# 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:** 15
### Author:  [@Johnnywas](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Johnnywas)
#### Post date: [July 8, 2026, 10:48pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/282 "2026-07-08T22:48:09Z")
Indeed
Consciousness is a result of a specific arrangement of neurons that has evolved over 2bn years to provide a fitness advantage. Sadly as of yet, neither Rocks or Toasters are conscious.
I dont know why people have trouble with this I mean it’s not brain science 😀
---
### Author:  [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2026, 12:14am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/283 "2026-07-09T00:14:37Z")
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Give me a real world example of a single point that can accommodate different states of affairs.
Our universe is temporal, so different states of affairs lie at different points in time. A simultaneous process is, however, a metaphysical possibility.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> 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.
Change and time are different things. Why bother and talk about time if change and time are the same thing? Time is a real thing and is different from change.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> You seem to be treating time as something existing independently from states of affairs, but in which states of affairs exist within.
Yes, that is how I treat the time.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Does your “proof” of God depend on this interpretation?
No. The proof does not depend on this.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> How do you account for the perception of time passing?
We have two sorts of time, so-called psychological and physical time. Psychological time accommodates different mental states of affairs in it, whereas physical time accommodates different physical states of affairs in it. We couldn’t experience motion without psychological time, and motion was not possible without physical time.
---
### Author:  [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2026, 12:25am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/284 "2026-07-09T00:25:16Z")
> [@questioner](#):
>
> But the universe is not made up of neurons.
So what? Neurons are made of elementary particles.
> [@questioner](#):
>
> Consciousness arises as the product of the electrochemical processes that neurons undertake.
That is a huge claim. A brain is made of elementary particles. There are physical processes in the brain. The physical process in the brain is different from the physical process in a stone, but the physical process is all there is in the brain. So, either the experience is the result of the physical process or not. Different types of physical processes lead to different forms of experience in the first case, and we have to look for different things that make experience possible in the second case.
---
### Author:  [@Materialist](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Materialist)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2026, 2:39am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/285 "2026-07-09T02:39:19Z")
> [@MoK](#):
>
> > [@Materialist](#):
> >
> > Give me a real world example of a single point that can accommodate different states of affairs.
>
> Our universe is temporal, so different states of affairs lie at different points in time. A simultaneous process is, however, a metaphysical possibility.
You can’t define what you mean by a “timeless point”, and you can’t give an example of a single point accommodating different states of affairs. And yet you claim it’s metaphysically possible. You’ve provided no reason why I should accept that.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> Change and time are different things. Why bother and talk about time if change and time are the same thing? Time is a real thing and is different from change.
I didn’t mean that time and change are synonyms, I meant that they are an inextricable pair: you can’t have one without the other. If there is change, then there has been an elapse of time. If there is an elapse of time, there has been a change.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> Yes, that is how I treat the time.
I don’t accept it. Your “proof” of God depends on a number of debatable assumptions. Such is the case with all proofs of God: make some metaphysical assumptions that entail God and declare God’s existence as proven. It’s a fruitless exercise.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> We have two sorts of time, so-called psychological and physical time. Psychological time accommodates different mental states of affairs in it, whereas physical time accommodates different physical states of affairs in it. We couldn’t experience motion without psychological time, and motion was not possible without physical time.
That doesn’t answer my question. If the past and future all exist, why do we directly perceive the present, but not the past or future?
Seriously, this is the weakness of block-time, and the strength of presentism. Presentism is consistent with our experience and intuition. Block time is not.
---
### Author:  [@questioner](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/questioner)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2026, 11:22am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/286 "2026-07-09T11:22:35Z")
> [@MoK](#):
>
> Neurons are made of elementary particles.
Structured into highly complex cells involved in the most complex chemistry we know of in existence
> [@MoK](#):
>
> A brain is made of elementary particles. There are physical processes in the brain.
A mind is produced by a brain through electro-chemical processes, not physical processes.
