"Why does something exist rather than nothing?"
Is the seemingly infinite cosmos eternal in the past? Does it go on forever and ever with no beginning? I submit that this is not a viable option for multiple reasons. For a more detailed explanation of why I believe an infinite regression of past events is not possible in reality, visit my blog titled "God As The Explanation Of The Universe"
This is an argument for the existence of a God that attempts to demonstrate that there cannot, in fact, be an infinite regression of causes to things that exist. There must be a final un-caused cause of all things. This "First Cause" is God.
1. Things exist.
This fact cannot be argued against. It would be self-defeating for someone to argue against their own existence. For they'd have to exist in order to argue!
2. It is possible for those things not to exist.
For example, you and I do not have to exist. We are caused to exist by some external source. We exist contingently; that is to say that we (along with all temporal objects) are caused to exist by something else. Also, we can envision a world in which things did not exist, therefore their non-existence is not impossible. In other words, they do not have to exist.
3. Whatever has the possibility of nonexistence, yet exists, has been caused to exist.
Something cannot bring itself into existence. It would have to exist in order to bring itself into existence, which is non-sensical. Therefore, this premise seems true for temporal objects.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
An infinite regression of causes means there is no initial cause, which means there would be no cause of existence. Since the universe consists of contingent things, the universe must also have been caused to exist. An infinite regression is also not a viable position:
Philosophical Arguments: Hilbert's Hotel, and it is not possible to traverse an infinite number of past events. If the total number of past events are infinite, we never would have reached this moments in time. Yet, we are here. Thus, there must have been a beginning in the finite past. Contemporary Cosmology has demonstrated through the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem that the universe must have a past space-time boundary. To argue against this premise would be to argue against all of the evidence.
5. Therefore, there must have been an uncaused cause of all things.
Since an infinite regress is impossible, there must have been a First Cause that pushed over the first domino, so to speak.
6. The uncaused-cause must be God.
If the universe has an ultimate beginning, which has been clearly demonstrated, then what is the viable explanation for the First Cause of the universe? We know that if time, space, and matter had an ultimate beginning, then the First Cause must be immaterial, timeless, and spaceless. If the First Cause existed within time, space, and matter then it would have to exist in order to bring itself into existence, which is illogical. The First Cause would also have to be incredibly powerful in order to bring time, space, and matter into existence out of nothing (ex nihilo). The First Cause must be intelligent in order to create a universe with such design and fine-tuning to support biological life. There was precision of monumental proportions that allow life known as anthropic constants. This kind of fine-tuning points directly to a designer. Chance, nor physical necessity are not viable options. The First Cause must also be personal, for the Cause must have chosen to will the creation of time, space and matter into existence. Impersonal objects do not make choices. Therefore, the best viable explanation for the existence of a finite and contingent universe is God.
This a logical and airtight argument that demonstrates the existence of a First Cause with the attributes of an unembodied mind: God.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Refuting the argument from Divine Hiddenness
Many atheists have attempted to argue against God's existence by turning to what they call "Divine Hiddenness"
Atheist Austin Dacey stated in a debate: "If this world were the creation of a supreme being who seeks a loving relationship with us, we would expect that He ensure everyone believes in Him (or at least everyone who's capable of reciprocating this love relationship). One would expect Him to provide evidence that would convince all such people. In fact, what we find is that there is no such evidence that is persuasive to all such people. Countless billions have lived and died without ever believing in God. And they cannot be blamed for their lack of belief since many deliberately and ernestly sought, but could not find satisfactory reasons to believe."
The logic is that if God exists, He would make himself known through ways that are repeatable to natural science (as an example). They say, since we do not see such properties, one is justified in concluding that God is altogether not there. I will attempt to expose the hidden assumptions and lack of validity behind such an argument.
