Finite past proves God exists

[TheTrueCentrist]

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

TTC:
Yes.

Then doesn’t that imply God is in a process of change? After all, the universe exists, and God allegedly created it. Therefore, God changed from a “God who had not created the universe” to a “God who has created the universe.”

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Are you sure you want to say that?

I am very deliberately saying that it is an implication of a timeless and omniscient God.

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

Of course we could still have mathematical definitions of “change.” God could look at the universe and measure “the change in x with respect to t” of different things, but they are still fixed. It would be like us looking at a statue of a chimera and commenting “Look how the body changes from head to tail.” The statue is not actually changing, it is just that we have chosen to look at it that way. God could also say “Look how humanities beliefs changed from 700BC to 700AD.” Indeed they are different, but there is no real change.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

TTC:
TheTrueCentrist;9079050:

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.

Are you sure you want to say that?

I’d have to agree with that in a limited context. If we lived in two dimensional space this concept could be illustrated through a long glass cylinder containing three dimensional shapes made from extruding the movements of the 2 dimensional beings in this world. This third dimension would represent time and a being outside of this cylinder can at a glance see “past”, “present”, and “future” at once. The 2 dimensional beings in this cylinder would only be aware of one cross section of this cylinder and their awareness would move in one direction.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I’d have to agree with that in a limited context. If we lived in two dimensional space this concept could be illustrated through a long glass cylinder containing three dimensional shapes made from extruding the movements of the 2 dimensional beings in this world. This third dimension would represent time and a being outside of this cylinder can at a glance see “past”, “present”, and “future” at once. The 2 dimensional beings in this cylinder would only be aware of one cross section of this cylinder and their awareness would move in one direction.

Indeed, you’ve obviously spent some time figuring out how to think about higher dimensions. Have you read Flatland?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Indeed, you’ve obviously spent some time figuring out how to think about higher dimensions. Have you read Flatland?

Yep, was part of my childhood reading. The interaction between the flatlanders and the sphere was most entertaining. I was a little surprised that the sphere thought that the ideal of 4 dimensional spaces was ridiculous.

 

[Gorgias]

Wow… the water seems quite warm in this pool. Mind if I take a dip?

It seems to me that there’s sufficient confusion here in the definition of terms. People on both “sides” of the debate keep getting tangled up in the definition of “time” and “before”-ness, and then cry foul when the “other side” makes a statement that sits outside of their own (tacit) definition (of course, this implies that both sides, at times, have jumped inside and outside their own definitions of “time”.

I think that it’s reasonably fair to say that “time” exists in the context of this universe of ours. Can we all agree on that? We seem to have been touching upon the notion of multi-verses (or, at least, on the notion of universes that exist in succession, though some mechanism (e.g., bang / crunch / bang / crunch), but we keep getting hung up on the question of what “time” means, when applied either to “successive” (yeah, I know, that’s a time-bound term, but work with me (!)) universes with respect to each other, or worse, with respect to interstitial periods “between” universes.

Empther seems to dislike discussions of “time” that precede the universe. Fair enough. Can we agree on a vocabulary that allows us to speak of things that are “like” time, outside the context of this current universe? Perhaps we might distinguish between the prospect of a PM who exists outside “time” (i.e., the time of this universe) and the prospect of a PM who exists outside of all “times” (or analogous constructs) of all potential universes? (At worst, if we don’t want to entertain the prospect of bang/crunch/bang notions, we would be able to collapse this notion into a single “banged” univers, right?)

In order to make this work, though, we need to get at least a tentative handle on what we mean by “time” in other universes, right? Can we at least agree to a pseudo-Aristotelian notion of change (begging the question of what we mean by “before” and “after”, of course)?

So, then, we have an “inside time” – that is, a notion of time within the constraints of this current universe of ours. We have zero or more “other time(s)” – measures of change in “previous” universes. We also have the desire (on the part of some) to discuss the notion of a PM who exists outside all “times”, whether they belong to this universe or others.

