There has to be a first cause that is also timeless - something has to have permanent existence and that something has to create time.

Aquinas's Argument From Necessary Being expresses this nicely, paraphrased below:

- Can’t get something from nothing
- So something must have existed ‘always’.
- IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something has permanent existence.
- It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (an infinite regress; it would have no start so could not be), so the ‘something’ must be a timeless first cause.

See here for more reasons why there must be a timeless first cause:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1


(sorry for going off topic)

If you are outside causality, you can still create causality, IE create time.

Is it then logical for something to be a “first cause” if it cannot be caused? — I like sushi

The first cause is timeless - beyond causality. It has 'always' existed. It was not created. This is the only way to avoid an infinite regress of time stretching back forever. It's the only way the universe can be.

Considering there may be no actual “first cause” we’re cannot running under one, or more, assumptions no matter what we do. — I like sushi

It is logically impossible for anything to exist without a first cause.

Logic is generally a guide not a soothsayer. Meaning we can establish many logical arguments, but they’re always open to the questioning of inference ... — I like sushi

It's the axioms that are usually attacked. For example, all that is needed to show there is a first cause is causality (actually you can even show there is a first cause without causality) so causality often gets attacked.

What we should be asking is whether the simplistic nature of the "does God exist?" question has been made valid by by being built upon what has been learned from observation of reality by experts. — Jake

This is the reason I insist on people stating what they mean by “God” before I can say anything else - most of the time this is met with accusations of “reductionism” and/or “word play”. — I like sushi

The question 'Does God exist?' requires a definition of God which is not always provided with the 'proof of God'. It is not a meaningful question without that definition.

Depending on the exact definition of God used, 'Does God exist?' may or may not be addressable with logic and science. For example, St Anselm’s definition as the GCB does not lead to any logical proof in my opinion (the GCB does not have to exist in reality despite what St Anselm says).

Defining God with all sorts of additional, far fetched attributes (like the 3Os) also makes proof of God a non-scientific / non-logical proposition.

For a logical proof of God, it is best to be quite strict and spartan with the definition used. For example, if you restrict the definition to 'the first cause', then it is possible to make a reasonable argument:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

The God debate typically asks, does a god exist, or not? We can observe that it's typically assumed without the least bit of questioning (for evidence see the infinite number of God debate threads on any philosophy forum) that the only possible answers to this question are yes or no. — Jake

I usually answer the 'Does God exist?' question with a probability God (according to a particular definition) exists. I don't see how anyone, theist/atheist/other, can arrive at yes/no as an answer with certainty.

No, infinity isn't possible. Right, Devans99? There must be a first cause. A timeless first cause. A timeless, all-powerful, first cause, made of spaghetti. — S

A variation on an idea of French philosopher Jean Buridan:

1. Flying Spaghetti Monster Exists
2. None of the statements in this pair is true

You have to fit true/false to the above statements in such a way that there is no contradiction,

You will have to be more specific...

There have been numerous speculations, theories and observations concerning "big bang" events. The big bang is not believed to have been an isolated incident, and there is a growing body of evidence in support of this. — whollyrolling

You are referring to the theory of Eternal Inflation? That is the dominant cosmological theory and it posits a common first cause for all the big bangs.

There are of course some less popular cosmologies out there, but they typically posit time is past eternal - which is impossible - because infinite regresses are impossible and other reasons I've posted here before. CCC by Penrose is one such example theory.

I don't think we know exactly why that's the case yet — Terrapin Station

Inflation explains it perfectly though - just like an expanding balloon, the further apart the dots/galaxies are, the faster the distance between them increases.

You can perhaps see why I am reluctant to accept your theory when the established theory is so in agreement with the facts.

That if we have evidence that things are moving faster than the speed of light, then "Things can't move faster than the speed of light under any circumstances" is obviously incorrect. — Terrapin Station

How does your theory account for the fact that only distant galaxies appear to move FTL and closer galaxies do not?

There is a relationship between how far a galaxy is away from us and how fast it is receding - how does your theory explain that?

If creation was a natural phenomenon we would see more than one instance of it - in fact with infinite time, we'd see an infinite number of creation events (Big Bangs). Thats not what we see. Natural events come in pluralities. The Big Bang was a singleton, hence unnatural/supernatural.

What you're basically arguing is that the Big Bang is God. — whollyrolling

I believe that God causing the Big Bang is the mostly likely explanation.

The theory fits the facts IMO.

What is your counter theory?

I don't think anyone can explain it at present - we don't know exactly what is going on. Astronomers talk of the metric expanding. So it is maybe space is not doing anything but 'the ruler' by which we measure space is expanding.

