# An argument for the existence of God
**URL:** https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217
**Category:** Metaphysics & Epistemology
**Created:** [June 3, 2026, 4:11pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217 "2026-06-03T16:11:00Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 14
### Author:  [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)
#### Post date: [June 21, 2026, 11:06pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/261 "2026-06-21T23:06:35Z")
> [@Existism](#):
>
> I have no clue what you mean here. You can have an infinite set that is built from repeating finite sets.
Eternity is not a mathematical object, so you cannot divide eternity by infinity and get a finite period.
> [@Existism](#):
>
> “is related to” is not very specific. I don’t see a problem.
Even if I grant you that you can get a finite period in the cyclic universe, you are interested in by dividing eternity by an unbounded number, you still have the unbounded number of cycles. No matter how far you go into the past, there are still an unbounded number of cycles before any point in the past you choose. The problem in your thinking is that you can choose the first cycle and obtain it, but you don’t notice that there is no first cycle.
---
### Author:  [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)
#### Post date: [June 21, 2026, 11:08pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/262 "2026-06-21T23:08:16Z")
I thought you were interested in a discussion rather than explaining your position. It seems that I am wrong. Too bad!
---
### Author:  [@Existism](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Existism)
#### Post date: [June 22, 2026, 12:13am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/263 "2026-06-22T00:13:04Z")
> [@MoK](#):
>
> Eternity is not a mathematical object, so you cannot divide eternity by infinity and get a finite period.
When did I say I was dividing? This literally sounds like gibberish to me.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> there is no first cycle.
Yeah… That is quite literally the point of an eternal theory, but what is the problem with this?
---
### Author:  [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)
#### Post date: [June 22, 2026, 2:29pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/264 "2026-06-22T14:29:05Z")
> [@Existism](#):
>
> Yeah… That is quite literally the point of an eternal theory, but what is the problem with this?
Considering that we are at the present in one of the cycles of the cyclic universe, and considering the fact that there is an unbounded number of cycles before the current cycle, we are still facing the problem of a cycle that we could start from and reach the current cycle from it. That is a problem since there is always an unbounded number of cycles in the past, no matter how far you go into the past.
---
### Author:  [@Materialist](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Materialist)
#### Post date: [June 29, 2026, 6:36pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/265 "2026-06-29T18:36:16Z")
> [@MoK](#):
>
> 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](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/we-are-living-in-a-simulation/1070) according to one of these theories.
I THINK you’re claiming that the universe (which experiences time) would have to be caused by something that exists timelessly. Is that correct?
If so, this tells us almost nothing about this cause - other than that it exists timelessly.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> 1. 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.
Here’s where you’re treating time as a thing, rather than a sequence of states. Time does not exist _within_ a state. Time is the relation _between_ states. Of course, there has to be some characteristic of a state that would result in change, but I would consider that characteristic to be a law of nature - that the passage of time is inherent in laws of nature.
Returning to my prior point, “God” seems nothing more than a law of nature (or the suite of laws of nature that exist).
---
### Author:  [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2026, 3:26pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/266 "2026-06-30T15:26:12Z")
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> I THINK you’re claiming that the universe (which experiences time) would have to be caused by something that exists timelessly. Is that correct?
>
> If so, this tells us almost nothing about this cause - other than that it exists timelessly.
I showed that neither type of theory of time can explain how the universe exists at the present. Therefore, there is no natural explanation for why the universe exists now. The universe exists now. Therefore, God created the universe.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Here’s where you’re treating time as a thing, rather than a sequence of states. Time does not exist _within_ a state. Time is the relation _between_ states. Of course, there has to be some characteristic of a state that would result in change, but I would consider that characteristic to be a law of nature - that the passage of time is inherent in laws of nature.
Time is something that exists and accommodates different forms of existence at its different moments. This is discussed in footnote 2.
---
### Author:  [@Materialist](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Materialist)
#### Post date: [June 30, 2026, 9:42pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/267 "2026-06-30T21:42:26Z")
You argued:
1. it is not the case that time exists only at the present - because that would make change impossible
2. a computation is needed to “create” change.
