Finite past proves God exists

[JDaniel]

Candide:

Sorry for the delay in getting back to our conversation - the demands of work during tax season required my attention.

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.

Would not that which is beginning-less be omnipotent? But, even that is not precisely what the First Mover is when properly understood. The First Mover must own motion in some manner (and therefore, existence as well) through itself. It cannot be just some splendid imaginary thing that popped into being, or was merely postulated, to help resolve our difficulties in understanding it. Understanding it in such a way would be nothing more than a failure on the part of a knower to understand the intelligibility of that which is really a Prime Mover, in the fullest sense of those two words. Wouldn’t it?

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.

Maybe not. If science and physics are correct, a quantum level foam did not exist prior to the Bang. If it exists at all, it would have to have asserted itself into the universe only after the Bang.

Now, Chance, that’s different. Chance is a kind of cause. It is a describing word that is predicated of things in incessant motion, that, without outside control, cross paths, so to speak. It is certainly not randomness. Randomness is homogeneity. Chance, if anything, is the antithesis of homogeneity. Can you see that?

As for “God,” we cannot postulate God yet. We can only, through an act of understanding, understand that there is, and must be, a primary mover that must own motion and that ownership must be underived. IOW, it must own motion through itself. That, I think, qualifies it for inclusion under the category of “omnipotent.” Wouldn’t you agree?

As far as whether or not the Creator is Infinite, this too must be accepted: as that which is limited, that is, restricted in any manner, can only confer that which is equal or less than itself to any result it might be able to cause. If every man was to gather all of the explosives in the world together, it would cause a big explosion, no doubt, but, it would not result in the creation of a new universe. In fact, our universe would be essentially unaware of its factuality. Likewise, only that which is Infinite can confer the extraordinary complexity and immensity of a universe to such a thing.

In fact, this is precisely why some physicists postulate a causal multiverse is it not? But, that postulation does not answer the question either. It simply begs an enhancement of the previous one. Simply admitting that a multiverse would have to have existed for a much longer time than a mere universe, does not annihilate the problem. If nothing else, our unwillingness to go there simply betokens our own laziness.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

That statement is not necessarily correct, because it presumes some form of the dimension of space-time ALWAYS existed. That is not necessarily the truth.

Jason:

Welcome to CAF. Now, as to your statement: it is not necessarily correct. That we have no words that can adequately express that which is prior to the beginning of motion, and thus, Time, is a sign of our inferiority to our Creator. I don’t believe in a “dimension” such as what you call “space-time.” That is merely a clever juxtaposition of words the purpose of which, in many cases, is to confuse.

We need to be very careful here. This is a slippery slope. Space-time is one of God’s creatures. Space-time, (see Relativity), is NOT necessarily infinite.

 

[Godmachine]

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

I realize I am joining this discussion late in the game but I have read the entire thread and thought this the best place to start. This thread begins with a prologue and an epilogue…

Did any event happen an infinitely long time ago? Obviously not.

Let’s not assume that what is obvious to one person is obvious to everyone.

Now the atheists will try to talk about “non-linear time” or “imaginary time” or some nonsense like that. What they can’t do is say how this takes the place of the linear time we experience. In fact it’s nonsense.

I think it’s best not to presume to know what someone else is thinking. And before we label something as nonsense, it is probably best to know exactly what it is we are labeling as nonsense. It might be interesting to hear Empther’s definition of “time”.

The atheists will try to say there was some other cause of the universe. But another cause would in fact be part of the universe. Perhaps before the Big Bang there was something else. What? We can’t imagine. And before that there may have been something else. And so on. But we can’t go back to infinity. At some point we must arrive at a time when there was absolutely no universe in whatever form we want to think of it.

Why are you singling out atheists? There are actually plenty of Christians who also believe there was some other cause for the universe. Is there a problem with saying “I don’t know”?

Therefore, there had to be a God to start it all.

Why?

