Help with understanding a proof of God

[WingZero0]

I'm reading an apologetics book and in it there's 20 proofs for the existence of God. The 3rd proof however I cannot understand. It almost seems like it's saying matter can disapper which it can't. Any help would be appreciated:

1. We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies.

2. Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; its nonbeing is a real possibility.

3. Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibiliyt for every thing.

4. Then right now nothing would exist. For

5. If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed--literally--nothing at all. But

6. From nothing nothining comes. So

7. The universe could not have begun.

8. But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the ininitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built-in possibility not to be. But

9. If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. So

10. There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary.

11. Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being.

12. This absolutely necessary being is God.

[B. W.]

I'm reading an apologetics book and in it there's 20 proofs for the existence of God. The 3rd proof however I cannot understand. It almost seems like it's saying matter can disapper which it can't. Any help would be appreciated:

1. We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies.

2. Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; its nonbeing is a real possibility.

3. Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibiliyt for every thing.

4. Then right now nothing would exist. For

5. If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed--literally--nothing at all. But

6. From nothing nothining comes. So

7. The universe could not have begun.

8. But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the ininitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built-in possibility not to be. But

9. If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. So

10. There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary.

11. Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being.

12. This absolutely necessary being is God.

I am not sure what number three means either. Who wrote this?

There are what I term as finger prints of God all over His creation as Romans 1:20 points out, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" NKJV

Next mark is one so often overlooked that it is seldom seen which proves that God exists and that is the Jewish people. Can you name me one group of people that have been around approx 6000 years and still retain their heritage and culture? Only the Jewish people have done so and what God did they believe in? What group of people was Jesus born into?

Would any group of people who have gone through the same persecutions as the Jewish people have gone through and still retain their cultural identity as well as still exist as a nation - a people?

The Roman Empire has ceased, many nations/empires have come and gone but the Jewish people still remain and that in and of itself is a testament to God's Faithfulness to His promises and too His existence.
-
-
-

[WingZero0]

Its one of Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways that have been updated to modern times.

[WingZero0]

I did manage to find an explanation however I still don't understand quite what its trying to say.

The third way is based on possibility and necessity. We find that some things can either exist or not exist, for we find them springing up and then disappearing, thus sometimes existing and sometimes not. It is impossible, however, that everything should be such, for what can possibly not exist does not do so at some time. If it is possible for every particular thing not to exist, there must have been a time when nothing at all existed. If this were true, however, then nothing would exist now, for something that does not exist can begin to do so only through something that already exists. If, therefore, there had been a time when nothing existed, then nothing could ever have begun to exist, and thus there would be nothing now, which is clearly false. Therefore all beings cannot be merely possible. There must be one being which is necessary. Any necessary being, however, either has or does not have something else as the cause of its necessity. If the former, then there cannot be an infinite series of such causes, any more than there can be an infinite series of efficient causes, as we have seen. Thus we must to posit the existence of something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself. That is what everyone calls "God."

[B. W.]

I did manage to find an explanation however I still don't understand quite what its trying to say.

The third way is based on possibility and necessity. We find that some things can either exist or not exist, for we find them springing up and then disappearing, thus sometimes existing and sometimes not. It is impossible, however, that everything should be such, for what can possibly not exist does not do so at some time. If it is possible for every particular thing not to exist, there must have been a time when nothing at all existed. If this were true, however, then nothing would exist now, for something that does not exist can begin to do so only through something that already exists. If, therefore, there had been a time when nothing existed, then nothing could ever have begun to exist, and thus there would be nothing now, which is clearly false. Therefore all beings cannot be merely possible. There must be one being which is necessary. Any necessary being, however, either has or does not have something else as the cause of its necessity. If the former, then there cannot be an infinite series of such causes, any more than there can be an infinite series of efficient causes, as we have seen. Thus we must to posit the existence of something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself. That is what everyone calls "God."

Thomas Aquinas — that explains it. He does go off deep rabbit trails

He maybe discussing God creating the universe out of nothing and since the universe came from nothing — then God exist because He had to create it. I think that is how an old Prof explained it in my college dayzes…
-
-
-

[thereal]

Also, you might try investigating the "Theory of Infinite Regress"; from what I've read, it seems applicable to this proof. However, while I'm posting, I must ask a question. I follow this proof right up until the last three statements. Why must a creative force that creates something out of nothing necessarily be a "being". Furthermore, how does this proof substantiate the God identified by Christianity as omnipotent, omniscient, immortal, etc. This proof provides support for nothing more than a creative force and does not address any of the qualities attributed to it. Am I missing something here?