---
### Author:  [@Garon](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Garon)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2026, 11:35am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/287 "2026-07-09T11:35:18Z")
Electro-chemicals are physical, just very tiny. It’s a bit of body-matter, that creates mind in brain-space.
I suppose the end-effect of electro-chemicals is mental, but they’re also a physical cause.
---
### Author:  [@questioner](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/questioner)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2026, 12:10pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/288 "2026-07-09T12:10:39Z")
> [@Garon](#):
>
> I suppose the end-effect of electro-chemicals is mental, but they’re also a physical cause.
But they are not _only_ physical.
---
### Author:  [@Garon](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Garon)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2026, 12:11pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/289 "2026-07-09T12:11:14Z")
Yes I agree with that… Physical and mental.
---
### Author:  [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2026, 3:41pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/290 "2026-07-09T15:41:04Z")
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> You can’t define what you mean by a “timeless point”,
I already defined it several times. A timeless point is an instant that accommodates different states of affairs. You keep asking a point of what? And I keep answering that it is a singleton object, so that is all about it.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> and you can’t give an example of a single point accommodating different states of affairs.
You ask for a real example. Our universe is temporal, so I cannot give you an example of a simultaneous process. That, however, does not mean that it is an impossibility.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> I didn’t mean that time and change are synonyms, I meant that they are an inextricable pair: you can’t have one without the other. If there is change, then there has been an elapse of time. If there is an elapse of time, there has been a change.
You can have an elapse of time but no change. But that point aside, why do we need an elapse of time for a change? In my framework, we need a time elapse because we need to substitute a state of affairs with another one temporarily, and because the present can accommodate one state of affairs at any time.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> That doesn’t answer my question. If the past and future all exist, why do we directly perceive the present, but not the past or future?
We don’t experience past and future events because only present events are objectively real.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Seriously, this is the weakness of block-time, and the strength of presentism. Presentism is consistent with our experience and intuition. Block time is not.
Correct.
---
### Author:  [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2026, 3:46pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/291 "2026-07-09T15:46:40Z")
> [@questioner](#):
>
> Structured into highly complex cells involved in the most complex chemistry we know of in existence
Saying that it is complex does not help. At the end, you only have a set of moving particles. You need to explain how experience arises from a set of moving particles.
> [@questioner](#):
>
> A mind is produced by a brain through electro-chemical processes, not physical processes.
Electrochemical processes are reducible to physical processes.
---
### Author:  [@Materialist](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Materialist)
#### Post date: [July 9, 2026, 8:45pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/292 "2026-07-09T20:45:30Z")
> [@MoK](#):
>
> I already defined it several times. A timeless point is an instant that accommodates different states of affairs. You keep asking a point of what? And I keep answering that it is a singleton object, so that is all about it.
I don’t believe you’ve previously referred to it as an “instant”, or that it is a “singleton object”.
Referring to it as an “instant” suggests you mean an “instant of time”. So your answer suggests you’re referring to a “point in time”.
Any state of affairs could be considered a “singleton object” do you agree? The universe itself is a singleton object. So we could be referring to the universe at a point of time.
We’re debating whether or not there are other points of time, but even if there are not, I suggest that we can still label this a point of time. With this proposed common ground, we can then discuss the possibility of there being additional points of time.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> You ask for a real example. Our universe is temporal, so I cannot give you an example of a simultaneous process. That, however, does not mean that it is an impossibility.
If a process entails change over time, then it is absolutely impossible. Provide an alternative definition for “process” that would apply to a static, unchanging state.
[quote=“MoK, post:290, topic:1217”]
You can have an elapse of time but no change. [/quote]
Whatever is observing or measuring time is changing. The system that includes this observer or measurement device is changing. A component of the system could be static, but it’s static within a changing environment.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> why do we need an elapse of time for a change? In my framework, we need a time elapse because we need to substitute a state of affairs with another one temporarily, and because the present can accommodate one state of affairs at any time.
