Proof of God's existence? Here you go...

[Heathen Dawn]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Faramir

Argument by web link is a violation of TWeb decorum.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Mountain Man]

You bring us "argument by link".

[Heathen Dawn]

You bring us "argument by link".

Um, it is my own article on my own website. Yeah, I could post the entire thing here, but why do that when I have it neatly formatted on my website?

[Heathen Dawn]

OK, here goes again, since links-only threads are a no-no…

I’m posting it all here. Since I have the copyright over it, it’s legal. The links for the article are here (HTML) and here (PDF).

─────────

The Argument from Limits for God’s Existence

The argument from limits for the existence of God is a cosmological argument, yet it is more than a simple First Cause argument, and it is different from the Kalām Cosmological Argument. Unlike Kalām, my argument categorically denies any creation of space and time—in fact, it rests upon the axiom that space and time cannot be created, and it does not fall into Kalām’s trap of saying God created time, which is a logical impossibility, as creation is an event, and there can be no events without time. As well, God is not argued as the First Cause of all existent things, but as the Totality of existence and the cause of all limited existing things (the universe and everything in it).

In summary form, the Argument from Limits for God’s Existence runs thus:

1. Time and space cannot have a limit (a beginning or end)
2. The universe is limited in time and space
3. Therefore the universe is not all that exists
4. Therefore the universe is part of something greater than it and which is not limited in time and space
5. Something not limited in time and space cannot be natural
6. A supernatural thing occupying the infinity of time and space can only be called God. Therefore God exists

I will now establish the major premises one after the other.

Unlimited Time and Space

Many philosophers and scientists erroneously think of time and space as objects, but a little observation of the relationship between time (or space) and events (or locations) should make it clear that they are not relative objects that can be created but absolute frameworks that define that which is created. Pondering on the meaning of time and space must lead to the conclusion that such a phrase as “beginning of time” is meaningless, much like division by zero.

When we say that something began, we always say it in relation to time. There is a point in time in which an event happened. That point is observed and measured in the framework of time, and without that framework, we would not be able to say that the event began. All events, beginnings and endings are relative to the framework of time, which is an absolute definer. We may have different ways of measuring time, different calendars, different clocks, but the fact of time is an objective reality for everyone and everything.

What is t=0? It is an event, a beginning point for something happening in time. It cannot be that t=0 should be the beginning of time itself. If a party begins at 8 o’clock in the evening, then that is its t=0, but that t=0 is itself a point in the absolute framework of time. For anything to have a beginning, it must be within time. If we should say that “time itself began,” then we would be as good as saying that time itself is within time, and the absurdity of that should be obvious. Therefore, of time itself the only correct construct can be t=∞ (infinite time), on which every t=0 or t=1 or whatever is just a point.

Likewise, there can be no location without space. Everything is situated in space. Any s=0, beginning of space, for an object is just a point in the absolute framework of space, which is infinite: s=∞. Space itself cannot have a beginning, for then it would have to be inside space, and that is absurd.

Thus I have established that time and space are infinite, and that, if anything is said to have t=0 and s=0, then it cannot be the totality of all existence, and there must be something outside it.

Limited Universe implies Greater Totality

Now as for the universe, all scientists are agreed that it had its t=0 and s=0 in the Big Bang, when more than 15,000 million years ago it came to be (t=0) from a singularity (s=0). As I have shown above, it is an error what philosophers and scientists say that time and space themselves came to be in the Big Bang. Time and space are absolute frameworks and carry the value of ∞ (infinity). So if the universe had its beginning of time and its beginning of space, then the universe cannot be the totality of existence. Something outside the universe must exist. We may, of course, posit a bigger universe than the current one, but that would just postpone the solution to the problem, because that one too would have t=0 and s=0. In order to avoid the predicament of “turtles all the way up” we have to assume the existence of something infinitely great, something that occupies the infinity of space and time, the actual t=∞ and s=∞. That would be a solution to the problem of origins just as the rotundity of the earth did away with the infinite regress of pillars holding the ground.

