The following premises of argument has been carefully arranged to help the atheists and agnostics to have a perfect belief in the existence of God.

PREMISE 1; Something must be eternal (i:e always exist and infinitely old)


Why ; If there is absolutely 'NOTHING' in the long past, then there is no way we can have 'SOMETHING' at this present time because something can NEVER come out from absolutely nothing.

You can never pick SOMETHING from the wardrobe that contains NOTHING before you locked it up. This is because something cannot just suddenly pop into the wardrobe from nothing.

In a similar manner, "SOMETHING" at this present time could not have suddenly popped into existence from absolutely "NOTHING" in the long past.

See the logical proof cited below;


(a) For a "change" to occur, a "cause" is
required.

(b) Popping of something into existence from absolutely nothing is a "change" which therefore require a "cause".

(c) But there is no any "cause" present in an absolutely nothing.

(d) Therefore, there is no any cause to trigger a
change from absolutely nothing to become
something.

(e) Hence popping of something into existence
from absolutely nothing is impossible.

Therefore, something must be eternal i:e always exist and infinitely old.


So what is this very something that is eternal ?

There are only two options; Universe itself (i:e the entire nature) OR any hypothetical Being outside the Universe. Let us depict this hypothetical invisible Being outside the Universe as God.
Of course it would not make sense to assume that both Universe and God are eternal. So it is reasonable to assume that only one entity is eternal (Occam's razor principle)

Now how are we to know which one is eternal ? Is it Universe (i:e the entire nature) that is eternal or is it God that is eternal?


PREMISE 2 ; Anything that is ETERNAL (i:e something that is always exist and infinitely old) would not have a CHANGING characteristic.


Why; for anything to CHANGE, an EXTERNAL cause is required to trigger this change. But as we have established above in premise 1, only one thing (i:e either Universe or God) must be eternal. Therefore, in the long past, nothing exist except this ETERNAL entity. Consequently, there was no any external cause that can trigger a change in this ETERNAL entity. Hence, anything that is ETERNAL would not have a "changing" characteristic.


OBJECTION ; Why is it only an EXTERNAL cause that can trigger a change in an eternal entity ? What of INTERNAL cause or causes within the eternal entity ?



REPLY ; if "all the cause" necessary to trigger a change in an eternal entity is INTERNAL (i:e already present inside the entity), then no change would be observed because the final state would always precede the initial state.
For an illustration, let assume that three drops of an indicator (i:e all the necessary cause) is required to CHANGE the colour of an alkaline solution from colourless to pink. That is to say, immediately I finished putting the third drop, the color of the alkaline solution will suddenly change from colourless to pink. You will agree with me that "all the three drops of indicator" are EXTERNAL CAUSE (i:e outside the alkaline solution). Now if all the three drops of indicator is already inside the alkaline solution right from the beginning of its production (i:e INTERNAL CAUSE), then the INITIAL color of the alkaline solution would be pink instead of colorless. So "changing" from colorless (INITIAL) to pink (FINAL) would never be observed because the initial color of alkaline solution is already pink not colorless. That is to say, the final state has preceded the initial state. Yet for a CHANGE to occur, the initial state must always precede the final state.
Therefore, it is only an EXTERNAL cause that can trigger a change in an eternal entity ( or in anything )

But there was no any external cause that can trigger a change in an ETERNAL entity because in the long past nothing exist beside this eternal entity. Hence, anything that is ETERNAL would not have a "changing" characteristic.

If you are yet to be convinced, see another argument explained below;

(a) Anything that is eternal (i:e always exist and infinitely old) has no beginning

(b) And anything that has no beginning did not create itself nor created by any other thing.

(c) And anything that did not create itself nor created by any other thing can never be changed, either by itself or by any other thing, from what it has always been for an infinite time.

(d) Therefore, anything that is eternal would not have a changing characteristics.




PREMISE 3 ; Universe (or nature) has a CHANGING characteristic.


Why; In the long past, no part of Universe (or nature) can see, can hear, can speak, can think and can move voluntarily . But now some part of the Universe (i:e human beings) can see, can hear, can speak different languages, can think and can move voluntarily. Therefore, Universe has undergone a drastic CHANGE.

Hence, follows from Premise 2, Universe is not eternal because of its CHANGING characteristic.

But we have already established from Premise 1 that "SOMETHING (i:e either Universe or God )" must be eternal. And since universe is not eternal because of its CHANGING characteristic, then God must be eternal.

But how are we completely sure that this very hypothetical invisible being depicted as God actually exist ?
If God does not actually exist, then Premise 1 would be wrong because nothing would be eternal. Remember that we have already proved that Universe is not eternal. Hence, if God is also not eternal due to His non existence, then nothing would be eternal. Therefore, Premise 1 would be wrong.

But Premise 1 is perfectly true. Therefore, God must actually exist.

Why aren't they people on this nice thread?

johnydon22:
Why aren't they people on this nice thread?

Because its full of silly assumptions!

Abdulgaffar22:
PREMISE 1; Something must be eternal (i:e always exist and infinitely old)

Why must something be eternal? Do things not evolve into being? Even scripture says everything was void, so what is eternal about it?

Abdulgaffar22:
PREMISE 2 ; Anything that is ETERNAL (i:e something that is always exist and infinitely old) would not have a CHANGING characteristic.

See? According to op, things don't change over time, yet pick up a Bible and read how a wrathful God changes to a loving Jesus over time!

Abdulgaffar22:
PREMISE 3 ; Universe (or nature) has a CHANGING characteristic.

Now see. An admission of change over time that was denied in premise 2 and 3!

Abdulgaffar22:
But Premise 1 is perfectly true. Therefore, God must actually exist.

And see a conclusion that does not quite follow from the premises stated! Or are things true because one says things are true?

I see op as creating an image to justify the existence of God, and gods that need image justification cannot exist!

budaatum:

Because its full of silly assumptions!

Actually, it isn't. It's assumptions are logically consistent.

Why must something be eternal? Do things not evolve into being? Even scripture says everything was void, so what is eternal about it?