I could accept that description, although I’d disagree with some potential connotations. It’s simply the case that an system that evolves, does so over time. Its state a each point of time is a state of affairs that is distinct from each prior and future state. So in a sense, the later state “substitutes for” the prior state. But the change (and hence time) is being caused from within the state of affairs.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> We don’t experience past and future events because only present events are objectively real.
I agree! But that’s contrary to block time.
---
### Author:  [@questioner](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/questioner)
#### Post date: [July 10, 2026, 12:06am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/293 "2026-07-10T00:06:31Z")
> [@MoK](#):
>
> At the end, you only have a set of moving particles. You need to explain how experience arises from a set of moving particles.
Your complete lack of understanding of the chemistry that goes on in brain makes this line of discussion futile.
---
### Author:  [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)
#### Post date: [July 10, 2026, 3:11pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/294 "2026-07-10T15:11:04Z")
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> I don’t believe you’ve previously referred to it as an “instant”, or that it is a “singleton object”.
Yes, I didn’t mention them before.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Referring to it as an “instant” suggests you mean an “instant of time”. So your answer suggests you’re referring to a “point in time”.
No, I don’t mean an instant/point of time. We have different geometrical objects, such as a point, a line, a surface, etc. By timeless point, I mean the simplest form of time which contain only one instant, similar to geometrical point. Then you have the usual time, which is a set of instants.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> If a process entails change over time, then it is absolutely impossible. Provide an alternative definition for “process” that would apply to a static, unchanging state.
Google understands the definition of a simultaneous process. We can use a simultaneous set if you are not happy with the process.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> I could accept that description, although I’d disagree with some potential connotations. It’s simply the case that an system that evolves, does so over time. Its state a each point of time is a state of affairs that is distinct from each prior and future state. So in a sense, the later state “substitutes for” the prior state. But the change (and hence time) is being caused from within the state of affairs.
Good. What is left is to accept that time changes as well.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> I agree! But that’s contrary to block time.
Correct. I have been thinking about special relativity, which indicates a block universe, for a long time.
---
### Author:  [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)
#### Post date: [July 10, 2026, 3:19pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/295 "2026-07-10T15:19:55Z")
> [@questioner](#):
>
> Your complete lack of understanding of the chemistry that goes on in brain makes this line of discussion futile.
You have no explanation whatsoever for why experience happens in the brain as a result of particles moving. Instead, you claim that I don’t have a complete understanding of what is going on in the brain. I know that the brain is a complex thing, but at the end, it is a set of moving particles.
---
### Author:  [@Materialist](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Materialist)
#### Post date: [July 10, 2026, 6:28pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/296 "2026-07-10T18:28:27Z")
> [@MoK](#):
>
> No, I don’t mean an instant/point of time. We have different geometrical objects, such as a point, a line, a surface, etc. By timeless point, I mean the simplest form of time which contain only one instant, similar to geometrical point. Then you have the usual time, which is a set of instants.
What you describe is a state of affairs in a context in which time does not elapse. It appears you don’t wish to call this a “point of time” because time is not elapsing in this scenario. Calling it a “point” has been misleading because it only makes sense to call it a “point” in the context of time.
I had said: _“We’re debating whether or not there are other points of time”_. I’ll revise the wording: we’re debating whether or not there there are multiple states of affairs that are temporally connected.
Under block time: yes. Under my theory: yes, but that’s because there is a truthmaker for states of affairs in the past and future. Those states of affairs don’t currently exist. However, the present state of affairs has the potential to change (due to laws of nature). The potential to change is the engine of time; time “passes” as change occurs.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> Google understands the definition of a simultaneous process.
Google gave me definitions like this:
_a **series** of actions that produce something or that lead to a particular result_
_a **series of changes** that happen naturally_
_a systematic **series of actions** directed to some end._
So please post what you see in google that agrees with your usage.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> We can use a simultaneous set if you are not happy with the process.
Define the members of the set.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> Good. What is left is to accept that time changes as well
I reject that, because time isn’t a thing (IOW, it’s not a state of affairs). Time doesn’t change, rather - an elapse of time _occurs_ when a state of affairs (something that exists) changes.