[Kurieuo]

Also, you might try investigating the "Theory of Infinite Regress"; from what I've read, it seems applicable to this proof. However, while I'm posting, I must ask a question. I follow this proof right up until the last three statements. Why must a creative force that creates something out of nothing necessarily be a "being". Furthermore, how does this proof substantiate the God identified by Christianity as omnipotent, omniscient, immortal, etc. This proof provides support for nothing more than a creative force and does not address any of the qualities attributed to it. Am I missing something here?

I am familiar with this argument and would be happy to provide the additional reasoning on why it must be a being.

Firstly, given that our universe began ~13.7 billion years ago including with time, space, matter and energy as many now accept, our universe can be ruled out as the ontological necessary entity. Yet, how do we come to an intelligent being as the ontological necessary entity?

Imagine what a world would be like which has existed from eternity... Such a world would need to be eternally the same and static in order to be timeless (to avoid the logic which rules out an actual infinite as being possible). For without any any change there is no way to measure time passing. Now an unintelligent entity which doesn't possess a will and the power to enact upon its will (such a material world), wouldn't be able to all of a sudden decide to change from its timelessness to produce an effect. To use an example from William Craig:

• "Let's say the cause of water's freezing is sub-zero temperatures. Whenever the temperature falls below zero degrees Centigrade, the water freezes. Once the cause is given, the effect must follow, and if the cause exists from eternity, the effect must also exist from eternity. If the temperature were to remain below zero degrees from eternity; then any water around would be frozen from eternity. But this seems to imply that if the cause of the universe existed eternally, the universe would also have existed eternally. And this we know to be false." (Reasonable Faith, p.117).

Craig concludes it (the universe existing eternally) is false, because we know the "effect" (i.e., "big bang" - our world) is finite. If the unverse as a whole were infinite, then our world would have to be as eternal as the world that caused it. However we know it is not.

Coming back to an intelligent entity, an intelligent entity (possessing a will, and the power to enact upon its will) would have the potential to bring about conditions which weren't previously present. Unlike an eternal universe which couldn't "will" a change to cause something different, only an intelligent entity has the potential to will and bring about a change from a previously changeless (and therefore timeless) state. Therefore the property of the ontological necessary thing must possess a will and have the power to carry out such a will.

Whether or not you agree, I hope this helps you understand the reasoning better.

Kurieuo

[tj rich]

Please forgive me if this answer seems dismissive but I would suggest you forget about proof. God exists (or does not exist) independent of our proofs. Humans can reason and justify almost any point of view, naziism, racism, britney spears makes good music, the moon is made of cheese. Some things are open to proof by evidence but that is the realm of science. It's clear that an omnipotent God could easily prove his existence, that He hasn't done so would suggest it is not part of His plan.

[rico7]

The strongest evidence for God is arguably provided through Jesus:

http://www.jesusevidence.com

[madscientist]

The strongest evidence for God is arguably provided through Jesus:

http://www.jesusevidence.com

Well i read the 12 points, dont think they all really make sense for me and as someone said earlier - yes, they prove or show there needs to be a driving force for creation; however, not God.

And i completely agree it IS JESUS who is the strongest evidence. Not proof i'd say, but evidence. Ive thought of it and i looked in this thread and ya! looks we've found it.
The thing is, when discussing whether God exists or whether not, it is always believers arguing the same points, and non-believers the same ones, just like creationsim vs. evolutionism. Each only accepts their own points, sort of biased id say, and so the debaters discuss acording to whether they belieev or not. If yea, then they bring evidecne for; if not, the against.
However, Jesus seems to be the stongest evidence, along with some appearances of Virgin Mary, for example.

Prayers or so? Still a chance there is some other force answering them (e.g. - do other religions's believers' prayers get heard to if we Christians know their god doenst exist), but things about Jesus jave been recorded and so on.
So there it is! God send Jesus as strongest evidence to us. In OT, God directly talked to us; nowadyas, not so much as He did with others; as we have had Jesus come here.
But why doesnt He talk with us like He did in OT, anyway??

[ScienceAndFaith]

At the risk of oversimplification I would suggest that the only point being made is that if there was a time when there was nothing (no space, time, energy, or matter), and if something does now exist, Something (capitol "S" intended) must have brought it into existence. It did not come from nothing. All the proposals as to how we got something from nothing start with "something," not "nothing" (i.e. vacuum fluxuations are something, not nothing.) The only way to introduce something from nothing is for a being outside of space, time, energy, and matter to introduce it from another dimension.