It is called argument of contingency.

If everything is contingent, an infinite regression of contingencies is logically absurd therefore there must be a necessarily thing at the apex of it all.

So, it is either there is an infinite regression of contingent causes which is absurd

Or

There is an eternal thing (necessary thing) that started it all.

So, this isn't an absurd premise.

See? According to op, things don't change over time, yet pick up a Bible and read how a wrathful God changes to a loving Jesus over time!

He didn't mention the bible God or any particular deity at all.

He argued for God in an ontological sense.

Where did this come from?

Now see. An admission of change over time that was denied in premise 2 and 3!

Did you understand his argument at all?

I'm not sure you did.

Anything eternal is unchanging

Anything changing is not eternal.

That's the premise.

His conclusion therefore, since the universe changes, it cannot be eternal.

He explained this to detail.

(You can refute his position by providing an equally logically consistent alternative to its fundamental assumptions)

I'm starting to think you are not reading people's argument to understand them Buda, you are reading to reply.

And see a conclusion that does not quite follow from the premises stated! Or are things true because one says things are true?

Actually it does follow the premises precisely and the argument is quite solid.

It is an ontological argument of contingency.

1. Everything in the universe is contingent.
2. There cannot be an infinite regression of contingencies
3. There must be a necessary thing (non-contingent thing)
4. This non-contingent thing is God.

His argument is actually sound. Your reply seem to be replying something else.

johnydon22:
Actually, it isn't. It's assumptions are logically consistent.


It is called argument of contingency.

If everything is contingent, an infinite regression of contingencies is logically absurd therefore there must be a necessarily thing at the apex of it all.

So, it is either there is an infinite regression of contingent causes which is absurd

Or

There is an eternal thing (necessary thing) that started it all.

So, this isn't an absurd premise.

He didn't mention the bible God or any particular deity at all.

He argued for God in an ontological sense.

Where did this come from?



Did you understand his argument at all?

I'm not sure you did.

Anything eternal is unchanging

Anything changing is not eternal.

That's the premise.

His conclusion therefore, since the universe changes, it cannot be eternal.

He explained this to detail.

(You can refute his position by providing an equally logically consistent alternative to its fundamental assumptions)

I'm starting to think you are not reading people's argument to understand them Buda, you are reading to reply.

Actually it does follow the premises precisely and the argument is quite solid.

It is an ontological argument of contingency.

1. Everything in the universe is contingent.
2. There cannot be an infinite regression of contingencies
3. There must be a necessary thing (non-contingent thing)
4. This contingent thing is God.

His argument is actually sound. Your reply seem to be replying something else.

The argument of contingency is made from "propositions that are neither true under every possible valuation nor false under every possible valuation. It is also known as the cosmological argument in which the existence of a unique being, generally seen as some kind of god, is deduced or inferred from facts or alleged facts concerning causation, change, motion, contingency, or finitude in respect of the universe as a whole or processes within it, and is traditionally known as an argument from universal causation and an argument from first cause."

Note the assumptions. One assumes a first cause then weaves an argument based on that premise to prove a first cause, which if done in mathematics is called wuruwuru to the answer, which I'm willing to overlook. He won't be the first with this argument, nor would he be the last.

It does fall on its face though as you know. Hear you:

"If everything is contingent, an infinite regression of contingencies is logically absurd therefore there must be a necessarily thing at the apex of it all."

Why "if"? How can you possibly state that the logical conclussion of the apparent infinite regression is absurd "if", to justify your first cause? What "if everything is not contingent"? Why is it absurd to assume it might not be? To avoid the logical regressive conclussion? Is that how you understand logic to work, make it up with an "if", so "therefore", then "must be"? Is that logical to you?

I've argued against it here, and here and see no point in engaging further with those who deny the logical conclusion of their own assumption which is an infinite regression on a baseless assumption of "if". It is a position that stops further consideration though, and in my opinion, limits God. Just imagine what might be gained from delving further into the cause of the causer, then the cause of the causer of the causer ad infinitum. We might be wiser for it is what I think, after all, the idea of an Almighty God did not start at Genesis 1.

johnydon22:

Anything eternal is unchanging

Anything changing is not eternal.

That's the premise.

It is not a premise that my evolving mind shares since nothing in the entire universe has been shown to be eternal or unchanging. The sun isn't eternal and is changing as is the universe, and God, which is what the op is trying to prove with his argument, has obviously changed and will continue to change over time.

johnydon22:


I'm starting to think you are not reading people's argument to understand them Buda, you are reading to reply.

Do know that I read his argument and did not reply until you asked why no one had replied, and my response was to tell you why not.

The entire argument is based on assumptions that I disagreed with but saw no reason to respond to until you asked why not. But if you think as you do above, then so be it.

budaatum:

Do know that I read his argument and did not reply until you asked why no one had replied, and my response was to tell you why not.

Your reply made me assume you didn't, they didn't correlate to his post at all.

The entire argument is based on assumptions that I disagreed with but saw no reason to respond to until you asked why not. But if you think as you do above, then so be it.

I do not think it is okay for us to address a logically consistent argument with strawmans

budaatum:

It is not a premise that my evolving mind shares since nothing in the entire universe has been shown to be eternal or unchanging. The sun isn't eternal and is changing as is the universe, and God, which is what the op is trying to prove with his argument, has obviously changed and will continue to change over time.

Actually No, you are assuming the God the OP is talking when the OP doesn't at all imply any particular deity. The OP's argument is based on God as an ontological necessity. (Assuming that the OP is talking about the Jewish God or any God in religion is a strawman)

johnydon22:
Actually No, you are assuming the God the OP is talking when the OP doesn't at all imply any particular deity. The OP's argument is based on God as an ontological necessity. (Assuming that the OP is talking about the Jewish God or any God in religion is a strawman)

God, any God, is not an ontological necessity. God exists or doesn't exist for each individual. Or how many people do you see claiming a God ontologically exists for them?

