Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:Thanks Jac.

This is going to get quickly complicated.

Given I believe that God at creation entered into time in virtue of His true relationship with the created order, then I have to reject that change can never be internally caused.
As a general rule, yes, but not always -- not with God. To say such would be limiting God's power I feel. I'd agree that there can only be one uncaused causer.

I might believe otherwise if I saw a way to consistently hold to theses two states: "God existing without creation" and then "God existing with creation."
As I see matters, God acting from His timelessness to cause something new (creation) necessarily causes God to enter into the world.
I cannot accept that God's act (creation) is as eternal as God's being.

One man's modus tollens is another man's modus ponens. Seems to me God's pure actuality disproves God's temporality. You think God's temporality disproves His pure actuality. I think His pure actuality is far more evident than His temporality. I appreciate that you disagree.

My own view, though, is that we aren't limiting God's power. We are saying what we have always said. God cannot do the logically impossible, because such is not a thing to do. It seems to me that your view, K, has God in both act and potentiality in the same way at the same time. That's self-contradictory, so it cannot be true.

So, the bottom line: in these types of causal chains (the types in which the movement/change is powered by something else) there must be some first source of power, otherwise there would literally be nothing causing the change in question, right? And that means that there cannot be an infinite regression of changes, because if there were, then there would be nothing first powering the whole chain, right?

Agree. Still with you.

Fine, so the conclusion is necessarily drawn. For any given causal chain of the type we are talking about, there has to be a principle cause that is COMPLETELY UNCHANGING. For if it is changing at all, it is not the principle cause (for reasons we've already seen). If something is completely unchanging, it is absolutely immutable. That means we actually have to keep going beyond the fisherman, since he's changing, too!

I'll take it that you agree with conclusion since I haven't introduced any new data, and instead, I'll ask you this further question:

Can anything give what it does not have? My own view is that it cannot, because that would mean that something is coming from nothing, which is a contradiction in terms.

Jac3510 wrote:Fine, so the conclusion is necessarily drawn. For any given causal chain of the type we are talking about, there has to be a principle cause that is COMPLETELY UNCHANGING. For if it is changing at all, it is not the principle cause (for reasons we've already seen). If something is completely unchanging, it is absolutely immutable. That means we actually have to keep going beyond the fisherman, since he's changing, too!

I'll take it that you agree with conclusion since I haven't introduced any new data, and instead, I'll ask you this further question:

Can anything give what it does not have? My own view is that it cannot, because that would mean that something is coming from nothing, which is a contradiction in terms.

I agree with the conclusion.

And as far as I can tell, no, something cannot give what it does not have.

Then it's easy to see that this completely unchanging cause is God. If the completely unchanging cause is really unchanging, then it cannot receive anything from outside of itself (that would be a change). If it is causing all change, then it must have every potential good to give in causing all changes (we call those goods "perfections" in technical terms). More basically, that means that it can lack absolutely nothing.

So what would you call an eternal, immutable, absolutely perfect (in the sense that it lacks absolutely nothing) cause of all changes that are, were, or will be? I'd call that cause "God."

Notice that we have shown God to exist in this presumably beginningless universe. So we see that if a universe has or doesn't have a beginning, it doesn't change the fact that God must exist. Here's the conclusion: if any universe is changing in any way whatsoever, it is necessary for God to exist and to be causing that universe to exist at every given moment of its existence.

That is why I say that a beginningless universe is still contingent upon and requires the existence of God.

Jac wrote:
Then it's easy to see that this completely unchanging cause is God. If the completely unchanging cause is really unchanging, then it cannot receive anything from outside of itself (that would be a change). If it is causing all change, then it must have every potential good to give in causing all changes (we call those goods "perfections" in technical terms). More basically, that means that it can lack absolutely nothing.

So what would you call an eternal, immutable, absolutely perfect (in the sense that it lacks absolutely nothing) cause of all changes that are, were, or will be? I'd call that cause "God."

Jac,

I understand all of that already.
None of that shows how the universe could have no beginning, and it doesn't address my concerns. If the universe had no beginning, it would have to be eternal for the same reason that God is eternal. And if the universe is eternal, it can't change. In the same way God cannot change. And we know the universe changes, so it can't be eternal.

