? Or does it have to do with “equilibrium?”

As ASimon said, it’s the equilibrium.

To explain, as I know you didn’t get your science education from Batman comics unlike some who shall remain nameless:

Conservation of energy says the total energy in an isolated system must remain constant, so the total energy in the universe must be constant. The question then is how much would that be? If you say it’s x zillion joules, you’d have to say why you chose x and not some other value, and you’d have to explain where all the joules came from.

A much more elegant theoretic value is zero. So if:

a is the energy of visible matter
b is the energy of the observed effect known as dark matter
d is the observed effect known as dark energy (which by expanding space acts against the gravity of a and b, and so has the opposite sign, i.e. is counted negative)

we want a + b + d = 0, which turns out to be (obviously approximately) confirmed by observation.

So our universe started from zero joules and if it ever ends in a big crunch there would be exactly zero joules left over.

Which is so way out cool it blows your socks off, no?

 

[empther]

How do you talk to somebody who writes like this?

Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*“Chance” *has no substantial existence. *It is a mental concept we use to attempt to quantify the future occurence of events when we don’t know all the factors involved. * But “chance” doesn’t exist if nothing exists. Nor can it create.

Candide replied:
Ok, how so now you just need to provide arguments to support the above statements about chance (that there could not possibly have been a timeless chance that something could pop into existence) and you’ve shot down TheTrueCentist’s suggestion for a PM.*

It’s up to you to prove how “chance” could exist if there is absolutely nothing else.
There is nothing about which there can be chances
The concept is so simple there’s nothing more that can be said to you.

 

[JDaniel]

Equilibrium - there’s positive energy and negative energy, the net sum of which is 0.

Yep. That’s my understanding, too.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

To explain - I don’t really have a concept of a particular something as a prime mover. My point to Empther was that in order to use a finite past as proof of the existence of a omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being, he / she will need to show that ONLY anomnipotent, omniscient, eternal being could be the prime mover.

Candide:

I see. So, do you think that that which is “very strong,” or, “pretty knowledgeable,” or merely “finite” could be the Prime Mover then?

If that cannot be shown then suggestions like the one put forward by TheTrueCentrist (chance), or theoretical physicists (the quantum foam), are just as valid as God as a potential PM.

This confuses me a bit: are you suggesting that “chance” and “the quantum foam” have the same sort of ontological beingness?

I see no compelling reason to believe one over any of the others. Hence this “proof” of God’s existence succeeds or fails dependent on whether or not this can be shown.

Let us see, if you don’t mind.

God bless,
jd

 

[inocente]

How do you talk to somebody who writes like this?

You stay on-topic.

It’s up to you to prove how “chance” could exist if there is absolutely nothing else.
There is nothing about which there can be chances
The concept is so simple there’s nothing more that can be said to you.

As you’re not talking to her anymore I’ll step in. That’s cart before horse. In any scenario you like, with or without God, if there was absolutely no chance of anything ever existing then nothing could ever exist. Ergo, the chance of something existing cannot depend on something existing.

 

[Candide_West]

How do you talk to somebody who writes like this?

*Just as you have been is fine

It’s up to you to prove how “chance” could exist if there is absolutely nothing else.

No, I’m not trying to prove that the PM was chance. I don’t know what the PM was, if indeed there was such a thing. You are attempting to prove that a finite past shows that God is the PM. So if you want your proof to work then you have to show that the PM couldn’t have been anything else.*

That is the challenge you have set yourself and I think it is a prodigious one. But this is your proof, if you want it to be a proof as opposed to an assertion then you have to form the arguments to make it a proof.*

Simply saying “prove me wrong” does not qualify.

There is nothing about which there can be chances

If this is so then by all means demonstrate it to be true. Perhaps this will form a basis for proving that nothing else whatsoever (other than God) could be the PM. Then you’ll really be getting somewhere.

 

[empther]

It never ends, because somebody can always reorganize words in a different way.

empther:

**It’s up to you to prove how “chance” could exist if there is absolutely nothing else. **
There is nothing about which there can be chances
The concept is so simple there’s nothing more that can be said to you.

Innocente:
As you’re not talking to her anymore I’ll step in. That’s cart before horse. In any scenario you like, with or without God, if there was absolutely no chance of anything ever existing then nothing could ever exist. Ergo, the chance of something existing cannot depend on something existing.

1. anything that did not previously exist has to be caused.
2. the cause must have the power to create the effect, but as I’ve already pointed out, something that is not God would not have infinite power and could only cause/create something similar to itself. So it has the be in the natural world which is everything other than God. “Chance”, if it could exist by itself, could only create another “chance” which is clearly nothing like the universe.
3. but God has existed “since” eternity, is the necessary being, and has infinite power to create anything of any nature if it’s not a self-contradiction like a square circle.

