Introduction: Welcome to the millionth attempt to prove God, i hope i can prove to you God and have a nice conversations with the people.
Infinite regress: There cannot be an infinite regress of dependent things why?
Suppose you saw a series of falling dominoes, and the last domino fell right besides your feet, would you infer an infinite regress of falling dominoes? No why? Because if there is an infinite regress of falling dominoes, the last domino wouldn’t fall and end right besides your feet, it would’ve hit another domino and keep going ad infinitum because an infinite regress implies endlessness and if something is endless then it cannot stop.
The same applies with the universe, if there were an infinite regress of universes, we wouldn’t have our current existing universe it would’ve kept going contracting and expanding ad infinitum.
So therefore there has to be a necessary being, a being that cannot not exist, now what attributes can we assign to this necessary being:
1) It is changeless: When we say a being is changeable we say the being has parts, if it has parts then it’s dependent upon those parts, and if it is dependent then it is contingent and not necessary, so therefore the being is changeless.
2) It is immaterial: When we say something is material it implies that the thing could’ve been in a different shape(e.g. a box is material, this box could’ve been shaped like a ball) and if something could’ve been in a different shape then it implies it’s contingent and changeable so the necessary being cannot be material.
3) It’s outside spacetime: If this necessary being is within spacetime, it is dependent upon spacetime to exist and function, and if it is dependent then it is contingent and it also implies that the being has to change within time but as we’ve said that the being is changeless so therefore the necessary being has to be outside spacetime.
4) It is one: If there are 2 necessary beings then one of them has to have something different from the other and if it has something different from the other then it is contingent, it’s changeable, so the second necessary being is a logical impossibility it implies he is necessary and contingent which is of course impossible.
5) It is eternal: because as we’ve established, this necessary being cannot not exist so it must be ever-existing or put it simply eternal.
So we know there is a necessary being, it’s one, eternal, immaterial, outside spacetime and changeless, how do we know if it is a conscious, rational necessary being or put it simply God?
Ok let’s say the necessary being is irrational and unconscious, how can it bring into existence rational, conscious beings like us? It’s impossible because let’s say ~B caused B, how can ~B cause B when ~B doesn’t have the properties to cause B, it’s like saying, if we wait long enough a pink elephant will appear in space, we know this is impossible because space doesn’t have the properties to cause a pink elephant, so it’s impossible for ~B to cause B.
So the only option left is to say the necessary being is rational and conscious and this being is God, if it’s rational and conscious then it can decide whether something can be conscious or not conscious, rational or irrational.
So if you have any objections please let me know.
First let me say that I like the infinite regress argument because it’s very interesting. I don’t have a simple rebuttal, but I don’t think that there is a definite answer to it.
Firstly, we don’t know enough about “events” , philosophically speaking.
We also don’t know enough about cause and effect in general, and especially with regards to the universe.
It’s possible that humans are conditioned to perceive events in terms of cause and effect, because it helps protect ourselves from danger. whether or not the universe itself followed any type of cause and effect on a grand scale, we don’t know.
The apparent paradoxes of infinites with regard to the origin of the universe, on which your attempt to prove gods is based, [have all been addressed by mathematicians, physicists and cosmologists](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGKe6YzHiME).
The one-hour video linked goes into great detail on this.
Disregard the video being built around the Kalam argument, pay close attention to the explanations of infinities, and you will see these are not the knockdown argument theists think.
Causes are not dominoes. They can have any shapes. If there is a first domino, there is a cause to its fall, it can be a man pushing it for instance. Then there is a cause to this push or to this will to push a domino. The man saw a video of dominos that made him want to push it. Why? He saw a video bc he was with a friend who liked dominos. Why? Bc the man’s mother offered him dominos when he was a child and he loved it, so playing now reminded him good memories. Why? etc. etc. If there is a last domino, its fall will trigger new events on other objects.
[deleted]
Reality does not care about your concept of infinite regress
It definitely doesn’t require that a prime mover (if there is one) be intelligent
Lol. Sorry but I find your justification for the rejection of infinity very funny (and I’m not an atheist, by the way). Infinity doesn’t have to exist in both sides of a set. You can begin a set with 1, 2, 3 and go on to infinity, which means the infinite set had a starting point. Likewise, we can use negative numbers to represent an infinity with no beginning but with an end, …-3, -2, -1, 0 = end. If the past is beginningless, then a set with negative numbers would be the most appropriate mathematical representation. I suppose one might say this is just mathematics; not reality. However, I can conceive of a pole that has a beginning point (to which we might assign the number 0) but is infinite in the other direction (which we might assign the rest of the numbers). So, this is not only mathematical, but can even be represented physically.
