If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[Keith&Co.]

So, if gods are fiction, then gods began to exist.
So to support the KCA,\(1\) one still has to produce any evidence at all that gods have an existence independent of their followers.
Thus, the KCA cannot be that proof.


\(1\)You can still present the KCA without any such evidence, of course. Fanfiction is a first amendment right, after all. It's just not too compelling.

 

[remez]

And again I point out that your contradiction fails here…………….

How so?

God existed “before” time…………..

I don't know what you think you're doing with the scare quotes. They are scare quotes, right?

Yes as explained in post 281………. “Now
Please notice I intentionally used the word “before“ there only to clarify the thought. Technically the word “before” creates a contradiction…but perhaps it made the point clearer for you. The proper way to say the God existed “before” time is the God is timeless sans time, because using the word before creates a contradiction. But for clarity here with you I will use the word “before” in quotation marks to hopefully make it clearer.”

We did establish that, in you theory, time began, and nothing happened before the beginning of time?

Absolutely. But that does not exclude God’s existing timelessly. After all, logically the cause of time must be timeless. It is less reasonable to think that time created itself or that that is just began to exist without an efficient cause out of nothing.

If you mean that god existed before time, then you are talking indefensible gibberish.

Why? I just defended it immediately above. The cause of time must be timeless. So how is it that….. either of the other two theories is more reasonable? They are the ones that are gibberish.

If you mean that god did not exist before time, then you contradict yourself if you say he didn't begin.

I have reasonable certainty that God existed timelessly sans the universe which is the beginning of time. Meaning that God existed “before” time, because logically he is the timeless cause of time.

Pick one.

I absolutely have……………

1. Time had a timeless cause.
2. Time created itself out of nothing.
3. Time just began without a cause.

I have clearly chosen 1 and defended it. If you don’t feel that 1 is the most reasonable then tell me which of the others is more reasonable….and….why?

Pick one. And defend it.

Let’s see where the gibberish plays out.

If you keep insisting that god existed "before" time, it seems like you're waffling, trying to have it both ways.

I am reasoning that God existed “before” time. Clearly. So what other way am I attempting to have?

It’s easy for you to just assert that choice 1 is gibberish. But try to present something that addresses the issue that is less gibberish. The soundness of the premise depends on whether your alternative is more reasonable than mine. Remember I’m not claiming absolute certainty. I’m claiming that my position on this is more reasonable than the alternatives. Thus I have good reason to believe it.

You are the one that offers nothing here but criticism of the most reasonable position. Pick one and make it more reasonable than mine. You said you would show me where I’m wrong not just assert it. To defeat the premise you must provide a more reasonable alternative. Because ....... Why should I abandon my reasonable belief unless you can give me a better one?

You have agreed that things which exist at some time but not before that time begin.

Yes.

And you have agreed that your god existed at some time but not before that time.

No.
No.
No.
God has always existed. He did not need time to exist.

Therefore, according to your own logic, your god began.

You are continually asserting that line of reasoning……..lets put it in a syllogism.....this is

P1 You (remez) have agreed that things which exist at some time but not before that time begin.
p2 And you (remez) have agreed that your god existed at some time but not before that time.
c Therefore, according to your (remez) own logic, your god began.

And I’m continually countering your p2. I have not agreed to p2. Thus the conclusion does not necessarily follow.

And you cannot save your syllogistic reasoning there because p2 is clearly false I do not agree.

If you keep insisting that god didn't begin but did "begin," that's just incoherent word salad. Whatever your point is, if you have one, you aren't making it.

I have never said God begins to exist. I continue to reason….that which is eternal….means that which did not begin. If the universe were eternal into the past then it would not have a beginning, thus it would logically not have a cause. The logic is the simple and coherent.

The light wasn't green but it was "green," isn't going to keep the defendant from getting convicted of blowing a stop light. That ghost of an argument is not in the least persuasive.

How does that juxtapose with God never begun to exist because logically something that is eternal logically means it did not begin to exist because it has always existed.

You are somehow forcing me to say God began to exist. I don’t see your reasoning for this, because we do agree on what it means to “begin to exist. But that does not mean that I conclude that God didn’t exist “before” time zero. You are forcing the green not green.

What you need to do -- and we both hate when I have to do your work for you -- is redefine "begin."

I don’t need to. It completely fits with my reasoning.
You need to tell me why and eternal entity needs to begin to exist.

You could say something begins if:
a) it exists at a some time but not before that time, and
b) it also doesn't exist "before" that time.

I don't think part (b) is coherent. I don't think it means anything.

