Jump to content


Photo

Proof Of An Intelligent Uncaused Cause - God


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
278 replies to this topic

#1 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 29 October 2012 - 06:34 AM

When we argue that God is the uncaused cause per the Cosmological Argument, atheists ask why the universe or some other mindless, natural existence could not be the uncaused cause. So I wrote an argument to address this objection:

1. Because something cannot come from absolutely nothing, something must have always existed for eternity.

2. The eternal something, because it is eternal, was uncaused.

3. The eternal something, must have the ability to cause events (since events happen).

4. The eternal something is an uncaused cause.

5. The eternal something came before the events that it caused. This indicates a past, present, and future relative to events. Since events occur now, there is a past. And this means that events happen in a linear progression (overall).

6. The eternal something, was either mindless or intelligent. There are no other options.

7. A mindless eternal something would mean an impossible, infinite regress of events...

A. A mindless eternal cause could never stop causing events, or no future event could occur. For example, our universe is a future event relative to the past. Our universe could not occur if a mindless eternal cause had stopped causing events for an eternity past. So a mindless eternal something would have to continue causing events, for any event to occur. But this would mean that INFINITE past events must have occurred, which is impossible, since endless past events could never be traversed to get to a present/future event (such as our universe).

B. But what if a mindless eternal cause spawned a universe with its own causal chain? Well, because of A, this event could never happen, because endless past events would have to be traversed before getting to the spawned universe (or any given event), which is impossible.

C. What if our universe were itself the eternal uncaused cause? ...This is not possible, because of A.

D. What if a mindless cause produced just one event, that being our universe, meaning no infinite past events? ...This is not possible because of A. A single event would mean that nothing happened for an eternity prior. If nothing happened for an eternity prior, then the single "future" event (our universe) could never come about. An eternity of no events would mean that the probability for events to begin occurring, is perfectly zero.

8. Per #7, a mindless uncaused cause must be rejected.

9. Intelligent events happen as an act of WILL, rather than probability, which means that a FIXED number of events is possible, as determined by the intelligent uncaused cause. This solves the problem of an infinite regress of events that would occur if the uncaused cause were mindless.

10. Therefore, an intelligent, uncaused cause of the universe (God) must be accepted.

-Bryan

#2 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 995 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 29 October 2012 - 11:52 AM

Sounds like some of the conventional arguments/proofs for the existence of god.

http://www.existence...nce-of-god.html
http://www.everystud...es/isthere.html


I actually would like to busy me with this for a while investigating it thoroughly, but I need to finalize off a couple of other things first.

#3 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 29 October 2012 - 12:07 PM

When we argue that God is the uncaused cause per the Cosmological Argument, atheists ask why the universe or some other mindless, natural existence could not be the uncaused cause. So I wrote an argument to address this objection:

1. Because something cannot come from absolutely nothing, something must have always existed for eternity.

2. The eternal something, because it is eternal, was uncaused.

3. The eternal something, must have the ability to cause events (since events happen).

4. The eternal something is an uncaused cause.

5. The eternal something came before the events that it caused. This indicates a past, present, and future relative to events. Since events occur now, there is a past. And this means that events happen in a linear progression (overall).

6. The eternal something, was either mindless or intelligent. There are no other options.

7. A mindless eternal something would mean an impossible, infinite regress of events...

A. A mindless eternal cause could never stop causing events, or no future event could occur. For example, our universe is a future event relative to the past. Our universe could not occur if a mindless eternal cause had stopped causing events for an eternity past. So a mindless eternal something would have to continue causing events, for any event to occur. But this would mean that INFINITE past events must have occurred, which is impossible, since endless past events could never be traversed to get to a present/future event (such as our universe).

B. But what if a mindless eternal cause spawned a universe with its own causal chain? Well, because of A, this event could never happen, because endless past events would have to be traversed before getting to the spawned universe (or any given event), which is impossible.

C. What if our universe were itself the eternal uncaused cause? ...This is not possible, because of A.

D. What if a mindless cause produced just one event, that being our universe, meaning no infinite past events? ...This is not possible because of A. A single event would mean that nothing happened for an eternity prior. If nothing happened for an eternity prior, then the single "future" event (our universe) could never come about. An eternity of no events would mean that the probability for events to begin occurring, is perfectly zero.

8. Per #7, a mindless uncaused cause must be rejected.

9. Intelligent events happen as an act of WILL, rather than probability, which means that a FIXED number of events is possible, as determined by the intelligent uncaused cause. This solves the problem of an infinite regress of events that would occur if the uncaused cause were mindless.

