It might be a god...if might be one of many gods...it might not be a god in the sense of "God" as written by Aquinas. IT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE. — Frank Apisa


Fair point, but the argument is strong enough to have one allowing for the possibility of God. So its a pretty good argument. — Devans99

I can make a better one.

The POSSIBILITY of "God" is absolute.

No way around it. "God" absolutely is possible. No need to argue to that end.

Unless a thing is conclusively established as IMPOSSIBLE...it is possible.

So "God" or god or gods...is possible...and in my opinion, is as good a blind guess as the blind guess...there are NO gods.

I think really the argument from design needs to be recast in modern day terms to be applicable. If we look at how unlikely it is that the universe would be the way it is (life supporting) by chance, we can see that there was probably some directing intelligence at work with the creation of the universe. Again one has to make another probability adjustment for the existence of God.

I respectfully must disagree. Your argument (even if it were for the existence of a god rather than "God")...is gratuitous. So is the implied "need for a god."

It is every bit as "probable" that there was (is) no "directing intelligence" involved...as that there was (is). (Fact is, the "probability" of both is beyond human abilities to calculate.)

If EXISTENCE is infinite and eternal...what we humans see as our existence (the here and now and past) would almost certainly have come to be...BY CHANCE.

The argument of the first cause follows just from cause and effect. I fail to see what is illogical about it. — Devans99

I can help you with that.

The end of Aquinas' "argument of the first cause" essentially is: Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

That is about as illogical as it is possible to get for an intelligent person.

I do not give it the name of God...especially capitalized.

It might be a god...if might be one of many gods...it might not be a god in the sense of "God" as written by Aquinas. IT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE.

It is an unknown.

The argument from design holds today; there are about 20 physical constants which appear to have been fine-tuned to life supporting ranges.

The argument from design is purely gratuitous (as are all the others..)

a) We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

Do we? I don't. I cannot imagine any learned person doing so. But I am willing to let you propose a syllogism that logically concludes: We see that natural bodies work toward some goal.

b) Most natural things lack knowledge.

Natural things include humans who do...but if we eliminate all living things...I'll buy it.

c) But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.

See my response to "a."


d) Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

I don't...and do not see why anyone else would OF NECESSITY.

It can just be an unknown.

↪Frank Apisa
I did not set out to prove the prime mover; I set out just by observing that presentism leads to an impossible infinite regress. So I just set out in unbiased sort of way using logic and arrived quite naturally at eternalism as a way out of that infinite regress. It leads to a timeless prime mover who is therefore beyond cause and effect and therefore does not in itself need to be caused. Its the only logical way out of the infinite regress at the start of time.

As far as Aquinas goes, his argument from design is still applicable today. The argument from first cause is still applicable if you believe in cause and effect. It is reenforced if you make God timeless and thus beyond cause and effect. — Devans99

Thank you for your response, Devans.

Except for people who are convinced that a god (a god they already have in mind) exists...none of what Aquinas wrote in his "proofs" have applicability or relevance today...because they are, for the most part, devoid of logic.

My guess is that if you were able to question Aquinas, he would aver that he was not out to prove the existence of his god...but that he was following a logical progression to where he ended up...which just happens to be that his god exists...and exists of necessity.

That is the way with people already convinced of the existence of Aquinas' god.

The premises which get you to where it appears you wanted to go...seem contrived.

1. All inanimate things are directed towards ends.
2. If all inanimate things are directed towards ends, then those ends must (in some sense) exist.
3. These ends don’t exist in material nature or in the immaterial minds of any finite creature.
4. Therefore, they must exist in an infinite mind.
5. This infinite mind we call "God". — Aaron R

I notice the other responses mostly focus on points # 1 - #3 of your condensation, Aaron.

My problem with the matter has to do with #4 and #5. I take issue with those last two points in all five of Aquinas' Five "proofs."

His "therefore" is gratuitous...not the result of logic.

#4 & #5 can just as logically be stated:

Therefore they must exist in some other way...and that "some other way" we call "some other way."

