That there is a god is not found in C2 or P2. C3 does not follow from those two. SO God is presumed into existence at your conclusion.
All you have done is to claim that the world has a beginning, and then call that god.
1 Like
Then how do you deal with this problem: The universe cannot naturally exist now? The universe certainly exists now and has a beginning!
It’s frankly a bit silly. Sorry. From what I can make out, you work yourself up to this form a mistaken notion of counting - that we can’t have zero because there are negative numbers. It’s muddled from the very start.
1 Like
It is not silly. It is clear what the universe cannot exist now means. So what is left is the natural. By natural, I mean there is a scientific explanation. So, by the universe cannot naturally exist now, I mean that there are no scientific theories that can explain the existence of the universe now. Grant me that, where we can go from there, accepting that the universe exists now and it has a beginning.
Oh, the universe exists now, I’ll agree, and our best account says it has a beginning in time, although perhaps not in cause - see any decent pop cosmology.
So not really any need for your argument about counting from negative infinity, which is just as well.
So again, what you have done is to say that the universe has a beginning, and call that god.
I discarded both types of theories of the beginning of time in the OP. In the first type, time has a definite beginning, and in the second type, time does not have a definite beginning. This means that the universe cannot exist now, given that no scientific theory exists that can explain the existence of the universe now.
No, that is not what I am trying to say.
Obvious non sequitur.
Indeed, it isn’t what you are trying to say. It is what you do.
1 Like
It follows given the fact that both types of theories of the beginning of time are discarded. You basically don’t have a scientific theory explaining how the universe could exist now!
…therefore god.
A non sequitur.
1 Like
This is to say the believer’s use of the word “God” differs from the non-believers.
If you take that seriously, then you have a clarification of the dispute, which can be considered the aim of philosophy.
That clarification is to remove the conversation from trying to identify the metaphysical referent of God (trying to point to the man in the sky) to clarifying differences in forms of life between believers and not and their resultant word usage.
This isn’t to say there is or isn’t God, but to describe why a debate beyond usage is futile.
This premise is unclear. There is no proof the universe is a temporal thing, although it exists.
I agree with @banno on his points but maybe from different angle of view. You cannot conclude God exists from the premises you provided.
There is no compelling logical consequences between God exists, and all the points you were claiming. It is like saying, “there is the Moon, there is the sky, no one knows why they are there. Therefore God exists.”
Time has nothing to do with “God exists”. Many folks believe time is a perception of human mind.
1 Like
That is just midway. I then conclude there is no natural explanation why the universe exists now. This leaves us with an unnatural explanation only. I then argue that God exists, and it is the reason for the unnatural explanation of the existence of the universe now.
Thank you very much for your second reply. I read the quote from the book several times, but I don’t understand why the use of the word God is different between believers and non-believers. Do you mind elaborating? We can always define God as the creator of everything. I am not saying that we can comprehend what God and the act of creation are, though.
By temporal, I mean that you have to wait for things to change in the universe.
Not every changes need to wait. If you throw a stone to your neighbour’s window, it will break instantly. No wait is required for the change of the state from a window to a broken window.
The universe is an obscure concept. Where does it start and end in space? What does it include?
Just watch a slow-motion of a window breaking.
Why watch slow motion and wait, when you can watch it instantly with no wait?
I was just mentioning that the window does not break instantly. You doubt it, then watch a slow-motion. The fact that something appears to us to be instant does not mean that it is true.
Watching slow motion of the breakage sounds like artificially slowing down the motion trying to induce and force unnecessary wait.
Another point here is the slow motion video is not the reality. You need to see the reality to be able to know the truth. Watching slow motion video is not seeing the reality.
IOW, you need to grab a stone, and throw it to the window, and see it breaking in reality, rather than seeing the slow motion video, and waiting.
All I am saying is that there are things in nature that happen too fast, so you don’t notice and call them instantaneous. It is our perception ability that should be the subject of doubt since it is limited.