>It’s impossible because let’s say ~B caused B, how can ~B cause B when ~B doesn’t have the properties to cause B
How do you know only rational beings have the attributes necessary to create rational beings? I don’t see any justification for this claim.
>Because if there is an infinite regress of falling dominoes, the last domino wouldn’t fall and end right besides your feet
That’s because there is no last domino in an infinite series. That’s like asking for the positive number found in the infinite numbers between -1 and -2. there isn’t none and with that base error this line of thought gets you nowhere.
>The same applies with the universe, if there were an infinite regress of universes we wouldn’t have our current existing universe it would’ve kept going contracting and expanding ad infinitum.
what about infinite regress prevents the present from existing?
>Infinite regress: There cannot be an infinite regress of dependent things why?
Ah the tired old argument of infinite regress. I have missed this one, it’s mostly been a lot of the worse ones lately.
>The same applies with the universe, if there were an infinite regress of universes, we wouldn’t have our current existing universe it would’ve kept going contracting and expanding ad infinitum.
This is the classic massive misunderstanding about what we know of the universe, and time, and infinity in general. Infinite regress has always been a problem in philosophy, they really don’t like it, but it’s not such a big problem when you start digging into math and science. If you want answers, you should probably start there.
The big misunderstanding that theists like to use with the infinite regress argument is the assumption that time exists and functions external to the universe, which is both completely unfounded and illogical. Time is intertwined with space, no space = no time. The most accurate phrase to apply this to the universe is “there was never a time when the universe did not exist”, which pretty much crumbles the infinite regress argument.
The second big misunderstanding that theists ignore is how time warps, it slows and speeds up depending on a few factors. The biggest being gravity. When we look at the earliest knowable moments of the universe in its current state, gravity is so massive that time gets really crazy. Turn back the clock just a single moment, and time gets even crazier, so crazy that the notion of causality gets called into question. Well a lot of fundamental ideas get crazy when we start looking at singularities.
The problem for thr infinite regress argument is that it revolves around the idea that time works the same as the way we experience it, and without matter, which it decidedly does not do either. The infinite regress argument falls to the same problems that a lot of God arguments fall to: real world data.
>1) It is changeless: When we say a being is changeable we say the being has parts, if it has parts then it’s dependent upon those parts, and if it is dependent then it is contingent and not necessary, so therefore the being is changeless.
If a being is changeless, then it is impossible for that being to perform any actions. Meaning if God is changeless, then God did not create the universe.
In order to perform an action, something must change. I can’t walk without moving my legs. I can’t speak without opening my mouth. And if a being has the ability to create by thought, it must first have that thought, which would be change.
The idea of a changeless God singlehandedly shows that that God is useless and has done nothing. Gotta love the self defeating nature of God.
>2) It is immaterial: When we say something is material it implies that the thing could’ve been in a different shape(e.g. a box is material, this box could’ve been shaped like a ball) and if something could’ve been in a different shape then it implies it’s contingent and changeable so the necessary being cannot be material.
If God is immaterial, then what is it? How can you detect it? How can you show it? Mathematically? Scientifically? If it’s not material how does it affect material components?
The idea of an immaterial God either raises more questions than it answers (not inherently a bad thing, but they are questions no theist will even try to answer) or its used as a thought stopping technique.
>3) It’s outside spacetime: If this necessary being is within spacetime, it is dependent upon spacetime to exist and function, and if it is dependent then it is contingent and it also implies that the being has to change within time but as we’ve said that the being is changeless so therefore the necessary being has to be outside spacetime.
Also another vague term that is never explained. What does it mean to be outside of something potentially infinite? If it is “outside” spacetime, it is not affected by it, which also means God is not affected by time, which also means God can’t affect time. Unless you can show what God is and exactly how it affects time and space, then what you are suggesting is a God who is unable to do anything. A pointless God. And what is the difference between a god who can’t do anything and one that doesn’t exist?
>4) It is one: If there are 2 necessary beings then one of them has to have something different from the other and if it has something different from the other then it is contingent, it’s changeable, so the second necessary being is a logical impossibility it implies he is necessary and contingent which is of course impossible.