To call the some other way" "god" is purely gratuitous.

He might just as well have written, "God exists"...and left out all the other stuff.

Aquinas wanted to arrive at the necessity of a god. His proofs were motivated by that...and he essentially wrote a C...and then invented rather elaborate, self-serving P1 and P2 to (sorta) arrive there.

Doesn't work.

Fact is, most of the work done to support the notion of a god...or prime mover...

...can be more logically resolved into: I do not know!

↪Frank Apisa


I think a main consequence is that there is a timeless, prime mover who created time and the universe.
an hour ago
Reply
Options — Devans99

Okay. Thanks, Devans. I suspected that was where this was heading.

The desire to arrive at the position of a need for a "prime mover"...is so compelling that almost anything can be imagined to be "logical" by someone with such a desire...and "the desire" is so pervasive that it is an exercise engaged in over the years by multitudes. .

Aquinas, a truly gifted thinker, thought his "five proofs" were logical.

They were not.

I think Aquinas might have been more logical if he were not so motivated to arrive at the need for a prime mover.

Not sure if that desire is the case with you, Devans, but if so, the same thoughts hold.

The only way for something to 'exist always' is for it to exist timelessly; otherwise you have an infinite regress which is impossible.

And if it is not too much trouble, I would love to read the P1 and P2 that brings you to the C of "Therefore, to exist you must first start existing." — Frank Apisa


Points 1-6 in the OP here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1 — Devans99

CoolGuy and Terrapin seem to have a handle on the possible math inconsistencies of your assertions here; I suck at math...so I'll leave that element to them.

I would ask (again) about the impact on humanity of you being correct in your assertions.. If, in fact, "presentism is impossible"...what would be (consequentially), Devans?

Would there be cosmological consequences?

Ethical consequences?

An existential one...particularly of the kind Thomas Aquinas explored?

↪Frank Apisa

I am not sure of what terms you are asking me to contrast. — Frank Apisa

I was refering to the difference between deism and theism.
I would argue that theism in contrast to deism also requires god to be active after the act of creation. Otherwise I would suppose you are not able to make a meaningfull distinction between deism and theism. — CaZaNOx

In my opinion, deists and theists both make a guess that a "god or gods" exist. That is central to both disciplines. They do make different guesses about the nature of the gods they guess exist...but that seems an insignificant particular.

Insofar as they both guess there is a god (or are gods)...there is no meaningful distinction between them to my mind.

However I'am unsure what you mean when you say:

Theism seems to resolve into: "A guess that at least one god exists in the REALITY. — Frank Apisa

My interpretation was that this means, that your undrestanding of the term theism is only stating the existance of god(s).

However you negated this Interpretation so I am curious why you negated this.
By stating

I didn't say that. — Frank Apisa

Your use of the word "only" in your reply does not make sense to me. I have not offered an "only" in this matter.

I do, however, assert that an essential of theism is a guess that at least one god exists.

For me, theism does seem to resolve into a guess that at least one god exists.

Do you disagree?

As to the question of what I said or did not say: I disagreed with what you said I said...because I did NOT SAY IT.

What I said was...(and essentially, I am now repeating it for the third time)...theism seems to resolve into a guess that at least one god exists.

I am not sure what you are contesting...or questioning.

To exist you must first start existing. — Devans99

That seems to lead to "NOTHING EXISTS."

Or...to "There was one thing that existed always and did not have to first 'start existing'...and that 'one thing' gave a start to everything else that exists."

Is that where you are heading with, "To exist you must first start existing?"

And if it is not too much trouble, I would love to read the P1 and P2 that brings you to the C of "Therefore, to exist you must first start existing."

Just want to analyze it.

↪Frank Apisa
In regards to the concept of Deism. Where would you see the difference between the terms? — CaZaNOx

What terms?

How do you categorize them?

I am not sure of what terms you are asking me to contrast.

You mentioned "deism" but no other. Not sure what you are asking.

Where do you get your understanding of the term theism as only stating the existance of god from?