But the athesits jump over the question of God’s existence and try to confuse you with tons and tons of deceiving verbiage about the other issues such as the existence of evil, and things like that that understandably bother people.

Perhaps that is because the question of a particular kind of god’s existence is inextricably entwined with such questions. It is not done to confuse or deceive. It is an honest line of inquiry that is only confusing or deceitful if it is ignored.

We should follow Aquinas’s example. First determine if God exists. Then work out the later problems later.

Several people have already suggested that we assume God exists. So let’s start with that assumption. Can we work out the problems now?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Now, the PM has to be infinite because the only way that it can truly be free from being changed/moved

I don’t think so. It could simply have the property of “unchangeablility” and be frozen at whatever level of properties it happens to have.

It might also help if we try not thinking in terms of time. In a way this also shows how the PM must be radically different from all the other things that it causes by being the PM.

I have been thinking of our universe as a painting with the PM being the painter. I used point specifically because it does not exclusively refer to time. To understand my meaning, ask yourself the question: Is there a situation where the PM exists, and the universe does not? If there is, then there exists a “PM who has not created the universe” and a “PM who has created the universe.” If there is not, then there only exists a “PM who has created the universe.” This conclusion, which is probably the one you prefer, is curious. It implies that the universe does not actually have a beginning. Since we say that the PM is unmoved (i.e. has no beginning), and the only PM that exists is the “PM that has created the universe” then we can say since the PM has no beginning, then neither does the universe. However, this contradicts our premise that the universe has a finite past.

The difference is ontological. The thing that causes the line itself does not “share the reality,” as it were, of the things within the line. Though, I admit, I’m not that knowledgeable about these things. So, when it comes to the universe -space and time and whatever is in it- the cause of it should be greater than itself.

Your argument here is poorly thought out. Indeed, even using materials available to us, we have a hard time creating things like animals. However, that we haven’t done it yet is not proof that we cannot do it. We can create systems with complexity comparable to that of simple animals, and there is every indication that we will continue to increase our ability to build complexity. Even now, people are funding projects whose goal is to create a complete dynamic model of a human brain.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project

I propose that your “ontological” reasoning is basically meaningless. Consider evolution. A random process of selection, mutation, etc has resulted in intelligence and significant complexity. That we haven’t yet figured out how to duplicate it doesn’t mean we can’t. I think the “ontological” claim exists not because of good inductive reasoning, not because of the premises of OP’s argument, but only because it helped historical theologians make the case that God exists. Basically, when philosophers encountered an effect which seemed greater than its cause in every objective way, they just said “well, ontologically it is lesser.”

Because, and this is the insight of the Christian philosophers, evil ultimately is antithetical to existence itself. Conversely, existence ultimately is good. To exist, in and of itself, is a good, while non-existence, in and of itself, is not good, or evil. This might require some time to ruminate on (it is interesting to though haha). But think about it, if someone was made to choose between existence and non-existence, and there is no asking about what kind of existence, whether it’s good or bad, it’s just to exist or not, what would that person choose? To put it in another way, what is basically better? That there is this universe that we are currently experiencing, or if there never had been nor ever will be anything at all?

You’re asking questions with the point of view that God is good. If we ask the question “which is more perfectly evil, not existing or existing with evil” I think we would conclude that existing with evil would be more evil.

I believe that the claim “evil doesn’t exist in the same way that good does” only came about as an attempt to answer the problem of evil. I think evil and good are roughly symmetrical. If we posited an evil God, we would have a “problem of good” instead of a “problem of evil” and there would likely be scholars who claimed that goodness is just the absence of evil in an attempt to answer it.

So existence is goodness and non-existence is evil. That’s why we can’t simply change the relationship. An infinitely evil PM, like you postulated, won’t even start existing. Even if it did, then it wouldn’t be the PM since, by merely existing, it shows that it still has potential to lack goodness or to be evil. It would probably destroy itself then, thus not moving anything to actuality at all.