Issue 1:
You have not defined what you mean by “time”, but I assume you’ll agree that time and change are inextricably linked. Consider this hypothetical scenario:
-An initial state (S0) exists; with no temporally prior state. Its existence is not the product of change.
-A state change occurs: S0 ceases to exist and now S1 now exists. This entails a passage of time (irrespective of what time IS), because change necessarily entails a passage of time.
Suppose no further change. You speak of time “existing”. So in this scenario, does time exist at S1? Does time exist at S2?
------------
Issue 2:
You claim a “computation” is needed to annihilate the present and create a new present. My objections:
- computation is a temporal process: a sequence of steps. The answer doesn’t exist until the computation completes. So you require a 2nd order passage of time in order to perform the computation that “creates” the next point of time. Infinitely many layers of time computations are needed.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> Time is something that exists and accommodates different forms of existence at its different moments. This is discussed in footnote 2.
It’s vague,unconvincing,and appears to be self-contradicting:
_X and Y must lie at two different points of something; otherwise, they are simultaneous_
They cannot “lie” at two different points, because they do not exist simultaneously. Rather, we are retroactively considering an earlier point of time (X) and abstractly relating it to the present (Y). This is reinforced by your description of one “present” being annihalated and the new “present” created.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> 1. Within presentism, time exists now only and changes.
This conflates time with the state of affairs that exists at a point of time.
Traditional presentism = only the present exists, but the present = the state of affairs that encompases the entirety of existence. You treat “time” as that entirety of existence. Presentists acknowledge that the present has been caused by the past (there is a perpetual “becoming”), so there is a clear relation between one “present” and the next.
The primary alterative is block time, which treats reality as a 4-dimensional block, with time as the 4th dimension. 3-dimensional reality exists at every point of the time dimension. Time is something very specific: it is a dimension of reality.
There are variations of both. It’s unclear what your view is.
---
### Author:  [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)
#### Post date: [July 1, 2026, 6:18pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/268 "2026-07-01T18:18:26Z")
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> You argued:
>
> 1. it is not the case that time exists only at the present - because that would make change impossible
>
> 2. a computation is needed to “create” change.
>
> Issue 1:
>
> You have not defined what you mean by “time”, but I assume you’ll agree that time and change are inextricably linked. Consider this hypothetical scenario:
>
> -An initial state (S0) exists; with no temporally prior state. Its existence is not the product of change.
>
> -A state change occurs: S0 ceases to exist and now S1 now exists. This entails a passage of time (irrespective of what time IS), because change necessarily entails a passage of time.
>
> Suppose no further change. You speak of time “existing”. So in this scenario, does time exist at S1? Does time exist at S2?
I am saying that you cannot go from S0 to S1. That is true since accepting S0 as the initial state means that time exists at one point only, the so-called initial point, and has to change. This is a form of presentism. Time cannot change within presentism. Time, however, is needed for change. Therefore, change is not possible within presentism. So, you cannot go from S0 to S1. This means that theories within which time has a definite beginning should be discarded.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Issue 2:
>
> You claim a “computation” is needed to annihilate the present and create a new present. My objections:
>
> - computation is a temporal process: a sequence of steps. The answer doesn’t exist until the computation completes. So you require a 2nd order passage of time in order to perform the computation that “creates” the next point of time. Infinitely many layers of time computations are needed.
By computation, I don’t mean to calculate an unknown value. The simulator knows the input and knows what the output should be for any input. So, given any state of the universe at a given time, the simulator knows what the next state should be at the next time.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> It’s vague,unconvincing,and appears to be self-contradicting:
> _X and Y must lie at two different points of something; otherwise, they are simultaneous_
It is not self-contradictory. I am talking about two states of affairs; these either exist at one point or two points. In the first case, we are dealing with a simultaneous process, and in the second case, we are dealing with a temporal process. Change is not possible in a simultaneous process, so as a matter of necessity, we need two points of something that these states of affairs lie within when there is a change.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> This conflates time with the state of affairs that exists at a point of time.
