If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[remez]

Then the c still follows and is sound and valid.

I can give you valid at this point, but not sound. By calling it sound, you've just assumed your conclusion without proving it.

I’m not assuming the c. That is the structure of all arguments to be stated conclusively. It is understood in all arguments that the premises need to be supported…..as you go on to do here.....….

At this point, we've agreed on what the premises are. We haven't agreed that they're true.

And that the conclusion is understood. The rest is measuring the economy of my reasoning for support against your economy of reason to reject. Giddy up.

You have stated the KCA, and you think that makes the KCA sound until I express a counter-argument? You think that, once you state your argument, the burden of proof is on me to refute it?

If that's your position, I reject it. Arguments are not presumed sound until refuted. The burden of proof is on you.

I have presented an argument. It is valid. I have REASONED and purported it to be sound. I have supported each premise with evidence and reasoning. Now how is it to be determined sound? I have been and remain willing to meet my burden.

I did support p1 as basically the principle of cause and effect….what more could I possibly say….other than redress your objections to wiggle out of the overt understanding. I did present evidence for p2……which was my objective….to present evidence and reasoning for my belief. I reasoned that to deny either premise would place your reasoning in a diminished state. Now you may not agree, but I did present the reasoning and evidence. The conclusion reasonably follows…… things that begin to exist need a cause. The universe began to exist therefore has a cause. And that alone is evidence for a theistic God. But I did not leave it there…I lead you through the forensics and reasoning that leads to the mono-theistic God of the Bible. I’m only trying to establish that I have reasoning and evidence for my beliefs.

Now where specifically have I not made a case with reasoning and evidence? None of it assumed. Have I not been willing again and again to address your objections? You have even dismissed some of your own objections upon receiving my defense. Even to the point of agreeing the argument is valid.

So where am I assuming this is sound? I wouldn’t have even presented it if I had not reasoned to be sound to me. I should think by know you would respect that I have really reasoned through this. So I have presented a common argument that I have reasoned to be sound. If you don’t think it is sound then reasonably show me. If you can then I will forsake my reasoning that the argument is sound. Let’s please end this “it’s your burden game”….. I’m here and ready. And remember you asked for it. And confidently told me you would show me my mistakes. And you have for the most part put forth a great effort.

So now….

The KCA is overtly a deductive argument. Thus logically it deduces to a conclusion. Are you asserting that I’m wrong because I’m using deductive reasoning?

Certainly not. Deductive reasoning is good. It's a kind of reasoning. I'm on the side of reasoning.
I just don't think you get to establish the soundness of your argument by announcing it.

I didn’t just announce it. You would have to ignore a ton and reasoning and evidence that I have overtly presented to assert that I just announced it.
And….
How do you just get to announce or assume that it is unsound?

P1 everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is the law of cause and effect. Sometimes referred to as the causal principle or the law of causality.

That's absurd. It's like calling a sparkplug the law if internal combustion.

Here, I Googled it: "The universal law of cause and effect states that for every effect there is a definite cause, likewise for every cause, there is a definite effect."

There is no mention of things beginning to exist. There is no claim that anything that begins must be an effect, nor that unbegun things need not be effects.

It’s absolutely implied in the definition. “beginning” is inherent in the reasoning.

Finally I think I understand your objection here.
I didn’t realize you were challenging the implicit, intuitive nature of being.
So…………
You are missing the implicit logic that “being” is precisely the state of existence of the effect.
Here…….let me attempt to make the implicit understanding ….explicit……

You can’t reasonably deny……..that…… A causes brings an effect into existence.
Thus
Logically a cause….. causes an effect to begin to exist.
Thus….……
An effect that begins to exist has a cause.
Actually...…
Every effect that begins to exist has a cause.
Thus…..
p1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
So…..

Here, I Googled it: "The universal law of cause and effect states that for every effect there is a definite cause, likewise for every cause, there is a definite effect."

………there is an implicit “begins to exist” in the understanding of the definition…..
Here…..
The universal law of cause and effect reasonably states for every cause there is a definite effect that begins to exist.
And again in reverse……

The universal law of cause and effect reasonably states that for every effect that begins to exist, there is a definite cause.
Clear?

So I have to admit there was an assumption in there on my part….it was….that I assumed you would understand that a cause logically causes an effect to begin to exist. So I wasn’t assuming the reasoning….. only that you understood it. I was wrong.

It’s foundational reasoning. Foundational to science. To deny it would basically render your position unreasonable.

I don't deny cause and effect. I dispute your claim that you have established that you get to arbitrarily announce that it doesn't apply to your god.

It absolutely would apply to God if he began to exist. Remember we agreed that God is a member of “everything” in p1. Thus no special pleading.

Just a cool ponder….Does math have a cause? Does logic have a cause?

 

[remez]

Of course. I'm a layman, so, when it comes to fields that I don't understand, I have to either not have an opinion or go with the scientific consensus.

Me too, my field is mathematics. Hey remember the consensus used to be geocentric even for the scientists.