You ignore these points which I have already made more than once, as well as many other points. By ignoring these important points you can always reorganize words in a different way and keep on arguing forever pointlessly ( without ever proving anything, of course because what you say is impossible ).
And with that, I’m done with you too.
As I wrote in another post last week: “Maybe these atheists should just be ignored.”

 

[Candide_West]

Candide:

I see. So, do you think that that which is “very strong,” or, “pretty knowledgeable,” or merely “finite” could be the Prime Mover then?

I don’t know. At the moment there is nothing telling me that only something which is omnipotent etc could be a / the PM. Until something says that it must be omnipotent etc then I’ll keep an open mind.

This confuses me a bit: are you suggesting that “chance” and “the quantum foam” have the same sort of ontological beingness?

I don’t know. Unless I have some reason to say that an eternal quantum foam could not possibly exist, it would seem foolish to eliminate it a priori. Just as it would be foolish to eliminate “God”, “Chance” or “anything else” a priori.

Let us see, if you don’t mind.

Yep, that’s what I’m doing. Will be interesting to see what Empther says.*

 

[inocente]

It never ends, because somebody can always reorganize words in a different way.

I guess you could get upset that God chose to make us individuals rather than exact clones.

1. anything that did not previously exist has to be caused.
2. the cause must have the power to create the effect, but as I’ve already pointed out, something that is not God would not have infinite power and could only cause/create something similar to itself. So it has the be in the natural world which is everything other than God. “Chance”, if it could exist by itself, could only create another “chance” which is clearly nothing like the universe.
3. but God has existed “since” eternity, is the necessary being, and has infinite power to create anything of any nature if it’s not a self-contradiction like a square circle.

1 isn’t true in quantum mechanics. I couldn’t spot anything that looks true in 2: the assertion that the universe needed infinite power to be created doesn’t seem coherent, things can be created from dissimilar things, chance can’t be treated as if it were a countable object, etc.

You ignore these points which I have already made more than once, as well as many other points. By ignoring these important points you can always reorganize words in a different way and keep on arguing forever pointlessly ( without ever proving anything, of course because what you say is impossible ).

Haven’t consciously ignored anything. I’ve just repeated contemporary cosmology, but I guess as far as you’re concerned all those scientists must be talking the impossible too as it’s not to be found in ye olde scholastics.

And with that, I’m done with you too.
As I wrote in another post last week: “Maybe these atheists should just be ignored.”

Maybe you shouldn’t make snap judgments based on what people happen to put in their profile, I don’t know, it’s off topic (again).

btw you didn’t notice I’m a Baptist? (I just don’t feel Christians need to accept any old argument for the sake of auld lang syne.)

 

[empther]

Maybe you shouldn’t make snap judgments based on what people happen to put in their profile, I don’t know, it’s off topic (again).

btw you didn’t notice I’m a Baptist? (I just don’t feel Christians need to accept any old argument for the sake of auld lang syne.)

Yeah, I noticed your profile says Baptist.

I also noticed you said:

Maybe you shouldn’t make snap judgments based on what people happen to put in their profile

“From out of the mouth the heart speaks.”

 

[Candide_West]

1. anything that did not previously exist has to be caused.

Ok, that doesn’t seem to be a problem for either an “eternal quantum foam” or “chance”. Since one is specified as being eternal and I see no reason why the other couldn’t be.

1. the cause must have the power to create the effect, but as I’ve already pointed out, something that is not God would not have infinite power and could only cause/create something similar to itself. So it has the be in the natural world which is everything other than God. “Chance”, if it could exist by itself, could only create another “chance” which is clearly nothing like the universe.

Ok, so now you need to support that things can only make things which are like themselves. In my life I’ve made many things, none of which are anything like me, so this doesn’t appear to be true at first glance. Perhaps you mean something different?*

The additional difficulty is that you will have to show that this must apply to all things other than God, otherwise you’ll leave God only able to create other Gods.

Also as far as I can tell the only way it could require infinite power to create the universe is if the universe itself were infinite. But if so then that would defeat your first premise since a universe of finite age could never have expanded to an infinite size. So from this it appears that vast but finite power ought to be sufficient to create the universe.*

1. but God has existed “since” eternity, is the necessary being, and has infinite power to create anything of any nature if it’s not a self-contradiction like a square circle.*

Ok, so you just need to show that something that wasn’t God (a sentient being of infinite capability) couldn’t possibly be the PM.*

Your challenge remains before you. I look forwards to your response.*

You ignore these points which I have already made more than once, as well as many other points.*

For what it’s worth I’m not ignoring anything you’ve said, I’m just waiting for you to provide the supporting arguments for your proof.

 

[empther]

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif

---

1. anything that did not previously exist has to be caused.

Ok, that doesn’t seem to be a problem for either an “eternal quantum foam” or “chance”. Since one is specified as being eternal and I see no reason why the other couldn’t be.

Quantum theory and chance are only eternal in the sense that they are always logically true,
but nothing happens if there is nothing to work with.