But we have an explanation - space is expanding. Only distant galaxies appear to recede at FTL, all nearby galaxies do not. This supports the idea that space is expanding - with expansion, the further things are apart, the faster the distance between them increases (think of stretching a rubber band again).

FTL is just too far fetched.

- The speed of light speed limit is one of the best empirically established facts in science
- It is also predicted theoretically (see Maxwell)
- It makes intuitive sense. If there was no speed limit; it would be possible to accelerate things unto infinite velocities and straight out of the universe (this is possible with Newtonian mechanics)

So I see FTL as extremely unlikely, hence space is inflating FTL and the speed limit is being obeyed.

You can't prove creation, and in no way in any of your commentary have you pointed to anything but its absence. — whollyrolling

If you want to debate whether the universe is a creation or not, I suggest this thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

I have laid out all the evidence there. IMO it is clearly a creation.

This thread I had intended for a discussion of God's attributes.

This a great mystery. The mechanism of expansion is unknown. What we do know is distance galaxies have redshifts of greater than 1 (the speed of light) and we need a mechanism to account for it that does not involve FTL.

Space is space - nothing - so I don't think it can be said to be moving. The particles within it are moving but not space itself.

Do you have a beef with the speed of light speed limit by any chance?

No the galaxies don't move, space inflates. Think of the rubber band example - from the perspective of a dot on the band, stretching of the band involves no movement.

I gave the definition of supernatural I'm using - not of spacetime. Spacetime was clearly a creation so that implies the existence of the supernatural.

OK I should of phrased it:

Parts of the universe are inflating apart from each other at faster than the speed of light.

Stretching I am using as an analogy. Inflating is the usual analogy. New space is appearing between the galaxies - nothing is moving.

If you are standing on a stretching road, you are not moving relative to your surroundings.

Isn't stretching moving? — Terrapin Station

The medium (space) is stretching. The things in the medium (the galaxies) are not moving.

Imagine inflating a ballon full of floating particles. The particles themselves don't move - but new air adds to the space between the particles.

I don't have the knowledge of general relativity needed for this. Its explained a bit more here:

"The expansion of the universe causes distant galaxies to recede from us faster than the speed of light, if proper distance and cosmological time are used to calculate the speeds of these galaxies. However, in general relativity, velocity is a local notion, so velocity calculated using comoving coordinates does not have any simple relation to velocity calculated locally. (See Comoving and proper distances for a discussion of different notions of 'velocity' in cosmology.) Rules that apply to relative velocities in special relativity, such as the rule that relative velocities cannot increase past the speed of light, do not apply to relative velocities in comoving coordinates, which are often described in terms of the "expansion of space" between galaxies"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Universal_expansion

You don't go with what someone tells you non-critically. Anyone can say something wrong. — Terrapin Station

Agreed. Wish people would be more critical of established knowledge - we know for a fact some of it will be wrong.

- What is not clear about the rubber band analogy? The dots do not move, the band stretches
- You are going against what all of the astronomers tell us.

Then we can't say that parts of the universe are moving apart from each other at faster than the speed of light, lol. — Terrapin Station

OK. I'm not sure how to describe it. Parts of the universe are being stretched apart at FTL maybe?

Nothing is moving faster than the speed of light. The dots/galaxies do not move at all - space expands in-between.

If I stretch these dots out (by stretching a pretend rubber band that they are inscribed upon):
..____ ..
To:
.._________________________..
The closely neighbouring dots are still close to each other - they not moved. But the distance between the two pairs of dots has increased dramatically.

Imagine a rubber band with two dots on it (=galaxies). When you stretch the band, the dots/galaxies do not move (relative to their immediate surroundings) but the distance in-between them increases.

Still do not get your point I'm afraid.

If nothing breaks the speed of light limit then nothing is moving apart faster than the speed of light. If something is moving apart faster than the speed of light, then something breaks the speed of light limit. We can't have it both ways. It's a simple contradiction. — Terrapin Station

It's not the galaxies that are moving; it is the metric of space expanding - it's as if new space is appearing between the galaxies. I'm no expert, here is what Wikipedia says:

"The expansion of the universe is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. The universe does not expand "into" anything and does not require space to exist "outside" it. Technically, neither space nor objects in space move. Instead it is the metric governing the size and geometry of spacetime itself that changes in scale. Although light and objects within spacetime cannot travel faster than the speed of light, this limitation does not restrict the metric itself. To an observer it appears that space is expanding and all but the nearest galaxies are receding into the distance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe

First, if this is the case, the speed of light is not actually a (universal) speed limit. — Terrapin Station

It's due to the very fabric of space expanding. It's likened to a balloon inflating. So nothing breaks the speed of light limit but things on the opposite side of the universe are moving apart faster than light.

I don't follow you. Which of the 10 arguments are you referring to?