10. Therefore, an intelligent, uncaused cause of the universe (God) must be accepted.

-Bryan


Interesting thoughts, goldliger.
  • goldliger likes this

#4 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 29 October 2012 - 07:11 PM

Here is a practical illustration of the argument:

Imagine "immortal person A" who cannot help but make paper airplanes. All that he's
done throughout eternity past is make paper airplanes, with absolutely no choice in the matter; he couldn't stop making paper airplanes even if he wanted to.

Now imagine "immortal person B" who has a choice as to whether he makes paper airplanes. He too has an eternity to make airplanes, but what separates him from person A is that he can make however few or however many planes he wants, whenever he decides.

Immortal person A, because he's lived for an eternity past, would have folded an infinite number of airplanes, yet this scenario is impossible being that infinity cannot be traversed. But immortal person B, because he can choose how many airplanes he wants to fold, could have created a fixed number of paper airplanes, which avoids the issue with impossible infinite airplanes.

Immortal person A represents a mindless, eternal something, causing (impossible) infinite events by no "choice" or "will" of its own.

Immortal person B represents God, who can cause fixed events according to His will.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#5 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 995 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 30 October 2012 - 03:38 AM

This is basically the first cause argument:

The First Cause Argument

The first cause argument (or “cosmological argument”) takes the existence of the universe to entail the existence of a being that created it. It does so based on the fact that the universe had a beginning. There must, the first cause argument says, be something that caused that beginning, a first cause of the universe.

The universe consists of a series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain. Each one of these events is the cause of the event that comes after it, and the effect of the event that comes before it. The world as it is came from the world as it was, which came from the world as it was before.

If we trace this series of events back in time, then what do we find? There seem, at first glance, to be two possibilities: either we eventually reach the first event in the series, the cause at the beginning of the universe that set everything going, or there is no first event in the series and the past stretches back into infinity.

The first cause argument tells us that the second of these is not possible, that the past cannot stretch back into infinity but rather must have a beginning. The argument then proceeds by suggesting that if the universe has a beginning then there must be something outside it that brought it into existence.

This being outside the universe, this Creator, the first cause argument tells us, is God.

It’s Impossible to Traverse an Infinite Series

If I told you that I had just counted down from infinity to zero, starting with “infinity minus zero” and carrying on until I reached “infinite minus infinity, i.e zero”, then you would know that this claim is false. Just as it is impossible to count up from zero to infinity, so it is impossible to count down from infinity to zero. If I had started counting down from infinity and kept going, then I would still be counting to this day; I would not have finished. My claim to have counted down from infinity to zero must be false. This is because it is impossible to traverse an infinite series.

The Past Therefore Cannot be Infinite

The idea that the universe has an infinite past is just as problematic as the idea that I have just counted down from infinity. If the universe had an infinite past, then time would have had to count down from infinity to reach time zero, the present, and so would not have reached it. The fact that we have reached the present therefore shows that the past is not infinite but finite. The universe has a beginning. This claim, of course, has been confirmed by modern science, who trace the universe back to a point of origin in the ‘big bang’.

The past cannot go back forever, then; the universe must have a beginning. The next question is whether something caused this beginning, or whether the universe just popped into existence out of nothing. We all know, though, that nothing that begins to exist does so without a cause; nothing comes from nothing. For something to come into existence there must be something else that already exists that can bring it into existence. The fact that the universe began to exist therefore implies that something brought it into existence, that the universe has a Creator.

The First Cause Must be Uncreated, Eternal

If this Creator were a being like the universe, a being that exists in time and so that came into existence, then it too would have to have been created by something. Nothing comes from nothing, not even God.

This tells us that the ultimate cause of the universe must never have come into existence; the ultimate Creator must be a being that exists outside of time, an eternal being with neither beginning nor end. (For a more detailed defence of this argument, see William Lane Craig’s The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe.)

What the First Cause Argument Proves

There are several objections to the first cause argument, but if it is successful then it establishes the existence of a Creator that transcends time. Combined with the ontological argument, this would give us proof that there is a perfect, necessary, and eternal Creator.

This would not quite be the same as proving all that Christianity and the other monotheistic religions teach about God, but it would be close. It would tell us that God exists, and what he is like, and that he created the universe. It would not, however, tell us why he created the universe or what we ought to do about it.

