An argument for God's existence
[1] If time infinite
[2] And matter/energy creation is a naturally occurring event;
[3] We would of reached infinite matter/energy density by now.
[4] So time finite; IE created by God,
[5] Or matter/energy creation is not natural IE God did it.
[2] And matter/energy creation is a naturally occurring event;
[3] We would of reached infinite matter/energy density by now.
[4] So time finite; IE created by God,
[5] Or matter/energy creation is not natural IE God did it.
Comments (113)
Existing requires coming into being. So stuff can’t have existed for ever; it must of been created. Modern cosmology points this way too; in eternal inflation theory, matter/energy is created in exchange for negative gravitational energy. So that leads naturally to a creation event.
How do you know that God is THE God? Maybe all the religions have it completely wrong...
Correct, I'm not saying anything about the nature of God beyond his ability to create the universe. So he could be completely different to the normal religious definitions of God.
I would guess he would be timeless though. If he existed in time, he'd have no start, no coming into being so that's impossible. If he did have a start in time, what would come before God? Nothing but an empty stretch of time. Nothing to create God - impossible. So to get around these problems, he has to be outside time.
Why would it be maximum by now?
There is nothing to support any of this. An argument for something needs to make the conclusion true, this is just rambling ideas.
Entropy only increases with time. If time was infinite entropy would be at a maximum. It is not; so if time is infinite there must have be 'entropy reset' events. These would be Big Bangs/Big Crunches. But there cannot have been an infinite regress of these in time; then there would be no first Big Bang so the system as a whole would not make sense. IE a creation event is still required; the initial Big Bang.
Quoting Christoffer
I notice you avoid addressing my actual argument and resort to generalities.
How do you prove time to be infinite? Why would infinity be reached at this time?
Quoting Devans99
This demands that your first statement to be true, which you haven't proved and no physics provide support for a definite conclusion to this as well.
Quoting Devans99
"Big Crunch" is nothing that has been proved by physics.
Quoting Devans99
You have no true premises for this conclusion.
Quoting Devans99
I refer to the actual science and physics that do not support anything of what you say. You might need to wait until physics have given you proof that supports your conclusion and premises.
You cannot deduce anything about God at this time, there is neither data or enough evidence to prove anything. You make an assumption before making the conclusion, meaning your argument is flawed.
Think about this: why do you think no one has been able to prove the existence of God for thousands of years? Do you think you are able to do it in here easily? You might, but you need to be rock solid in your argument, you cannot have any flaws and if you put blame on criticism of your argument you are not helping yourself in reaching a conclusion that makes sense.
You might need to research physics before making claims on your premises being true because they aren't by current physics.
Quoting Christoffer
How else would you propose to reset entropy? It requires the contraction of space; IE the big crunch; there is no other way to lower entropy.
Quoting Christoffer
An infinite regress of events is impossible; the number of events in it would be greater than any number; which is a contradiction so its impossible.
Quoting Christoffer
Well we have half of the evidence; the Big Bang. It was not a naturally occurring event else there would be multiple occurrences of them (an infinite number with infinite time) and there is only evidence of one Big Bang - a non-natural event caused by God.
What physics do you base this conclusion on? How do you know that entropy needs to be reset?
Quoting Devans99
So your argument fails right there, right? You need more evidence to end up with a conclusion that is true, right?
Quoting Devans99
How do you know this? What evidence do you have for this?
Quoting Devans99
This conclusion is based on nothing, you have no evidence in physics and you make assumptions about what hasn't been proven at all.
What is your knowledge of physics? Are you using any physics to support your premises and a conclusion?
If time is infinite and entropy increases with time, what else could happen but entropy reach a maximum? But we see a low entropy universe so if time was infinite, entropy reset events must of happened.
Quoting Christoffer
If time is infinite and the Big Bang is a naturally occurring event; it should have occurred an infinite number of times already; but we have evidence of only one. So we can conclude that the Big Bang was a non-natural event caused by God.
I don't address time is finite as that means there was a God (who created time).
How do you know time is infinite?