Does this help us at all? (I’m hoping it does, since I want to address Centrist’s questions that attempt to address immutability…)

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Wow… the water seems quite warm in this pool. Mind if I take a dip?

It seems to me that there’s sufficient confusion here in the definition of terms. People on both “sides” of the debate keep getting tangled up in the definition of “time” and “before”-ness, and then cry foul when the “other side” makes a statement that sits outside of their own (tacit) definition (of course, this implies that both sides, at times, have jumped inside and outside their own definitions of “time”.

I think that it’s reasonably fair to say that “time” exists in the context of this universe of ours. Can we all agree on that? We seem to have been touching upon the notion of multi-verses (or, at least, on the notion of universes that exist in succession, though some mechanism (e.g., bang / crunch / bang / crunch), but we keep getting hung up on the question of what “time” means, when applied either to “successive” (yeah, I know, that’s a time-bound term, but work with me (!)) universes with respect to each other, or worse, with respect to interstitial periods “between” universes.

Empther seems to dislike discussions of “time” that precede the universe. Fair enough. Can we agree on a vocabulary that allows us to speak of things that are “like” time, outside the context of this current universe? Perhaps we might distinguish between the prospect of a PM who exists outside “time” (i.e., the time of this universe) and the prospect of a PM who exists outside of all “times” (or analogous constructs) of all potential universes? (At worst, if we don’t want to entertain the prospect of bang/crunch/bang notions, we would be able to collapse this notion into a single “banged” univers, right?)

In order to make this work, though, we need to get at least a tentative handle on what we mean by “time” in other universes, right? Can we at least agree to a pseudo-Aristotelian notion of change (begging the question of what we mean by “before” and “after”, of course)?

So, then, we have an “inside time” – that is, a notion of time within the constraints of this current universe of ours. We have zero or more “other time(s)” – measures of change in “previous” universes. We also have the desire (on the part of some) to discuss the notion of a PM who exists outside all “times”, whether they belong to this universe or others.

Does this help us at all? (I’m hoping it does, since I want to address Centrist’s questions that attempt to address immutability…)

Yeah, talking about multiple timelines always gets tricky. Indeed, there may be nested timelines.

I think that all we can conclude from our universe’s finite past is that there exists a PM outside our particular timeline. It is entirely possible, therefore, for there to exist an infinite timeline outside of our own in which the PM acts. It is also possible for there to be a PM outside of all possible timelines, although I perhaps you will fill us in on how such a PM would act.

 

[eo_chibears]

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

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

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.

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.

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

Notice that Aquinas’s Summa Theologica,
after discussing the nature of theology and why it’s worth studying,
BEGINS BY DISCUSSING GOD’S EXISTENCE.

sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum005.htm

**Later, **
he discusses other subjects such as the nature of evil and all those things.

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.

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

So did God come from nothing? Or did he always exist? You call atheist’s ideas nonsense when yours can just as easily be called that.

 

[JDaniel]

Then doesn’t that imply God is in a process of change?

TTC:

Why?

After all, the universe exists, and God allegedly created it.

Well, either He created it - in the fullest sense of that word - or, it created itself - in the fullest sense of that word. Of course, it could have been a few dozen white-lab-coated giants that did the creating.

Therefore, God changed from a “God who had not created the universe” to a “God who has created the universe.”

You know that that’s not real change. That’s ‘change’ only insofar as a cute turn of speech might have it. I believe that you know that.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I am very deliberately saying that it is an implication of a timeless and omniscient God.

TTC:

You said:
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

There are many physicists and philosophers who truly believe there is no such thing as ‘time,’ but, none that I’ve heard of that deny ‘change’. It would be absurd. Even the very sentence, ‘I don’t believe there is such a thing as change’, is chock full of change. No one of any intelligence would admit that it wasn’t. Change is the primary, primordial thing we notice about the nature and the world, and how we know that which is exterior to us. You beliefs are absurdo monkey buns!

Of course we could still have mathematical definitions of “change.” God could look at the universe and measure “the change in x with respect to t” of different things, but they are still fixed.