There is a third possibility, which applies to random chance. The PM could be perfectly amoral, neither good nor evil. Our beliefs about goodness and evil could be entirely our own creation

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

There is a third possibility, which applies to random chance. The PM could be perfectly amoral, neither good nor evil. Our beliefs about goodness and evil could be entirely our own creation

This exposes another problem with the infinite attributes argument. We ascribe various attributes to God, but how do we know whether or not those attributes are not simply the product of our own human understanding? In other words, there are different human conceptions of what “good” is. It means different things to different people. The belief that our version of good is correct is based primarily on our beliefs about what God is like, revealing some circular reasoning.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

This exposes another problem with the infinite attributes argument. We ascribe various attributes to God, but how do we know whether or not those attributes are not simply the product of our own human understanding? In other words, there are different human conceptions of what “good” is. It means different things to different people. The belief that our version of good is correct is based primarily on our beliefs about what God is like, revealing some circular reasoning.

How do we know that what you say in this post is correct? There are many people who think otherwise !

Look: it is like this. God is immanent (like us) and transcendent ( not like us).
How come? I do not not, but in Go the contradictions mix in harmony.
God is good like us but His Goodness has nothing to do with our goodness.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

How do we know that what you say in this post is correct? There are many people who think otherwise !

Look: it is like this. God is immanent (like us) and transcendent ( not like us).
How come? I do not not, but in Go the contradictions mix in harmony.
God is good like us but His Goodness has nothing to do with our goodness.

Remember that the purpose of this post is to determine whether or not a finite past proves God exists. The discussion of attributes was an attempt by harinanga to show that the Prime Mover must have the same attributes as God and therefore be God. You can make claims about all the properties of God you want, but do you have a reason why the PM should be transcendent, self-contradictory, and in possession of a goodness?

Indeed people may disagree with my post, but I think you would agree that my point is clear. I am claiming that when we say God is “good” we are not being clear because goodness is not well defined. The people who believe it is well defined typically define it based on their beliefs about God, and are therefore reasoning circularly.

 

[empther]

The A-team “forgets” important points already made to try to divert your attention.

A-team captain TrueCentrist wrote:

Remember that the purpose of this post is to determine whether or not a finite past proves God exists. The discussion of attributes was an attempt by harinanga to show that the Prime Mover must have the same attributes as God and therefore be God. You can make claims about all the properties of God you want, but do you have a reason why the PM should be transcendent, self-contradictory, and in possession of a goodness?

I’ve already explained that the cause of the universe cannot be in the natural order because such a cause would be limited to cause something that has something to do with its own nature. But then this cause would itself be part of the universe understood as anything that is in the natural order. But you can’t go back to infinity.
Therefore, the cause had to be something inn the supernatural order and this we call God.

The attributes of God must be worked out later,
but Acquinas has already done that,
as I pointed out in my thread** “Having established that God exists, what can we say about him?”**
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=650922

 

[JDaniel]

I don’t think so. It could simply have the property of “unchangeablility” and be frozen at whatever level of properties it happens to have.

TTC:

As you might expect, I have to take issue with many of your “reasoned” conclusions. To begin with, the above statement: it is nothing more than conjecture, i.e., a postulation. As such, it does not even have the profundity of requisites necessary for a real First Mover.

I have been thinking of our universe as a painting with the PM being the painter. I used point specifically because it does not exclusively refer to time. To understand my meaning, ask yourself the question: Is there a situation where the PM exists, and the universe does not?

As you know from the enormous time you’ve spent in these fora, that is an absurd statement. First, you postulate no reference to “time,” then you make “time” an essential part of your proposition!

If there is, then there exists a “PM who has not created the universe” and a “PM who has created the universe.” If there is not, then there only exists a “PM who has created the universe.” This conclusion, which is probably the one you prefer, is curious.