Quoting Devans99
You do not know that time is infinite. You do not know the nature of Big Bang since physics has not been able to verify everything about the event. We do not have evidence of "only one".
So we can conclude nothing and certainly not that it was caused by God.
I ask again, what evidence within physics support your claims and conclusions?
You are making assumptions about physics that simply do not have any support to them. If you make things up about physics you do not have a solid argument. Period.
If time is finite then time must have been created by God (so I can rest my case and just address the time is infinite case).
Quoting Christoffer
We have evidence of only one Big Bang / Eternal Inflation event. If time was infinite we should expect an infinite number of such events (if they were naturally occurring) and there is no evidence for that. So the Big Bang must be a non-natural event or time is finite.
You are not listening to the objections of your argument. You have no support to the claim that time is infinite, therefore your argument is not working. Case closed.
Prove time is infinite before the rest of your argument. It's that simple.
You are misunderstanding me; I believe time is finite and that finite time is the strongest evidence there is for a God. So therefore I am addressing only the case was time is infinite (and showing that in that case there is also a God).
Then you are not doing a philosophical argument, you are just believing without proof and you are just having an opinion, no argument at all.
Well for example, if time was infinite then the number of seconds past so far is greater than any number; which is a contradiction, hence time is finite. But the point was, God is the solution whether time is finite or not.
Quoting Rank Amateur
We can still use statistics to find out about what happened; a single big bang and infinite time clearly point to a non-natural cause of the Big Bang. Else we'd expect an infinite number of Big Bangs and there is only evidence of one.
Stop persisting with an argument you have no initial proof for.
You have no argument.
Quoting Devans99
No, we can't, learn physics. You ignore actual science and you just keep going. It's frustrating that you just don't get it.
Your argument is not working. Period.
3 only follows from 1 and 2 if the matter that is being created is also infinite. If it "decays" in some way the conclusion isn't necessary.
Quoting Devans99
Why could a finite time only be created by God?
I am going to google it right now.
Edit: its at 29:20.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7vMl-CkCwA
Ahmed states, "at every time the universe existed and there was no time before the universe existed; there was no time in which God could have acted."
What do you make of this argument?
It seems like Ahmed wants to argue that time never began to exist, even if it does not extend back infinitely; therefore, it does not have a cause.
As I mentioned above:
Quoting Devans99
I think god, if he exists, exists outside our time so he would still be able to act without time to initiate the creation of our universe.
Quoting Echarmion
I would have thought matter would decay into energy and energy would not decay at all, but probably best to say (in 2) that energy/matter is created on average.
Quoting Echarmion
Creation of time is a non-natural event so it requires some sort of timeless intelligence. So some sort of creator. This might not be quite the same as the traditional interpretation of God.
Quoting tim wood
Turtles all the way down is just an infinite regress and all infinite regresses are nonsense. Another infinite regress is infinite time; it's just as bad as the turtles as the way down. The turtles are missing a bottom turtle to hold the whole thing up; with infinite time we are missing a coming into being event to give the universe substance. They are both equally bad and invalid.
There's no reason at all to believe either one of these premises.
Re (3), time could be infinite with matter/energy creation occurring at just one point in time and that's it. Or space could be infinite, too. Or matter/energy could disappear, too. There are any number of possibilities that would make (3) false.
As for (4), the notion that finite time requires a God is completely arbitrary.
Yeah but now we're making fairly random assumptions, are we not?
Quoting Devans99
What if time is merely a human perception of a world that really is timeless? In that case, it would be "created" by you and me.
Now, all a finite universe does in this instance is make an uncreated creator a reasonable possibility. It in no way elevates it to the only possibility as D99 would suggest.
Before we had an understanding of the Big Bang, the best argument against the CA was, "who created the creator", a non scientific way of implying infinity. After the Big Bang science that response is now in violation of the best science.
He's presenting a logical argument. He wasn't presenting an argument a la "This is the current scientific consensus, and the current scientific consensus must be right" was he? (That would clearly be a fallacious argument after all, in logical terms, which is what an argument needs to be assessed on.)