My understanding is that quantum physicists by and large accept the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Possibly but it is in no way conclusive.
And
That does not …in any way….that you get to extend your unsupported consensus to conclusively state that an “indeterminate cause” absolutely means NO CAUSE and not undetermined cause. That would be a second consensus that you yet would have to provide for if you claim it exists.

Well….
Now here you are not presenting a misinterpretation of the KCA. You are properly attempting to rebut the reasoning of cause and effect, by asserting that you can name a temporal effect without a cause. Thereby rebutting p1.

First, I'm not rebutting anything. I'm simply accepting the scientific consensus as probably correct. I don't see how you can fault me for that.

Second, I didn't name an effect without cause. That is linguistic nonsense. If something is an effect, it, by definition, has a cause. What I did is name a thing -- not an effect -- without cause.

Third, you did the same yourself. You named a god and claimed it exists. You claimed it doesn't exist at any time, but still claim it exists. And then you claim it is -- to use your understanding -- an effect without cause.

Nothing I claimed is as outlandish as any of those three claims.

Quoted whole for context…pared here.

Nothing I claimed is as outlandish as any of those three claims.

Absolutely….first of all…..two of those claims are yours and the third is an oversimplification of my position.
But anyway……

First, I'm not rebutting anything. I'm simply accepting the scientific consensus as probably correct. I don't see how you can fault me for that.

1) there is no scientific consensus…like with the SBBM….

An interpretation of quantum mechanics is an attempt to explain how the mathematical theory of quantum mechanics "corresponds" to reality. Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and extremely precise tests in an extraordinarily broad range of experiments (not one prediction from quantum mechanics is found to be contradicted by experiments), there exist a number of contending schools of thought over their interpretation. These views on interpretation differ on such fundamental questions as whether quantum mechanics is deterministic or stochastic, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered real, and what is the nature of measurement, among other matters.
Despite nearly a century of debate and experiment, no consensus has been reached among physicists and philosophers of physics concerning which interpretation best "represents" reality.[1][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

Bold added for emphasis. Good read to get a bird’s eye view of what’s out there.
2) Deeper still is no consensus that inderterministic means uncaused.
3) if it did then you would rebut p1.
4) To be uncaused you would be reasoning ….something from nothing…..because VP’s (virtual particles) are not eternal. If VP can begin to exist uncaused why don’t we see other things like cows, pizzas and books appear uncaused? Because our experience overwhelmingly confirms things cannot appear uncaused. So yes that claim of yours that VP can begin to exist uncaused is drastically outlandish to our experience.
5) Simply accepting your perceived consensus sounds a lot like faith without reason. Because you have provided no reason. It’s what you want to be true, so that you can rebut p1.

Second, I didn't name an effect without cause. That is linguistic nonsense. If something is an effect, it, by definition, has a cause. What I did is name a thing -- not an effect -- without cause.

This is completely outlandish….to reason that effects are not things. It is a semantic game that overtly fails. Here is the definition from reputable Webster for “EFFECT” . Bold added for emphasis….

1: something that inevitably follows an antecedent (such as a cause or agent) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/effect

Effects are things. Thus….. “What I did is name a thing -- not an effect -- without cause.” Is “That is linguistic nonsense.” And again I didn’t say that…….you did.
Finally……

Third, you did the same yourself. You named a god and claimed it exists. You claimed it doesn't exist at any time, but still claim it exists. And then you claim it is -- to use your understanding -- an effect without cause.

Misunderstanding. I said God is timeless sans creation. He is eternal, thus eternal in the past, thus had no beginning. He has always existed. I would say the same of the universe if it were the case that the universe was eternal. How can something that is eternal in the past have a beginning or a cause?

That question is essential to the reasoning here…..what is your answer?

So…
Now right from the start you are asserting the sensational. Pulling a rabbit out of an empty hat.

Accepting the judgment of science is sensational?

It is a small speculative piece of scientific hypothesis that is not in any way settled. Versus all of the science that confirms cause and effect. Thus how is that enough reason to defeat the known science for p1. Reminder we are talking about reasonable certainty. Weigh them. Something from nothing vs reasoned science.

Science is an empty hat? You sure like to rely on science when you think it agrees with you.

I’m not asserting that science is the empty hat. I’m asserting that something from nothing is pulling a rabbit out of nothing.

So let’s weigh the reasoning.
Your position….. Virtual particles just begin to exist without a cause…..magically!

Even if I were arguing for magic, you're hardly in a position to argue against it.

1) I have made the case that something from nothing is actually worse than magic. With magic you at least have the magician and the hat.

2) You have not provided reasoning in context to our discussion that my reasoning is analogous to magic. It’s an inferred slur that is really is closer to your reasoning here than mine.

My position….. We don’t know how they began to exist. And it seems like we hit a wall because our measurements to get at that cause mess up our attempts to determine the cause. So for now its indeterminate.

If your gods exist, I don't see how they got started either. Can't measure them at all. So, for now, the beginnings of gods are indeterminate.

