In this thread, I provide an argument for the existence of God. This argument is based on the theories of the beginning of the universe. These theories can be divided into two main types: 1) Theories that time has a definite beginning, and 2) Theories in which time does not have a definite beginning. I first discard theories that posit a definite beginning of time. We are left with the second type of theories as a result. I then discuss that the latter types of theories are not acceptable, as well. I then discuss that God exists as a result.
Here, I argue that theories with a definite beginning to time are unacceptable. We first notice that these theories at the beginning are a form of presentism. By presentism, I mean that time exists only at the present and changes. Time, however, cannot exist at the present and change 1. Presentism is, therefore, false. Time is, however, needed for any motion 2. Therefore, no motion is possible if time cannot change. Hence, theories with a definite beginning of time are not acceptable since we cannot have any motion from the beginning.
I already discussed that theories with a definite beginning of time are not acceptable; therefore, we are left with theories that time does not have a definite beginning. I also showed that presentism is false. This means that we need two points in time to have a change in time; letās call the first point now and the second point the immediate future. The change in time is then possible by the constant annihilation of now and creation of the immediate future. Accepting this view of time, change is possible in theories that do not have a definite beginning. These theories, however, are not problem-free, since the eternal past exists in such theories. A point in time, now, however, cannot be reached from the eternal past. Therefore, such theories are not acceptable as well.
Up to here, I showed that both theories have their own problem and are not acceptable on their own; therefore, there must be a God who created the universe at a finite past, not the beginning point in the first type of theories, and let it run according to one of these theories.
Within presentism, time exists now only and changes. A change in time requires that a later moment become now later. But a later moment cannot become now later if there is no time. So we need time for a change in time. This leads to an infinite regress. An infinite regress is not logically possible. Therefore, time cannot change if it only exists now. Therefore, presentism is false.
Consider a motion, X to Y, where X and Y represent two states of affairs. X and Y must lie at two different points of something; otherwise, they are simultaneous, and there cannot be any motion. Letās call these points tx and ty, respectively. Moreover, Y comes after X, so ty comes after tx as well. tx, and ty are two points of something that we call time.
The OP only āshowedā poor reasoning in the form of both false dichotomy and appeal to ignorance (god-of-the-gaps) fallacies.
What created āGodā?
And if you assume āGodā is not created, then why not assume instead, more parsimoniously, that the universe (which, unlike āGodā, is inexhaustively observable) is not created?
Why do you assume the universe is a āsimulationā?
Like the circumference of a sphere (e.g. Earth), every cycle of arbitrary length is finite (e.g. 13.8 billion years) as well as beginningless and endless, so why assume the universe is not (perhaps merely an observable segment of) an eternal cycle ā¦ such as a āspacetime bubbleā expanding from a random vaccuum fluctation as described in quantum field theory?
The dyad form simplifies argumentation. (Time, God) is a sub-dyad of (Universe, God). Itās like going from the dyad (Eiffel tower, Paris) to (Eiffel tower, France).
Time isnāt well-defined, nor is it well-understood. Actually not even space is either well-defined or well-understood. Where is the Eiffel tower? Where is Paris? Where is France? Where is Europe? so and so forth
Above statement is unclear and not making sense. It is like saying, a dog is a Being who created the entity of mess, who run the simulation of chasing the ball that is needed for running the ball chasing simulation. What the hell is this supposed to mean?
Hereās TPF AI assistantās output for MoKās āBy God, I mean a Being who created the entity who run the simulation and the initial stuff that is needed for running the simulation.ā
In this context, the term āGodā is defined not as a traditional deity, but as a āFirst Causeā or ultimate creator within a simulation hypothesis framework. The speaker clarifies that God is the being responsible for creating the entity (the programmer or system administrator) that runs the simulation, as well as providing the initial conditions and data required for that simulation to function. This definition attempts to bridge the gap between theological concepts and scientific speculation by positing God as the foundational architect behind the simulated reality we may inhabit.
God as a āFirst Causeā is unclear. Where is the evidence for that assertion?
God is being responsible for creating entity? Again, where is the evidence for that? You need to produce some argument based on the reasonable logic or material evidence on these assertions.
Proof of God existence needs to start with some premises which anyone could agree with based on the material evidence and logical reasoning, rather than just reiterating the religious definitions of God or relying on what AI is saying to it.
Was only offering an opinion on the statement. Let see what other opinions are on it including yours. Opinions are bound to be different. But we are here to see which opinions are more realistic, honest and making sense at the end of the day. Without being dismissive emotionally
I regret the post I made. It was made in haste. MoKās style is more verse than prose. He should write poems IMHO. Quite possible one of his creations is the nationās national anthem.
I surmise that weāre probably in a sim. Some poster mentioned this level of reality is nigh impossible to recreate, but I feel he underestimates computers and coders, who are as clever or cleverer than you or I.
There should be a God or gods, perhaps even comely goddesses, no? The question is, how do we know that we are in a sim? Iām told that emotions are the key to cracking this puzzle.
This is tangential though. Time, aka the 4th dimension is the linchpin around which this thread turns.
What then is time? If no one asks, I know. If I wish to explain it to someone who asks, I know not
Einstein fabricated his theory using, time is what the clock measures.
This is a non sequitur. The fact that a point b cannot be reached in finite time from point a doesnāt mean that both cannot exist. Take for example a=0 and b= \infty. Your logic would ādisproveā infinities because infinity isnāt finite. That makes no sense.
Letās imagine an inconceivably large number between 0 and ā, letās say Ī = ā / 2 (if the notion of half an infinity made sense). We can easily reach Ī+10 from Ī (itās just 10 units away), and we can reach 0+10 from 0 just as easily. But Ī+10 cannot be reached from 0+10, not in a finite number of units. Does that mean that Ī+10 doesnāt exist? No.
Because the distance between 0 and Ī is not finite, Ī = ā for all intents and purposes.
Now letās imagine a static universe with infinite space. We can once again imagine two points in space 0 and Ī with a distance that isnāt finite in meters. We can never reach one point from the other, but because the notion of āreachingā evokes time, we can also say if we were to count the distance we would never end. Does that disprove the notion of an infinite space? No.
Just because your human mind lacks the capacity to imagine infinity, that doesnāt mean infinity doesnāt exist.
I already argued that theories in which time has a definite beginning at a single point are unacceptable, since time cannot exist at one point and change, and the physical substance in such theories cannot change as well, since time is needed for any change, and time cannot change if it only exists at one point.
These theories, as it is illustrated, are not acceptable either. Infinity cannot be obtained since it does not have a definite value.