-'time could be infinite with matter/energy creation occurring at just one point in time and that's it' - so that would be an unnatural event caused by God.
- 'Or space could be infinite'. So what. Matter/energy density would still reach infinite levels with infinite time.
- Or matter/energy could disappear. As long as matter/energy increases on average my premise holds
Quoting Terrapin Station
If the creation of time was a natural event, there would be many instances of time. There is only one time so we can say its creation was not a natural event; IE the work of God.
Yes, because it's a logical argument, and those don't rely on scientific consensus in any significant way (it would be to their fault if they were to; a premise could be a statement of a common scientific view, but there's no requirement for it to be, and the argument--that is, the connections/implications of one statement in the argument--can't assume scientific consensus without committing a fallacy).
It needs to be critiqued purely on logical grounds.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Validity, especially in a logical context, has to do with the connection between premises and the conclusion. The only way a premise can itself be valid is if it has premises and a conclusion packed into it and it meets the definition of validity (which is that it's impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, where "and" is traditionally parsed as the inclusive "or"). Truth in logic isn't at all the same thing as validity. Whether any premises are true isn't for logic itself to decide (again unless a statement or formula has a logical argument packed into it).
It would be unnatural and caused by God per what? Those claims don't follow from anything.
Quoting Devans99
Again, this is a complete non-sequitur. You're assuming something that you're not stating. Imagine that we have a universe with infinite time and space and re matter/energy, we have a single gym sock and that's it. You'd have to argue why that's not possible. You can't just assume whatever you're assuming.
Quoting Devans99
You'd need to present an argument that matter/energy increases on average.
Quoting Devans99
What does that follow from?
If you want to present a logical argument for something, you need to make sure that your conclusions actually follow from your premises. Otherwise you're not actually presenting an argument (which is fine--there's no requirement that you present anything like a formal argument, but you claimed to be presenting one).
You also need to be careful with your premises. If you want to persuade people rather than simply preach to the choir, you need to start with premises that are pretty easy to accept as true (for persuasive purposes, you want the premises to be easily acceptable to people who don't already accept your conclusion). And then the conclusions need to logically follow from the premises.
If the event occurred once only in infinite time it must be unnatural. The rule is with infinite time, if an event is possible it happens an infinite number of times. So any natural event would happen an infinite number of times. A singular event is a non-natural event in infinite time.
Quoting Terrapin Station
An infinite time single gym sock universe is not possible through natural means; if whatever caused the gym sock is natural, it would occur infinite times, giving an infinite gym sock universe.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Time is infinite and matter/energy increases on average. So it must reach infinite density. Even if the universe is expanding on average, it can't have been expanding forever; at best it is oscillating; resulting in infinite density with infinite time.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Creation of time naturally requires some natural causation mechanism to exist. If time was created within that mechanism naturally, there should be multiple instances of time (because creation of time is a natural event). So its the same, 'if it can happen it will happen and infinite number of times' argument as for infinite time.
The creation of time and the universe was not a natural event and was performed by a non-natural agency. As I mentioned above this agency would have to be timeless:
Quoting Devans99
So a powerful, timeless intelligence of some form. That does not fully encompass the traditional definitions of God but it's someway there.
But, didn't you say time is finite. If so, ONE Big Bang isn't unnatural is it? There just wasn't enough time for more Big Bangs.
If time is finite, the argument is that God created that finite time. Again I'd class creation of dimensions as an unnatural act.
Reason?
As I pointed out above, God would be timeless, IE he 'always' existed, was not created, just is. So there is no chicken and egg/infinite regress of creators once you remove time from the picture.
BTW an infinite regress of events in time is really impossible:
- the number of past events would be greater than any number
- but thats a contradiction (can't be a number AND be greater than any number)
- so an infinite regress in time is impossible
Oh, sweet baby Jesus. Please condemn this unholy abomination to the pits of Hell.
That's a longer, more detailed version of the claim. It's not an argument for any of it.
Same with the responses afterwards that I'm not quoting.
Quoting Devans99
It requires some natural causation mechanism per what?