The final two arguments speak more about God’s purpose in Creation, and so at least hold out the hope of completing this picture. The first of these two arguments is the argument from design.



http://www.existence...e-argument.html



#6 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 30 October 2012 - 06:37 AM

This is basically the first cause argument:


The intended purpose of my argument is specifically to address atheists who will simply turn around and argue that a "mindless, natural something" is the first cause. In other words, they might grant a first cause per the first cause argument (because there's really no denying it). But then they'll suggest that some sort of quantum vacuum was the first cause. So that's what I'm addressing (that's the difference).

My point is that our universe has to be an act of will/decision. If it were an act of mindless chance (the only alternative), why would only one universe exist, and not infinite universes prior to ours (which is impossible, being that infinite physical events cannot be traversed)? Let's say that our universe were the product of mindless chance. All of a sudden, it just sprang into existence. Why would it have happened at the precise point that it did, instead of at an infinite number of potential points in the eternal past? The problem, as I see it, is that a mindless something with the ability to cause events (such as universes), could not remain static for an eternity past, and then "suddenly" create a universe. If something is static for an eternity, producing no change and causing no events of any kind whatsoever, then by what mechanism (being void of intelligent will) would it suddenly modify itself so as to cause a universe (or any physical event, however small or large)? ...A "first event" could never be caused by a mindless something that has been static for an eternity past.

#7 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 30 October 2012 - 12:33 PM

I added one more point to my argument, which falls under # 7...

E. In the context of this argument, an "event" is simply a physical/material change in physical reality. Suppose that a "mindless material something" is the eternal, uncaused cause... Well, this eternal thing must be in a constant state of change, meaning that physical events are occurring (even if it's just the eternal thing itself which changes). Why must it be changing? The simple answer is that it must change in order to cause new events in physical surroundings, or no larger event (like a universe) could ever occur. If the eternal thing were completely unchanging and static, then obviously, it could not produce an effect (it could not produce physical change). Everything would remain infinitely the same! Furthermore, it must be said that this eternal thing must change an infinite amount of times, instead of a fixed amount of times. If the amount of changes were fixed, that would require a first/initial change. However, it's not possible for a mindless, material something (even if energy) to remain static and unchanging for an eternal, infinite past, and then suddenly begin changing; a material something that is eternally unchanging, can never change by definition. But it is also not possible for infinite physical events to occur, because infinity cannot be traversed!

----

So what this is saying is that even if infinite external events were somehow not caused by an eternal, mindless material thing, so-called "internal" events would still have to occur (where the material uncaused cause itself is changing), and do so infinitely - which is impossible.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#8 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 30 October 2012 - 01:26 PM

I added one more point to my argument, which falls under # 7...

E. In the context of this argument, an "event" is simply a physical/material change in physical reality. Suppose that a "mindless material something" is the eternal, uncaused cause... Well, this eternal thing must be in a constant state of change, meaning that physical events are occurring (even if it's just the eternal thing itself which changes). Why must it be changing? The simple answer is that it must change in order to cause new events in physical surroundings, or no larger event (like a universe) could ever occur. If the eternal thing were completely unchanging and static, then obviously, it could not produce an effect (it could not produce physical change). Everything would remain infinitely the same! Furthermore, it must be said that this eternal thing must change an infinite amount of times, instead of a fixed amount of times. If the amount of changes were fixed, that would require a first/initial change. However, it's not possible for a mindless, material something (even if energy) to remain static and unchanging for an eternal, infinite past, and then suddenly begin changing; a material something that is eternally unchanging, can never change by definition. But it is also not possible for infinite physical events to occur, because infinity cannot be traversed!

----

So what this is saying is that even if infinite external events were somehow not caused by an eternal, mindless material thing, so-called "internal" events would still have to occur (where the material uncaused cause itself is changing), and do so infinitely - which is impossible.


If the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is true (& it always tests positive) then the universe is not infinitely old but is wearing down to what Boltzman & others of his level called a 'heat death'.That being so, it had to have an origin. That origin had to be supernatural because the 1st law informs us that matter/mass can neither be created nor destroyed...at least not by anything natural that we know of.
  • gilbo12345 and goldliger like this

#9 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 30 October 2012 - 03:41 PM

If the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is true (& it always tests positive) then the universe is not infinitely old but is wearing down to what Boltzman & others of his level called a 'heat death'.That being so, it had to have an origin. That origin had to be supernatural because the 1st law informs us that matter/mass can neither be created nor destroyed...at least not by anything natural that we know of.