I think you were the one who addressed the issue of an eternal God having to be unchanging.

Notice that we have shown God to exist in this presumably beginningless universe. So we see that if a universe has or doesn't have a beginning, it doesn't change the fact that God must exist. Here's the conclusion: if any universe is changing in any way whatsoever, it is necessary for God to exist and to be causing that universe to exist at every given moment of its existence.

Sorry. This doesn't show a beginningless universe. It shows a changing universe. And as I stated above, I have a problem with anything that is beginningless, thus eternal, changing. That's why IMO, nothing can be eternal except God.

No, I objected a long time ago to eternality and beginninglessness being the same thing. I still object. If you conflate the two, then by definition, a beginningless universe is eternal with God. But since I reject that conflation, I don't have that problem. A beginningless universe can change. An eternal anything cannot.

Of course, I'd agree that if the universe is eternal that it can't change. A beginningless universe is not an eternal universe. If you think not having a beginning means eternality, you need to prove the equation. You don't get to just assert it. Put more strongly, I reject the assertion. I see absolutely no reason we should accept it. It's a non-sequitur.

All I attempted to show is that a beginningless changing universe requires a God to exist. If the BB were disproven tomorrow, at most we would a beginningless, changing, universe. God is still necessary. So, I don't know how else to ask: can you prove that to be beginningless is to be changeless? I proved my claim. I'd like to see you prove yours.

Jac wrote:
No, I objected a long time ago to eternality and beginninglessness being the same thing. I still object.

But why do you object? Doesn't lack of a beginning infer eternality? We both agree that we both believe the only thing that is beginningless, is also eternal. That's God.

If you conflate the two, then by definition, a beginningless universe is eternal with God.

That's my point!

But since I reject that conflation, I don't have that problem. A beginningless universe can change. An eternal anything cannot.

But that's the problem I have. And I'm trying to figure it out.

Of course, I'd agree that if the universe is eternal that it can't change. A beginningless universe is not an eternal universe. If you think not having a beginning means eternality, you need to prove the equation. You don't get to just assert it. Put more strongly, I reject the assertion. I see absolutely no reason we should accept it. It's a non-sequitur.

Jac, I can't see the difference in this case, between beginningless and eternal. Again, in my mind, only God is beginningless. And He is also eternal. So that leads me to think that a beginningless universe would have to be eternal. Which to me is illogical. Only God can be beginningless and eternal. You yourself said that you believe God is the only "thing" that is beginningless.

All I attempted to show is that a beginningless changing universe requires a God to exist.

But to me, all you did was prove a changing universe requires God to exist. I didn't see the proof of how a beginningless universe needs God, much less could possibly change.

If the BB were disproven tomorrow, at most we would a beginningless, changing, universe. God is still necessary. So, I don't know how else to ask: can you prove that to be beginningless is to be changeless? I proved my claim. I'd like to see you prove yours.

Jac, I'm trying to understand what I think I'm claiming. I can't prove it because I can't even understand it!

I fully admit that this whole issue may only be on my end. But I need to find a way to understand it.

If you could answer why you object to a beginningless universe not being eternal, in light of God being beginningless and eternal, then please do. Maybe it will help.

RickD wrote:But why do you object? Doesn't lack of a beginning infer eternality? We both agree that we both believe the only thing that is beginningless, is also eternal. That's God.

No, it is not true that a lack of beginning infers eternality. Yes, it just so happens to be that the one thing that is beginningless is also eternal. But that is accidental. It just so happens to be that way.

Suppose I put three objects on the table: an apple, an orange, and a banana. Suppose I said, "There are three objects, and all three are fruit. Therefore, if an object is on this table, we can infer that it must be fruit!"

That's be silly. You can't say that. It just so happens to be that the objects were fruit, but being on the table doesn't make them fruit. Just so, it just so happens to be that, in our real world, the only thing in the class of beginningless things is God, and the only thing in the class of eternal things is God. But if the BB were not true, if the universe were beginningless, then there would be TWO things in the class of beginningless things: God and the universe, and only ONE thing in the class of eternal things: God.