I didn't say that.

I said, "Theism seems to resolve into: "A guess that at least one god exists in the REALITY."

It certainly seems that way to me.

Do you understand it differently? Do it appear to resolve itself differently to you?

Infinity is a description of a set of numbers. Any finite number is a number. If you count from 1, you'll never get to large because "large" is not a number. Using "infinity" as a number like that to disprove some claim doesn't work for that reason. — coolguy8472

Wow!

That was an excellent explanation, Coolguy.

So, using it the way Devans is using it (as a number) can make for an illogical conclusion. (Using it in many supposed logical inspections does go astray...as in the algebraic "proof" that 1.9999..to "infinity" = 2.)

BUT (and this is a question)...do you suppose infinity exists notwithstanding current ability to describe it (numerically or otherwise)?

You can have no upper limit to the amount of time before now while at the same time having any number of age of any moment in history. So a million years ago exists, 10^434343 years ago exists, but "infinity" years ago does not exist because it's a malformed value. But any finite number of years ago exists. — coolguy8472

Can you get into this with a bit more detail.

It seems to me that if "any finite number of years ago exists"...that is infinity...because for any finite number of years ago...there is always a year earlier. It can never end.

Hi folks. It’s an argument in two parts. First I argue time has a start, then I argue eternalism (believe that past, present and future are all equally real) is true.

Time had a Start

If we assume time is infinite, then there are only two possible models of the origin of the universe:

X. ‘Can get something from nothing’, IE matter is created naturally. With infinite time, matter density would be infinite. So this is impossible.
Y. ‘Can’t get something from nothing’, IE matter has always existed. Meaning the matter had no temporal start. So this is impossible too*

So that exhausts the possibility space; time must have a start.

* A more detailed proof by contradiction:

1. Assume a particle does not have a (temporal) start point
2. If the particle does not have a start, then it cannot have a ‘next to start’ (because that would qualify as a start)
3. So particle does not have a next to start (by Modus Ponens on [1] and [2]).
4. And so on for next to, next to start, all the way to time start+∞ (IE now)
5. Implies particle does not have a (temporal) end
6. Implies particle never existed

(So it works exactly the same way for time as space: if an object has no identifiable spacial start point, it does not exist).

Eternalism is true

A. Assume only now exists (presentism)
B. So before the start of time there was nothing
C But creation ex nihilo / without time is impossible
D. So something 'other' than only now exists
E. The ‘other’ must be timeless (else we end up in a infinite regress of time1, time2, time3 etc...)
F. The ‘other’ must have created our time (at time=0)
G. So the ‘other’ ’sees’ time=0 and time=now simultaneously (its timeless)
H. Hence eternalism must hold — Devans99

Hi, back at you, Devans,

Having a bit of difficulty understanding the certainty of your assertions in your arguments, but I want to leave that for a bit and ask you:

What is the point of all this?

If you are correct that "Eternalism is true"...what, in your estimation, are the inferences of that on the "human predicament?"

How, in your estimation, does it impact on the nature of REALITY?

Theism seems to resolve into: "A guess that at least one god exists in the REALITY."

Atheism is a bit more murky, but seems to resolve into "A guess that no gods exist in the REALITY."

They are both reasonable guesses...and one is certainly closer to the truth than the other. It seems they cannot both be correct...although "existence" is so imponderable and "human understanding" possibly so primitive, one cannot be sure.

All that said, what seem to me to be "better for us"...would be not to guess in either direction.

You do not have that option available, OM.

"Do you not concede that there are imponderable that MAY make what you see as cut-and-dry "logic" that dictates as invalid? — Frank Apisa


There are probably questions we can't answer (maybe 'why is there something rather than nothing?). But where we are presented with a logical absurdity (presentism), we can draw appropriate conclusions; that is just part of the scientific method. — Devans99

Okay...apparently you will not concede that there can be anything wrong with your assertion that "presentism is logically absurd" and therefore eternalism is "the way things are."