I concur….that would be incoherent. But again there is no conflict with the common understanding we were using. You are the one trying to force a beginning on something that is eternal, which is incoherent.

But at least you wouldn't still be contradicting yourself.

Again to reach that conclusion……You are forcing upon me that I agreed that God began to exist and didn’t begin to exist. Well……….the contradiction isn’t there because I never agreed that God began to exist. God is the eternal one. He did not begin to exist. Therefore he does not have a cause.

But so long as you maintain that anything begins if it exists at a time but not before that time, then, since you say that time began, you must logically conclude that any gods that exist began.

Again God and time are not the same thing. God is eternal. Time is not. Thus time has a beginning and a cause. God is eternal and has logically no beginning and therefore no cause. He is the first cause.

See ….you are trying to force the reasoning that since time began then God began. That is a non-sequitur. If one is eternal and the other is not why must each be forced to have a beginning?

 

[remez]

We all know that there was a time before there was time. Nothing could make more religious sense.

It's like the something / nothing argument. Look around and there is literally and scientifically something everywhere. It's just a brute fact of reality. But now put on your religious fantasy hat and you will see that because there is something everywhere then there must be nothing somewhere too. Understand the religious, magical logic there?

So time is the same way. Because time is universal then there must be a religious place where there isn't any time. That's the religious logic, that somewhere out there is a timeless nothingness which proves that gods are real. I rest my case for gods. Genius.

The main problem you have there is that YOU have invented one of the dumbest ways to think about this and then straw manned it to “religious folks.” Get real.

I have provided reasoning (supported by science) to believe that the universe and thus time began to exist. Thus it supports my theistic beliefs that God exists and created the universe. That is nothing in kind to your foolish straw man.

 

[remez]

Remez, I had a thought.

As I was getting dressed this morning, rehearsing/inventing arguments in my head, I thought something like, "You made up this god, and then you made up that he was eternal."

Suddenly I realized that I could have said something like that earlier in this conversation, and you could have taken the "you" as meaning you personally. Let me assure you that I don't think you (personally) invented the theist gods. I think that you theists (as a group) invented gods.

Your many lectures about how theists have always believed such-and-such may be a response to me saying, "You made that up."

I stipulate that you are not the first to believe in an eternal god.

And while I cannot stipulate that all theists have always believed in an eternal god, or even that some theists have always believed in an eternal god, I can stipulate that many theists have long believed in an eternal god.

Hold on. You are missing the importance of the eternal here. Isn’t it reasonable in order to avoid an infinite regress to reason that the first cause had to be eternal?
Also….
Tell me how and why so many prominent scientists have reasoned that the universe is eternal and the first cause. Did they just make it up? Einstein, Hoyle, Sagan…etc.

 

[Wiploc]

If you mean that god existed before time, then you are talking indefensible gibberish. [emphasis added]

Why? I just defended it immediately above. The cause of time must be timeless. So how is it that….. either of the other two theories is more reasonable? They are the ones that are gibberish.

Before tackling the whole post, I just want to get clear on the bit above.

I think you missed the fact that I didn't put "before" in quotes, and that if you had noticed that, you would be agreeing with me that god did not exist before time. You don't mean to say that god existed before time, but you do mean to say that god existed "before" time.

Do I have that right?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

We all know that there was a time before there was time. Nothing could make more religious sense.

It's like the something / nothing argument. Look around and there is literally and scientifically something everywhere. It's just a brute fact of reality. But now put on your religious fantasy hat and you will see that because there is something everywhere then there must be nothing somewhere too. Understand the religious, magical logic there?

So time is the same way. Because time is universal then there must be a religious place where there isn't any time. That's the religious logic, that somewhere out there is a timeless nothingness which proves that gods are real. I rest my case for gods. Genius.

The main problem you have there is that YOU have invented one of the dumbest ways to think about this and then straw manned it to “religious folks.” Get real.

I have provided reasoning (supported by science) to believe that the universe and thus time began to exist. Thus it supports my theistic beliefs that God exists and created the universe. That is nothing in kind to your foolish straw man.

Inventing scientifically dumb things like timeless nothingness is the sole domain of kooky religious mystics. These gods are now beyond the universe completely, not hanging out on mountains, talking to people from the sky or even living in statues anymore.

 

[hyzer]

We all know that there was a time before there was time. Nothing could make more religious sense.

It's like the something / nothing argument. Look around and there is literally and scientifically something everywhere. It's just a brute fact of reality. But now put on your religious fantasy hat and you will see that because there is something everywhere then there must be nothing somewhere too. Understand the religious, magical logic there?

