Proving the Existence of God

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

There is a popular book on sale that proposes to prove the existence of God. Yet one of the main arguments is that we live in a finite universe that had a beginning, therefore God exists ( a brief summary ). That is a serious error. Thomas Aquinas demonstrated, in the thirteenth century, that we cannot prove the universe had a beginning in time, we must accept that on Faith alone. Therefore his famous Five Ways argue from the position that the universe always existed ( even though it is finite in detail and contingent ), and he argued quite successfully.

This is not to say that there is nothing of value in the book. It is simply to say that it fails on one of its fundamental tenants. I did not mention the title because it may make good friends a little peeved. Buy it and read it, just keep in mind that any cosmological argument that assumes the universe had an absolute beginning, fails on that point, because it cannot be proven that the universe had a unique beginning in time. That is why the Church has declared De Fide that it did indeed have a unique beginning in time, and from nothing, by the Power of God’s Will…

Linsu2nd

Cannot prove the universe had a beginning? Hmm?

What about the problem of an infinite past, and that if the universe existed infinitely in the past, time could not have progressed from an infinite past to “now”? So therefore the universe has a finite past?

Or, if we were to delve into science, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem which has demonstrated that a universe must have a finite past? (It applies to multiverses too.)

That’s Dr Craig’s justifications for his premise, anyway. He doesn’t just assume it, he does actually provide reasons y’know.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t see a huge issue with arguing inductively vis-a-vis the beginning of the universe. I tend to be more skeptical of philosophical arguments against an infinite past, so I find Aquinas’s First and Second Ways to be formally more sound. It’s an insuperable fact that, if the universe were finite in the past and we had evidence of its beginning (say, of the Big Bang), we could not certainly conclude that it was the beginning.

A similar argument I’ve seen given for this (by Alexander Pruss) is that you could also have an infinite number of events on an open interval, and such events would be isomorphic to an infinite past. Yet our intuitions seem to tell us that an infinite series of events on an open interval would nevertheless require a cause external to them. The difference seems to be that there is a lower bound to the times on the open interval, but it’s not exactly clear why the lack of a lower bound should add to the coherence of an infinite past.

Father Lamaitre, who founded the theory which came to be called " The Big Bang " warned we could not be certain that this indicated a beginning of the universe because we will never be able to see point zero. Therefore we cannot assume that there was not something that came prior. Therefore those who use the Big Bang as proof that the universe had an absolute beginning will be regarded as unscientific. Also, there are well known scientists who doubt the " Big Bang " altogether and suggest a universal expansion of some type. Either way, those who keep insisting that science proves the universe had an absolute beginning will have a hard time proving the existence of God using that as a basis.

Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

That’s the B-theory of time. And Thomism is compatible with that (but Catholicsim isn’t)

I’ve heard this claim but have never seen anyone actually show in a conclusive way that Catholicism isn’t. Which I find interesting since Thomism is the metaphysics of choice for Catholicism. It is startling to hear a claim that the two are, at ground, possibly incompatible.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That’s the B-theory of time. And Thomism is compatible with that (but Catholicsim isn’t)

Sure, but that would open a big can of worms for traditional theism and Catholicism in particular.

Why couldn’t A Theory apply to the universe and B Theory to eternity? So both might be true but within different realities. Why is this incompatible with Catholicism?

 

[Bahman]

There is a popular book on sale that proposes to prove the existence of God. Yet one of the main arguments is that we live in a finite universe that had a beginning, therefore God exists ( a brief summary ). That is a serious error. Thomas Aquinas demonstrated, in the thirteenth century, that we cannot prove the universe had a beginning in time, we must accept that on Faith alone. Therefore his famous Five Ways argue from the position that the universe always existed ( even though it is finite in detail and contingent ), and he argued quite successfully.