1) I have ignored this side point for too long. Thus I need to address it. You’re in discussion with a mono-theist and you know it. When you continually pluralize to gods, you place me in an awkward position….that if I respond without disclaimer, then I’m trying to reason for a plurality of gods. I’m not. So could you please respect the context here, and not force me to have repeatedly make this declaration.

2) God didn’t start. Thus no beginning no cause.

3) You can’t scientifically measure Him. But science can lend its support to reasoning that he does exist. That I have provided several times.

4) I’m not arguing for many gods. All of the others gods you keep lumping into this are historically part of the universe. Thus not eternal and cannot be a reasonable candidate of the first cause. Now the theistic God transcends the universe and is eternal. That’s what has always made the theistic God unique. If the KCA is valid and sound then all other worldviews become less reasonable. Which addresses the oft shouted refrain how do you know your god is the right god.
Thus…
I can comfortably live with the reasoning that the beginning of the God is indeterministic…….as long as indeterministic means what is overtly proclaims…..we can’t determine His cause. Of course we can reason that an eternal thing logically doesn’t begin.

Which economy of reasoning is more prosperous on that?
Also…
Notice we’re trying to fill a gap in our reasoning here. Aren’t we?
And
You are filling the gap with magical reasoning.

I don't believe in magic. You are the one arguing for the existence of magic-throwing gods.

Now THAT is quite unfair. I nailed your reasoning and you resort to putting words in my mouth with the added spiteful inference that I’m being unreasonable. I’M NOT arguing for a magic throwing God. Or gods in any plural sense.
So again because your unfair assertion didn’t provide an answer…………..I ask

Your position….. Virtual particles just begin to exist without a cause…..magically!
My position….. We don’t know how they began to exist. And it seems like we hit a wall because our measurements to get at that cause mess up our attempts to determine the cause. So for now its indeterminate.
Which economy of reasoning is more prosperous on that?

That question was purely about virtual particles. Your last reply jumped the tracks. Even so it was still quite revealing.
So now with even more anticipation I await your answer to whose pov there is more reasonable?
Yours or mine?....and of course why?

And
I’m simply asserting we don’t know. It’s indeterministic.

You are rejecting the scientific consensus. According to your claims above, that means you believe the scientific consensus is false, and you are weighing your reasoning against that of the scientists.

Which consensus? Indeterminism over determinism…..or indeterminate means uncaused. You are extending your consensus assumption too far. And have provided no evidence for either consensus.
So….
No. I’m not rejecting the science. I’m rejecting….
1) Your assumed consensus. Provide some overwhelming evidence for that belief.
and
2) even if you could provide evidence for this overwhelming consensus for indeterminism over determinism. You then have the second level of burden regarding that….. is it the consensus view that indeterminism does not mean indeterminate, but actually determines that events are uncaused. What a twist!
Again…..
I think your assuming your consensus too far.

Do you see what I’m inferring…..
Do you recognize the reasoning pattern there?
So….
Whose position “sound”s more reasonable?

Mine is more reasonable. Bertrand Russell said something like this: "When the experts agree, the layman does well not to hold the opposite opinion. When the experts disagree, the layman does well not to hold any opinion."

You are taking on all of science, and claiming to be more reasonable than science.

You can forgive me for thinking my opinion to be the more reasonable.

I think you missed the pattern I was addressing….gotg. But I’ll save that for another time so…..
I find Russell’s reasoning very reasonable. Thus why I’m puzzled by why your reasoning runs so contrary to it. You are assuming your consensus for something from nothing. Yet seem unwilling to grant the consensus of the SBBM for which I presented evidence and support.

Logically the first cause needs no cause.

If experience dictates that things have causes, how can there have been a first cause?

Experience dictates that everything that “begins” to exist has a cause.

That doesn't seem to be true in the case of virtual particles. To claim that it's true in the teeth of scientific opinion is just weird.

There is scientific opinion both ways. So what is more reasonable…something from nothing or the cause is has not yet been determined….indeterminate? The more reasonable choice there is obvious. Remember I’m only trying to establish that the principle of cause and effect is more reasonable than something from nothing. Thus p1 is more reason then your something from nothing. I did warn you to tread easy here because to deny p1 places you in the unreasonable realm.

Reason dictates that the first cause therefore must be eternal.

How do you figure?

If not you would have an infinite regress. That is logic basic to the reasoning of a first cause.

If you intend to abandon the requirement that causes precede effects, then, logically, you must also abandon the claim that first causes don't have causes.

I’m not abandoning that causes precede their effects, I simply recognize that some causes are simultaneous to their effects.

I don't know what you think you're saying, but I read your words as saying this: Causes must come before effects, but no they don't.

No I did not ever reason that. Indeed most causes precede their effect. No causes follow their effects but some causes are simultaneous to their effects.

I mentioned this before. Simultaneous cause and effect. Think of a depression caused by a bowling ball placed on a cushion.

The motion of the ball is less than the speed of light. It's effect on the cushion happens at less than the speed of light. The cause (the motion of the ball) is conveyed to the effect (the compression of the cushion) at less than the speed of light.