So time is the same way. Because time is universal then there must be a religious place where there isn't any time. That's the religious logic, that somewhere out there is a timeless nothingness which proves that gods are real. I rest my case for gods. Genius.

The main problem you have there is that YOU have invented one of the dumbest ways to think about this and then straw manned it to “religious folks.” Get real.

I have provided reasoning (supported by science) to believe that the universe and thus time began to exist. Thus it supports my theistic beliefs that God exists and created the universe. That is nothing in kind to your foolish straw man.

Inventing scientifically dumb things like timeless nothingness is the sole domain of kooky religious mystics. These gods are now beyond the universe completely, not hanging out on mountains, talking to people from the sky or even living in statues anymore.

This is so amazing. Not a god, but THE God! Better than all the rest! Outside of the universe but also part of it! Not subject to examination, but perfectly clear to this God's followers! Capable of doing anything but leaving no trace! Timeless, eternal! This description / definition is iron-clad! This God's definition has a "double-secret-probation" clause. This God goes to 11.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Genesis 6:5-6 sorta indicates that God is bound by time -- it's the spot where he sees the wickedness of man and is "sorry that he made man upon the earth." Then of course he kills them all except his family of pet sitters. This god, then, is a sort of absent-minded satrap in the back waters of the Middle East. Things didn't turn out the way he intended, so, 'kill 'em all and let me sort out the pieces.'
However, I am sure, beyond the faintest doubt, that there's a way for obsessed home-schooled scripture readers to reconcile all this with omniscient knowledge. The story must be defended!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Inventing scientifically dumb things like timeless nothingness is the sole domain of kooky religious mystics. These gods are now beyond the universe completely, not hanging out on mountains, talking to people from the sky or even living in statues anymore.

This is so amazing. Not a god, but THE God! Better than all the rest! Outside of the universe but also part of it! Not subject to examination, but perfectly clear to this God's followers! Capable of doing anything but leaving no trace! Timeless, eternal! This description / definition is iron-clad! This God's definition has a "double-secret-probation" clause. This God goes to 11.

All gods are just the people who invent them. This is obviously why they know so much about their gods. The remez god is no different than any other. Lots of people invent gods and adopt gods because it's a very natural thing for humans to invent fantasy creatures. Even the god-adopters know things about their adopted god that the inventors don't, explaining why there are so many and why the same one is so different to each person.

And then there's a "god's will." If my kid gets killed by a drunk driver it's god's will. I can look at the sky and say "your will be done" while I sit for another round of chemo. Essentially making your feelings and desires into a god can be quite empowering. What a person then does with that power is something different entirely.

 

[Wiploc]

God existed “before” time…………..

I stipulate that you think gods existed "before" time, whatever that means (assuming for the sake of argument that it has meaning). But you agree that god didn't exist before time.

Therefore, you are contradicting yourself.

We defined begin:

=== begin definition of begin ===

Let X be a thing, any thing.

Let T be a point in time.

Definition of begin: If X existed at some time T, but not before time T, then X began at time T.

=== end definition of begin ===

That's not how I phrased it before, but I hope you'll agree that this phrasing retains the meaning with less ambiguity.

Now you say that your god exists at times. (Maybe at all times, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. I assume you think it exists now.)

And you say that time began. There is a time, T zero, before which nothing existed.

So let's plug your god into the formula:

If your god existed at some time T, but not before time T, then your god began at time T.

So, logically, your god began. According to our agreed definition of "begin," your god began.

Since you insist that your god did not begin, even though, by definition, he did, you have contradicted yourself.

Your defense is that your god didn't exist before time T, but it did exist "before" time T.

That's not a defense. You're agreeing to a definition which makes your god begun, and then you're protesting that that somehow shouldn't count because your god exists "before" time even though he doesn't exist before time.

But the definition talks about before, not about "before". In our agreed definition, whether god existed "Before" has no influence on whether it began.

You agree to a definition which makes your god begun, and yet you say it is not begun. Thus, you contradict yourself.

Please notice I intentionally used the word “before“ there only to clarify the thought.

It doesn't clarify; it muddies.

Technically the word “before” creates a contradiction…

So you agree that you contradict yourself.

but perhaps it made the point clearer for you.

No, not at all.

The proper way to say the God existed “before” time is the God is timeless sans time,

What would be proper about that? It doesn't make any more sense than the other.

Is "timeless sans time" an attempt to distinguish sans time timelessness from timelessness with time?

Would "god existed timelessly" be distinguishable from "god existed at no time"?

because using the word before creates a contradiction. But for clarity here with you I will use the word “before” in quotation marks to hopefully make it clearer.”

Gibberish is never clear.