Or there can just be 2 of the same necessary being. There is no reason this can’t be.
>5) It is eternal: because as we’ve established, this necessary being cannot not exist so it must be ever-existing or put it simply eternal.
This is pretty much the same logic as earlier, the massive misunderstanding and assumption that time exists without space. But if this time without space can apply to God, now you’ve introduced the problem of infinite regress, only on God. As soon as you introduce time, you introduce infinite regress. But you already said there can’t be an infinite regress, so there can’t be a god. Defeats itself! So either you need a system wherein time can distort, change, and account for itself, or you have the very thing you argued against and are successfully arguing against God.
>It’s impossible because let’s say ~B caused B, how can ~B cause B when ~B doesn’t have the properties to cause B,
The Fallacy of Composition. Your argument is invalid.
Why can’t people just say, “We don’t know”????
What is wrong with honesty?
>The same applies with the universe (…) So therefore there has to be a necessary being,
Being? Where did that come from? We were talking about the universe and suddenly you bring a being into this. Maybe it’s the (non-sentient) universe that always been here. No need for any beings.
What does it even mean, to “live” or “exist” outside existence? It’s an irreconcilable contradiction. “This thing is not in the set of all things.” Outside the set of all things, is nothingless so complete that even imposing a name upon it makes it something, not nothing. If God exists, he would have to be *in* the universe, or *be* the universe… or the word “exists” is the wrong word to use.
Twisting words to create an artistic metaphor for the idea of god is fine, but to turn around and attempt to use those words in a logical proof, ignoring the fact those words were misused to represent things they were never intended for. It seems like an argument in bad faith.
>Suppose you saw a series of falling dominoes, and the last domino fell right besides your feet, would you infer an infinite regress of falling dominoes? No why?
No because you can see that the line of dominos has an end point. Can we say the same about the universe? As far as I know, we can’t
>The same applies with the universe, if there were an infinite regress of universes, we wouldn’t have our current existing universe it would’ve kept going contracting and expanding ad infinitum.
What makes you think that we couldn’t be in one of these expanding or contracting states? Couldn’t it be possible that we exist in one of these cycles that goes on infinitum?
> Ok let’s say the necessary being is irrational and unconscious, how can it bring into existence rational, conscious beings like us? It’s impossible because let’s say ~B caused B, how can ~B cause B when ~B doesn’t have the properties to cause B, it’s like saying, if we wait long enough a pink elephant will appear in space, we know this is impossible because space doesn’t have the properties to cause a pink elephant, so it’s impossible for ~B to cause B.
For simplicity let’s just focus on *unconscious*
>how can it bring into existence rational, conscious beings like us?
**Well it seems a natural universe exists in which such beings like us emerge from unthinking processes. That’s what all the current evidence supports.**
What is your evidence that this isn’t possible?
…
And why, if this conscious creator “being” exists and wants us to know it, would we not just be provided direct evidence of it, rather than have to make these blind argument about what we think must be required?
I’ve actually never been convinced that infinite regresses are not possible, and I’m not sure your domino analogy is really relevant, of course the domino won’t finish at your feet because the chain is infinite.
Whose to say this universe is the end of the chain? Why is it not just a part of the infinite regress leading to the next step? All points in the past are reachable through a finite number of steps.
The better more unavoidable question is “why is there something instead of nothing?” Even if infinite regresses are possible and happening we still have to explain why there is an infinite chain in the first place.
>So therefore there has to be a necessary being
Woah woah woah. That’s an absolutely massive enormous jump. There would have to be **some reason** why there is something instead of nothing. How the hell have you reached the conclusion it must be a being.
And that’s where the argument falls apart. For example it’s possible that “nothing” is not actually a coherent and stable concept and collapses into something. It’s possible that the laws of nature completely and utterly change “outside” and “before” the universe. It’s possible a being of some description did it. It’s possible the computer simulations started it.
You have made one almighty unjustifiable jump.
“The same applies with the universe, if there were an infinite regress of universes, we wouldn’t have our current existing universe it would’ve kept going contracting and expanding ad infinitum.”
Comparing a line of dominoes to multiple universes is a failed analogy. First, we don’t know if there are an infinite regress of universes. This universe began 13.8 billion years ago. There is no evidence to support the notion that it was created.
