If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[remez]

I now think that you are giving, "6. ...outside or beyond time or time relationships; timeless," as your definition of "eternal." Can you expound or explicate? I'd like to know what you think that means.

It has always been the theistic view that God created this universe, which means time, space and matter. Thus God has always existed even though time has not. Hence time is a subset of the eternal.

Yours isn't wrong. Yours was unknown. Maybe that is in part because you were previously, or intermittently taking the position that gods existed before time. Are you now abandoning that position in favor of this timeless thing?

Parsed……….

Yours isn't wrong.

I know. You just seemed like you were forcing God to be part of the universe, regarding time. You seemed to be forcing eternal to be only existent if time exists. Theism has never had this view. We‘ve been battling on this since we began our discussion began. Your version of theism isn’t theism it’s a straw man.

Yours was unknown.

To you, but not to the theist. That’s again why I was referring to the historical understanding as to what theism actually is. God is eternal time is not. Theism 101.

Maybe that is in part because you were previously, or intermittently taking the position that gods existed before time.

God not gods. I have always taken the position that God existed “before” time.

Are you now abandoning that position in favor of this timeless thing?

Not sure what you think I’m abandoning, because I have repeatedly proclaimed the God is timeless "before" the universe. Specifically God is timeless "before" time.

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.

I was addressing the reasoning we each had to be using different ….familiar “uses.” And you faulted me for doing that, in favor of just assuming you were right and I was wrong.

If I did that, I was wrong. I thought I was beating a definition out of you because you were uncooperatively keeping it a secret.

I didn’t think you were intentionally doing that just to be contrary. I realized you didn’t have an accurate understanding of theism. Thus I had no secret thing going on there. I have been trying to establish with you what theism is.

So can we reason this out or are do we just have to accept your familiar use?

You are the affirmative. You have the burden of proof. You get to carry that burden in words of your choice.

Of course I do. But what is it I have to prove. Because as I see it we are just trying to clear up our different perceptions on what theism actually is. The KCA is completely secondary at this point. Because the KCA is a theistic argument. So if your understanding is that theism proclaims that God is limited be time like pantheism then KCA would be senseless. I been attempting to show you that theism does not limit God to time. Never has. Theism 101.

On the other hand, the word you have chosen is problematic, and I don't have the equivalent of "allaverse" and "partaverse" handy to distinguish between the more common meaning and the meaning that I don't yet understand.

Precisely.

I'm used to Christians saying that god goes back in time as far as time goes, and then, at that point, he does some inexplicable thing like turning at right angles to time, and somehow having an infinitely continuing regression of cause and effect that happens without any time passing.

Parsed…..

I'm used to Christians saying that god goes back in time as far as time goes,

That is your misperception, because you take that to mean the God is limited to time. Because as that is stated it is correct, God “goes back” as far as time goes……. AND MORE. Time began, thus God “goes back” to when time began and existed eternally “before” time began because he created time. Theism 101. Not something I’m making up

and then, at that point, he does some inexplicable thing like turning at right angles to time, and somehow having an infinitely continuing regression of cause and effect that happens without any time passing.

God existed “before” time so how does that create a regression of cause and effect?

But you took the contrary position that time goes back only as far as the big bang, but that things happened before that anyway. As I said earlier, in my experience, you're the only one who ever did this.

1) “but that things happened before that anyway.” …what did I say happened “before” time?
2) That is theism…..not particular only to me. This understanding is not new to theists….but it does seem new to you, because you misinterpreted basic theism.

So, in my perception, (a) were not on the timelessness bandwagon, and (b) you resented it when I provided your arguments for you so that I could refute them. So I've been trying to get you to see the conflict between a timely eternity and a beginning of time.

Yes you did present the argument in your “way” to refute it. But the “way” you presented it contained a misperception of actual theism. Your objection (regarding beginning, time, eternal) to the KCA rested upon your misperception of theism. That has been what I’m trying to clear up. Theism in no way limits God to time. Never has.
So
Your attempt to refute the KCA there, rested upon a straw man of theism. Again I didn’t resent it. I’ve been trying to clarify the misperception…..an unintentional straw man.