The attributes of such a totality already shine clear from the proposition: omnipresent, housing the universe inside itself, pervading all, having no beginning and no end. Just a little polishing is needed.

The Supernatural Totality

If there is anything that clearly marks natural things, it is their limitedness in space and time. All natural things, including the universe in which they are situated, have t=0 and s=0. Natural matter is basically subject to deterministic events: beginning of a state, change, end of a state, beginning of another. But what occupies t=∞ and s=∞ is basically free, and becomes less free, limited in time and space, only by choice, only through an act of modification of substance.

From all the previous premises, it is clear that the state of things before the universe came to be had been a state of unmodified limitlessness. To reach from that state to the present state, namely the existence of the natural universe with all its limited things, the primordial state had to have a change effected on it. As such a change could not have been deterministic, that is, rising from the nature of the then unmodified Totality, it had to be indeterministic, that is, carried out by volition and intelligence. And if we have reached the conclusion of a supernatural, infinite, omnipresent, all-pervading and will-possessing intelligence, then we have effectively reached a capable definition of God. And therefore God exists.

The argument does not prove further attributes for God, and it does not automatically carry over to my belief of anthropomorphic Gods and Goddesses or even male-female polarity within the Creator—those leaps can only be the subject of a separate argument. However, the panentheistic Creator-God of the universe is hereby inferentially proven to exist.

[Sparko]

While I agree that God exists, you have by no means proven that time and space are infinite, you basically just asserted that they were.

Time and Space are both localized to our universe. To speak of space outside of our universe makes no sense. And to speak of time before the universe existed (before t=0) makes no sense either. Before God created space there was no space. Before God created time, there was no time.

In fact if you go read William Craig's version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, you will see how Craig uses the fact that there was no time before the big bang (the singularity was in an eternal timeless state) so there was no way for the big bang to happen in unless an intelligent outside force who was not bound by time could cause it to happen.

William Lane Craig

www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html
Given the truth of premisses (1) and (2), it logically follows that (3) the universe has a cause of its existence. In fact, I think that it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal Creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time. For example, a man sitting from eternity may will to stand up; hence, a temporal effect may arise from an eternally existing agent. Indeed, the agent may will from eternity to create a temporal effect, so that no change in the agent need be conceived. Thus, we are brought not merely to the first cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

© source where applicable

see http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc.../creation.html and
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

For more details

(and this is not argument via weblink -- I am just posting reference links for further study)

[Heathen Dawn]

you have by no means proven that time and space are infinite,

I have. I have shown how it cannot be otherwise, I have shown that time and space must be infinite.

Time and Space are both localized to our universe.

More accurately, our universe exists within time and space coördinates.

To speak of space outside of our universe makes no sense. And to speak of time before the universe existed (before t=0) makes no sense either.

Quite the contrary. To speak of any limit to time and space themselves (note that word: not time and space inside the universe) makes no sense.

Before God created space there was no space.

Where was God located when there was no space? No location without space.

Before God created time, there was no time.

How did God create time when there was no time? No events without time. Creation is an event.

In fact if you go read William Craig's version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument,

I did that ages ago. And that’s why I’ve formulated my own cosmological argument, one that doesn’t fall in Kalam’s pitfalls (see above).

[Sparko]

I have. I have shown how it cannot be otherwise, I have shown that time and space must be infinite.

Actually you haven't. It all boils down to you asserting that it must be so, but you haven't proven anything.

Quite the contrary. To speak of any limit to time and space themselves (note that word: not time and space inside the universe) makes no sense.

You never studed general relativity have you? TIme can change and slow down in localized areas depending on speed of an object or the gravitational field. Time is not an absolute reference frame. It has been proven with experiments. There is no Absolute Time to reference all measurements from. And at quantum levels it gets even weirder.

Where was God located when there was no space? No location without space.

God is spirit. He has no "location" He is everywhere. Before there was anywhere, he was all that existed. How could there be space before God created it? What did the expanding in the big bang? Science has shown that all matter, energy and the fabic of space/time itself is expanding and was once a singularity. Not just matter exanding into empty space, but space itself.