Second, why wouldn’t we have our universe if there was an infinite regress? Our universe is expanding and most likely will expand infinitum. We just happen to be here at a particular time and in a particular place.
My question is, let’s assume that your hypothesis is true and the universe was created. What makes you think that said creator has any interest in us?
>So therefore there has to be a necessary being, a being that cannot not exist, now what attributes can we assign to this necessary being:
No, this is the same mistake that theists always make. Even if everything you said until then was true (let’s assume that for the sake of the discussion) it doesn’t imply a necessary **being**.
It implies a necessary **starter**. This COULD be a being, it could be an eternal law of extrauniversal physics or even just a thing
>It is changeless: When we say a being is changeable we say the being has parts, if it has
> parts then it’s dependent upon those parts, and if it is dependent then it is contingent
> and not necessary, so therefore the being is changeless.
This is completely baseless. You are relying on intuition to say infinite regress is impossible. Well intuitively, normally when one thing acts on something else it is affected as well (ie every action has an equal and opposite reaction). A changeless thing would intuitively seem to have no motivations for doing anything…. the act of going from the state of wanting to create the universe to having created the universe and seeing that it was good would seem to be a change.
Moreover the God of religions DO change… Old testament God went from thinking it was OK to flood the world to saying he wouldn’t do it again, and went from eye for eye tooth for tooth to turn the other cheek. So you aren’t describing the God of major religions anyways.
>It is immaterial: When we say something is material it implies that the thing could’ve been in a different shape(e.g. a box is material, this box could’ve been shaped like a ball) and if something could’ve been in a different shape then it implies it’s contingent and changeable so the necessary being cannot be material.
This doesn’t follow from anything, or prove anything for that matter.
>It’s outside spacetime: If this necessary being is within spacetime, it is dependent upon spacetime to exist and function, and if it is dependent then it is contingent and it also implies that the being has to change within time but as we’ve said that the being is changeless so therefore the necessary being has to be outside spacetime.
Again you are relying on intuition regarding infinite regress, so intuitively how can something which is completely outside spacetime interact with anything inside spacetime? And the act of creation, or the act of [any verb]-ing for that matter, requires time. So this timeless being cannot actually DO anything.
>It is one: If there are 2 necessary beings then one of them has to have something different from the other and if it has something different from the other then it is contingent, it’s changeable, so the second necessary being is a logical impossibility it implies he is necessary and contingent which is of course impossible.
Well the problem is you haven’t actually made an argument for a NECESSARY being. You have only made an argument for an uncaused cause — with the only support being your intuitive belief that infinite regress is impossible. But in reality things often have more than one cause, so your infinite regress could in fact lead to multiple causes.
>So we know there is a necessary being, it’s one, eternal, immaterial, outside spacetime and changeless, how do we know if it is a conscious, rational necessary being or put it simply God?
We don’t. In fact if I accepted the arguments you made so far, that some sort of timeless, spaceless, immaterial necessary being existed, I would not call that thing “God” I would call it “reality”. Reality is not a physical thing that exists within space-time…. it’s the set of all things that are real. So conceptually, it is necessary that a set of all things that are real exist (even if that set were empty).
>Ok let’s say the necessary being is irrational and unconscious, how can it bring into existence rational, conscious beings like us? It’s impossible because let’s say ~B caused B, how can ~B cause B when ~B doesn’t have the properties to cause B, it’s like saying, if we wait long enough a pink elephant will appear in space, we know this is impossible because space doesn’t have the properties to cause a pink elephant, so it’s impossible for ~B to cause B.
Wait, how could a conscious being come into existence without any space, time, or cause? If empty space doesn’t have the properties to bring about a pink elephant, how can t be that a timeless nothingness have the properties to bring about a GOD or other uber powerful conscious being? Oh that’s right, your magical necessary being is an EXCEPTION to your own rules that things must be caused.
And we know how humans came to be intelligent…. through an extremely slow evolutionary process which resulted in single celled organisms becoming multi celled organisms with increasing cephalization resulting very eventually in intelligence. We know it is possible for intelligence to come about that way. We do NOT know that a timeless, spaceless, changeless entity could become intelligent enough to create a universe.
​
>So the only option left is ….