I reasoned “exsiting through all time” to mean time is a subset of the eternal. Clearly supported by d6.

I'm not with you. Time is supposed to be a subset of timeless?

No time is a subset of the eternal. God was timeless “before” he created time. That is theism. Do you deny that theism asserts that God created this universe…..time? If you don’t then God had to exist “before” time, because he created time. Again that is Theism 101.

I don’t think you were ever truly “familiar” with the theistic reasoning here, hence your assumed “use.” Thus why I continually referenced the history of this reasoning. Not in any way to proclaim that I’m smarter than you. (Sorry about that unintended perception. ) But to sincerely support that my position was common and point out that I’m not making this up.

Forget it. Not a problem. Though I think you often overstate your case about how much historical people agreed with your current position.

Parsed….

Forget it. Not a problem.

Great.

Though I think you often overstate your case about how much historical people agreed with your current position.

You assert that as if this is some kind of subjective consensus debate. The point there is I was presenting theism as it actually is. Granted many Christians have no clue to the understanding of what theism is as well. But I giving you what theism is, not my opinion. You just want your straw man of theism to exist so you can easily defeat it.

Theism would not make sense, or even exist, if the eternal was restricted to time.

Case in point.

Then your case against the KCA is based upon a straw man of theism.

 

[remez]

Logically, is there any difference between (1) a god who exists now, “in time,” and also existed in a period “before time” that “has no time”

Yes….Great question.

- presumably having experiences in that no-time in which “he” cannot tell which came first and which came later, and (2) A god that exists now, “in time” and has delusions fully formed, about a previous life?

I understand your want of contradiction here regarding God’s relationship to time. But it just isn’t there. Your reasoning does not address a complete understanding of the theistic doctrine of divine eternity, immutability, aseity, simplicity etc. That is a full two years of theological course work. Above you fail to account for intrinsic change vs extrinsic change. There are many different theistic models that address your basic concern of incoherence. The topic is known as the coherence of theism. It is a vast and deep topic. One worthy of investigation.
For here….
It is not only coherent but also plausible that God existing changelessly alone without (prior) to creation would be timeless and that he enters time at the moment of creation in virtue of his real relation to a temporal universe. So given that time began to exist, the most plausible model of God’s relationship to time is that he is timeless sans (before) creation and temporal since creation.

 

[remez]

I left a word out here:

So, in my perception, (a) were not on the timelessness bandwagon, and (b) you resented it when I provided your arguments for you so that I could refute them. So I've been trying to get you to see the conflict between a timely eternity and a beginning of time.

That should say, "(a) you were not on the timelessness bandwagon."

Repeatedly in my first long post to you…..Post 110

- What does "begin to exist" mean?

Let me stipulate -- for the purposes of this subsection of this argument -- that the big bang really was the beginning. Before the big bang, nothing. No time, no space, no matter or other energy, nothing.

But then, bang, and there was stuff.

That's a beginning, right? If stuff existed at time zero, but didn't exist before time zero, then stuff began.

Yes time, space matter and energy began to exist. And thus would need a cause. But note here I’m not reasoning for a material cause. Logic would now demand a timeless, spaceless, immaterial nonphysical efficient cause.

That goes for gods too

Only if your gods are material gods. You know….spacegoats, teapots, FSM. Or all the other pantheistic material gods.

unless we're special pleading.

Again that is forced by your misunderstanding that theists assert an allaverse. Thus it is your straw man that forces the special pleading upon the theist.

If gods didn't exist before the bang -- and we're stipulating that the didn't because there was no before -- and if they did exist after, then gods began. In which case, P1 stipulates that gods are caused.

No stipulation granted on that account.
No theist is asserting that God didn’t exist “before” the big bang. Theists assert that God is timeless, spaceless, immaterial nonphysical and the efficient cause of everything that began to exist. He is outside of time and responsible for time which began. God exists timelessly sans creation.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It [KCA] began as a purely philosophical argument. But has gathered scientific support since then. So why is that a problem?