We can't see the delay with the naked eye, but we are absolutely certain it's there. Cause precedes effect.

Then why do you assume a delay. That is what you are doing there. You are creating a , where there is no gap, and filling it with your assumption.

Thus, I don’t have to abandon that the first cause is uncaused.

……
If you don't require causes to precede effects, then we can say that a bullet hole caused a gun to go off.

That is the outcome of a False dilemma.

The only way you can avoid that kind of nonsense is to rely on our experience and accept that causes precede effects.

I do accept that. I recognize as well that some effects are simultaneous to their cause. I do not accept effects prior to their cause. Two out of three ain’t bad.
Now…….. if you are so willing to accept reasoning by overwhelming experience then….
Why can’t you rely on your experience to avoid the nonsense that virtual particles are uncaused? Looks like a double standard.

The two major candidates for the first cause are the paraverse or the mono-theistic God.

How'd you come up with those candidates?

It’s been a historical battle for millennia.

I have provided the age old history of the battle several times now.

You said some people used to think some stuff. You did not, as far as I could tell, make it relevant to our topic.

It is our topic, the search for a first cause Hence the KCA.

You may think that if you keep throwing the KCA against a wall, one day it will stick. But that's not going to happen until you figure out how to support your premises, to give people reasons for thinking they are true.

Now you’re are assuming your objections are correct. I have supported my premise. You have offered objections. I have just provided three posts of reasoning against them. Thus, it’s not over yet.
So now where are we?
Well
The ball is in your court to rescue the reasoning of your objections. You don’t just get to assume your objections were successful and declare the KCA unsound.

BTW your bicycle argument is invalid. In our progress here you have granted the KCA is valid. Thus the KCA is not analogous to your bicycle argument. That is the danger of arguing by analogy.

 

[Wiploc]

You challenged that by claiming you would defeat the KCA and thereby maintain that it is true the theists have no evidence for their beliefs.

I doubt that I made such a claim.

My position is that I'd love to see the KCA supported well. I'm willing to be convinced.

My prejudice is that, since I've never seen good support for the KCA before, I am unlikely to see such today.

But I don't think I claimed that I'll defeat it. I just won't be persuaded unless I see it properly supported.

... But you jump from the single hamburger to a rule that assumes ALL THINGS begin to exist. And that I certainly do not agree with. Because logically an eternal thing would have no beginning or end.

I believe you stipulated that time started. Time is part of the orange zone, and the orange zone, including time, started. There was, therefore, a first moment of time. Call it time zero.

Nothing existed before time zero. That is your claim.

If nothing existed before time zero, then everything began. God exists now, according to you, but he didn't exist before time zero. Therefore, god began.

Since you brought it up the rule for what it means to begin to exist is …..in the actual precise pedagogy.……..

"Pedagogy" is one of those words I have to look up over and over: "The function or work of a teacher." "The art or science of teaching. Instructional methods."

Some entity e comes into being at t if and only if (a) e exists at t, (b) t is the first time at which e exists, and (c) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact.

Right. If god existed at time zero, and didn't exist before that, then he began to exist. Since there was no before, gods couldn't have existed before. Therefore, he began to exist.

If you want an eternal god, you don't get to have finite time.

Thus I think we are on the same page on what it means to begin to exist. But given that it does not follow that all things begin to exist.

I'd think we were on the same page if you agreed that a finite timeline proves that everything that exists -- including gods, if they exist -- began.

I don't see why that isn't obvious.

...just because hamburgers begin to exist does not infer all things begin to exist.

I proposed a test, a way to tell if something begins. We ran the test on hamburgers, and it worked; it proved that hamburgers began.

We agree on the test in the abstract. We apply it to hamburgers, and we agree on the results. We apply it to gods and get the same result, but now you no longer accept the result.

That looks like special pleading. According to the hamburger test, which we agreed on, gods are begun. I don't understand why you're trying to distance yourself from the obvious result that gods are begun.

At this point, you are expected to introduce a different test. Call it test B. Then you can point out that according to Test A (the hamburger test) everything but your gods began, but according to test B, gods did not begin. Therefore, you will argue, god did not begin, but the rest of the allaverse did.

Then I will point out that you equivocated, using one test for god and another for things like hamburgers. Equivocation is a logical fallacy.

I will point out that if we stick to a single definition, then either gods began like everything else or nothing began.

There is no single meaning of "begin" for which gods don't begin but other things do.

With reason…I ask you……. how does “begin” relate to “eternal.” Seriously if something is eternal does it have a beginning? That is more than a question here in this context.

An eternal thing goes back forever, on and on endlessly, never beginning, an infinite regress, unbegun.

If you aren't unbegun, you can't be eternal.

It makes no sense to argue that time began and gods are unbegun. Such an argument, like the bicycle argument, contradicts itself.

If time began, everything else did too; nothing is eternal. If something is eternal, then time is also eternal.

The KCA claims both that time began and that some things are eternal. That is self contradiction. An argument that contradicts itself cannot be sound.

This isn’t over ….you still have work to do.

