Then you can't run the first cause argument. If every event if caused by a prior event, then you get an infinity of events. And if you're fine with that, then you don't need God. — Bartricks

Not fine with that. An actual infinity of anything is impossible IMO.

On the other hand, if you're not fine with that and think that there needs to be an initial cause of any chain of events, than that initial cause cannot be an event, but must be a thing. — Bartricks

And the initial cause must be timeless. And I don't think it is true that something from beyond spacetime could fit into spacetime. Might be like trying to get a pint into a half pint pot.

Perhaps I should ask you to define God, or which theological system you are referencing? — Punshhh

I am mainly deist in belief. So science and God combined. I think of God as some sort of benevolent, timeless architect of the universe.

God might be in eternal communion with a near endless number of other Gods, wh oas a collective are essentially omniscient — Punshhh

The communion might be unaware of another communion of greater gods in another reality. So I still feel my argument about benevolence applies.

On the contrary God might be in eternal communion with all other real beings (remember, I am suggesting that we as we know ourselves are not real, but constructs). — Punshhh

But how could he ever proof to himself that he is in contact with every possible being?

Well I agree it is unlikely we are in a simulation. But say that base reality has a 100^100 more particles than our universe. Then that leaves a lot of room for nested simulations. And individuals can be suitably complex way down into the simulation hierarchy before they start to become 'pixelated'.

Quantum entanglement would have an explanation if we are living in a simulation, so I'm not willing to rule it out completely.

Therefore, not all causation is by events. Some of what is caused to occur must be caused to occur not by any event, but by objects - substances. — Bartricks

I'm not sure how you can cause something without it being an event.

Do you think God is some sort of Boltzmann Brain? That seems impossible, the particles forming him must have been put in motion by something. Leading to another first cause. Also, the environment must be fine tuned for a Boltzmann to exist and there is no possible fine tuner (unless you introduce another first cause).

The only kind of object that exists by its very nature is a simple object. — Bartricks

Maybe God is indivisible which I guess would meet your definition. Or he could be composed of parts that all exist timelessly and permantly. I am not sure which.

And by describing God as timeless you are begging the question. God is the creator of time, and he is - now - in time. — Bartricks

If God is a creature of time, he is dead.

The OP addresses the point 4 by saying that the odds of being in one of the many simulations is reduced by the fact that time in said simulations has to run slower than time in the base reality, so simulations are necessarily younger and have fewer observers in them. — Pfhorrest

For example say the simulation runs at 60fps. But in base reality each frame takes 1 second to calculate. So each minute in base reality corresponds to a second in the simulation. But trillions have years have passed in base reality, so it would be possible for our 14 billion year old universe to be a simulation.

Point 3 ends up with pretty much the same result: if simulated universes are necessarily smaller than the base reality, then fewer observers are likely to be in simulated universes. — Pfhorrest

Each simulated universe could contain more simulated universes. So Faberge egg style nesting. Base reality contains say X individuals, each nested universe contains X smaller individuals.

But your position contains a contradiction - you're saying causation requires time and in the same breath saying that it doesn't. — Bartricks

It seems that some sort of atemporal causation is required to cause time but this is not the same as our familiar temporal form of causation.

It is an example of the thinking of a human intellect. — Punshhh

Im not sure how you can claim that God can prove that X does not exist where X is some other god. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Something could exist in an alternative reality. Therefore even God is 'god-fearing'.

God cannot be omniscient unless he has a very strange nature. The clue is 'know thyself'.

But you also think causation requires time - yes? — Bartricks

Our sort of familiar causation (cause precedes effect) needs time.

That's contradictory. That means God would be unable to create time until or unless time exists. — Bartricks

We do not understand what timeless causation could mean so it is hard to answer. God's first act could have created time. But 'first' has no meaning for a timeless entity.

The point is this: on your view, 'now' is also 'future' and 'past'. So, this moment right now, is also future and also past. No good saying that it is just 'presently now', for it is also presently future, and presently past - on your view. — Bartricks

Not really. Everything would be calibrated to the start/end of time - the Big Bang / Big Crunch. So a moment would have in its future all the moments unto the Big Crunch and in its past all the moments from the Big Bang.

Besides, I do not see the problem. The grandfather paradox is impossible - nothing can pass though the reset point of time at the Big Bang / Big Crunch.

All moments of time are alternatively future, present and past. So I do not see your point.

That's false and it contradicts your own position. You think God created time - yes? Well, how did he do that if causation itself requires time (which it doesn't)? — Bartricks

I am not entirely sure but causation (cause precedes effect) cannot hold as we know it beyond time.