The problem is that it has not gotten scientific support "since then." What peer reviewed sciences sources/articles do you have in mind? Throw me a couple bones.

Given time and human survival science can certainly answer everything, at least everything scientific. It cannot answer how evil spirits cause disease or how invisible, magical space creatures abracadabra a universe.

That is a statement of faith on your part. There is a gap and science will fill it….I just believe it. Not only are you begging the question for naturalism and you are overtly presenting a nature-of-the-gaps fallacy.

You obviously are misinformed if you see question begging. As for faith, you are possibly confusing religious faith in magical events with scientific expectation. Science doesn't deal in magic so no religious faith in magic is needed to expect human knowledge to continue to advance.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It [KCA] began as a purely philosophical argument. But has gathered scientific support since then. So why is that a problem?

The problem is that it has not gotten scientific support "since then." What peer reviewed sciences sources/articles do you have in mind? Throw me a couple bones.

What he means is that people whose science literacy is about equal to a ninth grade General Science class can read the dumbed-down versions of current science theory and feel that it's not incompatible with the KCA's claims.
Which is a far cry from 'science supports,' but then, Christains're well practiced at picking desired content out of the assigned reading.

 

[skepticalbip]

I'm not the only one, in context to that, which is within this physical universe i.e. after the BB point. But it's good we sort of agree with this particular aspect of "begin to exist" ...atoms arranged from one structure to another etc..

This sentence is incoherent.

What Learner is saying is that they don't understand what occurred in the Big Bang.

He may think he is saying that but he isn't. We are in the "Big Bang" now. The Big Bang model describes the expansion of the universe as it is now observed. The BBM doesn't describe a 'beginning'. Unfortunately too many people take pop-sci videos (which are really dumbed down to address an audience of 13 year olds) and the speculations presented as "gods truth".

 

[Wiploc]

It has always been the theistic view

There isn't much that has always been the theistic view. Theists disagree -- and have always disagreed -- on everything other than whether gods exist. At one point you said I should capitalize "God" because you are a monotheist, but even monotheists disagree on whether one god are three or three gods is one, or -- weirdly, perhaps, from your point of view -- one god is only one.

Two Christians have told me that Jehovah created himself, which does away with any claim that theists have always believed gods to be eternal.

One Christian (Jesuit trained) told me I'm more likely to make it to Heaven than he is, because I don't believe at all, whereas he believes but sometimes falls short anyway. He wonders whether god is helium. He believes Hell exists, because the bible says it does, but he also believes (for whatever reason) that gods are good. How does he square those beliefs? Hell exists, but it is empty.

Presumably, the wailing and gnashing of teeth is piped in.

I watched five Christians billed as experts discuss the trinity. Each of them floated a meaning of "trinity" that was emphatically rejected by all four of the others. Then they insisted unanimously that the trinity is true even though they had already established that the word is without meaning.

Your defense of your it-has-always-been-the-theist-view claims is that you are talking about a particular subset of theism, which immediately devolves into a game of no true Scottsman. Your claim -- to the extent it is true at all -- reduces to this: Theists who have always agreed with your current beliefs have always agreed with your current beliefs.

The most you can legitimately claim is that (for some value of "eternal") some theists have always believed that gods are eternal. That's less a claim than a truism.

Any claim that theists have always believed X comes across as pompous and disingenuous.

Making such claims is keep-off-my-side quality argumentation.

that God created this universe, which means time, space and matter.

That's not plausible. But, if you wanted to argue that theists have, since the advent of big bang theory, increasingly found it convenient to argue that way, then you could make a case.

Thus God has always existed even though time has not.

To say that gods have always existed is to say that they have existed at all times. If the universe (including gods) began last Thursday, and your gods existed at every moment since then, then they have always existed.

To say that gods existed when time did not exist is to speak gibberish.

Hence time is a subset of the eternal.

On its face, that seems like meaningless word salad. When you elaborate, saying that "eternal" means "timeless" (and thus that timeless includes time) you take away doubt.

I wish we could discuss the KCA, but you keep changing the subject.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What Learner is saying is that they don't understand what occurred in the Big Bang.