So he says finite, you say infinite, and science has nothing to do with it. Not sure I see the logic
Quoting Terrapin Station
Lots of words. So the overwhelming scientific support for his position over yours is irrelevant to assuming his over yours
Interesting concept
I wasn't making a claim about what's really the case either way. I was critiquing the logic of his argument as he presented it. "[3] We would of reached infinite matter/energy density by now" doesn't logically follow from anything in the argument.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Again, I was making no claim about anything except for whether the argument works as a matter of logic. Logic has nothing to do with "scientific support." It has to do with what follows given some set of assumptions.
Its just a consequence of the maths of infinity. Assign a tiny probability that an event will happen each time period and then multiply that by infinite time:
(some small number) * ? = ?
So with infinite time anything that can happen will happen an infinite number of times no matter how unlikely it was in the first place.
Quoting Terrapin Station
The act of creation is the cause and the created thing is the effect. If time has a start, it must of been caused by something. So there must be something outside of time that supports cause and effect. At the very least it the cause of time is outside time.
Cause and effect are themselves part of time though. They are a certain representation of events in time. So outside of time, there are neither causes nor effects. There are no "events" at all.
It follows that there cannot be an "act of creation" outside time, since an act is an event.
I think thats debatable; cause and effect are enabled by time; that does not mean there could be something else time-like that also enables cause and effect.
And this "time-like thing", would it then be finite or infinite? Replacing time with not-time doesn't solve any problem with the argument, at most it shifts it. A timeless "act" that is also a "cause" with time as the "effect" is simply incoherent.
This is one of the oldest problems in philosophy, and one that almost everyone with more than a basic education is familiar with. If you want to take a serious stab at it, you are going to have to come up with a clear an concise argument. No-one is going to take "could, sorta, maybe" seriously.
The photon changes (position) and yet it experiences no time. That suggests time and change are independent. Change is possible without time. Cause and effect without time follow.
Not sure I follow. I would have thought a timeless god would not feature in time at all. He would be external to time, viewing all of time in one go but not being part of it.
And how many photons have you talked to?
It's quite immaterial whether or not the photon "experiences" time. Because all we know about photons, we know from observing them. And we, the observers, certainly do experience time.
Space time is 4 dimensional. I can imagine God in a separate 4D world in which each point has a one-to-many relationship with our spacetime points. So at each point in God's time he can see all of our time. God's time is maybe an inbuilt facet of the deity. So God can change and act and effect our world but is not part of it.
Quoting Echarmion
We know a lot from relativity about photons and in general we know things moving at the speed of light do not experience time. So movement does not require time.
That certainly makes sense, but if we're forwarding a logical argument what is the ground for assigning any probability for any arbitrary time period? If it's just an arbitrary assumption why would we expect anyone to give it any weight as something true?
Quoting Devans99
You have any to assume that nothing can happen acausally. But that's just an arbitrary assumption. There's no argument for it.
Or.......how to anthropomophize the bejesus out of otherwise perfectly reasonable stuff.
(Sigh)
Any given event has a probability of happening over any fixed time period. If it's a 'natural' event then that probability is non-zero. With infinite time, as soon as the probability is non-zero, the event will/has happened infinite times. So I maintain we can class events, particularly universe creation events, into two classes:
- Natural events. With infinite time we expect these to occur an infinite number of times. Which is not what we have evidence for (only one Big Bang).
- Unnatural events. We expect these to occur a singular number of times. Which is what we have evidence for (one Big Bang).
So far as we know, things moving at the speed of light don't experience anything, since they aren't sentient. And the "speed of light", is, as the name implies, a speed. Speed, or velocity, has the unit m/s. How is this possible without time?
The "movement" or change of position is from the frame of reference of the observer. The observer, being human, experiences time.
There's a serious problem with that theory, then, because an event can happen just once given an infinite amount of time.
If you want to argue that any event that happens must happen more than once given an infinite amount of time, you'd need an argument as to why that's impossible (why it's impossible to only happen once), and your argument as to why it's impossible can't be because your theory stipulates otherwise.