God would be able to express himself in spacetime without being part of spacetime. So maybe his first expression made spacetime. But that does not mean he is part of spacetime.

If you ask 'how does he tie his own shoelaces?' then I admit I have no answer beyond saying that the human comprehension is limited and we may not ever be able to answer such questions.

Again, this simply doesn't make sense. You can't watch a film for the first time numerous times, can you? On your view you can. So much the worse for your view. It doesn't make sense. — Bartricks

Think about 4d spacetime. There is no past/present/future in 4d spacetime. All moments have the same status. So I introduced the moving spotlight idea (not mine) as a way to have eternalism and have a distinction between 'now' and past/present. We can distinguish now from past/present so the concept seems to be a requirement. The moving spotlight moves over Jan 2020 and then X billion years later, it moves over Jan 2020 again.

But living numerous indistinguishable lives is not the same as living the same life again and again. Living the same life again and again would mean watching a film for the first time numerous times - which is obviously impossible. — Bartricks

It is exactly you who is represented as a pixel on the circle of time and the spotlight comes around many times. So it would be exactly like watching a film for the first time repeatedly.

Not everything that happens can be caused by a happening, for then one has an infinite regress of happenings. So some things that happen - including, of course, the first happenings - must be caused not by prior happenings, but by substances. — Bartricks

Once we are beyond time, we are beyond the familiar comfort of cause and effect. And therefore beyond the possibility of an infinite causal regress. It must be the case that something created time, but there is no meaning in ordering the event of the creation of time - it took place beyond time.

Substances are causally inert. They only do something if another substance interacts. That cannot precede back forever in an infinite regress. There must be something causally active at the base of the regress.

You must already accept the existence of such things, for 'God' is one. What I am saying is that you are not justified in insisting that there is just 'one' such substance. Other things being equal it seems as reasonable - if not more reasonable - to posit a plethora. — Bartricks

As soon as we posit a plethora and causation that leads back to a first cause.

More fundamentally, however, your view is incoherent. As I said, if you're proposing cycles in time, then the present moment is also a future moment. I mean, how can you deny that? It is in the future, and it is present, and it is past. It is all three. Right now. Right now, it is all three. Yet they contradict. if an event if present, it is not also future and past. If it is past, it is not also present and future. — Bartricks

I imagine a moving spotlight rotating around the circle of time. Where the light shines, that is 'now'. So all moments have a real existence but only one is present at any time.

The idea that I could watch the film 'for the first time' numerous times is equivalent in incoherence to your proposal that we live our lives over and over. It doesn't make sense. — Bartricks

I'm suggesting it could be that you have one life and experience it multiple times. So each time you experience it, you never remember the previous time, so it feels like the first time. If you remembered the previous experience, it would not be the same life.

How does it follow that it 'must' be an intelligence? It must be a simple thing that has the power of substance causation (substance causation being causation by a substance, rather than an event involving it). But you've made a leap by concluding that it therefore must be intelligent. — Bartricks

How can something cause without itself being effected? It must be self-driven. The first cause cannot be an automation because they need creating. So the first cause must be intelligent.

And why must it be unitary? A plethora of simple substance causes seems perhaps more reasonable than the posit of a single simple substance cause. — Bartricks

What set the plethora of simple substances is motion? There must be a first cause for that too.

I don't see why you think premise 1 is true. If God is a simple thing then he is uncreated, which is not the same as not existing. The simple things that are required for anything to exist are of precisely this kind - that is, they have no beginning, yet nevertheless exist. — Bartricks

How can something exist in time without a temporal start? Would you exist if you were not born? If something has no temporal start, it has no temporal start+1, no temporal start+2, no temporal start+2... hence it does not exist in time.

God does create time, I think. But he is not outside of it, for what he creates now applies to him, just as the writer of an autobiography is the author of a work that has him/herself as its main subject. — Bartricks

If God is in time, God is dead. That is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I don't believe God would have created time if he knew it would destroy him.

No number can have a length at all. In any case, we are not talking about numbers, we are talking about time. — aletheist

In our minds we can treat numbers as labels with no length. But we are talking about time; that is in reality, something must have greater than zero width to exist. So a moment of time must have a non-zero width

No, and I have stated this plainly before. I provided the relevant definitions, so please stop trying to impose others. — aletheist

The only other definition of an infinitesimal I'm aware of is a number x>0 such that x^2=0. Also nonsensical in my opinion.

We cannot "prove" anything empirically, only gather evidence. What kinds of experiments could somehow demonstrate that time is discrete? — aletheist

Good question, I am not sure. We could perhaps discover space is discrete through the observation of the movement of particles. Maybe we could infer from that spacetime is discrete.