How did God create time when there was no time? No events without time. Creation is an event.

How can God create an object where there was no object? That's what God does! He creates out of nothing. He made time and space and caused it to expand. God needs no time within which to act. If God was subject to time, then he would be less than time. Time would be God.

If God existed in endless time, then let me ask you a few questions. What did God do before he created the universe? How long was that period? And why did he not create it sooner?

I did that ages ago. And that’s why I’ve formulated my own cosmological argument, one that doesn’t fall in Kalam’s pitfalls (see above).

Seems like you found some of your own.

[LGM]

Time and Space are both localized to our universe. To speak of space outside of our universe makes no sense. And to speak of time before the universe existed (before t=0) makes no sense either. Before God created space there was no space. Before God created time, there was no time.

The irony in that statement is not lost on me.

It seems Heathen is just "asserting" his claims, while I guess John must be "pontificating" about what he "knows" must have "happened" before there was "no space".

LGM
...I guess I never studied relativity and cosmology at John's bible college...

[Duder]

Many philosophers and scientists erroneously think of time and space as objects, but a little observation of the relationship between time (or space) and events (or locations) should make it clear that they are not relative objects that can be created but absolute frameworks that define that which is created. Pondering on the meaning of time and space must lead to the conclusion that such a phrase as “beginning of time” is meaningless, much like division by zero.

Is your view of space-time as an absolute framework a retreat to Newtonian physics? It would seem difficult to me to provide an absolute space-time model that can account for the observed effects of time dilation, space contraction and gravitational lensing.

Moreover, some scientists who look into loops and strings in their efforts to find a ToE see space and time as artifacts of deeper principles and processes - not as things-in-themselves. In addition, the Kantian tradition holds that space-time is a mere convention - a kind of necessary assumption that humans have to make in order to have experiences given the peculiar kinds of sensory equipment and rational faculties that humans possess - but it is not an objective business that is just sitting out there. We put it there. It is a phenomenon, not a nouminon - and as nutty as all this sounds to say, it was Kant who provided much of the philosophical foundation for modern science.

When we say that something began, we always say it in relation to time. There is a point in time in which an event happened. That point is observed and measured in the framework of time, and without that framework, we would not be able to say that the event began.

We say things began in reference to time because we areforced, by our aforementioned sensory and epistemological faculties, to think that way. There is no other way we can see it.

All events, beginnings and endings are relative to the framework of time, which is an absolute definer. We may have different ways of measuring time, different calendars, different clocks, but the fact of time is an objective reality for everyone and everything.

If we are forced to think in terms of time, it not follow that time is sitting out there all by itself flowing along independent of us human beings. On the contrary - many of the best minds of our day (and past days) say otherwise. In my everyday affairs, I am virtually forced to think of gravity as a force that reaches out and grabs things at a distance. But I know that isn't true. Gravity is more of a verb than a noun. Gravity is the behavior of objects in curved space-time. In the same way, can you be sure that your intuition of spacetime as objective and absolute is correct? What guarentees that space-time is not a mere convention, like "the force of gravity"?

[steamer]

If god wants to prove himself it's a simple thing to do. Either he doesn't exist or he wants to remain hidden. If he wants to remain hidden then I doubt any argument will suffice to reveal him. If he doesn't exist, then no argument will be compelling.

[jason]

When we say that something began, we always say it in relation to time. There is a point in time in which an event happened. That point is observed and measured in the framework of time, and without that framework, we would not be able to say that the event began. All events, beginnings and endings are relative to the framework of time, which is an absolute definer. We may have different ways of measuring time, different calendars, different clocks, but the fact of time is an objective reality for everyone and everything.

I think you are mistaken here. What you are pointing to as "he framework of time" is actually just an artifact, although probably an inevitable artifact, of our language. We speak of things relative to a point of reference in time because we ourselves are in time.

But it does not follow that from something that maybe nothing more than an artifact of language that time is not something that can be existed outside of.