Consider a possible world consisting of a single particle, with two intrinsic properties: color(white) and the capacity to change. The particle’s color than changes to black, and the capacity to change is no longer present. A change has occurred, and thus an elapse of time has occurred. It’s meaningless to quantify the amount of time, because quantification entails a clock that is concurrently changing, and no clock exists in this world. Never the less, the changeable white particle no longer exists, but instead, an unchangeable black particle exists.
Under block-time, both the original particle and final particle exist, but are separated through the time dimension, and there is a one-way causal relation between them. The only real difference under presentism is that time is not truly an ontological dimension, so the initial state has been replaced with the final state.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> > [@Materialist](#):
> >
> > I agree! But that’s contrary to block time.
>
> Correct. I have been thinking about special relativity, which indicates a block universe, for a long time.
The important thing is that you agree there’s an issue with block time. There is also an issue with presentism - the fact that the present has an ontological relation to the past and present, despite the fact that these don’t exist. But IMO, that is just the nature or reality, and it’s consistent with intuition and observation. We observe change in things. The prior state doesn’t exist, because it has changed. We can abstractly consider the state across time (measured by a clock), recording its properties - and this constitutes a 4-dimensional analysis that maps to B-theory, but denies it reflects ontological reality.
There’s another issue with block time: the arrow of time. If all times exist in the block, then why can’t we traverse the dimension of time in both directions? How do you account for this?
---
### Author:  [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)
#### Post date: [July 11, 2026, 4:54pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/297 "2026-07-11T16:54:30Z")
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> What you describe is a state of affairs in a context in which time does not elapse.
No, I am talking about a timeless point that can accommodate one or more states of affairs.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> It appears you don’t wish to call this a “point of time” because time is not elapsing in this scenario.
Yes, it is a single point, so we don’t have a time passage.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Calling it a “point” has been misleading because it only makes sense to call it a “point” in the context of time.
No, I didn’t mean a point in time.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Under block time: yes. Under my theory: yes
What is your theory?
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Define the members of the set.
Different states of affairs are elements of the set.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> I reject that, because time isn’t a thing (IOW, it’s not a state of affairs). Time doesn’t change, rather - an elapse of time _occurs_ when a state of affairs (something that exists) changes.
What you are describing, the elapse of time, is what philosophers call a change in time.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> There’s another issue with block time: the arrow of time. If all times exist in the block, then why can’t we traverse the dimension of time in both directions? How do you account for this?
Correct. The list of problems that the block universe has is not short.
---
### Author:  [@Materialist](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Materialist)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2026, 8:22pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/298 "2026-07-12T20:22:57Z")
> [@MoK](#):
>
> > [@Materialist](#):
> >
> > What you describe is a state of affairs in a context in which time does not elapse.
>
> No, I am talking about a timeless point that can accommodate one or more states of affairs.
All the states of affairs that exist at this “point” constitute a state of affairs. I’m referring to the state of affairs that constitutes the totality of reality.
> [@MoK](#):
>
> > [@Materialist](#):
> >
> > Define the members of the [“simultaneous”] set.
>
> Different states of affairs are elements of the set.
Labeling it a “set” adds vagueness, because a set can be any abstract collection of objects, that may or may not have any relations with one another. I think you’re just referring to the totality state of affairs, that exist at one point [of time].
> [@MoK](#):
>
> The list of problems that the block universe has is not short.
I could construct a “proof” that block time is false, based on any of the major problems. This is the way you constructed your “proof” of God- by identifying a problem with an interpretation of presentism. That’s really all I’m trying to get you to see.
---
### Author:  [@MoK](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/MoK)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2026, 2:02pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/299 "2026-07-14T14:02:19Z")
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> All the states of affairs that exist at this “point” constitute a state of affairs. I’m referring to the state of affairs that constitutes the totality of reality.