Yep. And elephants could fly.

It would be like us looking at a statue of a chimera and commenting “Look how the body changes from head to tail.” The statue is not actually changing, it is just that we have chosen to look at it that way.

Yep. And my great, great grand-father could have said that one day I would be conversing across some kind of wire to a person I would call TTC.

God could also say “Look how humanities beliefs changed from 700BC to 700AD.” Indeed they are different, but there is no real change.

So, all things could be the self-same eternally? And all of that which I perceive to be outside of my mind, a mere illusion. Since we’re not having this discussion, we might as well bring it to a close.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

So did God come from nothing? Or did he always exist? You call atheist’s ideas nonsense when yours can just as easily be called that.

The problem is, we have to acknowledge that some thing created this universe. Even if we postulate a successionary multiverse, we have to admit of a beginning. An infinite time line does not consist of millions of finite parts, or even two finite parts. How difficult is that to understand? If you admit that it does, then you are finding ‘infinity’ more than a tad incomprehensible.

That which created the universe/multiverse had to have always existed through itself. Everything else that we know is finite.

God bless,
jd

 

[empther]

JDaniel wrote ( among other things ):

That which created the universe/multiverse had to have always existed through itself. Everything else that we know is finite.

It’s thrilling to see somebody who gets this stuff.

It’s hard to know whether the A-team gets it or not.
They seem to consistently avoid these critical points which leads me to believe some of them do get it and are deliberately trying to fool those who may not.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

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.

So, the Universes does not exist.
You and I are a mirage!
I agree

 

[Gorgias]

I think that all we can conclude from our universe’s finite past is that there exists a PM outside our particular timeline. It is entirely possible, therefore, for there to exist an infinite timeline outside of our own in which the PM acts. It is also possible for there to be a PM outside of all possible timelines, although I perhaps you will fill us in on how such a PM would act.

OK… so, if there is a PM outside of all possible timelines, then those whom we considered PM’s of one (or more) particular timeline would, by definition, no longer be considered PM’s (after all, the PM outside all, if he acted, would have set the mini-movers in motion).

The question, then, reduces to “must there be a PM outside of all possible timelines?”. That question, then, is of exactly the same form as the question asked when this universe is considered to be the only universe. That is, when we expand our context to include multiple universes, we don’t change the question or the salient arguments: it still all boils down to the question of whether there must be an infinite, necessary PM given a finite, contingent creation.

The only ways out of this line of reasoning are either to posit that there are no PMs (i.e., all universes spontaneously self-create) or that there are multiple, non-omnipotent PMs out there, each doing his own thing and creating his own universe, without impinging upon any other PM and without creating/actualizing any other PM.

Does that pretty well describe the state of affairs?

 

[Candide_West]

That which created the universe/multiverse had to have always existed through itself. Everything else that we know is finite.

Ok, for the sake of the argument I’m happy to start from the position that “a PM or PM’s exist or existed and caused the universe”. The problem remains getting from this point to “it must have been a single omnipotent, omniscient, sentient being”.

This is the point which Aquinas skipped over.

 

[JDaniel]

Ok, for the sake of the argument I’m happy to start from the position that “a PM or PM’s exist or existed and caused the universe”. The problem remains getting from this point to “it must have been a single omnipotent, omniscient, sentient being”.

This is the point which Aquinas skipped over.

Candide:

To be honest, St. Thomas did not skip over that point. That said, we don’t need St. Thomas to provide the argument. He showed us how to reason ourselves to a proper conclusion by proper logic.

First, of all, there cannot be a multitude (or even just two) Prime Movers. Why? Well, if one (or more) were ever so slightly behind a first Prime Mover, they would not both be Prime Movers, would they? Prime = first. First ≠ second (or third, etc.) - even if that slight disparity were merely a Planck length. Besides, there are other determinants a Prime Mover must have in order to be truly the Prime Mover. One such attribute must be infinity. A non-infinite prime mover would mean that there is room for another mover of nearly equal strength and ability. Another would be First Cause. You can reason this one out, I’m sure.