No, I am saying that time is something that changes as well. Within presentism, time only exists at one point. This, of course, means that we can accommodate one state of affairs at that one point in time. So we have two things: one point in time, and one state of affairs that is accommodated at that point in time.
---
### Author:  [@Materialist](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Materialist)
#### Post date: [July 1, 2026, 8:08pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/270 "2026-07-01T20:08:52Z")
> [@MoK](#):
>
> By computation, I don’t mean to calculate an unknown value. The simulator knows the input and knows what the output should be for any input.
Then there is no computation being performed at all. There is just an act of annihilation and creation. If what occurs happens to be consistent with a computation, it’s pure coincidence.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> I am talking about two states of affairs; these either exist at one point or two points. In the first case, we are dealing with a simultaneous process, and in the second case, we are dealing with a temporal process. Change is not possible in a simultaneous process, so as a matter of necessity, we need two points of something that these states of affairs lie within when there is a change.
Two states affairs existing at “one point or two points” of… WHAT? Of points of TIME? This remains vague: what is time? What does it mean to say time exists _in_ a state of affairs?
Your basic problem is that you have created a strawman version of presentism. I agree that YOUR version can’t be true. However, traditional presentism doesn’t have the same problem. Under traditional presentism, there are tensed facts: the current state of the universe exists in the present, but the universe also existed yesterday, in a different state. Time is a relation between states of affairs: yesterday has a temporal relation to today. Presentism acknowledges that time passes, and (yes) that only the present actually exists (present tense). But yesterday EXISTED (past tense), as did all prior days.
Under traditional presentation, there’s no problem with an initial state of affairs (S0). Time is not IN the state of affairs. Rather, time represents a relation between one state of affairs and a subsequent one. S1 has a temporal relation to both S0 and S1. S0 has a temporal relation to S1, but not to anything prior.
The potential to change is within each state of affairs. That potential is a consequence of laws of nature, which is the engine of causation and change. Causation necessarily entails a temporal sequence and it entails change. Laws of nature exhibit mathematical structure - and this is why what occurs is consistent with computation, so it’s not mere coincidence.
To “prove” God, you have to find a problem with THIS formulation of presentation, not something you contrive.
---
### Author:  [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2026, 4:48pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/271 "2026-07-02T16:48:00Z")
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Two states affairs existing at “one point or two points” of… WHAT? Of points of TIME?
We say that a process is simultaneous if two states of affairs lie at the same timeless point. There is, however, no change in a simultaneous process. To have a change, two states of affairs must lie at two different points in something we call time.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> What does it mean to say time exists _in_ a state of affairs?
I didn’t say so. I said the opposite. A state of affairs lies at a point in time.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Your basic problem is that you have created a strawman version of presentism. I agree that YOUR version can’t be true. However, traditional presentism doesn’t have the same problem. Under traditional presentism, there are tensed facts: the current state of the universe exists in the present, but the universe also existed yesterday, in a different state. Time is a relation between states of affairs: yesterday has a temporal relation to today.
I am talking about the traditional form of presentism in which time exists only in the present and changes.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> The potential to change is within each state of affairs. That potential is a consequence of laws of nature, which is the engine of causation and change. Causation necessarily entails a temporal sequence and it entails change. Laws of nature exhibit mathematical structure - and this is why what occurs is consistent with computation, so it’s not mere coincidence.
I already explained that change is not possible within presentism, so any formulation of change that is based on presentism fails to explain motion.
---
### Author:  [@Materialist](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Materialist)
#### Post date: [July 2, 2026, 5:44pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/272 "2026-07-02T17:44:15Z")
> [@MoK](#):
>
> We say that a process is simultaneous if two states of affairs lie at the same timeless point. There is, however, no change in a simultaneous process. To have a change, two states of affairs must lie at two different points in something we call time.