Your lack of imagination regarding other options doesn’t make it so. Here’s one other option: an infinite amount of initial mass-energy existed uncaused in a timeless state, and transformed into the universe in something more akin to a phase transition than a conscious decision. At least we know energy is a thing that exists, whereas an intelligent being which is also timeless, spaceless, changeless, and immaterial seems to conflict with our understanding of how minds work (ie they depend on material to exist, change as they do things and acquire information, require time to think about things, etc).
Why does it need to be a being? It seems like people would like for this “necessary” thing to have intentions but I don’t see why it needs to be a being why not some natural or supernatural force that we simply don’t understand.
On top of that how can we be sure that the universe itself has not always existed? If this being has always existed why couldn’t it be the universe that has always existed instead? It feels like you’re just replacing one infinity for another.
This argument is no different from any of the other first cause arguments:
1. You claim there is an infinite series (causality)
2. You don’t understand / like infinity (otherwise it could simply be applied to the universe), so you claim god is a special pleading exception to the infinite series.
3. You have assertions about what is necessary before the big bang, but there is no evidence behind any of the assertions, so you have nothing to base them on apart from speculation.
4. You conclude ‘it’s god’.
If your argument isn’t any different, why do you expect a different outcome?
Surely the often misattributed quote “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” is relevant here?
>So if you have any objections please let me know.
Of course we have objections, but if you’re going to ignore the previous multitude of responses, why should we reply again here?
You acknowledge in your title all the previous discussion, so please show that you’ve at least read the rebuttals to your arguments that people put effort into providing in the ‘million’ previous discussions.
Otherwise why should we even bother?
If you can’t even do that, why should we expect you to listen now?
>Suppose you saw a series of falling dominoes, and the last domino fell right besides your feet, would you infer an infinite regress of falling dominoes?
What does this analogy even apply to? Did you see the universe end and nothing else starting after?
>The same applies with the universe, if there were an infinite regress of universes, we wouldn’t have our current existing universe it would’ve kept going contracting and expanding ad infinitum.
The conclusion does not follow from the premise, why could we not have this universe. If this universe is part of a infinite regress of universes that expand and contract, there is nothing that would mean this universe could not exist. It just means its one of the universes…..
>So we know there is a necessary
we don’t, you did not make any logical arguments for its existance
It’s pointless to ask for evidence, bc OP is making a logical argument not a scientific claim.
OP is operating in a different framework, claim is “immaterial”, science can only do material.
You have counter the points or highlight any fallacies.
There is no need for all these words and reasoning and gyrations. Just give one solid, testable, repeatable, clear piece of evidence that any god / soul / afterlife exists.
This is the standard we use for other claims about reality, such as claim of discovery of a new planet, or claim of invention of a new vaccine. The most extraordinary claims possible (god / soul / afterlife) should be held to at least that standard, if not higher.
All of the words and logic and gyrations etc are being done only because (after a couple thousand years of very motivated searching) there is no solid evidence.
> an infinite regress implies endlessness and if something is endless then it cannot stop.
Beginning-less but has an end works just fine for an infinite regress.
Why is it God or infinite regress?
>The same applies with the universe, if there were an infinite regress of universes, we wouldn’t have our current existing universe it would’ve kept going contracting and expanding ad infinitum.
How do you know it isn’t? Perhaps it keeps going and have always kept going(Although I do find it particularly untintuitive, but I find every potential explanation about the origin of the universe highly problematic and unintuitive)
>When we say a being is changeable we say the being has parts
No, it just means that it can change. How do you know that it couldn’t change such that it goes from not having parts to having parts or that it does not have necessary parts making the whole being necessary instead of contingent? Or perhaps it’s contingent and the parts that make it up are necessary and their particular arrangement to make the being up is also necessary.
>It’s outside spacetime: If this necessary being is within spacetime, it is dependent upon spacetime to exist and function, and if it is dependent then it is contingent and it also implies that the being has to change within time but as we’ve said that the being is changeless so therefore the necessary being has to be outside spacetime.
A changeless, spaceless, timeless existence. What are you even talking about?
Existence is temporal as far as we know.
>It is one: If there are 2 necessary beings then one of them has to have something different from the other
No, they could be copies of one another. In fact, maybe we should expect infinite of those because if the being is necessary, then by necessity it exists again and again.
Because each copy would still be necessary so it has to exist and we end with an infinite mess of copies.
>It is eternal: because as we’ve established, this necessary being cannot not exist so it must be ever-existing or put it simply eternal.