The 2nd Law also disproves a random natural cause since the natural prerogative of the universe is to go into chaos (if left to natural cause), yet at the begining of the universe energy was ordered (defying the 2nd law), since if there was no ordered energy, (and there would be none if left to the natural prerogative of the universe), then there would be no 2nd law, no life, no planets etc, since all the energy would already be at the highest state of chaos, (ie- the heat death situation would be the norm). Therefore a cause is needed that defies natural law, something that defys natural law is considered supernatural thus a supernatural cause.

In fact I would argue that creation of suns and planets also defy this, since the natural prerogative of the universe is to break down, not build up.
  • goldliger likes this

#10 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 30 October 2012 - 04:19 PM

The 2nd Law also disproves a random natural cause since the natural prerogative of the universe is to go into chaos (if left to natural cause), yet at the begining of the universe energy was ordered (defying the 2nd law), since if there was no ordered energy, (and there would be none if left to the natural prerogative of the universe), then there would be no 2nd law, no life, no planets etc, since all the energy would already be at the highest state of chaos, (ie- the heat death situation would be the norm). Therefore a cause is needed that defies natural law, something that defys natural law is considered supernatural thus a supernatural cause.

In fact I would argue that creation of suns and planets also defy this, since the natural prerogative of the universe is to break down, not build up.


Quite.

...and to dissipate, not coalesce.

#11 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 30 October 2012 - 04:38 PM

//If the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is true (& it always tests positive) then the universe is not infinitely old but is wearing down to what Boltzman & others of his level called a 'heat death'.That being so, it had to have an origin. That origin had to be supernatural because the 1st law informs us that matter/mass can neither be created nor destroyed...at least not by anything natural that we know of.//

I totally agree... Though atheists, grasping at straws, will then claim a quantum vacuum may have existed before the universe, as their cop out. However, a quantum vacuum must fluctuate and be in motion. And any motion or fluctuation is a "physical event", which then demands the impossible infinite regress of events, given eternity. So no matter what "thing" atheists claim may have existed eternally, it must be in a constant state of change (per "E" above)... And any change, even simple motion, is an event... And an infinite chain of events is not possible, like an infinite line up of dominos (past events) falling to get to "our domino" (the universe). The past dominos would never reach our domino, and thus "the present" could not exist.

#12 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 30 October 2012 - 06:19 PM

//If the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is true (& it always tests positive) then the universe is not infinitely old but is wearing down to what Boltzman & others of his level called a 'heat death'.That being so, it had to have an origin. That origin had to be supernatural because the 1st law informs us that matter/mass can neither be created nor destroyed...at least not by anything natural that we know of.//

I totally agree... Though atheists, grasping at straws, will then claim a quantum vacuum may have existed before the universe, as their cop out. However, a quantum vacuum must fluctuate and be in motion. And any motion or fluctuation is a "physical event", which then demands the impossible infinite regress of events, given eternity. So no matter what "thing" atheists claim may have existed eternally, it must be in a constant state of change (per "E" above)... And any change, even simple motion, is an event... And an infinite chain of events is not possible, like an infinite line up of dominos (past events) falling to get to "our domino" (the universe). The past dominos would never reach our domino, and thus "the present" could not exist.


"The past dominos would never reach our domino, and thus 'the present' could not exist."

A point they avoid assiduously. To them 'cause & effect' has no relevance to origins...but cause and effect is their greatest obstacle if they were truly intellectually honoest.

Thanks and best wishes.
  • goldliger likes this

#13 JoshuaJacob

JoshuaJacob

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula, Louisiana
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ponchatoula, Louisiana

Posted 31 October 2012 - 04:04 AM

Isn't cause and effect a law?

#14 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 31 October 2012 - 08:36 AM

Not to the atheist ;)

Additionally the evidence given for the big bang supports there being a creation event in history, in that time is not infinite in the past. Hence any who claim it is, is going against what the current scientific evidence demonstrates....

#15 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:45 AM

Ok, so I've boiled the whole thing down into a deductive syllogism:


The New Cosmic Proof Of God Argument

1. In a mindless existence, any physical change, if it has
not already occurred given eternity, will never occur.

2. In a mindless existence, a first/initial change would
mean an eternity of no change prior, which is not possible
per premise 1. (So a fixed number of events is impossible.)