As far as I understand it, relativity says we are always travelling through spacetime at the speed of light but there is a time and space component. For someone stationary, movement is all in the time direction, but for something moving at the speed of light, movement is all in the space direction with no time component. So movement is possible without time.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Sorry I'm not using 'event' in the strict sense of relativity defines it; what I mean is infinite instances of the same class of 'event'; IE infinite Big Bangs.
I wasn't using the term that way, either. There can be just one big bang, say, given infinite time. Again, see what I wrote above if you want to argue that's impossible. (While we continue to ignore the complete arbitrariness of assigning probabilities to this stuff, by the way)
Given infinite time and that the Big Bang big is a naturally occurring event, then there must be an infinite number of Big Bangs. Say Big Bangs are caused by random transitory arrangement of quantum fluctuations. If it happens the once; we should expect it to happen infinite times (with infinite time).
So we have to conclude on evidence that the Big Bang occurred only once so is not a naturally occurring event.
In one ear and out the other.
Go ahead and repeat the claim, though. Surely that will help.
Assuming you mean the Big Bang was a naturally occurring event, can you justify your above statement in any way?
Sure. It's not impossible for there to be just one big bang.
In order to say it's impossible, we'd need an argument for that, and our argument can't be that we're stipulating something else.
That means it occurs infinite times over an infinite period.
So it is impossible for there to be only one 'naturally occurring' Big Bang (if time is infinite).
Based on what?
Put it this way. If I were to say, "Between the last message I posted and this one--a finite time period, there was zero probability of a big bang occurring," we could know that I'm wrong by . . . . ? Well, by what?
If Big Bangs occurs naturally, then there is always a non-zero probability of a Big Bang in any finite time period.
If we extend that over the life time of an infinite in time universe:
(non zero probability of big bang per time period) * (life of universe) = (number of big bangs)
0.000001% * ? = ?
If there had been a infinite number of Big Bangs, I'd warrant the astronomers would of detected something
So your argument is that because the movement of all objects can be expressed as a vector in a 4 dimensional space that always has the same length, the 4th dimension of that space is not necessary for movement?
Yes. In two dimensions: If the y axis is time and the x axis is space, then movement along the x axis represents movement at the speed of light wholly in the spacial direction. The temporal co-ordinate is always zero in this case.
Based on what? The fact that you're stipulating it?
We have to say that the qualifier 'natural' applies to certain time periods. For an event to be natural within a time period; it has to have a non-zero possibility of occurring in that time period.
So what I am saying is that the Big Bang is a natural event for all time periods of the universe's infinite history; hence there must be infinite Big Bangs.
You're not answering what the probability is based on. I don't know how many times I have to ask that until you'd attempt to explain what the probability is based on.
- If an event is non-natural in a time period, then it has a 0% chance of occurring in that time period.
- If an event is natural in a time period, then it has a non-zero chance of occurring in that time period.
That's fine.
Now, what is the probability based on? We say that x has probability n. (And whether n is zero or non-zero changes the classification per the above.) How is n derived?
You have me confused; you will have to make that question more specific.
We're not just assigning probabilities randomly, are we?
No, but all we need to be able to deduce that infinite Big Bangs occurred is to assign a non-zero probability of a Big Bang occurring in a tiny fraction of the universe's infinite history; that is sufficient to ensure infinite Big Bangs.
The actual probability numbers do not matter; all that matter is if the probability is zero (Big Bang must be a non-natural event) or non-zero (Big Bang must be naturally occurring and infinite in occurrence).
If I say that the probability of the Big Bang occurring today is zero and you say it's not, then we need a way to determine which one of us is correct.
Whether we assign the term "natural" or "unnatural" is irrelevant, because per your comments above, those terms only refer to whether there is a non-zero probability in any arbitrary finite time period of x happening or not. So there's no need to even bother with the terms.
What I say implies infinite natural Big Bangs (with infinite time). We can tell from astronomy that there is only one Big Bang so empirical evidence is in my favour when concluding that the Big Bang is singular and non-natural.
I think the natural/non-natural definition I gave in terms of probability are helpful definitions; not sure how else you could mathematically define them?