I’ve already explained this several times but you ignore that.
Same old same old. :takethat:

 

[AnAtheist]

Quantum theory and chance are only eternal in the sense that they are always logically true,
but nothing happens if there is nothing to work with.

I’ve already explained this several times but you ignore that.
Same old same old. :takethat:

“Quantum foam” is not a theory but something eternally existing, described by theory. It IS the something to “work with”.
A quantum foam that forks off a universe by some fluctuation now and then needs no creator (as it is eternal). Those fluctuations were naturally and by chance occuring events just like or at least very similar to the quantum fluctuations we observe here, and the prime movement of such a universe. While they lack all the alleged “necessary” attributes of a prime mover you have stated.

 

[inocente]

Yeah, I noticed your profile says Baptist.

“From out of the mouth the heart speaks.”

I did join a conspiracy theory forum once just to find out what it’s all about, but found the kind of people who go in for conspiracy theories depressed me no end, and I didn’t go back.

Anyhow, if you look at Thomas’ third way (involving time like your OP), he limits the argument to “in nature”. He did that for a reason, perhaps he saw that putative other universes would have their own, different natures which might undo his logic.

 

[inocente]

The additional difficulty is that you will have to show that this must apply to all things other than God, otherwise you’ll leave God only able to create other Gods.

Ok, so you just need to show that something that wasn’t God (a sentient being of infinite capability) couldn’t possibly be the PM.*

Thomas Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God, on which the OP seems to be based, use phrases like “and this everyone understands to be God”, “to which everyone gives the name of God” and “this all men speak of as God”, so imho he’s more concerned there to prove the existence of a prime mover than prove the specific properties he sees in the Abrahamic God, for which he has other separate arguments.

 

[Candide_West]

Quantum theory and chance are only eternal in the sense that they are always logically true,*
but nothing happens if there is nothing to work with.*

Ok, so now you need to support that this is true - that an “eternal quantum foam” or “chance” or “absolutely anything else” would need something to work with. But an “omnipotent sentient being” would not require anything to work with.
*

*I’ve already explained this several times but you ignore that.
Same old same old. *:takethat:

Well no, you keep answering requests for explanation with assertions which must themselves be supported in order to be accepted in a proof. If I was willing to accept a naked assertion as a proof then we could dispense with all of this and your proof of Gods existence would read

“God exists.”

 

[Candide_West]

Thomas Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God, on which the OP seems to be based, use phrases like “and this everyone understands to be God”, “to which everyone gives the name of God” and “this all men speak of as God”, so imho he’s more concerned there to prove the existence of a prime mover than prove the specific properties he sees in the Abrahamic God, for which he has other separate arguments.

Fair enough, but the objective of the OP seems to be to prove the existence of the Christian concept of God, not just that there was a prime mover.

For the sake of argument I’m more than happy to accept as an premise “there was some thing or things which were not themselves caused which caused the universe”. But getting from there to “it must have been a sentient omnipotent being” is where the challenge lies as far as i can see.

 

[empther]

For the sake of argument I’m more than happy to accept as an premise “there was some thing or things which were not themselves caused which caused the universe”. But getting from there to “it must have been a sentient omnipotent being” is where the challenge lies as far as i can see.

I’ve already explained that,

but the A-team pretends there never was an explanation,

and then later, when people have forgotten the explanation which has been buried by the A-team’s endless posts,

the A-team “begs” for an explanation, making it seem that the B-team , believers’s team, can’t explain it,

all while making no explanations at all about anything themselves, which makes the A-team’s job very easy.

I think this is why true professional theologians stay off this forum. They know it’s a waste of time talking to these people. They don’t want God and that’s the end of it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’ve already explained that,

but the A-team pretends there never was an explanation

Which message # was it?

 

[Candide_West]

I’ve already explained that,
*
but the A-team pretends there never was an explanation,*

Ok, could you quote the text where you did so or give me a post number and I’ll go back any reply to that one. I must have missed it somehow.
*

*and then later, when people have forgotten the explanation which has been buried by the A-team’s endless posts,
*
the A-team “begs” for an explanation, making it seem that the B-team , believers’s team, can’t explain it,

? Surely the most straightforward response is for you to copy and paste the explanation you already provided? Or direct us to the post where you gave it.*
*

all while making no explanations at all about anything themselves, which makes the A-team’s job very easy.

Well to be fair Empther you are the one claiming to be able to prove the existence of God. So you need to be able to provide the explanations to support your proof.*

If I was a theoretical physicist and launched a thread called “finite past proves universe was caused by eternal quantum foam” I would expect to have to provide the arguments to support my assertion.
*

*I think this is why true professional theologians stay off this forum. They know it’s a waste of time talking to these people. *They don’t want God and that’s the end of it.

To be fair if I was a professional theologian, writing on this forum I wouldn’t give my real name or state that it was my profession. That would be setting myself up for a fall (and of course most people probably wouldn’t believe I was who I claimed anyway).