3. Therefore, a mindless eternal cause would beg an infinite
regress of physical changes (events), which is impossible.

This assumes that something cannot come from absolute nothingness (an obvious fact), and therefore that something must have always existed. And then shows why a mindless eternal cause would not be possible, as it would lead to an impossible infinite regress of physical changes/events. On the other hand, an intelligent, immaterial being can exist for eternity and choose to cause an event at any moment (i.e., changes and events are an act of will and not an act of chance - which by default allows for a finite/fixed number of physical events).
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#16 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 01 November 2012 - 06:01 AM

When we argue that God is the uncaused cause per the Cosmological Argument, atheists ask why the universe or some other mindless, natural existence could not be the uncaused cause. So I wrote an argument to address this objection:

1. Because something cannot come from absolutely nothing, something must have always existed for eternity.

OK

2. The eternal something, because it is eternal, was uncaused

3. The eternal something, must have the ability to cause events (since events happen).

4. The eternal something is an uncaused cause.

5. The eternal something came before the events that it caused. This indicates a past, present, and future relative to events. Since events occur now, there is a past. And this means that events happen in a linear progression (overall)..

That depends on what you determine is the eternal thing. Must the eternal thing be unchanging? Why must the thing that caused that change be an eternal cause?

6. The eternal something, was either mindless or intelligent. There are no other options.

Ok

7. A mindless eternal something would mean an impossible, infinite regress of events...

A. A mindless eternal cause could never stop causing events, or no future event could occur. For example, our universe is a future event relative to the past. Our universe could not occur if a mindless eternal cause had stopped causing events for an eternity past. So a mindless eternal something would have to continue causing events, for any event to occur. But this would mean that INFINITE past events must have occurred, which is impossible, since endless past events could never be traversed to get to a present/future event (such as our universe).

B. But what if a mindless eternal cause spawned a universe with its own causal chain? Well, because of A, this event could never happen, because endless past events would have to be traversed before getting to the spawned universe (or any given event), which is impossible.

C. What if our universe were itself the eternal uncaused cause? ...This is not possible, because of A. D. What if a mindless cause produced just one event, that being our universe, meaning no infinite past events? ...This is not possible because of A. A single event would mean that nothing happened for an eternity prior. If nothing happened for an eternity prior, then the single "future" event (our universe) could never come about. An eternity of no events would mean that the probability for events to begin occurring, is perfectly zero.

8. Per #7, a mindless uncaused cause must be rejected.

9. Intelligent events happen as an act of WILL, rather than probability, which means that a FIXED number of events is possible, as determined by the intelligent uncaused cause. This solves the problem of an infinite regress of events that would occur if the uncaused cause were mindless.

10. Therefore, an intelligent, uncaused cause of the universe (God) must be accepted.

You are assuming that the eternal thing is unchanging. What if the eternal thing was changed by a non-eternal part of itself, meaning that the cause does not have to be eternal? Logically, since this is a logical exercise, that possibility should be included.
Therefore the mindless event could occur which results in the form of universe that we see. This possibility merely requires a changable eternal universe and a part of it that can cause changes. Logically, a God does not have to be the cause.

#17 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 01 November 2012 - 06:10 AM

Ok, so I've boiled the whole thing down into a deductive syllogism:


The New Cosmic Proof Of God Argument

1. In a mindless existence, any physical change, if it has
not already occurred given eternity, will never occur.

2. In a mindless existence, a first/initial change would
mean an eternity of no change prior, which is not possible
per premise 1. (So a fixed number of events is impossible.)

3. Therefore, a mindless eternal cause would beg an infinite
regress of physical changes (events), which is impossible.

This assumes that something cannot come from absolute nothingness (an obvious fact), and therefore that something must have always existed. And then shows why a mindless eternal cause would not be possible, as it would lead to an impossible infinite regress of physical changes/events. On the other hand, an intelligent, immaterial being can exist for eternity and choose to cause an event at any moment (i.e., changes and events are an act of will and not an act of chance - which by default allows for a finite/fixed number of physical events).

You are equating the eternal thing with the cause. Why must the cause be eternal?

You say that if something has not occurred in eternity past that it will never occur given a mindless existence. How do you know it had not occurred sometime in the past? To logically conclude it has not happened before you have to assume that the current condition of the universe is the only condition that can exist. How do you know that? Perhaps the cause has occurred in eternity past, many other changes happened which resulted in a condition where the cause occured again. Can you logically exclude this possibility?

#18 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 01 November 2012 - 06:16 AM

@Jonas5877 //You are assuming that the eternal thing is unchanging. What if the eternal thing was changed by a non-eternal part of itself, meaning that the cause does not have to be eternal?//

What I'm saying is that an eternal thing must be able to produce change, or no change would ever occur. And there could not be a non-eternal part of an eternal thing, as that would mean the non-eternal part began to exist at some point. If it began to exist, then the only mechanism that could cause it to come into being would be the eternal "part" (since the eternal thing existed prior).