I do NOT KNOW which prevails...nor do I know that the question must resolve into "presentism", "eternalism" or any of the other variational theories regarding time/space...and their impact on the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

It can be interesting discussing different guesses about which seems more likely, although I doubt any of us will get much further than guessing on the question.

Since you seem so sure of your position, though, I'd like to ask you if you see any significant implications of it on the "human condition." If you are correct, as you seem certain you are...are there significant other truths that derive from it?

Your comment intrigues me. Yes, I understand that my wording was a bit peculiar, and I got a laugh out of it myself, but I was referring to the fact that they don't believe in any God, because they believe there is no such thing as a God. I understand the use of the word 'proselytizing' but as I previously mentioned it is a synonym of evangelize. These words apparently mean the same thing, so why do we use one or the other? — OpnionsMatter

Proselytize may be a synonym of evangelize...BUT they actually do NOT mean the same thing.

That has been pointed out by others.

Evangelizing is a form of proselytizing...but applies only to attempts to convert people to CHRISTIANITY. Proselytizing is an attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another.

The Christianity factor for Evangelizing is the (significant) difference.

You may have taken this particular verse out of context, don't you think? Some biblical characters are some what sarcastic, and that's okay. It's not a sin to be sarcastic, or to use sarcasm. Therefore if Jesus was a perfect being, he didn't actually sin by being sarcastic in that verse. — OpnionsMatter

I did NOT take the verse out of context...it is a famous quote attributed to Jesus and is used in Relitous discussions FREQUENTLY.

If you want to think Jesus was being sarcastic in that comment...fine with me. But the only reason to thik that is if you cannot rectify the quote with what happened.

Lastly, I said nothing about Jesus "sinning."

You asked if he ever lied...and I responded that whether he lied or not...he dis seem to contradict himself at times.

Whether he lies or not, Jesus does seem to contradict himself in certain areas.

In Matthew 5:17ff, Jesus declares: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you: UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER OF THE LAW, NOT THE SMALLEST PART OF A LETTER, SHALL BE DONE AWAY WITH UNTIL IT ALL COME TRUE."

But it seems he does do away with lots of "the LAW"...and his followers have done away with much more...and at least the Earth has not passed away.

But all though an atheist doesn't have a faith or belief, besides that they believe there isn't a God(Which may or may not be true) — OpnionsMatter

Background: If I use a personal descriptor in this area, I use agnostic, but I prefer not to use a descriptor.

Now...the sentence of yours that I quoted made me laugh. (In a nice way.)

It's sorta like saying, "Certain people do not eat any food at all...except for the food they need to stay alive."

Aside: Atheist (atheism) is a descriptor that has made itself almost useless. It means so many things to so many people...that it almost always has to be explained.

All that aside, if you are asking if those of us who do not have a "belief" in a god...and who want to encourage others to share that value...should use "evangelize"...I agree with the majority here who think it probably does not work as effectively as the word "proselytize" does. Proselytizing" is the one I use when I am advocating for suspending "belief" in either direction on the question of whether any gods exist.

Thats many people's gut instinct on time, 'only now exists'. My point is time is unintuitive and you actually have to work through the logic to see that 'only now exists' is not viable. For example, your gut instinct on time would not have told you that it runs slower in the presence of gravity, but it does. Not intuitive.

'Only now exists' leads to 'only now always existed' which leads to an infinite regress; IE its can't happen; more than only now must exist. — Devans99

The "time runs slower in the presence of gravity" is an unusual statement. I've never been in a place without gravity. I don't think any human has...nor ever will. Gravity is everywhere. The planet Jupiter, far away as it is, exerts gravity that impacts on planet Earth. The gravity of our nearest star neighbors impact on Sol (and all of us)...and the gravity of the Andromeda Galaxy impacts on our galaxy. So I'm not sure where you are going with that.

In any case, you are dealing with questions about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...an area of interest that has perplexed the most intelligent humans who ever lived on our planet. And you are supposing you can, via what you term as "logic"...eliminate a vast area of speculation about that true nature...despite the fact that most of them have not been able to do so.