... After all, logically the cause of time must be timeless.

You made that up.

Let me be clear that I don't think you personally made that up. I believe that you (personally) are repeating a claim that is based on nothing, that is unsupportable, that never has been and never will be supported effectively.

"You made that up," is my reflexive response to patently absurd and indefensible claims.

You may read it this way: "I think your claim is outrageous, patently absurd. I don't imagine any possible way it can be supported. But you'll have my full attention if you try."

Note that you cannot defend your claim by saying other people believe it, "Theists have always believed that logically the cause of time must be timeless." The only way you could defend the claim would be by showing that logically the cause of time must be timeless.

1. Time had a timeless cause.
2. Time created itself out of nothing.
3. Time just began without a cause.

I have clearly chosen 1 and defended it. If you don’t feel that 1 is the most reasonable then tell me which of the others is more reasonable….and….why?

You have clearly chosen 1. You haven't defended it; you just stated the claim.

You are the affirmative. You are the one stating the claim. You are the one with the burden of proof.

You can't just make up a couple of alternatives, imply that one of the three must be true, and claim that this makes yours the likely one. You have to actually show that your claim is probably true.

Until you do that, I don't have to do anything other than point out that you haven't made your case.

I am reasoning that God existed “before” time. Clearly. So what other way am I attempting to have?

You say your god exists during time but not before. And you agree that things that exist at a time that they don't exist before began.
That makes your god begun.

You don't like that, so you put "before" in quotes to try to sort of have him begin and sort of have him not. You're trying to have it both ways.

At least that's what it seems like to me.

It’s easy for you to just assert that choice 1 is gibberish. But try to present something that addresses the issue that is less gibberish.

I'm not the affirmative. I don't know how everything started, or if it started. I'm not making an assertion.

You are the one making an assertion. You are the one with the burden of proof.

Step up with your proof if you have one. Don't keep trying to shift the burden to me.

The soundness of the premise depends on whether your alternative is more reasonable than mine.

The soundness of a premise depends entirely on whether it is true. You have undertaken to show that this premise is true.

Remember I’m not claiming absolute certainty. I’m claiming that my position on this is more reasonable than the alternatives. Thus I have good reason to believe it.

If you have good reason, why don't you share it with us?

You don't need to claim absolute certainty. You just have to move the needle. If you can't show that you are probably correct, then you fail to defend your claim.

You are the one that offers nothing here but criticism of the most reasonable position.

I offer criticism of your position. Why should we believe that your position is right?

Suppose I say that you should pay me a hundred thousand dollars.
And suppose you ask why I should believe that.
And suppose I offer a trilemma:

1. You should pay me a hundred thousand dollars.
2. Time created itself out of nothing.
3. You should pay me a hundred million dollars.

I say that, of those three, number 1 is clearly the most reasonable position. Which it is.

Does this mean that, assuming you cannot prove options 2 or 3, that you actually should pay me a hundred thousand dollars?

No, it doesn't. Because I haven't proved that choice 1 is true.

You can't prove that your first option is true by producing alternatives that are arguably less attractive. In order to prove that #1 is true, you have to actually prove that #1 is true.

Pick one and make it more reasonable than mine.

No. I don't have the burden of proving how some things began. You are the one claiming that you can do that. You have the burden of proof.

Only if you demonstrate that your claim is probably true will I have the burden of providing a plausible alternative.

You said you would show me where I’m wrong not just assert it.

You haven't made your case. You won't even talk about the subject we're supposed to be discussing. You want to beg the question of whether the Kalam Cosmological Argument works so that you can discuss other things.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy.

If you want to prove something, you have to actually prove it, not just change the subject.

To defeat the premise you must provide a more reasonable alternative.

You undertook to prove that the KCA works, but you assiduously avoid the subject.

Because ....... Why should I abandon my reasonable belief unless you can give me a better one?

If you have a reasonable belief, why don't you share your reasoning? So far, you have not made a reasonable argument. Mostly, I have to make up your arguments for you.

You have agreed that things which exist at some time but not before that time begin.

Yes.

And you have agreed that your god existed at some time but not before that time.

No.
No.
No.
God has always existed. He did not need time to exist.

But, as you agree, he didn't exist before time zero. So, according to the definition that you also agree with, your god began.

Therefore, according to your own logic, your god began.

You are continually asserting that line of reasoning……..lets put it in a syllogism.....this is

P1 You (remez) have agreed that things which exist at some time but not before that time begin.
p2 And you (remez) have agreed that your god existed at some time but not before that time.
c Therefore, according to your (remez) own logic, your god began.