This would be an odd conclusion even if we ignored your earlier rule-breaking. It is, and has always been, our understanding that God is Infinite. And that He is Infinite in every respect. To be infinite in only one, or a few, respects, is to sadly color the concept in a self-serving way - far more self-serving than even the honest atheist would expect from the Catholic Christian.

It implies that the universe does not actually have a beginning. Since we say that the PM is unmoved (i.e. has no beginning), and the only PM that exists is the “PM that has created the universe” then we can say since the PM has no beginning, then neither does the universe.

Again, I disagree. From simply a purely logical POV, motion must have a beginning. If motion was infinite, then there is no reason whatsoever for us to be here now. True actually infinite motion cannot consist of parts. The separation of the parts implies an infinite number of “areas” which do not contain objects (mobile being), and, therefore, no motion. So, on two counts, motion cannot be infinite: (1) a linear continuum of motion cannot consist of parts, otherwise we are not here now, and (2), an infinite linear continuum of mobile being cannot exist because there would be an infinity of separation spaces, in which there was no motion.

Your argument here is poorly thought out. Indeed, even using materials available to us, we have a hard time creating things like animals. However, that we haven’t done it yet is not proof that we cannot do it.

True, in a sense. But then it must also be true that a man might be able to lift an object, without any external assistance, the magnitude of the earth. Just because no one has ever done it is not proof that it cannot be done.

We can create systems with complexity comparable to that of simple animals, and there is every indication that we will continue to increase our ability to build complexity.

Life is not synonymous with complexity.

I propose that your “ontological” reasoning is basically meaningless.

Hmmm. Actually, perhaps yours is.

Consider evolution. A random process

No it’s not. Tell it as it is: evolution is not a “random” process. Instead, it is a process that desires the use of “chance,” yet it wants to use “chance” in a way that is not “chance.” The argument might have worked if men had not altered the essential definitions of key words in the proposition. Once that was done, all bets were off.

of selection, mutation, etc has resulted in intelligence and significant complexity.

And supreme-purposeless-ness complexified, then organized itself into purposeful stuff.

That we haven’t yet figured out how to duplicate it doesn’t mean we can’t. I think the “ontological” claim exists not because of good inductive reasoning, not because of the premises of OP’s argument,

What is the “induction?” Where is the dialectic?

Basically, when philosophers encountered an effect which seemed greater than its cause in every objective way, they just said “well, ontologically it is lesser.”

Can you provide an example, or two, of this?

You’re asking questions with the point of view that God is good. If we ask the question “which is more perfectly evil, not existing or existing with evil” I think we would conclude that existing with evil would be more evil.

Well, now we get to the crux. This has always been the “crux.” It serves to be seemingly perfect grounding for the question, “How can there be God?”, when all else fails. This question has been answered countless times in these fora, some well and some not so well, but anyone who wishes to maintain this predisposition will not be immediately swayed.

continued…

 

[JDaniel]

contiunation…

I believe that the claim “evil doesn’t exist in the same way that good does” only came about as an attempt to answer the problem of evil.

Well, yes, you probably would.

I think evil and good are roughly symmetrical. If we posited an evil God, we would have a “problem of good” instead of a “problem of evil” and there would likely be scholars who claimed that goodness is just the absence of evil in an attempt to answer it.

Were that the case, then all men (except those few “terribly” good ones) would constantly and continuously strive for evil.

There is a third possibility, which applies to random chance.

A self-annihilating juxtaposition of words, if I even saw one. That’s like saying, “Forward retrospect.”

The PM could be perfectly amoral, neither good nor evil. Our beliefs about goodness and evil could be entirely our own creation

Hmmm. From the earliest times. Way back when our early ancestors only knew how to grunt. Oh, well.

God bless,
jd

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The A-team “forgets” important points already made to try to divert your attention.
I’ve already explained that the cause of the universe cannot be in the natural order because such a cause would be limited to cause something that has something to do with its own nature. But then this cause would itself be part of the universe understood as anything that is in the natural order. But you can’t go back to infinity.
Therefore, the cause had to be something inn the supernatural order and this we call God.