I always wondered about e=mc^2. IE e/m=c^2. Energy and matter are discrete quantities so that means c^2 is discrete. But c is distance/time, so are these also discrete? My physics sucks... can't be that simple!

No, we already agreed that "now" is not a durationless instant, and all we ever experience is "now"; so we never experience any distinct moments, let alone an actual infinity of them. — aletheist

You are claiming there are moments in the last second I did not experience. But I experienced all moments - all actualised. Unless you are claiming that humans are discrete and time is continuous?

But say we had greater perception. We'd experience more distinct 'nows'. If we had greater perception still, we'd experience even more distinct 'nows'. If we had infinite perception, we'd experience infinite nows... an actual infinity.

Positions are artificial creations for describing motion, not real constituents of the motion itself. Likewise for instants and any "distinct moments" that they allegedly define. — aletheist

I disagree, continuous motion by definition marks out a greater than any number of intermediate positions. If you say it marks out a fixed number of positions, then that means space is discrete. I do not see how it can be an indeterminate number of intermediate positions - every possible position the hand occupies must be a distinct position and there must be a greater than any number of such distinct positions if space is a continuum.

That's actually pretty good! But you've proved nothing whatever about God. At most you have given a demonstration that If.... And while the "if" enables, it also disembowels what it enables. — tim wood

Thank you Tim.

The creator of the universe (if you believe there is one) must be very smart, easily smart enough to work out my little rap on Pascal's Wager. So I believe God must be benevolent.

God cannot be sure he is the only god. Its impossible to prove that something does not exist. There could be a more powerful god out there somewhere in some alternative reality not known by our God. So all gods are bound by the argument I gave (as we are).

The proper mathematical definition of "infinitesimal" in this context is having length that is non-zero, but shorter than any assignable value relative to an arbitrary unit interval. — aletheist

No number can have a length greater than zero and less than all reals IMO. So it must be the imaginary construct of 1/∞ that you refer to? As you know, I think ∞ is a logical impossibility so therefore 1/∞ is not possible either.

What is this alleged finite, non-zero duration of "now"? On what rational principle can we go about determining it, rather than just arbitrarily defining it? — aletheist

How do we measure time? We could use light clocks. So that 'now' corresponds to some minute distance travelled by light (the Planck length maybe). So now must be finite and non-zero for the light beam to move and for time to flow.

It is worth noting that someday we maybe able to prove empirically that space/time are discrete. We will never, ever be able to empirically prove they are continuous.

No, "indefinite" quite literally means "not defined" (by anything). We directly perceive the continuous flow of time within the present moment, and then abstract distinct instants that stand in the relations of preceding (earlier than) and following (later than). — aletheist

But in the second of time that started two seconds ago and finished a second ago, I experienced all possible instances of time as distinct moments - I actualised each moment. So I'd argue that belief in time as a continuum is equivalent to a believe in actual infinity (which is impossible logically IMO). Likewise, when I move my hand, I actualise all possible intermediate positions.

I Agree it is improbable that we live in a simulation:

1. Every particle in the observed universe (10^80) interacts with every other particle via gravity. Our most powerful computers cannot solve the 3 body problem, so how is it possible to compute the 10^80 body problem?

However:

2. With trillions of years of development of computer technology and a vastly better understanding of physics, maybe something is possible
3. If (like in Men in Black) the universe is much smaller than the owner of the simulation and his computer, then maybe something is possible
4. The old standby, there is but one base reality and untold numbers of simulations, so we must be in the latter

So I think it is still possible that we are living in a simulation.

It is possible to prove God is benevolent
— Devans99
Please do. All humanity awaits. — tim wood

The proof is actually all intelligent beings must be benevolent:

1. You are an evil person. You meet a good person. You are punished
2. You are an evil person. You meet a evil person. You are punished
3. You are an good person. You meet a evil person. You are punished
4. You are an good person. You meet a good person. You are rewarded

So anything (including humans, AI, aliens, gods) intelligent enough to work out the above would see that the only satisfactory outcome comes through being good.

Besides one 'indefinite moment' is defined by the preceding.

No, that only applies to distinct instants, not indefinite moments. In any case, what is the first real or rational number after zero? It straightforwardly begs the question to insist that only the natural numbers can be used here, because by definition they have a first member. — aletheist

If the width of 'now' is zero, time never flows. 'now' cannot be infinitesimal width because actual infinity is metaphysically and logically impossible (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7379/infinite-bananas/p1) .

So 'now' must have a finite, non-zero length which we can call a moment. So it is valid to number the moments since the start of time.