Second, a/the Creator, in the real meaning (as opposed to ambiguous, or equivocal senses) of the word “Creator” cannot be some hypothetical being, or thing, that is in any way incapable of creation. Creation is not the making of something out of whatever is currently existing. It is the making of something where there was nothing else whatsoever existing from which the Maker (Creator) could create, and thereby be merely another lower-ranking efficient cause. Creation would take an act so great that we have nothing with which to compare it to.

Third, said Creator must be fully equipped (Omniscient) and able to make something to be where there is nothing existing, make it last however long He wishes it to last, make it subservient to all of His commands regardless of the created thing’s magnitude, or multitude, be equipped to Create an infinite number of smaller creations in the form of Matter-Form composites (humans and other creatures), as well as pure Forms (angels), and, be able to control all with a Wisdom and Providence that is nothing short of unfathomable. (Just a short list of what He does!)

Fourth, no one says He must be ‘sentient’, unless you mean something else through the use of that word, than it means to most people. Sentience implies the grasp of objects outside of a being through sensory sources, such as eyes and ears.

God bless,
jd

 

[empther]

Right on, JDaniel !

I would add what I’ve said before.

Anything in the natural order could only have the power to “create” or bring about something that has something in common with it’s own existence. Even an “eternal quantum flux”, as TrueCentrist suggested, if such a thing could exist, could only produce what a quantum flux ( what’s that? ) could produce, that is, something to do with matter or energy or both, or more quantum fluxes by which matter and energy and such things are affected
. But nothing that is not its own necessary existence can be eternal, because anything that does an act did so a finite time ago. This rule includes “quantum flux” or anything else somebody may dream up. Even God could not have done something an infinite time ago, never mind something in the natural order.

Therefore, only an eternal being could create from nothing, and it would have to have omnipotence to do this, since whatever it created would not be like itself, that is, be eternal and necessary.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

OK… so, if there is a PM outside of all possible timelines, then those whom we considered PM’s of one (or more) particular timeline would, by definition, no longer be considered PM’s (after all, the PM outside all, if he acted, would have set the mini-movers in motion).

The question, then, reduces to “must there be a PM outside of all possible timelines?”. That question, then, is of exactly the same form as the question asked when this universe is considered to be the only universe. That is, when we expand our context to include multiple universes, we don’t change the question or the salient arguments: it still all boils down to the question of whether there must be an infinite, necessary PM given a finite, contingent creation.

The only ways out of this line of reasoning are either to posit that there are no PMs (i.e., all universes spontaneously self-create) or that there are multiple, non-omnipotent PMs out there, each doing his own thing and creating his own universe, without impinging upon any other PM and without creating/actualizing any other PM.

Does that pretty well describe the state of affairs?

The premise stated that things cannot extend infinitely back in time. However, that does not eliminate the possibility that there is an infinite regress of nested timelines.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

First, of all, there cannot be a multitude (or even just two) Prime Movers. Why? Well, if one (or more) were ever so slightly behind a first Prime Mover, they would not both be Prime Movers, would they? Prime = first. First ≠ second (or third, etc.) - even if that slight disparity were merely a Planck length. Besides, there are other determinants a Prime Mover must have in order to be truly the Prime Mover. One such attribute must be infinity. A non-infinite prime mover would mean that there is room for another mover of nearly equal strength and ability. Another would be First Cause. You can reason this one out, I’m sure.

Indeed your reasoning is similar to that of Aquinas, he appealed to a sympathetic audience. Since we have not yet established that the PM is God, that there may be other beings with an existence similar to that of the PM is not so easily brushed aside. For example:
I propose there were two existences outside our timeline which caused our universe:

1. An infinite timeline.
2. A random chance of something coming from nothing which acted inside that timeline.
   Our universe was therefore caused by those two existences acting together.