Ask yourself the question: Is there a situation where God exists, and the universe does not? If there is, then there exists a “PM who has not created the universe” and a “PM who has created the universe.” If there is not, then there only exists a “PM who has created the universe.” This conclusion, which is probably the one you prefer, is curious. It implies that the universe does not actually have a beginning. Since we say that the PM is unmoved (i.e. has no beginning), and the only PM that exists is the “PM that has created the universe” then we can say since the PM has no beginning, then neither does the universe. However, this contradicts our premise that the universe has a finite past.

Obviously you will disagree with the above. However, also consider this. You would claim that God is outside of time (indeed everything natural) and able to see all time and space in its immediacy. I claim that this implies there is no such thing as change. Since God can see all of time, and has already made all his changes (by similar reasoning to the above) then our perception of change is not correct. To God, everything is decided and fixed. While we may perceive change, it is an illusion. We are like statues that extend through time.

 

[JDaniel]

This exposes another problem with the infinite attributes argument. We ascribe various attributes to God, but how do we know whether or not those attributes are not simply the product of our own human understanding?

TTC:

Remember, even when our early ancestors could hardly do more than grunt, the concept of a God that was beyond finite was understood. You mean to tell us that that’s as far as we’ve moved since then?

In other words, there are different human conceptions of what “good” is. It means different things to different people.

A few explicatory examples might be in order.

The belief that our version of good is correct is based primarily on our beliefs about what God is like, revealing some circular reasoning.

Yes! You’re beginning to understand.

God bless,
jd

 

[empther]

Welcome, class, to A-team Strategy 101. Pay attention, now.

TrueCentrist tries again:

Ask yourself the question: Is there a situation where God exists, and the universe does not? If there is, then there exists a “PM who has not created the universe” and a "PM who has created the universe.

This makes no sense at all. Are there two PMs?
He then uses this absurdity to “lead into”, as if there were a connection, the following:

" If there is not, then there only exists a “PM who has created the universe.”

Here is the deception, folks. Do you see it? TrueCentrist wants you to think that if God exists than the universe always had exist with him. He doesn’t say it so clearly because he doesn’t want you to think about it. He doesn’t want you to think at all. He then tries to make you think this false premise contradicts what my thread’s title says.

This conclusion, which is probably the one you prefer, is curious. It implies that the universe does not actually have a beginning. Since we say that the PM is unmoved (i.e. has no beginning), and the only PM that exists is the “PM that has created the universe” then we can say since the PM has no beginning, then neither does the universe. However, this contradicts our premise that the universe has a finite past.

It sure would, if the premise you’re trying to suggest is that the universe had to always exist with its creator from eternity is true, which it’s not.

You then follow with a paragraph about God’s existing outside of time so readers won’t have a chance to detect the deception in your first paragraph.

Did you take good notes, class? There will be a quiz tomorrow.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

A few explicatory examples might be in order.

The Spartans believed that military might was good, and that infanticide was a good way to maintain it. Their conception of a God might have been one that punished people with infirmity and immediately smote enemies.

Americans typically say that “well, all cultures have rules against stealing” but I wonder if that is actually the case. Some cultures don’t even have the concept of individual ownership of property.

Other people are isolationists, they might feel that a “good” God is one that left them alone.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

TrueCentrist tries again:
This makes no sense at all. Are there two PMs?

No, just one, but with two different properties.

Here is the deception, folks. Do you see it? TrueCentrist wants you to think that if God exists than the universe always had exist with him. He doesn’t say it so clearly because he doesn’t want you to think about it. He doesn’t want you to think at all. He then tries to make you think this false premise contradicts what my thread’s title says.
It sure would, if the premise you’re trying to suggest is that the universe had to always exist with its creator from eternity is true, which it’s not.

And why exactly isn’t it true?

