The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

[Ringtone]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​

​

2. The Universe (physical world) began to exist.​

​

3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.​

Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?

The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.​

​

3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​

​

3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​

​

3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​

​

3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​

​

3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​

​

3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​

​

3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​

​

3.8. Hence, time began to exist.​

​

3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.​

​

3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.​

​

3.11. The universe is a material existent.​

​

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.​

​

3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​

​

3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​

​

3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​

​

3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​

​

3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​

​

Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​

 

[sealybobo]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​

​

2. The Universe (physical world) began to exist.​

​

3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.​

Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?

The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.​

​

3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​

​

3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​

​

3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​

​

3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​

​

3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​

​

3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​

​

3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​

​

3.8. Hence, time began to exist.​

​

3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.​

​

3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.​

​

3.11. The universe is a material existent.​

​

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.​

​

3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​

​

3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​

​

3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​

​

3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​

​

3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​

​

Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​

Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid.
Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.

 

[BlindBoo]

And I was hoping for some math.

 

[Hollie]

I'm not clear how silly youtube videos are incontrovertible proof of anything other than an admission that you should limit your participation to the religion or conspiracy theory forums.

 

[BULLDOG]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​

​

2. The Universe (physical world) began to exist.​

​

3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.​

Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?

The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.​

​

3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​

​

3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​

​

3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​

​

3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​

​

3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​

​

3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​

​

3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​

​

3.8. Hence, time began to exist.​

​

3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.​

​

3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.​

​

3.11. The universe is a material existent.​

​

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.​

​

3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​

​

3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​

​

3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​

​

3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​

​

3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​

​

Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​

How did you get David Letterman to pose for that picture in your second link?

 

[cnm]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

What caused gods to begin to exist?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​

​

2. The Universe (physical world) began to exist.​

​

3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.​

Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?

The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.​

​

3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​

​

3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​

​

3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​

​

3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​

​

3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​

​

3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​

​

3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​

​

3.8. Hence, time began to exist.​

​

3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.​

​

3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.​

​

3.11. The universe is a material existent.​

​

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.​

​

3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​

​

3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​

​

3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​

​

3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​

​

3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​

​

Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​

Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid.
Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.

Yep!

Scientists say global warming exists
Planetologists understand global warming.
Therefore, all scientists are planetologists.

Logically valid until the premise and conclusion don't hold true

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****

 

[harmonica]

there is no god..no one can or has ever proved it --plain and simple
..all we hear is babble crap ''''''proof'''

 

[Damaged Eagle]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

What caused gods to begin to exist?

What caused the universe to exist?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[cnm]

What caused the universe to exist?

I don't know. The OP says everything that begins to exist has a cause, it's his story. I'd like to know the cause of the beginning of gods' existences.

I don't see what's funny about that.

 

[Ringtone]

And I was hoping for some math.

Let me know when you've digested the following, and, as it were, I'll get into the nuts and bolts of the mathematics.

Part XI. Potential Infinities and Actual Infinities

(Before exploring any of the links listed below, first read the entire contents of this post.)

With Alex's amateurish apologetics annihilated, we now turn to the impossibility of actual infinities—the actual thrust of the second premise on which Alex never touches because he's either not aware of it or doesn't understand it. However, Professor Wes Morriston does address it in his critique of Craig's defense of the Kalam: http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/craig-on-the-actual-infinite.pdf

First, Craig's outline of the underlying syllogistic supports for the second premise of the Kalam: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-existence-of-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe#ixzz4uOIvuQEq

2. The universe began to exist:

Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

AND

Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.
2.21. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

See discussion of the Craig-Morriston debate: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/debate-on-the-kalam-argument#_ftn1

See explications regarding God and actual infinities:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-actually-infinite
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/omniscience-and-actual-infinity
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-infinity
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/hilbert-and-kalam
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-the-beginning-of-time
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-time-and-eternity

I need not belabor Craig's observations regarding Infinity. One can read them for oneself as well as Morriston's bizarre reasoning on other matters, which my critique of Alex's lecture adequately blunts. Morriston goes down a number of rabbit holes of his own as the principles of eternalism and sufficient causality embedded in the complex analytic axiom of the first premise of the Kalam elude him as well. But I will discuss the essence of potential infinities and actual infinities as juxtaposed against the distinction between quantity and quality in brief, and then discuss the mathematical conceptualization of Infinity and the problems thereof in detail.

I strongly recommend that one read the rest of this post and the mathematical treatment of Infinity in the following posts before delving into the Craig-Morriston debate and the other links listed in the above. One can always return to this post after getting used to thinking about Infinity in mathematical terms, as this should significantly enhance one's understanding of Craig's observations.