Sounds like a tree can't fall in a forest and make a sound unless someone were there to see and hear it, to me.

johnydon22:


I do not think it is okay for us to address a logically consistent argument with strawmans

Yet, the entire argument op presented is illogical inconsistent straw, to me!

Johny, please note, I am not really into arguing for whether there is a God or not. It is irrelevant to me either way, and personally, on the assumption that there is a God, what, pray tell, can I possibly present as evidence when we'd likely not even agree on a definition of God? Have I not been on the other side of that argument on here for eons?

I do not agree that God can be proven or disproven by logic and all we would end up doing is strawmanning one another. Funny though how the strawman is often the one accused first when the truth usually is that both parties are equally as guilty as the other.

We will evolve, I promise.

You can never pick SOMETHING from the wardrobe that contains NOTHING before you locked it up. This is because SOMETHING cannot just suddenly pop into the wardrobe from NOTHING.

In a similar manner, "SOMETHING" at this present time could not have suddenly popped into existence from absolutely "NOTHING" in the long past. Therefore, something must be eternal i:e always exist and infinitely old. Hence Premise 1 is perfectly true.

I have said it here several times that arguments are not what will sway me in the quest for the knowledge of the existence of a God or gods but I will participate in this just for my own curiosity and enlightenment.

Abdulgaffar22:
The following premises of argument has been carefully arranged to help the atheists and agnostics to have a perfect belief in the existence of God.

PREMISE 1; Something must be eternal (i:e always exist and infinitely old)


Why ; If there is absolutely 'NOTHING' in the long past, then there is no way we can have 'SOMETHING' at this present time because something can NEVER come out from absolutely nothing.

You can never pick SOMETHING from the wardrobe that contains NOTHING before you locked it up. This is because something cannot just suddenly pop into the wardrobe from nothing.

In a similar manner, "SOMETHING" at this present time could not have suddenly popped into existence from absolutely "NOTHING" in the long past. Therefore, something must be eternal i:e always exist and infinitely old.


So what is this very something that is eternal ?

There are only two options; Universe (i:e the entire nature) OR any hypothetical Being outside the Universe. Let us depict this hypothetical invisible Being outside the Universe as God.
Of course it would not make sense to assume that both Universe and God are eternal. So only one thing must be eternal.

Now how are we to know which one is eternal ? Is it Universe that is eternal or is it God that is eternal?

Who says it is 1 something? Why can't it be somethings? Or a succession of things in differing configurations of multiplicity? Why is the something eternal?

PREMISE 2 ; Anything that is ETERNAL (i:e something that is always exist and infinitely old) would not have a CHANGING characteristic.


Why; for anything to CHANGE, an EXTERNAL cause is required to trigger this change. But as we have established above in premise 1, only one thing (i:e either Universe or God) must be eternal. Therefore, in the long past, nothing exist except this ETERNAL entity. Consequently, there was no any external cause that can trigger a change in this ETERNAL entity. Hence, anything that is ETERNAL would not have a "changing" characteristic.


OBJECTION ; Why is it only an EXTERNAL cause that can trigger a change in an eternal entity ? What of INTERNAL cause or causes within the eternal entity ?



REPLY ; if "all the cause" necessary to trigger a change in an eternal entity is INTERNAL (i:e already present inside the entity), then no change would be observed because the final state would always precede the initial state.
For an illustration, let assume that three drops of an indicator (i:e all the necessary cause) is required to CHANGE the colour of an alkaline solution from colourless to pink. That is to say, immediately I finished putting the third drop, the color of the alkaline solution will suddenly change from colourless to pink. You will agree with me that "all the three drops of indicator" are EXTERNAL CAUSE (i:e outside the alkaline solution). Now if all the three drops of indicator is already inside the alkaline solution right from the beginning of its production (i:e INTERNAL CAUSE), then the INITIAL color of the alkaline solution would be pink instead of colorless. So "changing" from colorless (INITIAL) to pink (FINAL) would never be observed because the initial color of alkaline solution is already pink not colorless. That is to say, the final state has preceded the initial state. Yet for a CHANGE to occur, the initial state must always precede the final state.
Therefore, it is only an EXTERNAL cause that can trigger a change in an eternal entity ( or in anything )

But there was no any external cause that can trigger a change in an ETERNAL entity because in the long past nothing exist beside this eternal entity. Hence, anything that is ETERNAL would not have a "changing" characteristic.

Again why must it be unchanging? There is no precedence by which we may declare that a thing is unchanging, not even the ever present cosmic background radiation is unchanging.

The cause of change can be internal based on the properties of the material, eg the rate at which a material loses heat.

The conclusion on this premise only follows if premise 1 is valid and in the case where there are successive multiplicity of somethings then it falls flat.

PREMISE 3 ; Universe (or nature) has a CHANGING characteristic.


Why; In the long past, no part of Universe (or nature) can see, can hear, can speak, can think and can move voluntarily . But now some part of the Universe (i:e human beings) can see, can hear, can speak different languages, can think and can move voluntarily. Therefore, Universe has undergone a drastic CHANGE.

Hence, follows from Premise 2, Universe is not eternal because of its CHANGING characteristic.

But we have already established from Premise 1 that "SOMETHING (i:e either Universe or God )" must be eternal. And since universe is not eternal because of its CHANGING characteristic, then God must be eternal.

But how are we completely sure that this very hypothetical invisible being depicted as God actually exist ?
If God does not actually exist, then Premise 1 would be wrong because nothing would be eternal. Remember that we have already proved that Universe is not eternal. Hence, if God is also not eternal due to His non existence, then nothing would be eternal. Therefore, Premise 1 would be wrong.

The changing nature of the universe only presents a problem for premise 1 and 2, both of which can not be demonstrated in any meaningful way. Nor does the changing nature of the universe preclude it from being all there ever was, in other words eternal. It could be the case that it is eternally changing.

But Premise 1 is perfectly true. Therefore, God must actually exist.

It is not. You can not provide any evidence to show it so how do you get to declare it as truth? Truth is only what has been shown as true, declarations do not confer veracity.