Second, a/the Creator, in the real meaning (as opposed to ambiguous, or equivocal senses) of the word “Creator” cannot be some hypothetical being, or thing, that is in any way incapable of creation. Creation is not the making of something out of whatever is currently existing. It is the making of something where there was nothing else whatsoever existing from which the Maker (Creator) could create, and thereby be merely another lower-ranking efficient cause. Creation would take an act so great that we have nothing with which to compare it to.

You are running in circles. The question of “how did existence begin” must, in all cases, be answered with “it did not.” You claim that God created existence from non-existence but that is not actually the case. God existed, and therefore there has always been an existence instead of non-existence. Sure, God might have created dimensions, times and universes, but he did not create existence, because existence always existed in God.

Third, said Creator must be fully equipped (Omniscient) and able to make something to be where there is nothing existing, make it last however long He wishes it to last, make it subservient to all of His commands regardless of the created thing’s magnitude, or multitude, be equipped to Create an infinite number of smaller creations in the form of Matter-Form composites (humans and other creatures), as well as pure Forms (angels), and, be able to control all with a Wisdom and Providence that is nothing short of unfathomable. (Just a short list of what He does!)

You have significantly deviated from what is allowed in the premises by appealing to this christian conception of God. It still does not discount other possible arrangements such as random chance.

 

[Candide_West]

Candide:

To be honest, St. Thomas did not skip over that point. That said, we don’t need St. Thomas to provide the argument. He showed us how to reason ourselves to a proper conclusion by proper logic.

Ok, from the translation I have of the first of the “five ways”.

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God

I don’t know what to call this other than skipping over. I am for the sake of argument accepting that there is one or more PM. Simply renaming that God and calling the job done is skipping over the key argument to me.

First, of all, there cannot be a multitude (or even just two) Prime Movers. Why? Well, if one (or more) were ever so slightly behind a first Prime Mover, they would not both be Prime Movers, would they?

Ok, so if 3 prime movers had all existed for eternity, then this doesn’t seem to present a problem. None precedes either of the others.

Besides, there are other determinants a Prime Mover must have in order to be truly the Prime Mover. One such attribute must be infinity.*

Ok, so why must a prime mover be infinite? I’ve asked this before but not yet received an answer.

A non-infinite prime mover would mean that there is room for another mover of nearly equal strength and ability. Another would be First Cause. You can reason this one out, I’m sure.

Ok, there seems to be no trouble here. We can presumably have multiple non-infinite PM’s or multiple infinite PM’s.

Second, a/the Creator, in the real meaning (as opposed to ambiguous, or equivocal senses) of the word “Creator” cannot be some hypothetical being, or thing, that is in any way incapable of creation. Creation is not the making of something out of whatever is currently existing. It is the making of something where there was nothing else whatsoever existing from which the Maker (Creator) could create, and thereby be merely another lower-ranking efficient cause. Creation would take an act so great that we have nothing with which to compare it to.

Ok, this seems to be saying that whatever caused the universe must have been able to do so. That’s reasonable. But doesn’t seem to help the argument as I am assuming that whatever the PM(s) is (are), that it (they) is(are) capable of causing the universe.

Of course as yet we don’t know if there was “nothing” before the universe. So we don’t yet know that creation ex nihilo was required.*

Third, said Creator must be fully equipped (Omniscient) and able to make something to be where there is nothing existing, make it last however long He wishes it to last, make it subservient to all of His commands regardless of the created thing’s magnitude, or multitude, be equipped to Create an infinite number of smaller creations in the form of Matter-Form composites (humans and other creatures), as well as pure Forms (angels), and, be able to control all with a Wisdom and Providence that is nothing short of unfathomable. (Just a short list of what He does!)

This seems to be a repetition of 2 with a whole load of Christian beliefs thrown in. My answer to 2 still applies though.*

Fourth, no one says He must be ‘sentient’, unless you mean something else through the use of that word, than it means to most people. Sentience implies the grasp of objects outside of a being through sensory sources, such as eyes and ears.

I’m using it as a term for something which is self aware, sentient things are conscious. Ie it has some form of mind and knows that it does. If you believe in a “personal God” then that is a form of sentient being (at least in so far as I know the term).