And I’m continually countering your p2. I have not agreed to p2. Thus the conclusion does not necessarily follow.

No, not continually. You waffle.

And at your best, you still say your god didn't exist before time but only "before" it.

P2 makes no mention of "before". It is only about before.

And you cannot save your syllogistic reasoning there because p2 is clearly false I do not agree.

Sometimes you don't agree. Other times you clearly admit that you would be contradicting yourself if you didn't agree.

It's like you're trying to have it both ways.

... I continue to reason….that which is eternal….means that which did not begin. If the universe were eternal into the past then it would not have a beginning, thus it would logically not have a cause. The logic is the simple and coherent.

I don't see the logic. Wouldn't an eternal regress have more causes than a finite regress? With a finite regress, there would be a limit to causation, a beginning.

You are somehow forcing me to say God began to exist.

No, no, I'm pointing out that the normal definition of "begin" won't suffice for you if time began.

Bertrand Russell said that people don't accept newfangled definition of truth until they see no hope of rescuing the regular definition.

I'm showing you that, since the regular definition of "begin" makes your god begun, you need a new definition, something that will make your god unbegun.

I don’t see your reasoning for this, because we do agree on what it means to “begin to exist.

You baffle me. According to our agreed definition, your god did begin. Why do you cling to it when it destroys your argument?

You need to tell me why and eternal entity needs to begin to exist.

If we agree that "eternal" means unbegun, or at least entails the lack of a beginning, then it follows that eternal things don't begin.

So they do not need to begin.

However, we are agreed that things that exist at some time, but that don't exist before that time, are begun. And you say your god does exist at some times. And you agree that your god didn't exist before time. Therefore, by definition, your god began. He existed at a time, but not before that time.

So he began.

And if we agree that begun things are not eternal, then your god is not eternal.

So your god is not eternal. Yet you also say he is. Thus you contradict yourself.

You're trying to have it both ways.

You are the one trying to force a beginning on something that is eternal, which is incoherent.

I merely point out that if we use the normal definition of begin, your god began.

If you don't like that, you should change to a god that didn't begin (perhaps by having it never exist in time) or change definitions of begin, perhaps by allowing an escape clause for gods. "To begin is to be a non-god that exists at some time but does not exist before that time."

See ….you are trying to force the reasoning that since time began then God began.

I'm not forcing anything. I'm pointing out that, so long as we use our agreed definition of begin, and so long as your god existed at some time but not before time, then your god began.

 

[Wiploc]

Genesis 6:5-6 sorta indicates that God is bound by time -- it's the spot where he sees the wickedness of man and is "sorry that he made man upon the earth." Then of course he kills them all except his family of pet sitters. This god, then, is a sort of absent-minded satrap in the back waters of the Middle East. Things didn't turn out the way he intended, so, 'kill 'em all and let me sort out the pieces.'
However, I am sure, beyond the faintest doubt, that there's a way for obsessed home-schooled scripture readers to reconcile all this with omniscient knowledge. The story must be defended!

Well, if that story is true, it's clear that god cannot be omniscient. So maybe he's "omniscient"?

 

[skepticalbip]

I have found that god is quite plastic. He becomes whatever the believer needs him to be to support whatever argument they are trying to make. The fact that the argument becomes self-contradictory is no problem for the believer because god is plastic enough to be both sides of the contradiction at the same time.

 

[James Brown]

Indeed. But we don't say something is self-contradictory. We call it 'mysterious' and 'ineffable' and that helps us feel better about what we've already decided we want to be true.

 

[ideologyhunter]

You can say whatever you please about an entity that's:
a) dead
b) invisible
c) imaginary
d) magical
e) self-contradictory

 

[abaddon]

You can say whatever you please about an entity that's:
a) dead
b) invisible
c) imaginary
d) magical
e) self-contradictory

f) supernatural

 

[Learner]

..............

G) Unfathomable

 

[Learner]

I have found that god is quite plastic. He becomes whatever the believer needs him to be to support whatever argument they are trying to make. The fact that the argument becomes self-contradictory is no problem for the believer because god is plastic enough to be both sides of the contradiction at the same time.

Fair to say, some of you have some pretty unique ideas yourselves.

 

[DBT]

All we have is a word: God A word to which we attach unverifiable significance and meaning.

 

[Learner]

Should be "quite easy to put it all to bed" then, but I think some of you prefer to continue on, for the love of debating

 

[DBT]

Should be "quite easy to put it all to bed" then, but I think some of you prefer to continue on, for the love of debating

It is the believer who keeps the faith alive. It is the believer who endorses a holy book, be it the Qur'an, Bible, Gita, by placing their faith in its teachings.