That means that you cannot say, "What is beginningless is eternal." That means that if someone says, "The universe is beginningless," they cannot go on to argue that the universe is also eternal with God. You have to show a necessary connection between beginninglessness and eternality.

Put differently, I would say this:

All eternal things are necessarily beginningless.
Not all beginningless things are necessarily eternal.

Frankly, I've become convinced the problem isn't on your end but on mine. There is something very obvious to me that I'm not able to say clearly enough. I'm not communicating something in a clear manner. I want to figure out what it is.

All eternal things are necessarily beginningless.
Not all beginningless things are necessarily eternal.

But why is that so? By definition only?

Unless someone else has a different perspective, what you're saying isn't getting through my dense skull.

And again, I appreciate your help. I'm just not getting it I guess.

It just seems to me that anything without a beginning must be eternal. Again, because if something has no beginning, its coming into existence isn't contingent on anything else, because it has always existed.

And if something exists without being an effect of something else, then it is illogical to me because the only thing that fits that, is God.

Would God have to sustain a beginningless universe for its continual existence?

Yes

If something must be sustained, is it contingent on the thing sustaining it?

Yes

Can an eternal anything be contingent on anything?

No

Then would s beginningless universe be eternal?

No

A beginningless universe would be contingent on an eternal God for its moment by moment existence.

Would God have to sustain a beginningless universe for its continual existence?

I certainly don't know. We both believe God sustains this universe which had a beginning.

Maybe I can add some more confusion.

I'm not saying that I approve of all Jac's beliefs, but I have heard an analogy given that is perhaps relevant and made some sense to me.
However, while it made the "penny drop" and I had an "ah huh" moment, the example I don't believe was a clear one. So I'll use my own example, which may/may not help with understanding what Jac is saying re: beginningless and eternality.

Picture a drawing on a wall. As far as you travel to the left, it keeps going on and on endlessly. Travel to the right, the same thing. There seems to be no beginning point and no end. Right? Thus, you potentially have a beginningless and endless picture on a wall.

But, it is not eternal. Why not?
Imagine the picture now being washed off. It's now just vanished from the wall. Gone!
The picture was actually contingent upon the wall as its foundation. But, I'm not done...
Now picture that the wall collapses. It's now gone too. The wall was contingent also.

It's a matter of looking at things linear fashion versus a more foundational and layered approach where things are contingent upon lower-level foundations.
We look at time in a linear manner. It could be beginningless perhaps, although I see valid logical arguments against such.
BUT, nonetheless, it such logic were flawed, time itself may not be eternal but contingent upon whatever it's actual foundation is (i.e., Jac would say God).

You're absolutely right Kurieuo!


you did add to the confusion

In your example, the picture wasn't beginningless, nor eternal. It only appeared that way.

Kurieuo wrote:Maybe I can add some more confusion.

I'm not saying that I approve of all Jac's beliefs, but I have heard an analogy given that is perhaps relevant and made some sense to me.
However, while it made the "penny drop" and I had an "ah huh" moment, the example I don't believe was a clear one. So I'll use my own example, which may/may not help with understanding what Jac is saying re: beginningless and eternality.

Picture a drawing on a wall. As far as you travel to the left, it keeps going on and on endlessly. Travel to the right, the same thing. There seems to be no beginning point and no end. Right? Thus, you potentially have a beginningless and endless picture on a wall.

But, it is not eternal. Why not?
Imagine the picture now being washed off. It's now just vanished from the wall. Gone!
The picture was actually contingent upon the wall as its foundation. But, I'm not done...
Now picture that the wall collapses. It's now gone too. The wall was contingent also.

It's a matter of looking at things linear fashion versus a more foundational and layered approach where things are contingent upon lower-level foundations.
We look at time in a linear manner. It could be beginningless perhaps, although I see valid logical arguments against such.
BUT, nonetheless, it such logic were flawed, time itself may not be eternal but contingent upon whatever it's actual foundation is (i.e., Jac would say God).

I have been trying to understand Jac's fishing line analogy and I think you just got me over the line on understanding the contingency argument........................thanks