What is a timeless point? What is it a point OF? It’s not a point of time, because surely points of time can’t be considered “timeless”.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> A state of affairs lies at a point in time
OK. What is time? I gave you my view, which is a relational view: time is a relation between states of affairs. You’ve given no description.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> I am talking about the traditional form of presentism in which time exists only in the present and changes.
Traditional presentism does not deny the reality of past and future: it accepts that true statements can be made about both. An initial state is consistent with presentism, but you claim it isn’t. It’s compatible because time is relational: the initial state of affairs changes to subsequent states of affairs – time passes FROM the initial state. You haven’t falsified my position.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> I already explained that change is not possible within presentism, so any formulation of change that is based on presentism fails to explain motion.
You asserted it, you did not show it. Change is not possible in the present moment, because change entails a passage of time from moment TO moment. Presentism entails a temporal becoming: NOW is a consequence of the past, and a cause of the future. (It’s as if you are looking at a single frame of a film, and claiming movies are impossible – because the frame is a static image.
---
### Author:  [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)
#### Post date: [July 3, 2026, 6:44pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/273 "2026-07-03T18:44:27Z")
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> What is a timeless point?
A timeless point is a single point that can accommodate different states of affairs.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> What is time
Any point in time is something that can accommodate a single state of affairs.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Traditional presentism does not deny the reality of past and future: it accepts that true statements can be made about both. An initial state is consistent with presentism, but you claim it isn’t. It’s compatible because time is relational: the initial state of affairs changes to subsequent states of affairs – time passes FROM the initial state. You haven’t falsified my position.
In presentism, only the present objectively exists. The past is gone, and we have to wait for the future to come.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> You asserted it, you did not show it.
I explained in footnote 1 that time cannot exist at the present and change. In footnote 2, I explain that time is needed for any change. This means that we cannot have change within presentism since we need time to change to have a change in something (footnote 2), and since time cannot change within presentism (footnote 1).
---
### Author:  [@Materialist](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Materialist)
#### Post date: [July 4, 2026, 3:42pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/274 "2026-07-04T15:42:37Z")
> [@MoK](#):
>
> > [@Materialist](#):
> >
> > What is a timeless point? What is it a point OF?
>
> A timeless point is a single point that can accommodate different states of affairs.
You didn’t answer (nor did you quote) my second question: **what is it a point OF?**
> [@MoK](#):
>
> > [@Materialist](#):
> >
> > What is time?
>
> Any point in time is something that can accommodate a single state of affairs.
That doesn’t explain what time IS. Recall that I defined time as a relation between states of affairs. Do you accept this view? If not, then give an alternative.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> In presentism, only the present objectively exists. The past is gone, and we have to wait for the future to come.
Sure, but you’re ignoring my issue: there are tensed facts; true statements can be made about the past and future. Do you agree or disagree with that?
> [@MoK](#):
>
> I explained in footnote 1 that time cannot exist at the present and change. In footnote 2, I explain that time is needed for any change. This means that we cannot have change within presentism since we need time to change to have a change in something (footnote 2), and since time cannot change within presentism (footnote 1).
Again, this depends on what time IS. In the relational view of time that I described, time does not exist IN a (point in time) state of affairs. Change ENTAILS a passage of time.
Your repeated claim that “we cannot have change within presentism” is false. It would be correct to say "we cannot have change within the present moment of time. So you seem to be conflating “presentism” with “the present”. This misunderstanding of yours seems to be the fatal flaw in your analysis.
As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, presentism accepts that true statements can be made about both the past and future. This makes it possible to abstractly consider the evolution of a system across time. The laws of motion in elementary physics demonstrate how we can abstractly consider the motion of an object across time, including past, present, and future. The metaphysical nature of “now” is irrelevant to the analysis. The analysis is perfectly consistent with presentism.
---
### Author:  [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)
#### Post date: [July 5, 2026, 4:20pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/275 "2026-07-05T16:20:06Z")
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> You didn’t answer (nor did you quote) my second question: **what is it a point OF?**
Are you asking whether a timeless point is a point of something? A timeless point is all there is when it comes to simultaneous processes. It is a single point, so it is not a set of moments like time, where each moment belongs to time. So, it is wrong to ask whether it is the point of something.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> That doesn’t explain what time IS.