Eternal implies time but this being is timeless. A timeless being does not experience time and cannont be eternal. I guess what you are trying to say is that there was no point “when” it did not exist. But we can say the same about the universe if time did not exist before it.
>Ok let’s say the necessary being is irrational and unconscious, how can it bring into existence rational, conscious beings like us?
By necessity. For example, lets say this being is nothing.
So nothing is unstable and then it creates something that is a more complicated form of nothing. So that’s how a non-rational unconscious being can bring into existence rational, conscious beings. It creates something, triggering a process that will eventually bring about rational beings for the mere fact that nothing is “everywhere” and so eventually it will produce the neccessary components/conditions for life through processes that will do that(evolution is one we know, but there may be other processes before evolution so that eventually we get a stable universe, for example as I described, by trying out all combinations as nothing exists everywhere outside of spacetimes.)
That’s of course to point out a potential way that an irrational and unconscious being can bring into existence rational beings.
Here I will point out a serious flaw with a conscious being.
consciousness is a contingent property and it needs brains, it needs structure, it can’t form immaterially. It’s a material process. It’s like trying to create intelligence out of space even(let alone the nothingness described which is spaceless,timeless,immaterial and changeless).
Of course that’s not a proof but do you think we can create an intelligent creature out of space? How about out of nothing? God would have had to do that but if it is possible to get created out of nothing, then nothing alone could do that.
>It’s impossible because let’s say ~B caused B, how can ~B cause B when ~B doesn’t have the properties to cause B,
Exactly, I feel like this is true for this immaterial,timeless,spaceless and changless being that you are describing. It does not have the properties needed to create time, material, space and changeable things. In fact, in order to do that, it would need to change, going from a state of doing nothing in it’s immaterial,timeless,spaceless and changeless state to taking action, actually before even taking action becoming conscious somehow even though consciousness requires time so that you can get from one state to another and if not time then certainly change to go from one state to another.
> if we wait long enough a pink elephant will appear in space
I do not know that this is impossible but certainly I believe it must be much more likely to get a universe that will eventually form life and the conditions be such that pink elephants form.
So for every such pink elephant, there must be many universes where it formed in more natural ways than spontaneously.
I could still be wrong though, perhaps beyond the observable universe there are infinite dead pink elephants that were created this way. I just can’t bring myself to believe that’s likely though even though I do not really know it is unlikely, I believe it. Something is forcing me, perhaps it is that it sounds so ridiculous.
Actually, I have a good reason. We haven’t yet waited long enough. Let’s wait an astronomical number of years(or whatever, the earth would be gone by then) and then maybe we get pink elephants.
>So if you have any objections please let me know.
I liked your argument and I enjoyed responding to it
>Suppose you saw a series of falling dominoes, and the last domino fell right besides your feet, would you infer an infinite regress of falling dominoes? No why?
There is another possibility you have ignored, which is that the causal chain is in a loop. While this doesn’t work with dominoes, it is entirely possible our universe goes through a cycle of having a big bang, then everything expands outward, then gravity pulls everything back in on itself causing a big crunch, and then that big bangs again forever and ever and ever. There is nothing impossible or even improbable about this, though it is worth noting this doesn’t seem to be the universe we are in, we are heading towards heat death not a big crunch, it is still entirely possible within the laws of physics.
>So therefore there has to be a necessary being, a being that cannot not exist
That does not follow from the lack of infinite regress. Causality is a physical, time dependent process. Event A happens, which then causes Event B, which then causes Event C on and on and on. However, time had a beginning to it, and that means there was an Event 0, and event where nothing happened before it, and if nothing happens before an event, nothing can cause that event, causality only works when there is time for stuff to cause other stuff. We have no reason to believe Event 0 (cosmic inflation) was caused and we have good reason to suspect it cannot be caused.
>It is changeless: When we say a being is changeable we say the being has parts
No, that doesn’t follow. Electrons don’t have parts but they can still change orbitals.
>When we say something is material it implies that the thing could’ve been in a different shape
That is just wrong, given elementary particles don’t have shape to them at all and are most definitely physical things.
>it is dependent upon spacetime to exist and function, and if it is dependent then it is contingent
The category of “things known to exist” and “things within spacetimes” overlap 100%. In fact even things that people believe exist but don’t like ghosts or bigfoot would still be in spacetime. It is a massive leap in logic to take the rules we know work for things within spacetime and then apply them outside of spacetime. Anything outside of spacetime lives in pure speculation land, and anything is true in pure speculation land.