He may think he is saying that but he isn't. We are in the "Big Bang" now. The Big Bang model describes the expansion of the universe as it is now observed. The BBM doesn't describe a 'beginning'. Unfortunately too many people take pop-sci videos (which are really dumbed down to address an audience of 13 year olds) and the speculations presented as "gods truth".

It is interesting how people think the BB is something from 14 billion years ago when in fact all you have to do is look around and see the BB happening. A gigantic explosion and then our universe, that's how it is incorrectly perceived. The best way to think about the BB is that some changing event occurred 14 billion years ago. That event gave rise to our universe.

 

[skepticalbip]

What Learner is saying is that they don't understand what occurred in the Big Bang.

He may think he is saying that but he isn't. We are in the "Big Bang" now. The Big Bang model describes the expansion of the universe as it is now observed. The BBM doesn't describe a 'beginning'. Unfortunately too many people take pop-sci videos (which are really dumbed down to address an audience of 13 year olds) and the speculations presented as "gods truth".

It is interesting how people think the BB is something from 14 billion years ago when in fact all you have to do is look around and see the BB happening. A gigantic explosion and then our universe, that's how it is incorrectly perceived. The best way to think about the BB is that some changing event occurred 14 billion years ago. That event gave rise to our universe.

The BBM does't say that something happened ~14 billion years ago. That is the "inflation model". The BBM only describes the universe with the expansion we observe. There are many other models that postulate the universe "before the current expansion". Some of these are the inflation model, cyclic models, modified steady state model (which postulates a universe that has always been expanding as it is now), brane model, etc. etc.

ETA:
Interestingly, the term "Big Bang Model" was introduced as a slur by Fred Hoyle to describe and belittle the expanding universe model. Hoyle was an avid believer in a steady state universe. Those who had good observational data that the universe was expanding liked the term so adopted it. Astronomers tend to be rather quirky people, cosmologists tend to be even quirkier.

 

[Lion IRC]

... snip ...

Consider a billiard ball resting stationary on a big green billiard table. If the inanimate object - a ball 'magically' starts moving all by itself, theists like me will rightfully think it that event was the result of deliberate intent/volition.

Weird... So if you saw a billiard ball on a table start moving 'by itself' your firm conclusion would be that god moved it?

You wouldn't even consider that it was possibly a gust of wind, a small earth tremor you didn't notice, the building maybe settled a little, or other possibilities?

I think Lion probably means AFTER considering and ticking off the obvious possibilities.

No, I don't mean AFTER exhausting all other possibilities. The premisses of the Kalam Cosmological Argument entail "other possibilities". (That a thing/event possibly didn't begin. The possibility that a thing/event may be spontaneous - not have a cause.)

skepticalbip is being disingenuous. (again)

Look how he whines about strawman arguments but...

Me : If the inanimate object - a ball 'magically' starts moving all by itself, theists like me will rightfully think it that event was the result of deliberate intent/volition.

skepticalbip : So if you saw a billiard ball on a table start moving 'by itself' your firm conclusion would be that god moved it

skepticalbip : You wouldn't even consider that it was possibly a gust of wind, a small earth tremor...the building maybe settled a little, or other possibilities..?

That's NOT what I said. And that's NOT the kalam cosmological argument.

The argument from cause is not an argument for the existence of the biblical/Christian monotheistic God.
It's an argument that things/events which begin to exist/happen have a cause.

To defeat the KCA all you, or anyone, has to do is plausibly negate the premiss that the Universe began to 'happen' (exist).
And/or that its beginning (or coming into existence) was pure spontaneous, uncaused chance.

All you have to do is show that your "possible" explanation is more plausible than the premiss you seek to negate.

I find it laughable that atheists who would otherwise demand empirical, repeatable, falsifiable evidence, are happy to assert - without evidence that an uncaused, unexplained, spontaneously occurring event/thing is MORE plausible than Genesis 1:1

 

[abaddon]

To defeat the KCA all you, or anyone, has to do is plausibly negate the premiss that the Universe began to 'happen' (exist).
And/or that its beginning (or coming into existence) was pure spontaneous, uncaused chance.