This is not to say that there is nothing of value in the book. It is simply to say that it fails on one of its fundamental tenants. I did not mention the title because it may make good friends a little peeved. Buy it and read it, just keep in mind that any cosmological argument that assumes the universe had an absolute beginning, fails on that point, because it cannot be proven that the universe had a unique beginning in time. That is why the Church has declared De Fide that it did indeed have a unique beginning in time, and from nothing, by the Power of God’s Will…

Linsu2nd

Entropy in any close system tends to increase as a result of works done by heat and as result the end of an universe is Heat Death. We are not in that state yet -we couldn’t realize it otherwise- hence universe has a beginning. Entropy is a crucial quantity since it defines Arrow of Time too.

 

[belorg]

Why couldn’t A Theory apply to the universe and B Theory to eternity? So both might be true but within different realities. Why is this incompatible with Catholicism?

In a nutshell:

Because of the reasons I gave. The A-theory entails that the universe had a definite beginning (at least that’s what is argued) while the B-theory of “eternity” entails that God did not begin and also did not begin creating the universe. Hence, the A-theory cannot apply to the universe.
The B-theory might apply to both God and the universe, though, but on that account, if the universe was created by God (as is believed by Catholics) then God must have cretaed everything at once, and moreover, perceived “change” in the universe is an illusion.
Which means there cannot be such a thing as moral resposibility, which is a key element in Catholic theology.

 

[belorg]

I’ve heard this claim but have never seen anyone actually show in a conclusive way that Catholicism isn’t. Which I find interesting since Thomism is the metaphysics of choice for Catholicism. It is startling to hear a claim that the two are, at ground, possibly incompatible.

Thomas was a Catholic, but the God He is describing is necessarily a deist God (like Aristotle’s).

 

[Peter_Plato]

In a nutshell:

Because of the reasons I gave. The A-theory entails that the universe had a definite beginning (at least that’s what is argued) while the B-theory of “eternity” entails that God did not begin and also did not begin creating the universe. Hence, the A-theory cannot apply to the universe.
The B-theory might apply to both God and the universe, though, but on that account, if the universe was created by God (as is believed by Catholics) then God must have cretaed everything at once, and moreover, perceived “change” in the universe is an illusion.
Which means there cannot be such a thing as moral resposibility, which is a key element in Catholic theology.

None of your conclusions (bolded) follow.

The universe could have a beginning (within its own spacetime signature) but that beginning, along with the entirety of the universe could be created from eternity by God. A-theory time that holds within the universe need not entail that it must also be true outside the universe where B-theory or various other possible configurations might be the case.

The beginning of a narrative in a book does not depend upon or be tied necessarily to physical space-time.

Your argument only holds if one theory necessarily excludes the other as a possibility. I don’t see a reason for accepting that mutual exclusivity must be true.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Entropy in any close system tends to increase as a result of works done by heat and as result the end of an universe is Heat Death. We are not in that state yet -we couldn’t realize it otherwise- hence universe has a beginning. Entropy is a crucial quantity since it defines Arrow of Time too.

I’ll take your word for that. But how is that related to the O.P. which you are responding to?

Linus2nd.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Berlog: You said: " Originally Posted by belorg
In a nutshell:

Because of the reasons I gave. The A-theory entails that the universe had a definite beginning (at least that’s what is argued) while the B-theory of “eternity” entails that God did not begin and also did not begin creating the universe. Hence, the A-theory cannot apply to the universe.
The B-theory might apply to both God and the universe, though, but on that account, if the universe was created by God (as is believed by Catholics) then God must have cretaed everything at once, and moreover, perceived “change” in the universe is an illusion.
Which means there cannot be such a thing as moral resposibility, which is a key element in Catholic theology."

My response:
" B " theory is definitely out.
It is possible that God is still creating. He is still creating souls at any rate. Change is not an illusion and it has nothing to do with moral responsibility.

The one alternative you missed was that the universe is eternal and is eternally created and sustained by God. ( This would be the case with the Five Ways ).
Linus2nd

 

[belorg]

None of your conclusions (bolded) follow.