I teach a class on Christian apologetics and, relative to observations made by Craig and other Christian philosophers, get questions about Infinity all the time. Most of the time my answers light up the questioner's eyes. He gets it! But on occasion I get back a puzzled look instead. That's frustrating. It occurred to me while delving into the Kalam in greater detail that the key to understanding Infinity is the mathematics of Infinity. Craig's observations and those of others have never been a problem for me. I understand them at a glance, but, then, I've studied the mathematics of Infinity. Why it never before occurred to me to simply write a brief mathematical treatment on Infinity for my students is one of those brain farts of life. Though I have since had to rewrite a portion of the treatment, the feedback from my students is very enthusiastic. Mostly, they report that verbal explanations that used to leave them even more confused now make perfect sense to them.

Just as more than a few atheists have argued on their blogs, Morriston inexplicably argues potential infinities in refutation of Craig's observation regarding the impossibility of actual infinities. How is it possible that a professor of philosophy doesn't grasp the difference between potential infinities and actual infinities? As every serious calculus student should know, actual infinities only exist in minds and only as they're intuitively understood to entail a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. It's impossible for actual infinities to exist outside of minds precisely because there's no limit. There's never a point in time or being, outside of minds, when there isn't still more and more. . . . Absurdity. One might as well ask what the numeric value of Beauty is as ask what the numeric value of Infinity is. From this we see that the impossibility of an actual infinity goes to quantity, not to essential qualities of being.

A common mistake is to point to the set of real numbers, for example, as its cardinality is an actual infinity, albeit, conceptually. Indeed, the set of all real numbers arguably entails an infinite number of actual infinities, each of which is an actual infinity within an actual infinity. The infinite set of real numbers is an example of an uncountable infinity, wherein the actually infinite amount of real numbers between the integers 0 and 1, for example, is as infinity great as the actually infinite amount of real numbers between all of the other adjacently sequential ±integers from 0 to ±∞ combined (see Cantor's diagonal proof)! Mind blowing to be sure, but, once again, the infinite set of real numbers only exists in minds and only as intuitively understood to entail a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of infinities. Which brings us to the realization that no number actually exists in and of itself outside of minds either. When we talk about a real number like ±1 as opposed to a surreal number like ±∞, what we actually mean is that a real number has a definitive, finite value, while a surreal number has some indeterminate value. The only things that actually exist outside of minds in this wise are the symbols (or numerals) scribbled on paper, for example, to represent numbers.

Infinity is also used to denote the quality of God’s attributes. When the classical theist says that God is infinite, he means that God is incomparably perfect in all ways. There’s no divine attribute of infinity as such. God’s omniscience, omnipotence and eternality are routinely confounded as being actual infinities, but once again these are inherent qualities, not external quantities of things. I’ve written on the actual nature of these attributes elsewhere and Craig addresses their nature quite handily in his articles "Is God Actually Infinite" and "God, Time and Eternity", so I need not repeat him or myself here, except to point out that the key to understanding their actual nature is to keep in mind that God is wholly transcendent—having no temporal extension (or magnitude). God is the

Eternal Now who stands and stays, as it were, with no beginning or end.

While Morriston seems to grasp the key that unlocks the door to the understanding of the nature of the pertinent attributes of divinity, at one point in his critique he smugly argues that God could create a hotel with an actual infinite number of rooms, as if to say that this is so obviously possible that even a child could understand why Craig's argument is false.

But it's Morriston who's befuddled.

That's akin to wondering if God could create a rock so heavy that even He couldn't lift it. God can't do that either. Divine omnipotence is not the power to do anything at all; rather, it's the power to do all things possible. This is not a limit on God's power. On the contrary, it's precisely because God is omnipotent that no rock could be so heavy that He couldn't lift it. The moment the rock is too heavy for God to lift is the moment the rock's mass is finite and God lifts it. Absurdity! Such a rock couldn't exist in the first place, just like a hotel with an actual infinite number of rooms couldn't exist. An actual infinity is a set containing an infinite number of elements, and in general, it's the set containing all possible quantity that's forever growing toward Infinity but never reaching Infinity. The distinction between potential infinities and actual infinities is ultimately a misnomer, as the "distinction" is actually the definition of the only kind of infinity that can exist outside of minds, namely, a potential infinity, which is a set with a finite number of elements at any given moment that is always increasing toward Infinity as the limit.

It's impossible to traverse an actual infinity!

In any event, God couldn't logically do anything contrary to His nature. Objectively speaking, according to the first principles of metaphysics, if God exists, our logic is God's eternally uncreated logic bestowed on us. For God to do something contrary to His nature is for God to deny Himself.

God = God. God cannot be God and not-God simultaneously.

How did this guy Morriston get a doctorate in religious philosophy? Clearly, he's one of these leftist kooks turning out imbeciles from our universities. Now onto the mathematical treatment of Infinity.