Time is a sequence of moments; each moment accommodates a state of affairs.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Sure, but you’re ignoring my issue: there are tensed facts; true statements can be made about the past and future. Do you agree or disagree with that?
In presentism, the past and future **do not objectively exist**.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Again, this depends on what time IS. In the relational view of time that I described, time does not exist IN a (point in time) state of affairs.
In presentism, time exists only in the present.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Change ENTAILS a passage of time.
So, you agree that change requires the passage of time?
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Your repeated claim that “we cannot have change within presentism” is false. It would be correct to say "we cannot have change within the present moment of time. So you seem to be conflating “presentism” with “the present”. This misunderstanding of yours seems to be the fatal flaw in your analysis.
That is not what I am saying in footnote 1. I am saying time cannot change within presentism.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, presentism accepts that true statements can be made about both the past and future. This makes it possible to abstractly consider the evolution of a system across time. The laws of motion in elementary physics demonstrate how we can abstractly consider the motion of an object across time, including past, present, and future. The metaphysical nature of “now” is irrelevant to the analysis. The analysis is perfectly consistent with presentism.
Again, only one point in time **objectively exists** within presentism, the so-called now.
---
### Author:  [@Materialist](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Materialist)
#### Post date: [July 6, 2026, 6:21pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/276 "2026-07-06T18:21:05Z")
> [@MoK](#):
>
> Are you asking whether a timeless point is a point of something? A timeless point is all there is when it comes to simultaneous processes. It is a single point, so it is not a set of moments like time, where each moment belongs to time. So, it is wrong to ask whether it is the point of something.
A process entails _change over time_. Two processes that are simultaneous are taking place over an identical span of time.
Suppose we take repeated measurements of a system undergoing a process over a period of time. Each measurement represents the state of the system at each _ **point** of time_. In this context, “point” is well defined, as the point of time at which the system state was such-and-such. In this context, it makes no sense to claim points of time are “timeless”.
Suppose we create a 3-dimensional graph of a sphere. Each _ **point** _ _of the surface_ of the sphere can be identified by the 3 coordinates of the graph. We could consider these points “timeless” because the graph is of an abstraction, and abstractions are timeless.
To have meaning that is relevant to the real world, a point must relate to SOMETHING, such as a point of time, or a point of space. It could be a point on an axis of a graph. It’s meaningless to discuss a point without identifying what you’re referring to - unless you’re just discussing the mathematical properties of a point, such as the fact that points are dimensionless. So yes, you need to explain what you’re referring to as a point.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> Time is a sequence of moments; each moment accommodates a state of affairs.
Thank you. That’s a good start, but it leads to a problem - as I show below.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> In presentism, the past and future **do not objectively exist**.
Agreed: the past and future do not currently exist. But you’re sidestepping my issue: we can still consider the state of the universe at points of time in the past, and future. The past states of the universe do not currently exist, but they did exist at past points of time. Future states of the universe will exist at future points of time. We can make a true statement about the position of the earth relative to the moon at 8:00AM yesterday, or a statement about this position at 8:00AM tomorrow.
What’s impossible to do is to make a true statement about this position NOW. That’s because the state of a system NOW is not analyzable, because analysis is a process and takes time. Even the uttering of a statement requires a passage of time.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> In presentism, time exists only in the present.
That’s problematic. What exists in the present is a state of affairs. You defined time as a “sequence of moments”, and the present is just one moment: not a sequence. That’s why you can’t say time “exists in the present”, per your definition.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> So, you agree that change requires the passage of time?
Yes.
When we analyze change over time, we are doing so abstractly - which is a timeless perspective, like consideration of a 3-dimensional graph of a sphere. The fact that we can do this doesn’t have any bearing on the ontology of time. The present moment is not analyzable, except in retrospect, or in terms of predicting the state of a system in the future that will eventually become the NOW.