Has it started? I feel like I have to provide your side of the argument and refute it both.

You're supposed to argue that gods are eternal in some newfangled sense that doesn't involve time. And then I'm supposed to point out that -- assuming this new meaning of "eternal" makes sense at all -- we have as much reason to believe hamburgers are eternal as we do gods.

Once again, we have equivocation, two definitions of "eternal." And neither one of them works for your purposes.

If we stick to any single definition of "eternal," then gods are no more eternal than burgers.

The only way to make the KCA seem plausible is to two-step between different definitions of a word. That is equivocation, a logical fallacy.

Because the KCA relies on equivocation, it not sound. It is not even valid.

Of course God existed before time zero.

Nothing existed before time zero. That's what time zero is, the beginning of time, the time before which there was no time.

I think I’m “beginning” to see your misinterpretation here. You think God needs time to exist.

I think that if something doesn't exist at any time, then it doesn't exist.

God does not need time to exist. God is timeless sans creation. God is eternal. Time is a physical feature of this natural partaverse. God is supernatural…meaning beyond nature, beyond time. Thus time began to exist when the space-time continuum began to exist.

Like a hamburger, right?

Thus

"Thus"? There's no "thus." You're just making stuff up, tacking on conclusions you haven't begun to justify.

the cause of time had to be timeless, without beginning, eternal. Like God.

That's indefensible. Let's stick with the KCA.

Therefore the partaverse which is bound by time began to exist. God who was not bound by time but is eternal didn’t begin to exist.

I grant that you have access to a wealth of unfounded opinions, but that doesn't help your defense of the KCA.

That is the difference I think you have been missing. That is why I consider your reasoning ……because the partaverse begin to exist….the eternal God must as well…..is a non-sequitur.

We agreed on a test of whether things are begun, and your gods passed the test. Gods are begun.

The word "eternal" doesn't even mean anything if it doesn't mean infinite chronological regress.

Feel free to offer another meaning, one that makes gods eternal, but know that I will run the same test on my hamburger.

So at this point you have to burden to present reasoning as to why it is unreasonable that an eternal God can’t exist “before” the beginning of time. For that is the reasoning in the KCA.

So far, that is just nonsense. It's up to you to provide meaning so that your claim won't be mere gibberish. In what sense can a god be eternal if time is limited?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Sounds like remez is simply axiomatic about his god idea but wants it to sound sciency. Why is he going to the trouble? It's the same as trying to prove that the value of seven is seven. What's the point? Am I missing something?

 

[Wiploc]

Remez,

If I go on to respond to your other points now, we may spread ourselves to thin and never get anything resolved.

I think 163 addresses key points, points that, if not addressed, may make much of the rest of our discussion futile.

So I think I'll wait for your response to post 163.

 

[Wiploc]

If your gods exist, I don't see how they got started either. Can't measure them at all. So, for now, the beginnings of gods are indeterminate.

1) I have ignored this side point for too long. Thus I need to address it. You’re in discussion with a mono-theist and you know it. When you continually pluralize to gods, you place me in an awkward position….that if I respond without disclaimer, then I’m trying to reason for a plurality of gods. I’m not. So could you please respect the context here, and not force me to have repeatedly make this declaration.

Disclaimer noted. I apologize for the awkwardness.

I propose that we continue to talk past each other on this issue. I'll say "gods" and you'll say "God," and that way people will recognize that we aren't talking past each other accidentally and unknowingly. Rather, so that we can focus on the KCA, we are deliberately letting slide issues of which god(s) are under discussion.

I hope that this this is agreeable, and that it ends the awkwardness. I regret the awkwardness, and wish I had cleared the air on this issue sooner. Thank you for bringing it up.

 

[Lion IRC]

The KCA is not an argument for biblical monotheism.
It's not even an argument for theism per se.

Yes, its true, "Cause" can be a proxy for God/Gods.
But it can also be a proxy for the atheist computer programmer who wrote the totally non-theistic 'brain in a vat' software code that gives everyone the impression that we are living in a multiverse.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Look around at all the atheists trying to smuggle the word God into the KCA.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The KCA is not an argument for biblical monotheism.
It's not even an argument for theism per se.

cough, cough

 

[remez]

Remez,

If I go on to respond to your other points now, we may spread ourselves to thin and never get anything resolved.

I think 163 addresses key points, points that, if not addressed, may make much of the rest of our discussion futile.

So I think I'll wait for your response to post 163.

I concur.

Sorry for the delay. I'll be along asap.

 

[remez]

I believe you stipulated that time started. Time is part of the orange zone, and the orange zone, including time, started. There was, therefore, a first moment of time. Call it time zero.

Yes

Nothing existed before time zero. That is your claim.

My claim has always been God did.

If nothing existed before time zero, then everything began. God exists now, according to you, but he didn't exist before time zero.

Seriously how did you get that from me? I have always asserted that God is eternal. We are talking Christian mono-theism….thus God is eternal. Time is a part of our partaverse and began to exist. God who is eternal is the cause of time. God is timeless sans creation. He is in my opinion now temporal. But that is yet another issue and one that is more theological.