 

[Ringtone]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

What caused gods to begin to exist?

So you barely regarded the contents of the OP, eh? Just like a dog "you went all squirrel!" when you saw the term sufficient cause and went off into la-la land where things just pop into existence from an ontological nothingness. Magic!

 

[Hollie]

And I was hoping for some math.

Let me know when you've digested the following, and, as it were, I'll get into the nuts and bolts of the mathematics.

Part XI. Potential Infinities and Actual Infinities

(Before exploring any of the links listed below, first read the entire contents of this post.)

With Alex's amateurish apologetics annihilated, we now turn to the impossibility of actual infinities—the actual thrust of the second premise on which Alex never touches because he's either not aware of it or doesn't understand it. However, Professor Wes Morriston does address it in his critique of Craig's defense of the Kalam: http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/craig-on-the-actual-infinite.pdf

First, Craig's outline of the underlying syllogistic supports for the second premise of the Kalam: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-existence-of-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe#ixzz4uOIvuQEq

2. The universe began to exist:

Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

AND

Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.
2.21. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

See discussion of the Craig-Morriston debate: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/debate-on-the-kalam-argument#_ftn1

See explications regarding God and actual infinities:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-actually-infinite
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/omniscience-and-actual-infinity
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-infinity
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/hilbert-and-kalam
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-and-the-beginning-of-time
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-time-and-eternity

I need not belabor Craig's observations regarding Infinity. One can read them for oneself as well as Morriston's bizarre reasoning on other matters, which my critique of Alex's lecture adequately blunts. Morriston goes down a number of rabbit holes of his own as the principles of eternalism and sufficient causality embedded in the complex analytic axiom of the first premise of the Kalam elude him as well. But I will discuss the essence of potential infinities and actual infinities as juxtaposed against the distinction between quantity and quality in brief, and then discuss the mathematical conceptualization of Infinity and the problems thereof in detail.

I strongly recommend that one read the rest of this post and the mathematical treatment of Infinity in the following posts before delving into the Craig-Morriston debate and the other links listed in the above. One can always return to this post after getting used to thinking about Infinity in mathematical terms, as this should significantly enhance one's understanding of Craig's observations.

I teach a class on Christian apologetics and, relative to observations made by Craig and other Christian philosophers, get questions about Infinity all the time. Most of the time my answers light up the questioner's eyes. He gets it! But on occasion I get back a puzzled look instead. That's frustrating. It occurred to me while delving into the Kalam in greater detail that the key to understanding Infinity is the mathematics of Infinity. Craig's observations and those of others have never been a problem for me. I understand them at a glance, but, then, I've studied the mathematics of Infinity. Why it never before occurred to me to simply write a brief mathematical treatment on Infinity for my students is one of those brain farts of life. Though I have since had to rewrite a portion of the treatment, the feedback from my students is very enthusiastic. Mostly, they report that verbal explanations that used to leave them even more confused now make perfect sense to them.

Just as more than a few atheists have argued on their blogs, Morriston inexplicably argues potential infinities in refutation of Craig's observation regarding the impossibility of actual infinities. How is it possible that a professor of philosophy doesn't grasp the difference between potential infinities and actual infinities? As every serious calculus student should know, actual infinities only exist in minds and only as they're intuitively understood to entail a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. It's impossible for actual infinities to exist outside of minds precisely because there's no limit. There's never a point in time or being, outside of minds, when there isn't still more and more. . . . Absurdity. One might as well ask what the numeric value of Beauty is as ask what the numeric value of Infinity is. From this we see that the impossibility of an actual infinity goes to quantity, not to essential qualities of being.

A common mistake is to point to the set of real numbers, for example, as its cardinality is an actual infinity, albeit, conceptually. Indeed, the set of all real numbers arguably entails an infinite number of actual infinities, each of which is an actual infinity within an actual infinity. The infinite set of real numbers is an example of an uncountable infinity, wherein the actually infinite amount of real numbers between the integers 0 and 1, for example, is as infinity great as the actually infinite amount of real numbers between all of the other adjacently sequential ±integers from 0 to ±∞ combined (see Cantor's diagonal proof)! Mind blowing to be sure, but, once again, the infinite set of real numbers only exists in minds and only as intuitively understood to entail a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of infinities. Which brings us to the realization that no number actually exists in and of itself outside of minds either. When we talk about a real number like ±1 as opposed to a surreal number like ±∞, what we actually mean is that a real number has a definitive, finite value, while a surreal number has some indeterminate value. The only things that actually exist outside of minds in this wise are the symbols (or numerals) scribbled on paper, for example, to represent numbers.