LordReed:
I have said it here several times that arguments are not what will sway me in the quest for the knowledge of the existence of a God or gods but I will participate in this just for my own curiosity and enlightenment.

This implies that you have already made up your mind not to have any interest or belief in the existence of God no matter how convincing or logical the argument may be. Such kind of preconception is very bad. We should allow ourselves to be lead by evidence; not by our prejudice.

LordReed:


Who says it is 1 something? Why can't it be somethings? Or a succession of things in differing configurations of multiplicity?

Those somethings or succession of things in differing configurations of multiplicity can still be grouped together as "entire nature" or "Universe". It is this very entire nature or universe I referred to as SOMETHING. So how did I get it wrong ?

LordReed:


Why is the something eternal?

That " Something " is eternal because we have something at this present time. Of course, something can never pop into existence from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You can never pick some money in your wardrobe if you didn't put it there in the first instance i:e before you locked it. Therefore, logically, premise 1 is perfectly true.

LordReed:


Again why must it be unchanging? There is no precedence by which we may declare that a thing is unchanging, not even the ever present cosmic background radiation is unchanging.

Any thing that is eternal would not show any changing characteristics for two reasons;

1. If it is really eternal, then it must be infinitely old. And if something is infinitely old, then it must have gotten enough time to reach a state of perfect equilibrium. Anything in a state of perfect equilibrium would not show any changing characteristics.

2. It is totally unreasonable to assume that TWO OR MORE completely different entities are eternal because anything that is eternal must be infinite. And there is nothing like two or more infinities because one infinity would never give room for another infinity. Therefore, only one entity must be eternal. This implies that beside this eternal entity, nothing exist. Hence, this eternal entity will continue to remain as it was because there is nothing external to this entity that can cause it to change. It is only external cause that can trigger a change in anything.

LordReed:




The cause of change can be internal based on the properties of the material, eg the rate at which a material loses heat.

There is one thing you failed to put into consideration; a present change we are observing in something now could have been caused by an external factor in the long past. For example, a radioactive material which continue to emit a radiation by itself may appear to be changing without any external cause. But how did such radioactive material was brought into existence in the first place ? They were atoms with unstable nuclei formed by the process of nucleosynthesis after the bigbang that occur at the beginning of the universe. So the changing we are observing now in radioactive materials was caused by external cause in the long past.
Another example is the time bomb whose its present changing characteristics (i:e its sudden explosion) may appear to be caused by internal factor but it is really caused by external factor (i:e the person that sets the bomb) in the past.

LordReed:


The conclusion on this premise only follows if premise 1 is valid and in the case where there are successive multiplicity of somethings then it falls flat.

Even if there are successive multiplicity of somethings, the premise 1 and premise 2 are still valid. This is because successive multiplicity of somethings must have an end in order to avoid the absurdity of infinite regression.

LordReed:


The changing nature of the universe only presents a problem for premise 1 and 2, both of which can not be demonstrated in any meaningful way.

Premise 1 has been demonstrated using an illustration of a wardrobe that contains NOTHING which you can never pick SOMETHING from it.

The theory which states that 'only an EXTERNAL cause can trigger a change in something' has also been demonstrated using alkaline solution and indicator. It is this very theory that premise 2 required to be valid.
So changing nature of the universe only proved that universe is not eternal. It never present any problem for premise 1 and premise 2.

LordReed:


Nor does the changing nature of the universe preclude it from being all there ever was, in other words eternal. It could be the case that it is eternally changing.

In fact, the changing nature of the universe has precluded it from being eternal. This is because if the universe is eternally changing, the number of "successive changes" that have occurred in the past would be infinite. And if the number of "successive changes" in the past is infinite ( i:e without an end) then the present changes we are now observing in the universe would never have taken place. This is because all the series of changes in the past would be yet to finish. Since we are now observing the present changes in the universe, then all the successive changes in the past had finished. Therefore, universe is not eternally changing.

LordReed:


It is not. You can not provide any evidence to show it so how do you get to declare it as truth? Truth is only what has been shown as true, declarations do not confer veracity.

The argument does prove that God exist. The chain of evidence from premise 1 to premise 3 follows each other sequentially without any break. It is very you that does not give room for the truth because you have already developed an hatred for God and his existence.

Abdulgaffar22:


This implies that you have already made up your mind not to have any interest or belief in the existence of God no matter how convincing or logical the argument may be. Such kind of preconception is very bad. We should allow ourselves to be lead by evidence; not by our prejudice.

How you chose to view it remains your business. I have stated what it will take to sway me on the existence of a god or gods.

Those somethings or succession of things in differing configurations of multiplicity can still be grouped together as "entire nature" or "Universe". It is this very entire nature or universe I referred to as SOMETHING. So how did I get it wrong ?

You got it wrong because you are insisting that the something is only singular. The somethings cannot obviously be the universe as we know it so it already is not 1 something. Whatever was before this universe in addition to this universe is already 2 somethings.

That " Something " is eternal because we have something at this present time. Of course, something can never pop into existence from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. You can never pick some money in your wardrobe if you didn't put it there in the first instance i:e before you locked it. Therefore, logically, premise 1 is perfectly true.

Any thing that is eternal would not show any changing characteristics for two reasons;

1. If it is really eternal, then it must be infinitely old. And if something is infinitely old, then it must have gotten enough time to reach a state of perfect equilibrium. Anything in a state of perfect equilibrium would not show any changing characteristics.

2. It is totally unreasonable to assume that TWO OR MORE completely different entities are eternal because anything that is eternal must be infinite. And there is nothing like two or more infinities. Infinity is infinity. Therefore, only one thing must be eternal. This implies that beside this eternal entity, nothing exist. Hence, this eternal entity will continue to remain as it was because there is nothing external to this entity that can cause it to change. It is only external cause that can trigger a change in anything.

You are simply asserting things. You have not shown how you know the properties of an eternal something because you have never examined an eternal something so you cannot possibly know what its properties can be.