Perhaps you are missing understanding the theology that He created the universe from nothing.

Some entity e comes into being at t if and only if (a) e exists at t, (b) t is the first time at which e exists, and (c) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact.

Right. If god existed at time zero, and didn't exist before that, then he began to exist. Since there was no before, gods couldn't have existed before. Therefore, he began to exist.

If you want an eternal god, you don't get to have finite time.

I don’t see the conflict between eternal God and a finite time period…..that he created.
I'm confused as to why you would think that God didn’t exist “before” t-zero?
Theistically God existed timelessly then created time as part of the partaverse at t-zero.

Thus I think we are on the same page on what it means to begin to exist. But given that it does not follow that all things begin to exist.

I'd think we were on the same page if you agreed that a finite timeline proves that everything that exists -- including gods, if they exist -- began.

I don't see why that isn't obvious.

Why did an eternal and timeless God need time to exist?

...just because hamburgers begin to exist does not infer all things begin to exist.

I proposed a test, a way to tell if something begins. We ran the test on hamburgers, and it worked; it proved that hamburgers began.

We agree on the test in the abstract. We apply it to hamburgers, and we agree on the results.

Yes,

We apply it to gods and get the same result, but now you no longer accept the result.

You applied it to something temporal and reasoned you would get the same results for something that was timeless…..
Like………….
We can agree hamburgers are meat products therefore oranges are meat products.
You are switching categories.

That looks like special pleading. According to the hamburger test, which we agreed on, gods are begun. I don't understand why you're trying to distance yourself from the obvious result that gods are begun.

And oranges are meat products. You are special pleading if you don’t agree. I don’t understand how if we use your reasoning that oranges are not meat products. Comparing temporal to timeless is like comparing meat to fruit.

At this point, you are expected to introduce a different test. Call it test B. Then you can point out that according to Test A (the hamburger test) everything but your gods began, but according to test B, gods did not begin. Therefore, you will argue, god did not begin, but the rest of the allaverse did.

Test B is p1
Test B….Temporal things like hamburgers and oranges do begin to exist and thus have a cause. Eternal things like a steady state universe or God do not begin to exist thus have no cause.

Then I will point out that you equivocated, using one test for god and another for things like hamburgers. Equivocation is a logical fallacy.

p1 is the test. Everything (allaverse) that begins to exist has a cause.
One test……….Things begin or they don’t…….. directly inferred they are eternal in the past or not.
Hamburgers and oranges are not eternal thus began to exist. A steady state universe and God are eternal in the past, thus did not begin. One test. All things begin or not.

You just want to force that all things begin.

I will point out that if we stick to a single definition, then either gods began like everything else or nothing began.

And….stick……is not a test….that is you begging the definition. You have provided no reason or justification for that definition/assumption other than some hinted notion that eternal things can’t exist if time began.
And……..
That notion you would have to make explicit. I want to hear you out on that one.

There is no single meaning of "begin" for which gods don't begin but other things do.

You are conflating meaning with reasoning.

Begin has a single meaning. But there is a logical reasoning that some things begin and somethings don’t. Things that are eternal in the past like a steady state universe have no beginning. Hamburgers that are not eternal in the past have a beginning. The meaning of beginning there did not change.

With reason…I ask you……. how does “begin” relate to “eternal.” Seriously if something is eternal does it have a beginning? That is more than a question here in this context.

An eternal thing goes back forever, on and on endlessly, never beginning, an infinite regress, unbegun.

If you aren't unbegun, you can't be eternal.

It makes no sense to argue that time began and gods are unbegun. Such an argument, like the bicycle argument, contradicts itself.

If time began, everything else did too; nothing is eternal. If something is eternal, then time is also eternal.

The KCA claims both that time began and that some things are eternal. That is self contradiction. An argument that contradicts itself cannot be sound.

Quoted whole to retain context parsed below…

An eternal thing goes back forever, on and on endlessly, never beginning, an infinite regress, unbegun

Hold on….very important question…..an infinite regress of WHAT?

It makes no sense to argue that time began and gods are unbegun.

This is where you are confused to the tenants of theism and philosophy. I explained this above God does not need time to exist. God sans creation is timeless.

God is clearly supernatural….beyond nature. Nature is this partaverse. Time is a component of this partaverse. God is beyond the temporal partaverse. Time is in the orange circle. Sans the orange circle there was still the blue circle…not nothing at all. When we say God created the universe from nothing that does not mean God was not there. It means He created the universe from nothing. He created time, space, material, etc. from nothing. That is creation ex nihilo. It does not mean He was not there.

So why are you reasoning that God needs time to exist?

Such an argument, like the bicycle argument, contradicts itself.

Not if God is timeless sans creation.

If time began, everything else did too; nothing is eternal. If something is eternal, then time is also eternal.

Again you have not explained this. You just keep repeating your assumption that God needs time to exist. That is not a problem with the KCA. That is you defining theism out of existence. Which is what I was trying to show you earlier. You claim theism exists, but reason that it can’t exist by assuming that the theistic God needs time to exist.