The universe could have a beginning (within its own spacetime signature) but that beginning, along with the entirety of the universe could be created from eternity by God. A-theory time that holds within the universe need not entail that it must also be true outside the universe where B-theory or various other possible configurations might be the case.
The beginning of a narrative in a book does not depend upon or be tied necessarily to physical space-time.

The beginning of the narrative in a book is an illusion. You make my point here.

Your argument only holds if one theory necessarily excludes the other as a possibility. I don’t see a reason for accepting that mutual exclusivity must be true.

This one theory (the B-theory time outside the universe) excludes A-theory time inside the universe because creation happens in B-time and something in B-time cannot have a beginning. I suppose it might be possible for B-time to exist somewhere and A-time to exist somewhere else, but an event in B-time cannot give rise to an event in A-time for the simple reason that B-time does not entail real change while A-time does.

 

[belorg]

Berlog: You said: " Originally Posted by belorg
In a nutshell:

Because of the reasons I gave. The A-theory entails that the universe had a definite beginning (at least that’s what is argued) while the B-theory of “eternity” entails that God did not begin and also did not begin creating the universe. Hence, the A-theory cannot apply to the universe.
The B-theory might apply to both God and the universe, though, but on that account, if the universe was created by God (as is believed by Catholics) then God must have cretaed everything at once, and moreover, perceived “change” in the universe is an illusion.
Which means there cannot be such a thing as moral resposibility, which is a key element in Catholic theology."

My response:
" B " theory is definitely out.
It is possible that God is still creating. He is still creating souls at any rate. Change is not an illusion and it has nothing to do with moral responsibility.

The one alternative you missed was that the universe is eternal and is eternally created and sustained by God. ( This would be the case with the Five Ways ).
Linus2nd

The bolded part, Linus, is a fairly accurate description of what is meant by the B-theory of time.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The beginning of the narrative in a book is an illusion. You make my point here.

Nope. You assume that God’s creativity with regard to “writing” nature or the cosmos is on par with a human being’s creativity writing a book. You provide no reason to limit God’s creativity to necessarily being similar to that of human authorship.

The book is an analogy, likened to but not imposing identical restrictions.

If God creates the universe (the book) then he creates the space-time continuum as an aspect of creation, not as an inherent limitation on him.

Why do we have any reason to believe that God is restricted by time (of the A-Theory variety) as a created phenomenon, if God creates A-Theory time as an aspect of the universe?

He creates space-time, he is not bound by it, to it or within it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This one theory (the B-theory time outside the universe) excludes A-theory time inside the universe because creation happens in B-time and something in B-time cannot have a beginning. I suppose it might be possible for B-time to exist somewhere and A-time to exist somewhere else, but an event in B-time cannot give rise to an event in A-time for the simple reason that B-time does not entail real change while A-time does.

The universe exists in an eternally contingent sense in B-time (God sustains it causally) with all the A-time attributes (past, present, future) contained only within it as a space-time continuum.

 

[polytropos]

It should be noted though, that under Thomism, the universe cannot possibly have begun to exist because that would denote a changeless God beginning to do something, which is a contradictio in terminis.

Since you mentioned that God is “changeless,” I assume that you find that to be the source of the difficulty. But I’m not sure that it poses any unique difficulty with respect to the beginning of existence of the universe… Thomism holds that God is constantly acting on the world. That is an instance of a changeless God “doing something.” But if you’re implying that, in order for God to create, He would have to change, then that simply seems to be something that Thomism is not at all committed to (and something which it actually rejects, and which is incompatible with the demonstrations leading to a changeless God).

A more accurate interpretation is that God is outside of time and eternally creates the universe (creating implying not just its beginning but the sustaining of it). It’s not that God is not acting at t[sub]0[/sub] and begins at t[sub]1[/sub]. There was no time at which he was not acting because the only times are those which He created; there happen to be a finite interval of times which He created.

Can a changeless God begin to do something? We could say, “No.” But we could also say that creation is not an instance of such. God has a single will to create, which he has exerted, is exerting, and will exert. The existence of the universe in time is part of that. But God willed it from eternity.