Just to be clear, I want to add this. The passage of time is relative to an observer. Are you familiar with Page & Wootters? This summarizes their view:
_“Thanks to quantum entanglement, a static system may describe an evolving “universe” from the point of view of the internal observers. Energy-entanglement between a “clock” system and the rest of the universe can yield a stationary state for an (hypothetical) external observer that is able to test the entanglement vs. abstract coordinate time.”_
[source](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.4691)
---
### Author:  [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2026, 3:26pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/277 "2026-07-07T15:26:13Z")
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> A process entails _change over time_.
There is no change involved in the case of a simultaneous process since two states of affairs lie at the same timeless point in this case.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Agreed: the past and future do not currently exist. But you’re sidestepping my issue: we can still consider the state of the universe at points of time in the past, and future. The past states of the universe do not currently exist, but they did exist at past points of time. Future states of the universe will exist at future points of time. We can make a true statement about the position of the earth relative to the moon at 8:00AM yesterday, or a statement about this position at 8:00AM tomorrow.
I understand your point about the tense sentences. I am, however, saying that time cannot change in presentism, so the future cannot become the present, and the present cannot become the past. This is presented in footnote 1.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> That’s problematic. What exists in the present is a state of affairs. You defined time as a “sequence of moments”, and the present is just one moment: not a sequence. That’s why you can’t say time “exists in the present”, per your definition.
Time is a sequence of events. In presentism, only the present objectively exists, whereas in the block universe, all points of time are objectively real.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Yes.
That is a great agreement.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Just to be clear, I want to add this. The passage of time is relative to an observer. Are you familiar with Page & Wootters?
I believe I read about quantum entanglement and time in the past. Thanks for the reference. I will read it when I have time.
---
### Author:  [@Materialist](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Materialist)
#### Post date: [July 7, 2026, 5:54pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/278 "2026-07-07T17:54:41Z")
> [@MoK](#):
>
> There is no change involved in the case of a simultaneous process since two states of affairs lie at the same timeless point in this case.
Impossible. A process entails change over time, and consequently an elapse of time. Also, you still referred to a “timeless point”. I keep asking: a point of what? Failing to answer that question renders claims about a “timeless point” meaningless.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> I am, however, saying that time cannot change in presentism, so the future cannot become the present, and the present cannot become the past. This is presented in footnote 1.
My position is that time itself does not change. Rather, states of affairs change, and in doing so, a clock would record an elapse of time. Time is a relation between one state of affairs and another. The temporal relation between state A and state B is not something that actually changes, because it is specifically associated with those 2 states of affairs. When a subsequent state, state C, ensues,there is a new relation: between B and C. It is a very similar relation, but not identical because A, B, and C have differences.
Does the “future become the present”. It depends on what meaning is attached to “future” and “present”. In one sense, the future is always before us - so it is never reached. In that sense, “the future” never becomes the present.
But we can identify a future point of time, in reference to a clock. 07 July 2027 is a future date from the current date. When the clock reads “07 July 2027” we will correctly acknowledge that the (then) presesnt day is that date.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> This is presented in footnote 1.
Footnote 1 says, “Within presentism, time exists now only and changes.” I have defined time as a relation between states of affairs, and that it is not correct to say “time changes”. Rather, we could say that the time shown on a clock changes, and that it is states of affairs that change. A system state at one reading of a clock will be different at a later reading of the clock. So strictly speaking: time _elapses_ in terms of the reading on a clock.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> Time is a sequence of events. In presentism, only the present objectively exists, whereas in the block universe, all points of time are objectively real
Block-time doesn’t account for our perception of the passage of time or of causality. The past is fixed, and can’t be changed, but the future seems somewhat open - at least if there is true randomness to quantum indeterminacy, which seems likely. How do you account for quantum indeterminacy?
From my point of view, yes: only the present actually exists, but we can still make true statements about the past and future. That doesn’t require the past and future to exist. I embrace a form of truthmaker theory of truth: a statement is true iff there is some aspect of reality that the statement corresponds to. But it’s an correspondence applied to a block-time _abstraction_: the truthmaker can exist in the present, or it could have existed anytime in the past, or it could exist anytime in the future. Block-time is a useful abstraction, but its utility doesn’t make it actually part of the ontology of the world.