The KCA claims both that time began and that some things are eternal. That is self contradiction. An argument that contradicts itself cannot be sound.

You are not denying the KCA you are denying theism as it really is. The KCA is a theistic argument. Theism clearly asserts that God existed outside of time and created time.

This isn’t over ….you still have work to do.

Has it started? I feel like I have to provide your side of the argument and refute it both.

You are not providing my side of the argument. You are providing a straw man theism. I addressed this earlier and you said that theism exists but then continued to argue against your straw man of theism that is contradictory. Based upon your straw man that God needs time to exist.

Again as I argued earlier. You converted theism into pantheism.

Once again, we have equivocation, two definitions of "eternal." And neither one of them works for your purposes.

If we stick to any single definition of "eternal," then gods are no more eternal than burgers.

And again you are conflating definition with reason.
Here…….
Definition………..I accept all 6 concepts.

in American English
(iˈtɜrnəl ; ɪˈtɜrnəl )
ADJECTIVE
1. without beginning or end; existing through all time; everlasting
2. of eternity
3. forever the same; always true or valid; unchanging
the eternal verities
4. always going on; never stopping; perpetual
eternal rest
5. seeming never to stop; happening very often
her eternal complaints
6. Philosophy and Theology
outside or beyond time or time relationships; timeless
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/eternal

Your reasoning both God and hamburger need time to exist. The problem isn’t the definition it is your reasoning that everything eternal needs time.
Particularly number 6 in the definition above labeled theology and philosophy…..” outside or beyond time or time relationships; timeless“ There is no contradiction or equivocation.

Before you attempt to raise contradiction between number 1 and number 6…… God exists through all time is fine. But that doesn’t mean time has always existed or that God’s existence is limited to time.

The only way to make the KCA seem plausible is to two-step between different definitions of a word. That is equivocation, a logical fallacy.

Because the KCA relies on equivocation, it not sound. It is not even valid.

Hold on. After addressing all of that above your conclusion needs further support, to say the least.

Of course God existed before time zero.

Nothing existed before time zero. That's what time zero is, the beginning of time, the time before which there was no time.

I agree with “That's what time zero is, the beginning of time, the time before which there was no time.”
But…………
Theism states God existed sans time. That is theism. So again you are really arguing that theism doesn’t exist. I can live with that, because that would bankrupt your economy of reason.

I think I’m “beginning” to see your misinterpretation here. You think God needs time to exist.

I think that if something doesn't exist at any time, then it doesn't exist.

Thus theism does not exist.

God does not need time to exist. God is timeless sans creation. God is eternal. Time is a physical feature of this natural partaverse. God is supernatural…meaning beyond nature, beyond time. Thus time began to exist when the space-time continuum began to exist.

Like a hamburger, right?

Nope. The hamburger is part of the partaverse…..thus began to exist. God is not part of the partaverse, but He is part of your allaverse. You are the one begging the question here because by your reasoning the allaverse and partaverse are the same thing, because each needs time to exist. You are creating a straw man out of the KCA when you do that and converting theism to pantheism.

the cause of time had to be timeless, without beginning, eternal. Like God.

That's indefensible. Let's stick with the KCA.

If theism doesn’t exist then it makes no sense to debate the theistic KCA.

Therefore the partaverse which is bound by time began to exist. God who was not bound by time but is eternal didn’t begin to exist.

I grant that you have access to a wealth of unfounded opinions, but that doesn't help your defense of the KCA.

I admit that it is unreasonable to defend the theistic KCA if theism doesn’t exist in your reasoning. Hence why I focused on redressing your straw man of theism.

That is the difference I think you have been missing. That is why I consider your reasoning ……because the partaverse begin to exist….the eternal God must as well…..is a non-sequitur.

We agreed on a test of whether things are begun, and your gods passed the test. Gods are begun.

Careful now…you are putting words to my reasoning that you misunderstood. I addressed that above. temporal vs timeless.

The word "eternal" doesn't even mean anything if it doesn't mean infinite chronological regress.

Now compare that opinion with the common definition I provided above. Your opinion needs drastic support.

Feel free to offer another meaning, one that makes gods eternal, but know that I will run the same test on my hamburger.

I gave you six.

So at this point you have to burden to present reasoning as to why it is unreasonable that an eternal God can’t exist “before” the beginning of time. For that is the reasoning in the KCA.

So far, that is just nonsense. It's up to you to provide meaning so that your claim won't be mere gibberish. In what sense can a god be eternal if time is limited?

I did above. Now you need to address your gibberish that eternal infers that time is a necessary component to be eternal. Especially number 6.

 

[DBT]

Ahem, much of that is setting your own terms and conditions regardless of logic or physics. It is not known whether time had a beginning or not, if God, whatever that is, can be said to be eternal, so can the universe: branes, multiverse, cyclic, etc.....

 

[James Brown]

If a timeless God exists, and then decides to create a universe, and then creates the universe, it sure seems like God is flowing along time like the rest of us before time began to exist.