I disagree, moments are arranged sequently so they must be representable by the real number line or the naturals. In either case, if you remove a previous moment, all subsequent moments become undefined. In the first case, I can argue that if there is no n.nn moment, then there is no n.nn+0.01 moment. In the second case, my proof already covers that...

One more proof time has a start: perpetual motion is impossible so time has a start.

That is about 5 proofs I've given that time has a start Vs 0 proofs you have given that time has no start.

The existence of evil brings about a greater good. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

The more evil there is in the world, the more you appreciate heaven when you get there. Heaven lasts longer than earth so it is therefore the optimal solution to have evil in the world; it results in greater good.

You are misinterpreting. I did not say the universe always existed, I said time always existed and universes get created from time to time. — Zelebg

If universes get created from 'time to time' naturally and time is infinite then that leads to infinite density. Back to the drawing board with that idea then.

So you lack understanding of basic physics. — Zelebg

You are the one who is ignorant. All dumb mechanical systems tend to equilibrium:

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

Why is god fine-tuned? — Zelebg

God's environment cannot be fine-tuned for life because there is no-one to do the fine tuning. So God must not need a fine-tuned environment. We are not God. We need a fine-tuned environment to exist and the universe is fine tuned.

You are not addressing the point. Universe is causally effective and it does not have to be intelligent to achieve that. Ok? — Zelebg

No dumb mechanical system can be causally effective - there is nothing to initiate motion and even if by some impossibility there was motion, it would lead to equilibrium after a time. The fact that the universe is not and has never been in equilibrium means it is not a dumb mechanical system. There must be something self-driven (=inteligent) and permanent in the universe that has always kept it out of equilibrium. You wish to attribute this intelligence to the universe itself but as far as we can tell, the universe is a dumb mechanical system - so there must be some other source of this intelligence.

a. time has always existed, but it’s not quite what it seems to be — Zelebg

Time cannot have always existed:

1. Assume time has always existed
2. Call the current state of the universe X
3. Then the universe has been in state X a greater than any number of times in the past
4. Absurd, so 1 is wrong - time has a start

I don't think that conclusion gets you to an agency, much less God. I think what it gets you to is the existence of simple things. — Bartricks

But the first cause must be causally effective; able to cause an effect without itself being caused. So it must be intelligent and not just a 'simple thing'.

But after time has been created, then that which created it would be 'in' time. For how could it not be? And yet this creator or creators, would now be in time, yet would not have any cause external to themselves. Thus by your own lights not everything in time has an external cause of its existence, for the creator of time is in time and does not have an external cause of its existence. — Bartricks

Good point, but the thing that creates time may stay outside of time. It might be diminishing of its powers to enter time.

I should add, I do not deny your conclusion - I think we do have overwhelmingly good reason to think that the universe has a single first cause and that the first cause is 'God' at least in some sense of that term. — Bartricks

God is either in time or out of time:

1. If he is eternal in time, then he has no start, no coming into being so cannot exist
2. If he is in time but there is an empty stretch of time before his coming into being then there is nothing to create him - creation ex nilhilo - which is impossible
3. That leaves just a timeless God as the only possibility.

So you have a choice to postulate magical fine-tuned universe, just like we observe, or to postulate unobservable magical being, that just so happens to be fine-tuned to hallucinate into existence this magical fine-tuned universe we actually observe. — Zelebg

I am not attributing magic properties to God. All I am claiming is he is timeless and that is not in itself magical. And without God, we are left with an unexplainable mystery of the universe being fine-tuned (billions to one to happen by chance).

Then the universe existed before time. Or whatever paradox you accepted for your deity, it can be applied directly to the universe. — Zelebg

Something causally effective, IE intelligent, must exist before time.

I find this really iffy. I think 3 is straight up false though. If time ends somehow there will be an nth moment without an (n+1)th moment. — khaled

All point [3] says is 'If there is no nth moment there is no nth+1 moment'. In the case of time ending, then there is an nth moment, so argument [3] does not apply to that scenario.

Not only that but I find the whole conception of "nth moment" problematic. There can be a moment but no nth moment. As in there can be a moment in time, but one that we cannot label with any number n, namely, if time is circular. If time is circular you can't label any point on it n without that labeling being arbitrary. However that doesn't actually mean there is no moments in circular time, that's absurd. You conflate not being able to count moments with them not existing at all — khaled

I am thinking of the moving spotlight view of time. A spotlight rotates around the torus/circle of time, wherever the light falls is 'now'. So the spotlight would have had to start somewhere, no doubt at the Big Bang. That would be moment zero and the nth moment can be calculated from that basis.

It would be awful to live the same life over and over. — fishfry

You would not remember anything so it will feel like living a whole new life.