Or explain why the case for the premise isn't convincing. Alternatives that are not less reasonable than the KCA are good enough, they don't have to be better and to "defeat" it. "Not less reasonable" than the KCA is an extremely low bar.

"God's the Cause", as a mere possibility, doesn't deserve belief. None of the possibilities about this universe's origin deserves investing one's belief in it until it's much surer.

I find it laughable that atheists who would otherwise demand empirical, repeatable, falsifiable evidence, are happy to assert - without evidence that an uncaused, unexplained, spontaneously occurring event/thing is MORE plausible than Genesis 1:1

Like who for example? Don't be a disingenuous straw-man maker. Tell which atheists assert this.

Theists keep doing this "if I believe THIS then you must believe THAT" either/or thinking. And it causes them to be persistently wrong about atheists.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The argument from cause is not an argument for the existence of the biblical/Christian monotheistic God.
It's an argument that things/events which begin to exist/happen have a cause.

Disingenuous? That's called projecting.

To defeat the KCA all you, or anyone, has to do is plausibly negate the premiss that the Universe began to 'happen' (exist).

Maybe "premiss" is an indicative slip? Anyway, you need to sound a lot more sciency. "Begin to happen" isn't going to cut it.

 

[Rhea]

- presumably having experiences in that no-time in which “he” cannot tell which came first and which came later, and (2) A god that exists now, “in time” and has delusions fully formed, about a previous life?

I understand your want of contradiction here regarding God’s relationship to time. But it just isn’t there.

I don’t “want” a contradiction. There is one.

Your reasoning does not address a complete understanding of the theistic doctrine of divine eternity, immutability, aseity, simplicity etc.

Theistic doctrine is not reality, There is no reason to understand theistic doctrine to understand reality. One can understand reality perfectly well without ever settign foot on theistic doctrine. Theistic doctrine is shit that humans made up. It always has been. YOur god doesn’t communicate and can’t tell the world anything about itself. So you have humans making shit up about it.

Untestable, unrepeatable, illogical.

That is a full two years of theological course work.

Goodness. That’s how long it takes to wrap your brain in a preztel tight enough to snuff out the oxygen and think this stuff is true?

Above you fail to account for intrinsic change vs extrinsic change. There are many different theistic models that address your basic concern of incoherence. The topic is known as the coherence of theism. It is a vast and deep topic. One worthy of investigation.

No seeing that. Reality tells a sufficiently coherent tale. I don’t need to study up to make my magic feel right.

For here….
It is not only coherent but also plausible that God existing changelessly alone without (prior) to creation would be timeless and that he enters time at the moment of creation in virtue of his real relation to a temporal universe. So given that time began to exist, the most plausible model of God’s relationship to time is that he is timeless sans (before) creation and temporal since creation.

Nope, that is not plausible at all. It means “he” made a decision to create during a phase when nothing was able to change.
Otherwise, “he” could not decide to create and was merely Big Banged himself.

Time means change. To go from timeless to temporal requires a change. But without time, by definition, nothing changes.

You and your theists are just inventing definitions so you can make your god exist.
I can see why you’d need to do that because your first story has a major plot hole and you needed to plug it with something.

No time, “timeless” means no change. Not even a decision to change. No change.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^

You make a good argument that, rather than some god creating the universe from nothing, that god had to wait until life appeared eventually leading to humans that evolved enough to create god from nothing. Theists then spent many centuries chasing their tail trying to make circular philosophical arguments that the reverse was true.

 

[abaddon]

And talking about circularity...

Fantasists (theists) say that eternal can mean timeless (cuz it's fun making shit up). So someone adds that usage into a dictionary. Then when the fantasists need to prove eternal can mean timeless, they say "just look at the dictionary".

 

[DrZoidberg]

If you truly believe why do you need a proof?

Because it's a good habit to examine our held beliefs and question them. Especially the big questions.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If you truly believe why do you need a proof?

Because it's a good habit to examine our held beliefs and question them. Especially the big questions.