Although I suppose I could claim that God is able to exist in time before time exists, and thus declare the problem solved.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Funny how the Christian apologists can define their favorite god while maintaining that his ("HIS"!!) ways are inscrutable when horrible things happen. (I emphasize the his because this god self-defines as male, which still strikes me as the single goofiest thing about 'him'.) The claims about his nature, his omniscience, timelessness, etc., remind me of Siegel and Shuster at DC Comics, back in '38, when they created Superman. "So, what powers do we want to give him? He can fly, he can go back in time, he can see through things...what else?"
BTW, if we're in some sense made in His image, and he's that old, and he's a dude, does he have ED issues? Is that part of the anger issues? Is that part of the extra burden put on women?

 

[Wiploc]

Originally Posted by Wiploc

I believe you stipulated that time started. Time is part of the orange zone, and the orange zone, including time, started. There was, therefore, a first moment of time. Call it time zero.

Yes

Originally Posted by Wiploc

Nothing existed before time zero. That is your claim.

My claim has always been God did.

And that's a stumper. I don't know where to go from here.

Imagine this conversation:

=== begin conversation Joe and Sara's conversation ===

Joe: "County Road 7 runs just one mile. It starts at mile zero, and runs to mile one. The county ran out of money, so the road just stops.

Sara: "CR7 stops at mile one?"

Joe: "Yes, it does. I have always said it does."

Sara: "Then why do you say you came from mile 73?"

Joe: "I have always said I'm from mile 73."

Sara: "If the road stops at mile one, there is no mile 73."

Joe: "You're saying I don't exist. Don't dismiss my religion. My religion is the topic of discussion, so you shouldn't dismiss it out of hand."

Sara: No, I'm not dismissing your existence. I see you right here. You definitely exist. Please quit saying that I'm dismissing your existence. I just want to know how you square your claim to be from mile 73 when you yourself say that there is no mile 73."

Joe: "There is no mile 73 for hamburgers. What part of this are you not understanding? Why do you keep bringing pantheism into this?"

Sara: "What is pantheism? No, don't answer that; I don't want to change the subject. Our subject is this: How can there be a mile 73 if the road stops at mile one?"

Joe: "Now you are denying my existence again."

=== end Joe and Sara's conversation ===

I hope you can see why Sara is confused, and that you can relate her confusion to my own.

If time only goes back as far as time zero, how can it go back further?

If time zero is the first moment, how can god exist before that?

If there is no time before time zero, how can god exist at times before time zero?

Do you see why I'm confused?

I've been discussing this on the internet for as long as the internet existed, and you are the first person I've run across to take the position that time began and that god existed before time began.

I can't make sense of that claim.

Could you make sense of the claim that I've been on the internet since before the internet existed?

I'm not arguing pantheism. I'm not denying that theists exist. I'm just asking you to make sense of your claim that god existed before time began.

It doesn't seem to make sense. It seems impossible on the face of it. I could just declare you to be obviously wrong, and then wash my hands of this discussion.

But what I'm trying to do, in as many ways as I can, is encourage you to explain what you're really thinking. Try to rephrase, or come at it from a different angle. Anything.

Because you cannot live on mile 73 of a highway that stops at mile one.

 

[DBT]

Maybe 'time' should be defined, incuding what a state of timelessness might look like.

 

[Wiploc]

Maybe 'time' should be defined...

There was a sci-fi story in the 60's. A big game hunter used a time machine to go back and shoot a dinosaur. It seemed to take a long time for the beast to fall over and die.

There was a line, something like, "Maybe there should be a less painful medium of change than time."

I've never run across a better definition than that: Time is the medium of change.

 

[DBT]

Maybe 'time' should be defined...

There was a sci-fi story in the 60's. A big game hunter used a time machine to go back and shoot a dinosaur. It seemed to take a long time for the beast to fall over and die.

There was a line, something like, "Maybe there should be a less painful medium of change than time."

I've never run across a better definition than that: Time is the medium of change.

So, presumably, being outside of time - timeless/eternal - means no change, unchanging/nothing ever happens, no thoughts, feelings or actions.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You guys are forgetting that gods are magic, and with magic all things are possible.

 

[hyzer]

“My god goes to eleven”

 

[Learner]

I hope you can see why Sara is confused, and that you can relate her confusion to my own.

If time only goes back as far as time zero, how can it go back further?

If time zero is the first moment, how can god exist before that?

If there is no time before time zero, how can god exist at times before time zero?

Do you see why I'm confused?

Because you cannot live on mile 73 of a highway that stops at mile one.

But what if Joe was Lord of the Town, which he built with the 1 mile road, in the middle of a desert? All those in his town use the road and life is ok even when the road is short. In THIS scenarion Joe has a higher status than Sara because he also made the rules in his town that everyone can live by (it's sort of Adam and Eve in yours). He can also go beyond the barrier because being the only pilot, he flies a biplane. Sara always looks forward to seeing Joe when he's back in town ... because thats where those sort-after pineapples come from, 73 miles away.