I don't want to close down this question, but rather contribute an appropriate level of humility to it. — Punshhh

Great minds think alike they say. I'm not saying we have minds as great as God, I speculating that all intelligent beings would have a similar sort of mind so that it would, in a limited sense, be possible to read the mind of God.

Why would God, who is perfectly good, make us live our lives here over and over? — Bartricks

It is possible to prove God is benevolent but I don't believe one can prove him omni-benevolence?

So assuming God is just benevolent, maybe he calculates that society tends towards perfection as time goes on, so circular time would be just great for the majority of people (though it might not be 100% great for us as our society still needs to evolve further).

Heaven and hell is possible I guess (instead of circular time), but I feel it is more difficult to implement.

Also the proposal seems incoherent. I cannot live 'this' life again, I can at best live another life that is indistinguishable from it — Bartricks

I'm thinking of time as the eternalist moving spotlight view. So imagine the a spotlight rotating around the torus/circle of time. Wherever the spotlight shines is 'now'. So we have one life but experience it multiple times.

There is some homework for Devans (a small portion of what Aquinas wrote on the subject). I don't like having intellectual conversations with people who don't act like adults — Gregory

I will have a read. Thanks. Meanwhile, I suggest that God must be able to 'know thyself' and that is impossible so God is not omniscient.

I think that we as creatures of time are not familiar with any other state of existence. But when we examine the logic of the situation:

- God cannot exist in time eternally because he would never start existing so could not exist.
- Nothing can exist in time eternally because it would never start existing so could not exist.
- If time existed forever, it has no first moment. If it has no nth moment it has no nth+1 moment, so it does not exist

So you have to face the fact that something atemporal is a logical requirement in order for there to be anything at all in existence.

I imagine that there is the atemporal thing and it is external to spacetime, but can express itself within spacetime. It is possible that it created spacetime through its first action. So maybe it became part of spacetime when its first action was accomplished. Or maybe it is just something that we will never be able to comprehend.

I think you have no counter arguments and are just mud throwing.

That is not a counter argument.

I do not fully understand anything. My beliefs are merely what I think is probable (has a greater than 50% probability of being true). I argue for the things I 'believe' in. What else should I do? Argue for things that I think are not probable?

Then we can start asking questions about the difference between the spiritual and the material, widdle down the distinction, and come to the realization that we don't fully understand matter and the "brute fact" being looked for is simply the ordered universe instead of an ordered disembodied guy. — Gregory

But the universe exists in time and no brute fact can exist in time - it would have no temporal start. If it has no temporal start, it has no temporal start +1. If it has no temporal nth moment, it has no temporal nth+1 moment. So it does not exist. So brute facts have to be timeless (=uncaused). The brute fact that caused everything else (causality forms an inverted pyramid with the first cause at tip), has to cause an effect without being effected itself. So the first cause must be intelligent.

But something beyond time must exist. There must be at least one 'brute fact' in reality or else the result is nothing (null universe). Referring to St Thomas Aquinas's third argument:

1. Can’t get something from nothing
2. So something must have existed ‘always’.
3. (IE if there was ever a state of nothingness, it would persist to today, so something must have permanent existence).
4. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (would have no start to existence and you cannot exist if you do not start to exist), so the ‘something’ must be the timeless first cause (of time/causality).

You see this argument agrees precisely with the axiom 'everything in time has a cause'. And in fact there are many arguments that time has a start and all imply that something timeless must exist.

Now I cannot explain exactly what is the nature of this timeless thing; all I can do is point out it is a logical requirement. We as humans are only familiar with a tiny portion of what is possible. Who knows what states of possible existence there are? Maybe it is non-material. Maybe there is a wider 'space' that exists beyond spacetime. Maybe as creatures of spacetime we will never be able to understand a wider reality. Sorry if that sounds like a cop-out, but I have reached the limits of my understanding on the issue.

And what about emotions, why couldn’t it be just emotional instead of intelligent being? Also, do you think it ever questions why does it exist, how and where did it come from, and whether it was itself created by some prior deity? — Zelebg

The first cause of everything has to be beyond time - that is surely the only logical answer to the chicken and egg problem. So for such a timeless entity, there is no 'before' - it merely IS - permanent uncaused existence.

The universe is fine-tuned for life suggesting some form of intelligence.

By the way, if god exist out of time and space, practically then, it exist nowhere and never, so let me ask is it actually made of something or it follows it is really made of nothing? — Zelebg

I am not sure. God has to be causally effective, that suggests made of some substance that is from beyond spacetime. It is possible that the universe is underpinned by a non-material substrate (see quantum entanglement). Maybe God is made of this substance.