Infinity is also used to denote the quality of God’s attributes. When the classical theist says that God is infinite, he means that God is incomparably perfect in all ways. There’s no divine attribute of infinity as such. God’s omniscience, omnipotence and eternality are routinely confounded as being actual infinities, but once again these are inherent qualities, not external quantities of things. I’ve written on the actual nature of these attributes elsewhere and Craig addresses their nature quite handily in his articles "Is God Actually Infinite" and "God, Time and Eternity", so I need not repeat him or myself here, except to point out that the key to understanding their actual nature is to keep in mind that God is wholly transcendent—having no temporal extension (or magnitude). God is the

Eternal Now who stands and stays, as it were, with no beginning or end.

While Morriston seems to grasp the key that unlocks the door to the understanding of the nature of the pertinent attributes of divinity, at one point in his critique he smugly argues that God could create a hotel with an actual infinite number of rooms, as if to say that this is so obviously possible that even a child could understand why Craig's argument is false.

But it's Morriston who's befuddled.

That's akin to wondering if God could create a rock so heavy that even He couldn't lift it. God can't do that either. Divine omnipotence is not the power to do anything at all; rather, it's the power to do all things possible. This is not a limit on God's power. On the contrary, it's precisely because God is omnipotent that no rock could be so heavy that He couldn't lift it. The moment the rock is too heavy for God to lift is the moment the rock's mass is finite and God lifts it. Absurdity! Such a rock couldn't exist in the first place, just like a hotel with an actual infinite number of rooms couldn't exist. An actual infinity is a set containing an infinite number of elements, and in general, it's the set containing all possible quantity that's forever growing toward Infinity but never reaching Infinity. The distinction between potential infinities and actual infinities is ultimately a misnomer, as the "distinction" is actually the definition of the only kind of infinity that can exist outside of minds, namely, a potential infinity, which is a set with a finite number of elements at any given moment that is always increasing toward Infinity as the limit.

It's impossible to traverse an actual infinity!

In any event, God couldn't logically do anything contrary to His nature. Objectively speaking, according to the first principles of metaphysics, if God exists, our logic is God's eternally uncreated logic bestowed on us. For God to do something contrary to His nature is for God to deny Himself.

God = God. God cannot be God and not-God simultaneously.

How did this guy Morriston get a doctorate in religious philosophy? Clearly, he's one of these leftist kooks turning out imbeciles from our universities. Now onto the mathematical treatment of Infinity.

To question whether the Gods could create a rock so heavy that even they couldn't lift it seems preposterous. More important is the ramification of the first principle of whether or not the Gods could microwave a burrito so hot they couldn't eat it.

 

[Ringtone]

there is no god..no one can or has ever proved it --plain and simple
..all we hear is babble crap ''''''proof'''

Baby talk. You've never thought things through or you refuse to accept the incontrovertible principles of logic and the ontological ramifications thereof when they inconveniently annihilate your proclivity to spurn the truth.

 

[anotherlife]

Most atheistic logic is founded on the claim that faith in existing God is a circular logic.

What can be shown however that if we follow the chains of causes and effects, then every logic ever is circular

 

[Ringtone]

Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid.
Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion.

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

Apples and oranges. Anyone can construct a fallacious syllogism precisely because the fundamental principles of logic are universally understood. Hence everybody knows what a sound syllogism looks like:

1. Socrates likes all flowers.
2. Roses are flowers.
3. Socrates likes roses.

Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true.

Hogwash!

1. That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.
2. The physical world began to exist.

And just like that, atheists stop believing that the incontrovertible principle of sufficient causation and the logical, mathematical and empirical ramifications thereof are true.

LOL! Suddenly like a dog they go all squirrel! and imagine that the physical world just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness.

 

[Ringtone]

Most atheistic logic is founded on the claim that faith in existing God is a circular logic.

What can be shown however that if we follow the chains of causes and effects, then every logic ever is circular

All logic is circular? How's that?

 

[Ringtone]

I don't know. The OP says everything that begins to exist has a cause, it's his story. I'd like to know the cause of the beginning of gods' existences.

I don't see what's funny about that.

And just like that alang no longer holds that something has necessarily always existed. LOL!

 

[Ringtone]

What caused gods to begin to exist?

So you're ultimately implying that you don't exist. Are you a figment of your own imagination?

crickets chirping

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.​

​

2. The Universe (physical world) began to exist.​

​

3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.​

Why does the conclusion entail the necessity of God's existence?

The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the physical world:

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.​

​

3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​

​

3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​

​

3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​

​

3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​

​

3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​

​

3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​

​

3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​

​

3.8. Hence, time began to exist.​

​

3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.​

​

3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.​

​

3.11. The universe is a material existent.​

​

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.​

​

3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​

​

3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​

​

3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​

​

3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​

​

3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​

​

Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​

Tired, useless, ontological tricks meant only for the faithy folks to soothe themselves. Does not belong in the science section.

Mods: please move to religion section or rubber room.