Different dictionaries have different definitions of supernatural. Here is one:

Definition of supernatural
(1) : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
(2a) : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
(b) : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

So I am using the word in the sense of (1) above. That appears to be the only scientific related usage of the word.

(2a) is also similar - transcending the laws of nature

(b) I think this is the most common usage of the word. Correct to say we cannot make assumption about such.

Supernatural comes from the Latin word supernaturalis, meaning beyond nature.

If being omnipotent requires being the most powerful existing being then it follows that God would no longer be omnipotent after [\i] having created a copy. But this says nothing about whether he is omnipotent before creating the copy. He might well be omnipotent at that time. — PossibleAaran

A fair point. I suppose I could resort to the light cone argument but then effecting something outside your light cone is impossible and omnipotent usually excludes achieving the impossible. I could also say that God could not create anything infinite but again that is generally impossible so not really in the spirit of the post. If God was immutable, it would be impossible for him to change himself... still the same problem.

So there is the classic argument 'could God create a stone so heavy he could not lift it?':

"A common response from Christian philosophers, such as Norman Geisler or William Lane Craig, is that the paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, they say, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that's possible according to his nature. The distinction is important. God cannot perform logical absurdities; he cannot, for instance, make 1+1=3. Likewise, God cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being. God is limited in his actions to his nature. The Bible supports this, they assert, in passages such as Hebrews 6:18, which says it is "impossible for God to lie.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Looks like I should have defined Omnipotence in the OP.

Supratemporal and supernatural are not really the same thing — I like sushi

Supratemporal is timeless. There is a little about it in relativity: photons are timeless, but really we have no idea how this could work. Which is a pity because this attribute seems to be logically required.

In more simplistic linguistic terms; if I cannot know something (in the purest meaning of ‘not knowing’) then I cannot know that I don’t know it. — I like sushi

I'm a little confused: I cannot know all the digits of π yet I know that I cannot know? Can you give an example?

All manners in which the “supernatural” is claimed, as far as I’ve seen, is in reference to phenomenon - which is by definition NOT supernatural, therefore the term is part of a word game where the claimant declares knowledge of what they don’t/can’t know. It is a fallacy of language — I like sushi

Agreed, I personally use a definition of supernatural as beyond nature; IE beyond spacetime.

If it helps, perhaps I can provide an example that might put things into perspective (I hope). Islam is a fairly new religion, and before it became mainstream there was essentially no "Allah", or at least none to speak of — Maureen

Islam's Allah is meant to be the same as the Christian God / the jewish Yahweh - Muhammed was continuing a traditional god rather than defining a whole new god.

Simply put, there should at the very least have been some knowledge or recognition of Allah even in the absence of the Islamic religion in the event that he actually does exist — Maureen

If we recast your argument to say why was Yahweh not known about before Judaism, we find that even Yahweh is a god probably inherited from a previous tradition:

"The national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel (Samaria) and Judah was Yahweh. The precise origins of this god are disputed, although they reach back to the early Iron Age and even the Late Bronze. The name may have begun as an epithet of El, head of the Bronze Age Canaanite pantheon, but earlier mentions are in Egyptian texts that place God among the nomads of the southern Transjordan."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Judaism

A hypotheses is that all gods can trace their roots back to an earlier god. Then the question becomes was God a single invention or was God invented multiple times in different places? With the first, we have one proto-God, with the second we have multiple proto-Gods.

Neanderthals were religious - religion dates back a long way. Its even possible that the first humans (who could talk) came up with the idea of proto-God and that traditional was passed on orally to everyone else, mutating with time into the many different religions we have today.

You can deduce stuff from false arguments by conjunction introduction:

'Trees walk' - is false

But 'Socrates is a man OR trees walk' is true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_introduction

Yes; but, can it be the case that an argument that is fallacious can lead to other arguments that are fallacious? — redan

Sorry misread your comment. A fallacious argument could be a contradiction. As mentioned above, contradictions allow you to deduce anything.

Yes; but, can it be the case that an argument that is fallacious can lead to other arguments that are fallacious? — redan

Yes if a logical error is made in the derivation. There is a set of valid derivation rules called syllogisms. If you don't stick to these rules you get invalid conclusions.

What do you call it when one false argument follows from another one derived from valid premises? — redan

If an argument is derived from valid premises and the derivation is valid logic, then it is a valid argument. Anything following on from it is also valid (provided the derivation is valid).

Perhaps you refer to Principle of Explosion: ‘from a contradiction, anything follows’? For example, consider the following contradiction:

This statement is true
This statement is false

We can write:

‘This statement is true or trees can walk’ - this is true by virtue of 1 above.

Then 2 above tells us that ‘This statement is true’ is false hence we can logically conclude that trees can walk.