1. The universe is 13.8billion years old and has shown no signs of reaching an equilibrium so I don't know where you got the idea that age is a requisite for reaching equilibrium.

2. Again where are you getting these ideas from that are in direct contradiction with what we've observed? There is an infinite number of positive integers and an infinite number of negative integers, the 2 are not the same.

There is one thing you failed to put into consideration; a present change we are observing in something now could have been caused by an external factor in the long past. For example, a radioactive material which continue to emit a radiation by itself may appear to be changing without any external cause. But how did such radioactive material was brought into existence in the first place ? They were atoms with unstable nuclei formed by the process of baryogenesis after the bigbang that occur at the beginning of the universe. So the changing we are observing now in radioactive materials was caused by external cause in the long past.
Another example is the time bomb whose its present changing characteristics (i:e its sudden explosion) may appear to be caused by internal factor but it is really caused by external factor (i:e the person that sets the bomb) in the past.

And you are doing the same with your god. If a radioactive material requires a creation so too does your god. You do not get to place arbitrary limits without demonstrating why. Your god could have been created to by another god, the god of your god.

Even if there are successive multiplicity of somethings, the premise 1 and premise 2 are still valid. This is because successive multiplicity of somethings must have an end in order to avoid the absurdity of infinite regression.

You want to give the infinte characteristic to your god but deny it for some other thing, why?

Premise 1 has been demonstrated using an illustration of a wardrobe that contains NOTHING which you can never pick SOMETHING from it.

The theory which states that 'only an EXTERNAL cause can trigger a change in something' has also been demonstrated using alkaline solution and indicator. It is this very theory that premise 2 required to be valid.
So changing nature of the universe only proved that universe is not eternal. It never present any problem for premise 1 and premise 2.

False. You do not always need an external cause for change to occur. Nor does change have anything to do with age. The universe has been changing for 13.8billion years and could have been changing for infinity before that for all we know, you have no way of showing otherwise.

In fact, the changing nature of the universe has precluded it from being eternal. One of the reasonable meaning of eternal is for something to remain as it was. So saying universe is eternally changing is like saying a freezer is producing a hot ice block. Of course, this is absurd and illogical.

You just keep asserting characteristics that you have no way of knowing or verifying in anyway. There is nothing that prevents the universe from being eternal.

The argument does prove that God exist. The chain of evidence from premise 1 to premise 3 follows each other sequentially without any break. It is very you that did not give room for the truth because you have already developed an hatred for God and his existence.

It can only is the premises are correct which you can show to be so. These premises are not evidence so I don't know how you conflating them to be so.

Hatred? LoL. Your god is like a character in a badly written fiction, I can't even muster enough emotion to feel a thing for this fictional character.

He says it better.

joseph1013:
THE ARGUMENT MUSLIMS & CHRISTIANS AGREE ON (AND BOTH GET WRONG)

A Muslim recently told me why he believes God exists. He used a very common argument that is also used by Christians so I thought it worthwhile giving a full rebuttal. Here it is:

It's good to see you have thought about this a little bit but you have not thought about it a lot.

I can say this with confidence because your argument uses common logical fallacies and at least one assumption that is most likely wrong. Once you eliminate these errors, your argument disappears.

You said, "Can this universe just spring out of nothing without a source?"

Firstly, we don't know the universe did spring out of nothing. There are very good reasons to believe that the universe began to expand about 13.8 billion years ago. But we don't know what triggered the expansion nor do we know what existed prior to the expansion. However, there is no reason to believe nothing existed prior to the expansion--this is an unwarranted assumption.

You said, "I believe the Energy that started everything, and is everything, is God."

OK but that is just a belief. You do not know that it is true--you don't even know that God exists to start everything. So this is your second problem--you just assume what happened and who was responsible and there is no reason to believe your assumptions are true. You need to prove God exists before it makes sense to even suggest this. Assuming what you are trying to prove (that God exists), is the fallacy of circular reasoning and it renders your argument invalid.

Essentially your argument is, I can't see any way the universe we see today could have come to exist without a supernatural power, therefore a supernatural power must exist. This is an example of the argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because you can't see a way this could have happened does not mean a supernatural power either exists or was involved.

You don't know everything, and even if no one alive today knows how the universe could have come about, it does not mean no one will ever know. Do you know every explanation science will ever propose for this in, say, the next 10,000 years? No, of course, you don't, which is why your argument is invalid.

Your argument is already deceased but you have made yet one more error, so I'll mention it for completeness. As a Muslim, you believe in a god first introduced to the world by Abraham. This is one of the thousands of gods that men have worshipped. This god could have revealed itself to Abraham or it could be one of the thousands of fictional gods that men have made up. Can you prove Abraham's god was not invented? I don't think you can but feel free to try.

So, even if a supernatural power was responsible, you don't know which power was responsible. It could even have been a god that has never revealed itself to mankind and it could be that ALL human gods were invented by humans. You are just assuming that if a god was involved, it was Abraham's god. Such an assumption is just a baseless opinion.

With such a combination of fallacies and unwarranted assumptions, your argument is completely worthless. If this is why you believe your god exists, I suggest you stop believing it because believing things for bad reasons is definitely not smart.

LordReed:


How you chose to view it remains your business. I have stated what it will take to sway me on the existence of a god or gods.

Check your previous post, you've not stated what it will take to sway you on the existence of God. You only let us know that no argument will ever sway you in the quest for knowledge of the existence of God.

LordReed:


You got it wrong because you are insisting that the something is only singular. The somethings cannot obviously be the universe as we know it so it already is not 1 something. Whatever was before this universe in addition to this universe is already 2 somethings.

If there was really something before the universe, then it is unreasonable to ASSUME that both the "something" and the "universe" are eternal . According to Occam's razor principle, entities should not be multiplied without necessity. In other words, when presented with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions. Therefore, it is more reasonable to assume that only one entity is eternal than to assume two or more entities.

LordReed:



You are simply asserting things. You have not shown how you know the properties of an eternal something because you have never examined an eternal something so you cannot possibly know what its properties can be.