Quite true. And to have a basis for evaluating those beliefs/claims based in critical thinking. Of course that presumes a lot, primarily that one can recognize and control one's own biases.

If I believe, however, that my thoughts and opinions are so mysterious and perfect, guided and inspired by the spookiest and most incomprehensible ghosts and forces, maybe I'm experiencing some kind of manic high and I really should check myself into the local psyche ward for an evaluation. Not gonna happen.

 

[Learner]

What Learner is saying is that they don't understand what occurred in the Big Bang.

He may think he is saying that but he isn't. We are in the "Big Bang" now. The Big Bang model describes the expansion of the universe as it is now observed. The BBM doesn't describe a 'beginning'. Unfortunately too many people take pop-sci videos (which are really dumbed down to address an audience of 13 year olds) and the speculations presented as "gods truth".

Is there a point when the universe started to expand (my point) or do you (plural) mean that the universe has somehow "always" been expanding? Because it may reveal to us who's taking to the pop sci-fi vids.

 

[skepticalbip]

What Learner is saying is that they don't understand what occurred in the Big Bang.

He may think he is saying that but he isn't. We are in the "Big Bang" now. The Big Bang model describes the expansion of the universe as it is now observed. The BBM doesn't describe a 'beginning'. Unfortunately too many people take pop-sci videos (which are really dumbed down to address an audience of 13 year olds) and the speculations presented as "gods truth".

Is there a point when the universe started to expand (my point) or do you (plural) mean that the universe has somehow "always" been expanding? Because it may reveal to us who's taking to the pop sci-fi vids.

No one really knows. The universe is known to be currently expanding because we can observe that it is (thus the "Big Bang" model). The Inflation Model describes a superluminal inflationary period suddenly stopping and becoming the expansion that is currently observed. Cyclic models describe a universe continually expanding then contracting to rebound to expanding, etc. and we are on one of the expanding phases. The modified steady state model describes a universe that has always been expanding just as it is currently with subatomic particles continually being created by vacuum energy (dark energy?) to keep the density of the universe constant. Then there are several other cosmological models.

So I guess it depends on what you mean by "started to expand". That would determine which model you want to BELIEVE. But then, are you looking for a scientific consensus that there is a time zero? There ain't such a consensus.

I did hear one cosmologist say that the universe is not only stranger than you imagine, it is stranger than you can imagine.

 

[remez]

The problem is that it has not gotten scientific support "since then." What peer reviewed sciences sources/articles do you have in mind? Throw me a couple bones.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012.pdf
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1970.0021
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.0713.pdf

Given time and human survival science can certainly answer everything, at least everything scientific. It cannot answer how evil spirits cause disease or how invisible, magical space creatures abracadabra a universe.

That is a statement of faith on your part. There is a gap and science will fill it….I just believe it. Not only are you begging the question for naturalism and you are overtly presenting a nature-of-the-gaps fallacy.

You obviously are misinformed if you see question begging. As for faith, you are possibly confusing religious faith in magical events with scientific expectation. Science doesn't deal in magic so no religious faith in magic is needed to expect human knowledge to continue to advance.

No.
I’m redressing your flawed epistemology…....scientism. Begging the question to naturalism….. By faith (yes by faith because you can supply no reason) you cling to the epistemology that science can explain everything. And thusly conclude that since science cannot explain God therefore no God. You need to provide reason as to why you believe that science can explain everything. That everything must have a natural explanation. Hold on…if you are going to that assert well “I didn’t say that science explains everything” then why must God be tested, explained or proven scientifically? Why can’t God’s existence be supported by science? You have something going on there that needs to be explained….. if you believe/have faith that science can’t support God’s existence and that science will fill all the gaps. That’s bad epistemic philosophy.
Further….
Any gaps are dogmatically filled with science/nature. It’s the ole desperate refrain “just give us more time and science will explain it…..or it will have a natural explanation.” Similar to goddidit. And you’ll have to do better the appealing to gotg reasoning on behalf of our common ancestors.
And ……………..
Before you object that concluding God’s existence ends science…….I reply…..it never has. By all means keep searching.