That is not how I define things. Consider a state of affairs that contains only one object. Two states of affairs at the same timeless point, then, represent the object in different positions, for example.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> Labeling it a “set” adds vagueness, because a set can be any abstract collection of objects, that may or may not have any relations with one another.
How about sequence?
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> I think you’re just referring to the totality state of affairs, that exist at one point [of time].
No, I mean at least two states of affairs at the same timeless point.
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> I could construct a “proof” that block time is false, based on any of the major problems.
We know that the block universe has several problems. What do you want to prove?
> [@Materialist](#):
>
> This is the way you constructed your “proof” of God- by identifying a problem with an interpretation of presentism.
I don’t see any relation between presentism and the block universe.
---
### Author:  [@180Proof](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/180Proof)
#### Post date: [July 14, 2026, 4:13pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/300 "2026-07-14T16:13:27Z")
@MoK
Here’s another article that summarizes a ‘beginningless universe’ _model_ which renders **a creationist argument like the OP** moot (as well as unsound):
> **[Mirror universe where time runs backwards could help explain dark matter,...](https://www.thebrighterside.news/post/mirror-universe-where-time-runs-backwards-could-help-explain-dark-matter-antimatter-and-neutrinos/)**
>
> A CPT-symmetric universe could place an anti-universe beyond the Big Bang and explain dark matter through heavy sterile neutrinos.
I prefer a more soundly reasoned _meta_physics (as a categorical-paradigmatic generalization) informed – constrained – by _contemporary_ physics.
---
### Author:  [@Pyronax](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Pyronax)
#### Post date: [August 15, 2026, 3:18am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217/301 "2026-08-15T03:18:29Z")
> [@MoK](#):
>
> God, by definition, is the uncreated Being. If God were created, then we would need another creator, etc. This leads to infinite regress unless you accept that there is a uncreated Being.
> [@Scorpion](#):
>
> A beginningless time also implies a completed infinity, (- \infty, \text{ Now}]( −∞, Now]; Aristotle declared infinities to be only potential, not complete.
>
> The Axiom of infinity
> $\exists S : \emptyset \in S \wedge x \in S \implies x \cup {x } \in S$∃𝑆 :∅ ∈𝑆 ∧𝑥 ∈𝑆 ⟹ 𝑥 ∪{𝑥} ∈𝑆
>
> * * *
>
> A beginningless time is part of certain Hindu/Jain cosmologies. For every point in time T 𝑇 we can ask, what was before T 𝑇?
I think to frame it as infinity lures us, maybe it is better to think in terms of _eternity_ of the universe instead of the eternity of God, the possibility that the contents of the universe have just always been there (space, matter, and so on) and have just been tranformed over time. There is this cosmological possibility that there is an eternal continuous stream of events that went on even before the big bang, which our measurments cannot see, because the hypercontraction of universe’s contents that led to the big bang blurred nearly all of what happened before it. Another possibility is that the universe’s events are repeating themselves - or not, in fact they don’t have to repeat themselves - in an endless cycle of contraction and explosion.
God’s existence is possible, but not necessary at least for explaining intelligibly the existence of the universe. People conceive God as the necessary eternal to create a universe with a begining, but the universe and its constituting contents/elements might actually always have been there without the need of a separate eternal being or entity to create them.
Through aeons and aeons, life forms might have been brought to existence and then ceased to exist wherever the condtions were present. Dawkins, one of the most important neo-evolutionnist thinker since Darwin, explain well how mollecular structures go from simple to complex and go on to bring all the variety of life forms and their emerging properties (see chapter 2 and 3 of _The Selfish Gene_). Many such self maintaing and replicating systems, of many different forms, might have come to existence through the ages in the vast and everlasting cosmological symphony.
I believe however that both scientific community and religious people often make the mistake of thinking that evolution and ambiogenesis is not compatible with the existence of a God/gods. And the “complexity of life” argument for the existence of God suffers the same problem as the “begining of the universe” problem. They logically don’t require a God to be explained.
[Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217.md?page=14)
[Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/an-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/1217.md?page=16)