 

[belorg]

Since you mentioned that God is “changeless,” I assume that you find that to be the source of the difficulty. But I’m not sure that it poses any unique difficulty with respect to the beginning of existence of the universe… Thomism holds that God is constantly acting on the world. That is an instance of a changeless God “doing something.” But if you’re implying that, in order for God to create, He would have to change, then that simply seems to be something that Thomism is not at all committed to (and something which it actually rejects, and which is incompatible with the demonstrations leading to a changeless God).

A more accurate interpretation is that God is outside of time and eternally creates the universe (creating implying not just its beginning but the sustaining of it). It’s not that God is not acting at t[sub]0[/sub] and begins at t[sub]1[/sub]. There was no time at which he was not acting because the only times are those which He created; there happen to be a finite interval of times which He created.

Can a changeless God begin to do something? We could say, “No.” But we could also say that creation is not an instance of such. God has a single will to create, which he has exerted, is exerting, and will exert. The existence of the universe in time is part of that. But God willed it from eternity.

Thank you, polytropos, for illustrating my point better than I could have done it myself.

Indeed it is not that God is not acting at t0 and begins at t1, which also means that it is not true that the universe did not exist at t0 and began at t1.
In order for the world to begin (are have begun) it must be the case that there was a time when God wasn’t acting upon it. In, as you correctly state, a changeless (or immutable) entity is constantly acting on the world.

I do in fact believe that in order for God to create, he does have to change and that this, together with “the demonstration leading to a changeless God” shows us that Thomist Cosmology is incoherent, but that’s not relevant to the argument I am making here.

 

[belorg]

The universe exists in an eternally contingent sense in B-time (God sustains it causally) with all the A-time attributes (past, present, future) contained only within it as a space-time continuum.

Which means that the universe did not begin. Something cannot both “exist in eternity” and “have begun”.
Again, you are making my point without realizing it.

 

[belorg]

Nope. You assume that God’s creativity with regard to “writing” nature or the cosmos is on par with a human being’s creativity writing a book. You provide no reason to limit God’s creativity to necessarily being similar to that of human authorship.

The book is an analogy, likened to but not imposing identical restrictions.

You proposed the annalogy, Peter.

If God creates the universe (the book) then he creates the space-time continuum as an aspect of creation, not as an inherent limitation on him.

I don’t recall saying anything about inherent limitations.

Why do we have any reason to believe that God is restricted by time (of the A-Theory variety) as a created phenomenon, if God creates A-Theory time as an aspect of the universe?

He creates space-time, he is not bound by it, to it or within it.

I have never said He is bound by it or within it.

 

[polytropos]

Indeed it is not that God is not acting at t0 and begins at t1, which also means that it is not true that the universe did not exist at t0 and began at t1.
In order for the world to begin (are have begun) it must be the case that there was a time when God wasn’t acting upon it. In, as you correctly state, a changeless (or immutable) entity is constantly acting on the world.

I’m not sure about the bolded sentence. As I said before, “There was no time at which he was not acting because the only times are those which He created; there happen to be a finite interval of times which He created.” I do not think God would have had to be not acting prior to the beginning of the world in order to have acted on it. It seems to make sense to speak of the beginning of the universe given the nature of time (that time moves forward from our perspective, that there are no times prior to the big bang, etc.), but such of a beginning of the universe seems perfectly compatible with God willing the existence of the totality of time eternally and there being no time at which God shifts from not willing the universe to willing the universe.

 

[polytropos]

I should add that “create” in the traditional understanding is not just to bring something into existence. It includes the sustaining of existence (so God is “creating” right now). So something like the Second Way, though it does not show the universe began in time, shows that God is Creator, in showing that each contingent thing depends on God for its existence at any given moment.

But that makes sense, given that God’s act of creation is one act of His one will. Eternally He has willed the existence of our universe, at every moment at which it exists. There is a first moment at which it exists, if creation in time is true, as Catholics hold it to be. But it is still the same act of the will that held that first moment in existence.