//This possibility merely requires a changable eternal universe and a part of it that can cause changes. Logically, a God does not have to be the cause.//

Imagine a mindless eternal something, like a cosmic book. The pages of this book, when turned, represents physical events. In a mindless existence, either the pages of this book would have been endlessly turning, or not. If not endlessly turning, then at some fixed point in eternity, the first page must have turned. But this is impossible, because it would mean that for an eternity prior (for an endless period of time), no pages turned. An endless period of no pages turned can never end, by definition! So the pages must have always been turning (in a mindless existence). And further, whatever caused the pages to turn must have always existed, or the pages wouldn't be able to turn! So you cannot separate the eternal pages, from the cause that turns them as you're attempting to do. And finally, the problem is that it's impossible to turn an infinite number of pages, since the present "page" would never be reached if endless pages in the past had to first be turned.

Logically, an eternal, intelligent being with a will, has to be the cause. And this can only be God, quite obviously.

#19 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 01 November 2012 - 06:21 AM

//You are equating the eternal thing with the cause. Why must the cause be eternal?//

Something cannot come from absolute nothingness, which therefore means an eternal something that is able to cause physical events.

//You say that if something has not occurred in eternity past that it will never occur given a mindless existence. How do you know it had not occurred sometime in the past? To logically conclude it has not happened before you have to assume that the current condition of the universe is the only condition that can exist. How do you know that? Perhaps the cause has occurred in eternity past, many other changes happened which resulted in a condition where the cause occured again. Can you logically exclude this possibility?//

It seems you're misunderstanding, no offense. I'm actually saying that in a mindless existence, it must be said that physical changes (events) were happening all along (for eternity). And yet, this would beg an infinite regress of physical events, which is impossible. Refer to my book analogy above.

So in a mindless existence, I'm not saying that for an eternity past, no physical change would have occurred. I'm demonstrating the opposite, that endless physical change must have occurred (but which is impossible).

There is a simple solution to the impossible problems that I've laid out. God can turn a page (cause a physical event) whenever he wills. An infinite regress of physical events is not an issue, because no such chain of events would have to transpire to "reach" the creation of our universe, for example. Our universe happened at the moment that God decided.

It's never too late to repent and believe! Now is the time to turn your life over to the Lord. Amen. :)

#20 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:07 AM

Imagine a mindless eternal something, like a cosmic book. The pages of this book, when turned, represents physical events. In a mindless existence, either the pages of this book would have been endlessly turning, or not. If not endlessly turning, then at some fixed point in eternity, the first page must have turned. But this is impossible, because it would mean that for an eternity prior (for an endless period of time), no pages turned. An endless period of no pages turned can never end, by definition! So the pages must have always been turning (in a mindless existence). And further, whatever caused the pages to turn must have always existed, or the pages wouldn't be able to turn! So you cannot separate the eternal pages, from the cause that turns them as you're attempting to do. And finally, the problem is that it's impossible to turn an infinite number of pages, since the present "page" would never be reached if endless pages in the past had to first be turned.

Logically, an eternal, intelligent being with a will, has to be the cause. And this can only be God, quite obviously.


Your argument actually works against the idea of a eternal god that created a single non-eternal universe, just replace 'book' and 'page turning' with 'god' and 'creating universes' and see if you still think the logic works. I've taken your argument and reworded to be applicable to god. I've underlined places where I made edits.

Imagine a eternal something, like a God. The creation of a universe is a physical event. Either the creation of universes would have been endlessly occurring, or not. If not endlessly occurring, then at some fixed point in eternity, the first creation of a universe must have occurred. But this is impossible, because it would mean that for an eternity prior (for an endless period of time), no universe was created. An endless period of no universe can never end, by definition! So god must have always been creating universes (in a eternal existence)......

Basically, if you are going to argue that it's logically impossible by definition to have a first universe after an infinite past, then it must also be logically impossible by definition for your god to create a first universe after an infinite past. Either god's past is not infinite, or god created the universe an infinite amount of time ago, or your logic is flawed.

From a physics perspective you might find the concept of eternal inflation interesting. It's one way to address your concerns about an endless series of universes. My understanding of the idea is that it boils down to an eternal inflation field constantly producing universes where the universes are unable to interact with each other.
http://en.wikipedia....ernal_inflation




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users