Are you denying the power of logic ? I have taken my time to explain logically why anything eternal cannot exhibit changing characteristics.
An external cause is required to trigger a change in anything because if the cause is internal the final state will precede the initial state. But for a change to occur, the initial state must precede the final state. Therefore, only external cause that can trigger a change in anything. But nothing exist beside anything that is eternal (see Occam's razor principle explained above). Hence there is no any external cause that can trigger a change in an eternal entity.

LordReed:


1. The universe is 13.8billion years old and has shown no signs of reaching an equilibrium so I don't know where you got the idea that age is a requisite for reaching equilibrium.

Time factor is necessary for something to attain equilibrium. For example, when you put a very hot water in a room, is it not "time" it will take for the water to be at the same temperature (ie at equilibrium) with the temperature of its surrounding ? Again, when we put a dead body in a grave, is it not "time" it will take for the body to decay and be at the same composition (at equilibrium ) with the composition of its surrounding. Similarly, if universe is infinitely old and not 13.8 billion years old, then it is either there would be no stars or everywhere should have been as hot as stars ( heat death) because the entire universe would have gotten enough time to be at the same temperature (i:e equilibrium)

LordReed:


2. Again where are you getting these ideas from that are in direct contradiction with what we've observed? There is an infinite number of positive integers and an infinite number of negative integers, the 2 are not the same.

Negative numbers and negative infinity are only assumptions in mathematics. There is no way we can comprehend negative numbers and negative infinity. Therefore, in real sense, infinity is infinity and we cannot have two or more infinities because one infinity will never give room for another infinity.

LordReed:


And you are doing the same with your god. If a radioactive material requires a creation so too does your god. You do not get to place arbitrary limits without demonstrating why. Your god could have been created to by another god, the god of your god.

The reason why radioactive material require a creation is because it shows a changing characteristics which proved that it is not eternal (see below why it is not possible for something to be eternally changing). But there is no evidence for you to prove that my God exhibit changing characteristics. So my God is eternal and anything eternal does not require a creator.

LordReed:



You want to give the infinte characteristic to your god but deny it for some other thing, why?

Because unlike God, other things display a changing characteristics.

LordReed:


False. You do not always need an external cause for change to occur. Nor does change have anything to do with age. The universe has been changing for 13.8billion years and could have been changing for infinity before that for all we know, you have no way of showing otherwise.

You just keep asserting characteristics that you have no way of knowing or verifying in anyway. There is nothing that prevents the universe from being eternal.

If the universe is eternal or eternally changing, the number of "successive changes" that have occurred in the past would be infinite. And if the number of "successive changes" in the past is infinite ( i:e without an end) then the present changes we are now observing in the universe would never have taken place. This is because all the series of changes in the past would be yet to finish. Since we are now observing the present changes in the universe, then all the successive changes in the past had finished. Therefore, universe is neither eternal nor eternally changing.

LordReed:



It can only if the premises are correct which you can show to be so. These premises are not evidence so I don't know how you conflating them to be so.

If you take your time to read and understand those premises, you will see that they are enough as evidence provided you do not allow your prejudice to override your logical reasoning.

Abdulgaffar22:


Check your previous post, you've not stated what it will take to sway you on the existence of God. You only let us know that no argument will ever sway you in the quest for knowledge of the existence of God.

I have stated it here on Nairaland, I want evidence not arguments.

If there was really something before the universe, then it is unreasonable to ASSUME that both the "something" and the "universe" are eternal . According to Occam's razor principle, entities should not be multiplied without necessity. In other words, when presented with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions. Therefore, it is more reasonable to assume that only one entity is eternal than to assume two or more entities.

Strawman. I never made such an assumption. Occam's razor completely removes the necessity to postulate a supernatural eternal god.

Are you denying the power of logic ? I have taken my time to explain logically why anything eternal cannot exhibit changing characteristics.
An external cause is required to trigger a change in anything because if the cause is internal the final state will precede the initial state. But for a change to occur, the initial state must precede the final state. Therefore, only external cause that can trigger a change in anything. But nothing exist beside anything that is eternal (see Occam's razor principle explained above). Hence there is no any external cause that can trigger a change in an eternal entity.

You have taken the time to continuously assert characteristics that cannot be reasonably demonstrated or are direct conflict with what we have observed from our universe. What you have done is tantamount to attempting to define god into existence. None of the things you assert here are the nature of our universe so you are misusing logic. It is like telling me let us assume the colour green is not the result of a frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum, let's instead assume it is the hoof print of the Invisible Pink Unicorn therefore seeing the colour green proves the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Making assumptions that are not congruent to reality will only get you GIGO.

Time factor is necessary for something to attain equilibrium. For example, when you put a very hot water in a room, is it not "time" it will take for the water to be at the same temperature (ie at equilibrium) with the temperature of its surrounding ? Again, when we put a dead body in a grave, is it not "time" it will take for the body to decay and be at the same composition (at equilibrium ) with the composition of its surrounding. Similarly, if universe is infinitely old and not 13.8 billion years old, then it is either there would be no stars or everywhere should have been as hot as stars ( heat death) because the entire universe would have gotten enough time to be at the same temperature (i:e equilibrium)

How does that show that infinity means unchanging?

Negative numbers and negative infinity are only assumptions in mathematics. There is no way we can comprehend negative numbers and negative infinity. Therefore, in real sense, infinity is infinity and we cannot have two or more infinities because one infinity will never give room for another infinity.

You have no other of understanding infinity without these concepts. This thoroughly shows that you are merely asserting these things, you can not show it in any meaningful way.

You can go ahead to show how these are wrong:

∞-∞≠0
∞≠∞

The reason why radioactive material require a creation is because it shows a changing characteristics which proved that it is not eternal (see below why it is not possible for something to be eternally changing). But there is no evidence for you to prove that my God exhibit changing characteristics. So my God is eternal and anything eternal does not require a creator.


Because unlike God, other things display a changing characteristics.