>Ok let’s say the necessary being is irrational and unconscious, how can it bring into existence rational, conscious beings like us
Evolution by natural selection. Consciousness is an emergent property of our brains, and brains are just made of electrons and protons and neutrons, none of which are conscious in of themselves but together become conscious. Just like how the atoms making up an apple have no taste, and yet apples have taste.
>> millionth attempt to prove God.
Sure, let’s see it.
>> Introduction: Welcome to the millionth attempt to prove God, i hope i can prove to you God and have a nice conversations with the people.
And I hope to read nice responses from you when your attempted proof doesn’t yield the results you desire.
>> Infinite regress: There cannot be an infinite regress of dependent things why?
What do you mean by “dependent things”?
>> Suppose you saw a series of falling dominoes, and the last domino fell right besides your feet, would you infer an infinite regress of falling dominoes? No why? Because if there is an infinite regress of falling dominoes, the last domino wouldn’t fall and end right besides your feet, it would’ve hit another domino and keep going ad infinitum because an infinite regress implies endlessness and if something is endless then it cannot stop.
We know that this applies to dominos, because dominos are manufactured by humans. This does not mean that your law applies to the universe.
>> The same applies with the universe, if there were an infinite regress of universes, we wouldn’t have our current existing universe it would’ve kept going contracting and expanding ad infinitum.
Maybe this is exactly what’s happening? Maybe the universe *does* expand and contract constantly, and we’re currently in an expansion phase. You have not shown this to be impossible.
>> So therefore there has to be a necessary being, a being that cannot not exist, now what attributes can we assign to this necessary being:
As I said, your explanation falls short. That “necessary thing” could simply be energy. Energy that just is, and takes up different forms, with it currently being in the form of the universe as we know it.
>> 1) It is changeless: When we say a being is changeable we say the being has parts, if it has parts then it’s dependent upon those parts, and if it is dependent then it is contingent and not necessary, so therefore the being is changeless.
I don’t see how this follows. A being that only consists of one part could also change, if that one part changed. But maybe we’re defining “change” differently. Please explain what you mean.
>> 2) It is immaterial: When we say something is material it implies that the thing could’ve been in a different shape(e.g. a box is material, this box could’ve been shaped like a ball) and if something could’ve been in a different shape then it implies it’s contingent and changeable so the necessary being cannot be material.
I don’t see how a thing possibly having a different shape would mean it is contingent. Please explain this.
>> 3) It’s outside spacetime: If this necessary being is within spacetime, it is dependent upon spacetime to exist and function, and if it is dependent then it is contingent and it also implies that the being has to change within time but as we’ve said that the being is changeless so therefore the necessary being has to be outside spacetime.
Please show that “outside spacetime” is a real possibility at all.
>> 4) It is one: If there are 2 necessary beings then one of them has to have something different from the other and if it has something different from the other then it is contingent, it’s changeable, so the second necessary being is a logical impossibility it implies he is necessary and contingent which is of course impossible.
The fails unless you can conclusively show that your first and second statements apply.
>> 5) It is eternal: because as we’ve established, this necessary being cannot not exist so it must be ever-existing or put it simply eternal.
We have not shown that that necessary being even exists yet, so this statement depends on the others to be even worthy of consideration. But then again, there may very well be some core energy that is eternal, as I have briefly mentioned.
>> So we know there is a necessary being, it’s one, eternal, immaterial, outside spacetime and changeless, how do we know if it is a conscious, rational necessary being or put it simply God?
We do not know that there is any such being, as explained.
>> Ok let’s say the necessary being is irrational and unconscious, how can it bring into existence rational, conscious beings like us? It’s impossible because let’s say ~B caused B, how can ~B cause B when ~B doesn’t have the properties to cause B, it’s like saying, if we wait long enough a pink elephant will appear in space, we know this is impossible because space doesn’t have the properties to cause a pink elephant, so it’s impossible for ~B to cause B.
There is no reason to think what you said is true. Rationality and consciousness have evolved in animals. They came about with the evolution of brains, which are neural networks consisting of matter and electricity. You shouldn’t just disregard this. Merely asserting “We’re rational and conscious, therefore the creator must be as well” is unconvincing without any reasoning behind it.