You're only using "natural"/"non-natural" to refer to probability right?
And to the cause of the Big Bang. Natural would be quantum fluctuations or such. Non-natural would be God.
Why would you be associating "zero probability in some finite time periods" with god? That couldn't be more arbitrary.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees a bit here. You cannot take a mathematical model that is developed for a 4 dimensional space, drop one dimension, and then apply the model's conclusions anyway.
The reason you can have a photon that has "no movement" on the time axis but that still changes position is because the observer does "move" on the time axis. It is the changing relation or "distance on the time axis" between the observer and the photon that creates change.
Using your two axis example: If you drop the time axis the photon is just a number. It would be a value X, and X would never change. Only by adding a second axis is the number X changed into a coordinate (X/Y), and you can then get change in X if you move along the Y axis.
I still maintain that photons exist outside of time, so timeless existence is possible.
Astronomy gives evidence in support of one unnatural, Big Bang. If there had been multiple Big Bangs, I think Astronomer's would have noticed something.
Or if you think about it in terms of Eternal inflation theory... there should be infinite instances of 'eternal' inflation happening with infinite time - all going on right now due to the fact they are eternal.
Which brings us back to the unanswered question of "Why would you be associating 'zero probability in some finite time periods' with god? That couldn't be more arbitrary."
Which is one reason why it's important to nail down just how we're figuring out the probability for anything, just how there's merit to any particular probability statement.
After all, you don't have a tree popping up in your lawn every millisecond. So that would have to be non-natural on your view. Which would make the whole natural/non-natural distinction moot in the first place.
A zero probability event is by definition unnatural; caused by some unnatural agency.
A non-zero probability event is by definition natural, for example, random quantum fluctuations over infinite time (the mechanism by which the Big Bang is touted). Clearly there would have to be infinite Big Bangs if they where natural events.
If the definition of "unnatural" is "zero probability in some finite time," what does that have to do with agency of any sort?
For example, take a universe where we have just one particle that can radioactively decay to two different subsequent particles (and that particle can do the same, etc.)
So at T1 we have particle A.
At T2, A decays to either B or C.
If A decays to B, C is no longer possible, and vice versa.
At T3, if B, it decays to either D or E. If C, it decays to either F or G.
=========================================================
What can we say about the above in terms of probability?
At T1, there's a 50% probability that A will decay to either B or C.
If A decays to B at T2, there's a zero probability that we can have C in the universe in the finite time period from T2 to T3. And there is also a zero probability that we can have C from T3 to T4, and so on. C was only a 50% probability at T1.
Likewise, B was a 50% probability at T1, a 100% probability at T2, and a zero probability from T3 to T4 and so on.
So, per your definitions, both C and B are unnatural.
Now, the question is, what do C and B have to do with agency?
Anyhow, thats a classical universe; I'm thinking of a quantum universe where quantum fluctuations can produce particles out of nothing given long enough periods.
But they have finite time periods in which there's a zero probability of them occuring.
If the universe I described were to begin that way and last for an infinite time, B and C would only have a very narrow window of occuring, and they'd occur just once.
OK but then they are unnatural events for the time periods for which there is zero probability of occurring.
We are talking Big Bangs which are theorised to come from Quantum Fluctuations which could happen at any time; IE there is always a non-zero probability of a Big Bang if it's a natural event.
So they're natural and then change to unnatural?
And what do they have to do with agency?
I was never under the impression that you were only talking about the Big Bang, by the way. I thought you were talking about any arbitrary event. I thought the Big Bang was just an example.
At any rate, there could very well be a zero probability that a Big Bang would occur after the one which did occur. It could need particular conditions that will never obtain again, despite infinite time.
If only A can decay to B or C and it decays to B, then it would be unnatural for C to occur. An unnatural agency like God could cause C to occur though.
Quoting Terrapin Station
My arguments apply to Big Bangs or any other universe creation event.
Quoting Terrapin Station
That would mean universes could not be cause by quantum fluctuations meaning cause and effect is back in the picture meaning the prime mover argument applies.