Infinity can change so I still don't know where you get the idea that infinity means unchanging. Besides you have no evidence for your god and "logical" arguments are not proof.

If the universe is eternal or eternally changing, the number of "successive changes" that have occurred in the past would be infinite. And if the number of "successive changes" in the past is infinite ( i:e without an end) then the present changes we are now observing in the universe would never have taken place. This is because all the series of changes in the past would be yet to finish. Since we are now observing the present changes in the universe, then all the successive changes in the past had finished. Therefore, universe is neither eternal nor eternally changing.

I think you should reread your statement because it seems to me confused. How have changes that have already occurred supposed to be a hinderance to changes occurring now?

If you take your time to read and understand those premises, you will see that they are enough as evidence provided you do not allow your prejudice to override your logical reasoning.

Premises are not evidence and conclusions built on faulty premises are less than useless.

Why is it illogical to assume that something comes from nothing, while assuming something is eternal is deemed logical?

Abdulgaffar22:
You can never pick SOMETHING from the wardrobe that contains NOTHING before you locked it up. This is because SOMETHING cannot just suddenly pop into the wardrobe from NOTHING.

In a similar manner, "SOMETHING" at this present time could not have suddenly popped into existence from absolutely "NOTHING" in the long past. Therefore, something must be eternal i:e always exist and infinitely old. Hence Premise 1 is perfectly true.

Something can never be in a wardrobe for eternity either.


Something at this present time can not be eternal also.

Therefore your assumption of eternal something is just as illogical.

LordReed:


I think you should reread your statement because it seems to me confused. How have changes that have already occurred supposed to be a hinderance to changes occurring now?

Let me reexplain my points; pls read the following carefully

1. Let Yesterday represents "all the successive changes that had taken place in the past."

2. Let Today represents "the changes taking place presently in the universe"


3. Now if the universe is eternal or eternally changing i:e if the universe is without beginning, then this will implies that Yesterday (i:e all the successive changes that had taken place in the past ) would be infinite i:e without end.

4. But there is no way we can reach Today ( i:e the changes taking place presently in the universe) if Yesterday (i:e all the successive changes that had taken place in the past) is without end.

5. Since we have definitely reached Today, then Yesterday must have an end.

6. Therefore, if Yesterday really have an end, then follows from point number "3" above, universe is not eternal nor eternally changing.

So universe is neither eternal nor eternally changing.

But SOMETHING must be eternal . This is because if there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the long past, there is no way we can have something at this present time. And since this very SOMETHING is not universe, then it has to be an entity outside universe. This very entity outside universe is what we depicted as God.

Gggg102:
Why is it illogical to assume that something comes from nothing, while assuming something is eternal is deemed logical?

It is illogical to assume that something comes from nothing because it looks magical. If some body tell you that as he was walking along the road, all of a sudden, a very big elephant just fell from space above his head and started chasing many people. Would you sincerely believe this story ? Certainly not ! This simply shows that it is illogical to believe that something just pop into existence from absolutely nothing.

Since it is illogical to assume that something just pop into existence from absolutely nothing, then the ONLY OPTION left to account for something we have presently is to assume that SOMETHING MUST BE ETERNAL.

Abdulgaffar22:


It is illogical to assume that something comes from nothing because it looks magical. If some body tell you that as he was walking along the road, all of a sudden, a very big elephant just fell from space above his head and started chasing many people. Would you sincerely believe this story ? Certainly not ! This simply shows that it is illogical to believe that something just pop into existence from absolutely nothing.

Since it is illogical to assume that something just pop into existence from absolutely nothing, then the ONLY OPTION left to account for something we have presently is to assume that SOMETHING MUST BE ETERNAL.

It would also sound foolish if someone told you that he knows an elephant that has always existed, without a beginning and would always exist.

Abdulgaffar22:


4. But there is no way we can reach Today ( i:e the changes taking place presently in the universe) if Yesterday (i:e all the successive changes that had taken place in the past) is without end.

Why is there "no way we can reach today" if "yesterdays have no beginning"?

Is Today not today regardless how far yesterdays stretch into the past?

I wonder how far your own yesterdays stretch into the past Abdul.

Abdulgaffar22:

5. Since we have definitely reached Today, then Yesterday must have an end.

Of course yesterdays have an end. The end of yesterday was the start of today just as the end of today will be the start of tomorrow which will make today yesterday and make tomorrow today.

It's we who play catch up Abdul, tomorrow will definitely be.

Abdulgaffar22:
6. Therefore, if Yesterday really have an end, then follows from point number "3" above, universe is not eternal nor eternally changing.

No! It was yesterday that ended and today began. Just as the day before yesterday ended and yesterday began. When today ends tomorrow will begin. When we arrive at tomorrow today will be yesterday and tomorrow will be today. We at least expect today to follow yesterday and tomorrow
to become today tomorrow ad infinitum, so eternal it indeed must be.

And it definitely is changing. The universe was no where like this 10000 years ago, though I still wonder how far your own yesterdays stretch into the past Abdul. I hear it was colder some long past, for instance.

Abdulgaffar22:
So universe is neither eternal nor eternally changing.

Now this is an illogical jump, surprising for someone who wishes to be logical, and wants his
"following read carefully".

The universe has been here long enough for us to know it is changing, but I wonder how long you've been around to know its age and when it will stop being eternal.

Abdulgaffar22:

But SOMETHING must be eternal . This is because if there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the long past, there is no way we can have something at this present time. And since this very SOMETHING is not universe, then it has to be an entity outside universe. This very entity outside universe is what we depicted as God.

After arguing against the eternal universe, Abdul, you now claim something must be eternal and insert your God in the eternal gap that you yourself have created. Why did you bother creating the gap in the first place if the universe that filled it was insufficient for you?

It's the straw I mentioned in my first response in this thread of an argument against yourself. I'm entertained at best. But pray tell, how old is the universe?

Abdulgaffar22:


It is illogical to assume that something comes from nothing because it looks magical. If some body tell you that as he was walking along the road, all of a sudden, a very big elephant just fell from space above his head and started chasing many people. Would you sincerely believe this story ? Certainly not ! This simply shows that it is illogical to believe that something just pop into existence from absolutely nothing.