There are exactly two options:

1. At some point the PM could be described as “The PM who has not created the universe”
2. There is no point at which the PM could be described as “The PM who has not created the universe”

If 2 is the case then the universe and the PM are exactly the same age. If the PM has no beginning, then neither does the universe.

 

[empther]

1. There is no point at which the PM could be described as “The PM who has not created the universe”

Another deception, class.
There is a point at which the PM has not created the universe YET,

although as has been thoroughly discussed many times in many threads in these forums.

there was no time “before” the universe and all references to time during God’s eternal existence without the universe are meaningless. But there was a beginning to time which is the beginning of the universe.
So the thread’s title is valid.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Another deception, class.
There is a point at which the PM has not created the universe YET,

although as has been thoroughly discussed many times in many threads in these forums.

there was no time “before” the universe and all references to time during God’s eternal existence without the universe are meaningless. But there was a beginning to time which is the beginning of the universe.
So the thread’s title is valid.

If we compare the universe to a movie, you are essentially saying that the movie has a beginning but that it was never filmed.

Then we move on to my second objection:

However, also consider this. You would claim that God is outside of time (indeed everything natural) and able to see all time and space in its immediacy. I claim that this implies there is no such thing as change. Since God can see all of time, and has already made all his changes then our perception of change is not correct. To God (who has the correct perception of everything), everything is decided and fixed. While we may perceive change, it is an illusion. We are like statues that extend through time.

 

[empther]

If we compare the universe to a movie, you are essentially saying that the movie has a beginning but that it was never filmed.

Can anybody make any sense of that, class?

You would claim that God is outside of time (indeed everything natural) and able to see all time and space in its immediacy. I claim that this implies there is no such thing as change.

You’re applying something belonging to the natural world to the supernatural world of God.
God’s mode of existence is completely unlike ours.
Time means nothing to God wherein by the word “means” it’s understood that there are consequences, such as a cannon fired at my head “means” I’ll soon be dead.

 

[JDaniel]

Ask yourself the question: Is there a situation where God exists, and the universe does not?

TTC:

Yes.

If there is, then there exists a “PM who has not created the universe” and a “PM who has created the universe.” If there is not, then there only exists a “PM who has created the universe.”

Actually, the problem is that you have conflated two separate situations. We do not call God the ‘PM’. We say - in tandem with St. Thomas - that there must be a PM and we reason that PM to be God. We have also understood, from times considerably prior to the time of St. Thomas, that God has always been the Creator. He did not just become the Creator, or Prime Mover, at the moment of the Bang.

Prior to the earth and us, there were the angels. Prior to the earth and us there existed the levels of Heaven. I, as a member of a finite race of beings called humans, am impeded in explicating this any differently than I am now doing. I have no positive concept of actual infinity. I am impeded in that I can only conceive of infinity from the negative, i.e., from what it isn’t. This impeding derives from a failure on our parts (due to our finitude). To reason from any failure on our parts to understand a thing, that is, to reason from a condition of insurmountable unintelligibility, is folly.

Obviously you will disagree with the above. However, also consider this. You would claim that God is outside of time (indeed everything natural) and able to see all time and space in its immediacy. I claim that this implies there is no such thing as change. Since God can see all of time, and has already made all his changes (by similar reasoning to the above) then our perception of change is not correct.

Are you sure you want to say that?

To God, everything is decided and fixed.

Perhaps not. Perhaps what He “sees” happens faster than the exhalation of a mouse.

While we may perceive change, it is an illusion.

Not so. Motion and change are very real to any mobile, sentient being. That is not the same thing as “illusion.”

God bless,
jd

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Can anybody make any sense of that, class?

The movie (plot) has a beginning, but the movie was never filmed (created). You’re saying that since the universe has a beginning internally (like the movie) it doesn’t matter how it came to be externally (essentially, under what conditions was it filmed?)

I say that if the movie has no beginning (i.e. was never created), then it doesn’t matter that the plot has a beginning.