I acknowledge that I do not KNOW the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and I cannot think of a way to pare it down as easily as you seem to think you have done. There are no things I can say MUST be for existence to be explained...and none that I can say CANNOT BE in order for existence to be explained.

it is POSSIBLE that "now is all that exists...despite what you suppose. (I am not saying "now" is all that exists...I am merely saying it MAY BE all that exists...and I do agree that, intuitively, that seems more likely to me than that it CANNOT POSSIBLY exist.

Do you not concede that there are imponderable that MAY make what you see as cut-and-dry "logic" that dictates as invalid?

Presentism (believe that only now exists) is the opposite view of eternalism (belief that past, present and future are real).

Presentism posits 'only now always existed' so all forms of it require an infinite regress, which is not only undesirable, its actually impossible:

1. The number of events in an infinite regress is greater than any number.
2. Which is a contradiction; can’t be a number and greater than any number*.

Eternalism does not require an infinite regress; we have a prime mover who is beyond time (and thus beyond cause and effect) who creates time and the universe. It’s the simplest logical model. — Devans99

Gotta read all the other replies...but your OP seems to be a back door entry to a supposed "proof of 'God'." (Don't have the time right at the moment.)

As I see it...this very instant is ALL that exists.

Yesterday certainly does not "exist"...and the second before right now no longer "exists."

Tomorrow does not exist...and an hour from now does not exist.

The only thing that actually exists is the present moment...and then it ceases to exist and another "present moment" takes its place.

You may think that you are supporting the OP by claiming that 2+2 equals 4 by definition, but you are actually doing the opposite. If it is nothing more than a definition, then it is just an arbitrary convention, like naming. 2+2 could just as soon equal 5, if we agreed to define it that way. — SophistiCat

I both disagree and agree with you, Cat.

First, though...just to be precise, I did not say that 2+2 equals 4 by definition...I said that 2+2 in base ten equals 4 by definition. And it does. Obviously in base 4 it would not...2+2 would equal 10.

But these are just symbols for an idea...a shorthand of sorts.

A single unit plus another single unit will always equal "a single unit plus another single unit." We could say it that way (and continue in its extensions) ...or we could devise a system of symbols to denote the thought we are trying to convey in order to make arithmetic possible.

The Romans obviously did it in a (what we consider) cumbersome way.

The Arabic numeral method seems to work better.

It is an agreement and a convention...but it is an absolute as notion.

So I agree that I was NOT supporting the OP (I think the OP wrong because of wording) and I disagree insofar as I was not "actually doing the opposite"...which twists this replay into a pretzel.

The subject actually is not all that interesting to me. Discussions about "absolutes" often end up as verbal pretzels.

I am a new member just trying to see how the board works. Philosophy can be tricky...and end up in "going nowhere" discussions. Just want to see how this forum works...or more exactly, how some of the folk here work.

Do you hold that 2+2=4 is absolutely true as a matter of reason? — Tim Wood

Just to put my two cents into play...

...if you mean 2+2=4 in base ten...

...it seems indisputable.

It seems to reduce to a definition. We define 2+2 to equal 4 in base ten.

Sorta like we define a triangle as a plane having 3 angles. If it has more or less...it just is not a triangle.

A problem I see with the comments in this discussion is the same problem I see with all discussions containing the words "believe" or "belief."

I am never sure of what the speaker means when using those words...particularly the "I believe in..." format.

Here are several uses of the words that obviously have widely different meaning values.

"I believe in myself."

"I believe in God."

"I believe at least one god exists."

"I believe no gods exist."

"I believe I'll eat leftovers tonight."

Nasir, first of all, I find the first part of your essay title compelling...but the second part falls flat (for me.)

Belief has nothing to do with fact or faith...

Okay...can't think of any reason to object to that observation.

...it has to do with motivation.

Does it?

I guess it depends on how you are using the word "belief."

Your "I believe in myself" (you used it a couple of times) is unclear to me.

Can you help me with that?