Since it is illogical to assume that something just pop into existence from absolutely nothing, then the ONLY OPTION left to account for something we have presently is to assume that SOMETHING MUST BE ETERNAL.

You mean people should sincerely believe this illogical story that assumes that something magically popped into existence from absolutely nothing.

Kind of explains the atheist who doesn't believe and logically exists.

Abdulgaffar22:


Let me reexplain my points; pls read the following carefully

1. Let Yesterday represents "all the successive changes that had taken place in the past."

2. Let Today represents "the changes taking place presently in the universe"


3. Now if the universe is eternal or eternally changing i:e if the universe is without beginning, then this will implies that Yesterday (i:e all the successive changes that had taken place in the past ) would be infinite i:e without end.

4. But there is no way we can reach Today ( i:e the changes taking place presently in the universe) if Yesterday (i:e all the successive changes that had taken place in the past) is without end.

5. Since we have definitely reached Today, then Yesterday must have an end.

6. Therefore, if Yesterday really have an end, then follows from point number "3" above, universe is not eternal nor eternally changing.

So universe is neither eternal nor eternally changing.

But SOMETHING must be eternal . This is because if there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the long past, there is no way we can have something at this present time. And since this very SOMETHING is not universe, then it has to be an entity outside universe. This very entity outside universe is what we depicted as God.

You seem to be conflating 2 different concepts. What I meant was that there could have have been an infinite number of changes not that the duration of the changes are infinite. It is only in event of the 2nd case can you arrive at your objection and I am not putting forth the second case. Which means either you are confused or you are attempting a strawman argument.

To further illustrate my point, take the production of insulin. The insulin molecule is the result of the joining of 2 different molecule chains. Each of those molecules requires 100s of successive reactions before they are made. Which means for example insulin requires 100 + 1 reactions for it to come into existence. It would be absurd to suggest that because of the number of the 1st 100 reactions insulin can never be produced. Already observation negates such a claim. If we extended this to the universe we would see that there is as yet no hindrance to the number of successive changes that occurred before our current universe was birthed.

To be clear I am not saying I know this is the case, this merely puts paid to the assumption that only one eternal unchanging something existed before the universe.

You argument conclusion is just assume something, now assume that something is god therefore god exists. Not a very reasonable conclusion.

Gggg102:


It would also sound foolish if someone told you that he knows an elephant that has always existed, without a beginning and would always exist.

Yes it would sound foolish because we KNOW quite right that all living things (like elephant) began to exist and will cease to exist. But it would not sound foolish if it is something whose nature is UNKNOWN to us.

What is explained below is another way to see that it is more logical to assume that "something is eternal" than to assume that "something pop into existence from absolutely nothing"

1. For a "change" to occur, a "cause" is required.
2. Popping of something into existence from absolutely nothing is a "change" which therefore require a "cause".
3. But there is no any "cause" present in an absolutely nothing.
4. Therefore, there is no cause to trigger a change from absolutely nothing to something. Hence popping of something into existence from absolutely nothing is impossible.

5.But when something is eternal, no "change" has occur. Therefore, no cause is required. Hence there is no way we can FALSIFY the existence of something that is eternal as we have done with the case of something popping into existence from absolutely nothing.

Hence assuming that something is eternal is more logical than assuming that something pop into existence from absolutely nothing.

LordReed:


You seem to be conflating 2 different concepts. What I meant was that there could have have been an infinite number of changes not that the duration of the changes are infinite. It is only in event of the 2nd case can you arrive at your objection and I am not putting forth the second case. Which means either you are confused or you are attempting a strawman argument.

To further illustrate my point, take the production of insulin. The insulin molecule is the result of the joining of 2 different molecule chains. Each of those molecules requires 100s of successive reactions before they are made. Which means for example insulin requires 100 + 1 reactions for it to come into existence. It would be absurd to suggest that because of the number of the 1st 100 reactions insulin can never be produced. Already observation negates such a claim. If we extended this to the universe we would see that there is as yet no hindrance to the number of successive changes that occurred before our current universe was birthed.

To be clear I am not saying I know this is the case, this merely puts paid to the assumption that only one eternal unchanging something existed before the universe.

You argument conclusion is just assume something, now assume that something is god therefore god exists. Not a very reasonable conclusion.

If there is really an infinite number of changes in the past, then we are going to be in the PAST by now because infinity cannot be completed by successive addition. But we are obviously not in the past because we are in the present. Therefore, number of changes in the past is not infinite because we have reached the present. And if the number of changes in the past is not infinite, then universe must have a beginning. The beginning of the universe necessitate a beginner .This beginner is called God.

Abdulgaffar22:



If there is really an infinite number of changes in the past, then we are going to be in the PAST by now because infinity cannot be completed by successive addition. But we are obviously not in the past because we are in the present. Therefore, number of changes in the past is not infinite because we have reached the present. And if the number of changes in the past is not infinite, then universe must have a beginning. The beginning of the universe necessitate a beginner .This beginner is called God.

Now I know I have reached the end of my discussion here.

In closing listen to Lawrence Krauss eviscerate your Muslim brother on this idea:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSwJuOPG4FI

LordReed:


You argument conclusion is just assume something, now assume that something is god therefore god exists. Not a very reasonable conclusion.

His argument is, assume something, now assume that something is something that is something.

It must be how he gets his daily bread my Lord, or he's assuming he gets something in return.

What Abdul, is the reward of all of your assumings?

budaatum:

His argument is, assume something, now assume that something is something that is something.

It must be how he gets his daily bread my Lord, or he's assuming he gets something in return.

What Abdul, is the reward of all of your assumings?

LoL. Dear buda you understand it even better.

LordReed:


LoL. Dear buda you understand it even better.

He tries. At least he is learning to reason. He's playing chicken with a lighthouse. Instead of accepting how things are he is refusing to twist how he sees.

His eye opening will astound my Lord.