>> So the only option left is to say the necessary being is rational and conscious and this being is God, if it’s rational and conscious then it can decide whether something can be conscious or not conscious, rational or irrational.
Please explain *exactly* how an immaterial being can be rational and conscious. From all we know so far, thought and consciousness depends on material neural networks. At the moment, they’re biological, but in the future, there might be true artificial intelligence. In any way, there is no known mechanism, and not even a theory as far as I know, of how something entirely immaterial could be capable of rational thought.
Your proof shares one quality many others of its kind: You are overly skeptical of each and any explanation that does not require precisely the God that you believe in, and assert their impossibility without sufficiently explaining it. Then, when you think you’ve excluded all other possibilities, you conclude that precisely your God remains as the only option. It’s convenient, because it does not require you to investigate if your God is at all possible. You do not present any positive proof of your God, only negative proof by elimination of any other option. Which in itself is not convincing.
You haven’t proven any of your points. And even if they were true, they wouldn’t logically lead to that conclusion
If god is infinite and exists out side of time and space how could it be responsible for the cause of the universe? Cause and effect occurs inside time not outside it.
Hello!
Could you explain point 4 to me, I don’t understand why having different traits makes something contingent.
For example, on a Cartesian graph we have the x and y axis. These axis are fundamentally different things and we could posit an infinite number of further dimensions, each distinct from all previous ones.
Why does something being different mean it’s contingent?
Linking back to the domino example, how does a changeless first domino cause the second one to fall?
> Suppose you saw a series of falling dominoes, and the last domino fell right besides your feet, would you infer an infinite regress of falling dominoes? No why? Because if there is an infinite regress of falling dominoes, the last domino wouldn’t fall and end right besides your feet, it would’ve hit another domino and keep going ad infinitum because an infinite regress implies endlessness and if something is endless then it cannot stop.
Faulty logic here. The reason I wouldn’t assume an infinite regress of falling dominoes is because I understand dominoes to be a human-created artifact that does not exist in infinite quantities, which is not an understanding I have of the universe.
Also, something can be infinite in only one direction–for example, anyone who believes in an immortal soul believes that souls have a beginning, but not an end. I see no reason not to conclude that there could also be something that has an end, but not a beginning.
And even setting all of that aside… why should we think that our universe is the “last” universe? If there is a chain of universes giving rise to universes analogously to the dominoes, it seems very easy to conclude that either a) our universe has given rise to another universe and we just can’t see that from our limited perspective within the universe, or b) our universe *will eventually* give rise to another universe just as it takes a (small, but measurable) period of time for a domino to fall and knock over the next one.
> When we say a being is changeable we say the being has parts, if it has parts then it’s dependent upon those parts,
> If there are 2 necessary beings then one of them has to have something different from the other and if it has something different from the other then it is contingent, it’s changeable
Why? I don’t understand this leap in logic at all. It seems to me that if there can be one non-contingent entity, there could be any arbitrary number of them (or one with any arbitrary number of parts).
> Ok let’s say the necessary being is irrational and unconscious, how can it bring into existence rational, conscious beings like us?
Read up on the theory of evolution. It explains quite coherently how irrational, unconscious beings can give rise to rational, conscious beings.
>so therefore there has to be a necessary being, a being that cannot not exist…
Nothing you said leading up to this conclusion contains a premise including the word “being”. You’ve just stated it, unsupported.
The 5 traits you’ve gone on to describe can also be used as descriptors of the cosmos, and we know that exists.
You’ve fallaciously concluded a being, and then described the cosmos and called it god. To move this argument forward, you’ll need to justify the conclusion of a necessary being in your first section leading up to your 5 attributes.
There is so much wrong with this, that I don’t even know how to begin. It relies so much on intuition, that it simply begs the question (if we can’t conceive of an infinite cosmos, which by its own terms does not really permit a beginning as we would understand it, then that means there is a god). It also begs the question as to whether the cause must me immaterial (who says, other than your intuition) that the initial cause ( assuming such a thing even occurred) must be outside the material realm (again, other than your intuition)? Same goes for space time, which itself had a beginning in the first moments after the initial expansion, but before that cannot even be talked about in a meaningful way under our current understanding. Number 4 is just false, and only comes from your own assertion. Same goes for number 5 (why would the cause need to be eternal, other than you needing it to be eternal to fit your god into that gap). There is no argument here, as your premises are not established. They are only asserted.