Regarding Page & Wooters: their theory is that the experience of time is real, but localized _within_ a quantum system: a clock _within_ the system will record an elapse of time associated with changes (associated with quantum entanglements) within the system. Observers outside the system will not observe an elapse of time. They are (in essence) observing block.
Extrapolating to the universe: if we consider the universe as a pure state quantum system, a hypothetical external observer would not observe an elapse of time within it, but observers within the universe would observe this elapse of time.
The paper I pointed you at is actually an experiment that is designed to confirm this Page-Wootters hypothesis.
---
### Author:  [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2026, 4:33pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/279 "2026-07-08T16:33:39Z")
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Impossible. A process entails change over time, and consequently an elapse of time.
I use the process for convenience when we have at least two states of affairs, whether at the same point or at different points, and, to me, the process does not necessarily imply change over time. I don’t know what other word is appropriate to use, but Google defines a simultaneous process.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> I keep asking: a point of what? Failing to answer that question renders claims about a “timeless point” meaningless.
And I keep explaining it. A timeless point is a single point that can accommodate different states of affairs; that is all.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> My position is that time itself does not change.
Sorry, but you agree that time is required for change. If we agree that each point in time only accommodates one state of affairs, then a change in time is required.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Footnote 1 says, “Within presentism, time exists now only and changes.” I have defined time as a relation between states of affairs, and that it is not correct to say “time changes”.
We have two things: States of affairs that are a sequence and change. States of affairs are a sequence, so each element of it is related to another element, regardless that if there is any change or time. Time, in other words, is not needed to define this sequence. When you have a change, you need time since each point in time accommodates only one state of affairs, and only one state of affairs can objectively exist. So, for example, at time t1, there is only the state of affairs S1, which objectively exists. Now, we have to wait to get the second state of affairs, S2, at a later time t2. Etc.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> How do you account for quantum indeterminacy?
I believe in Bohemian interpretation.
---
### Author:  [@Materialist](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Materialist)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2026, 6:01pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/280 "2026-07-08T18:01:31Z")
> [@MoK](#):
>
> And I keep explaining it. A timeless point is a single point that can accommodate different states of affairs; that is all.
Give me a real world example of a single point that can accommodate different states of affairs.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> I use the process for convenience when we have at least two states of affairs, whether at the same point or at different points, and, to me, the process does not necessarily imply change over time.
Give me a real world example of 2 states of affairs at the same point that you would regard as a “simultaneous process”.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> > [@Materialist](#):
> >
> > My position is that time itself does not change.
>
> Sorry, but you agree that time is required for change. If we agree that each point in time only accommodates one state of affairs, then
> a change in time is required.
My position is that change and time are the same thing, a relation between states: one going out of existence, and the other that becomes existent. You seem to be treating time as something existing independently from states of affairs, but in which states of affairs exist within.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> I believe in Bohemian interpretation.
Does your “proof” of God depend on this interpretation?
How do you account for the perception of time passing?
Block time implies that everything exists, but some exist at different temporal locations. Nothing actually begins to exist or ceases to exist, and this means that causes do not actually create a new state of affairs. Rather, the cause-effect relationship is just part of the static 4-dimensional matrix - one that includes God. But God couldn’t create that 4-dimensional matrix, because he’s part of it. He has to be, because the the nature of causality: it’s just a relation between 2 parts of the block (cause and effect).
---
### Author:  [@questioner](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/questioner)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2026, 8:51pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/281 "2026-07-08T20:51:03Z")
> [@MoK](#):
>
> If we accept that consciousness is the result of physical processes, what physicalism claims, then the universe must be conscious as well, since there are physical processes everywhere.
But the universe is not made up of neurons. Consciousness arises as the product of the electrochemical processes that neurons undertake.
[Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217.md?page=13)
[Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217.md?page=15)