What is t=0? It is an event, a beginning point for something happening in time. It cannot be that t=0 should be the beginning of time itself.

I don't see that that necessarily follows. And for your argument to be accepted it requires that this follows necessarily.

Our language may not allow us to properly express the idea of a beginning of time, but that our language is limited in such a fashion does not mean that it cannot be the case.

Likewise, there can be no location without space. Everything is situated in space.

Although you are correct to say there is no location without space, there is no reason to think that all things are situated in space.

I can think of a number of things that have no spatial location right at this very second.

1. The number 4
2. The red ball I am imagining in my mind
3. The love I feel for my wife.

and so on.

None of these things have a location in space, in fact consider the abject silliness of asking the question "What location can I search to find the number 4 ?", yet they all exist.

Thus I have established that time and space are infinite

Not at all.

You have established without a doubt that talking about the beginning of time is difficult with the language we are stuck with.

As for talking about space, clearly there are things that exist that have no location at all, so you entire "all things require a location" premise is false.

Jason

[steamer]

As for talking about space, clearly there are things that exist that have no location at all, so you entire "all things require a location" premise is false.

There is no perceivable thing which has no location. If you were talking imagined ideas then I'd have to say they reside within your brain.

[jason]

There is no perceivable thing which has no location. If you were talking imagined ideas then I'd have to say they reside within your brain.

He said no thing lacks a location, not no perceiveable thing.

And besides, the number 4 is not located anywhere within my head or yours. Don't be silly.

Also the green ball I am imagining cannot be located at some point in my brain because it is quite clearly green yet nothing inside my brain has the property of being green.

So things do definitely exist that reside at no physical location.

Unless you want to argue that minds don't exist.

Which seems odd, as you are writings a reply.

Jason

[Roy]

I hope you don't mind being ripped apart...

I'll skip over the earlier problems and head straight for the core of the argument:

From all the previous premises, it is clear that the state of things before the universe came to be had been a state of unmodified limitlessness. To reach from that state to the present state, namely the existence of the natural universe with all its limited things, the primordial state had to have a change effected on it. As such a change could not have been deterministic, that is, rising from the nature of the then unmodified Totality, it had to be indeterministic, that is, carried out by volition and intelligence.

This last claim is not just an unsupported assertion, but a completely unsupportable one unless you can find some way to demonstrate the properties of whatever might lie outside this universe. Feel free to show that what lies beyond this universe is not some plasmic multiverse in which universes form and disintegrate like bubbles in a glass of Pepsi.

And if we have reached the conclusion of a supernatural, infinite, omnipresent, all-pervading and will-possessing intelligence,

But we haven't, since you have not shown that whatever entity effected the change that caused our universe has any of those attributes. You have defined it as being supernatural simply because it is outside our universe, but that doesn't mean it is supernatural - or even present - within our universe. You haven't shown it is infinite, and in fact haven't even shown it is larger than our universe - instead, you've equivocated between the cause and the realm it resides in, and you haven't even shown that to be infinite - it could be a finite superuniverse within an even larger hyperuniverse. Equally, you haven't shown it to be omnipresent or all-pervading - you haven't even shown that the entity extends to within our universe, let alone that it is omnipresent within it's own realm. Finally, as noted above, you have produced nothing to show this entity is intelligent, or even self-aware.

then we have effectively reached a capable definition of God. And therefore God exists[/b].

The final fallacy, common to many 'proofs' - show that something exists, call that something 'God', and conclude that God exists. There's no reason to call this entity God rather than Zarquon, Cosmic Carrot, Bloodnut the flatulent, Michtlantecuhtli or Fred. If your proof had any merit, you would be able to call this entity 'X' and then show that 'X' = God.

Roy

[Roy]

Also the green ball I am imagining cannot be located at some point in my brain because it is quite clearly green yet nothing inside my brain has the property of being green.

So things do definitely exist that reside at no physical location.

Er, Jason, the green ball you are imagining doesn't exist therefore isn't a thing that definitely exists. The concept of a green ball might exist inside your brain - but the concept isn't green, only the ball.

Roy