In a deductive format this argument looks like:
1. If God exists we would expect to see a universe that looks like X
2. We do not see a universe that looks like X
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
1. There is convincing evidence for God's existence
The absence of evidence for God would count against Him only if one expects to see more evidence than what already exists. So if the atheist were to submit that there is not enough evidence for God's existence, I would simply disagree. I believe that there are very good reasons to believe in God (allow me to list some of the arguments)
1. There exists a contingent Universe (Argument from contingency)
2. The Universe emerged out of nothing (Kalam Cosmological Argument)
3. The precise fine-tuning of the Universe for intelligent life (Teleological Argument)
4. The existence of objective Moral values and duties (Moral Argument)
5. The Ressurection and radical claims of Jesus Christ of Nazareth (Prophetic and Archaeological)
6. The personal experience of God through the Holy Spirit
Each of these sound and airtight logical evidences give very good grounds for God's existence. One then has no reason to require more evidence from God. From this list we see proofs for the existence of a Necessary, Timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial, Incredibly Powerful, Unbelievably Intelligent, Moral, and Personal God that has revealed Himself through Jesus of Nazareth and His Word, that is the Holy Bible.
Not only is there exterior evidence for God's existence, but also interior evidence that is found from an intimate and self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit. Anyone with an open mind and an open heart should come to knowledge and saving/love relationship with God.
2. One has no way of knowing if God's giving more evidence results in more people loving Him
God's primary reason for creating us is to draw His creation into a saving/love relationship with Himself, not just to make His existence known to us. If that were all He wanted, then of course He could make booming voices from Heaven or write letters across the sky to show that He exists. But there is no reason to believe that such actions would actually bring people into a saving/love relationship with Himself (it may even have an opposite effect). God is not obligated to give a clearer revelation of Himself if He knew that wasn't an effective way of revealing Himself and His nature to His creation. What the atheist would have to prove is that a clearer revelation from God would mean that more people, not just believe in His existence, but actually come into a loving relationship with Him. And that is just sheer speculation.
3. This type of argument is extremely presumptuous
Firstly, I don't believe that we are in a very good position to be dictating the type of universe that "we think" God should create. Who are we to talk back to God and critique his way of creation. What this person is saying is, "The way that God created the universe does not fit my standards, so He must not exist". I don't even need to go into detail about how sophomoric the logic is in this assertion. Secondly, the argument that this person is submitting is invalid. If God created a universe without order and consistent laws, then there would be no way to study the universe! Just think, how could we learn about creation if the universe is in chaos? If there is no structure in which we are able to build observations on, and God was performing random miracles all over the place, how would we even be able to distinguish what is God's divine miracle? The very fact that there is order, structure, and law in the universe points to a divine Creator who desires us to search for Him through the pathways of this order. God is actually the best explanation of why there is order in the universe at all. After all, chaos doesn't turn itself into order, without intelligent guidance. To deny this truth would be to deny a always-varified and never-falsified empirical observation. Where ever there is design, there is a designer. God is actually the most logical explanation for such obvious design that we see in virtually every aspect of creation.
4. God's miracles wouldn't be miracles if they occured frequently
Think about it... What if God were to do a miracle every single day? Every single morning, you walk outside and see writing across the sky written by a magical floating hand. There is absolutely no doubt that, at first, this miracle would catch peoples' attention. Such an act would be of monumental proportions! But after a while, the "miracle" wouldn't be a miracle anymore. The very fact that miracles rarely happen is why they are miracles! Firstly, if they happened frequently, they wouldn't be special. By definition, a miracle is a very very rare occurrence. Secondly, we would be less able to spot a miracle if they happened frequently. If miracles were happening on a consistent basis, then how would we distinguish what they are? The reason why miracles are so rare is so that we have the ability to spot them, and when we do spot them, we know they are from God because they are unexplainable without the supernatural. There are evidences of this description in Point 1.
5. The Bible says that someone's denial is an emotional issue, not an intellectual issue.
Psalm 14:1 "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'"
For a detailed final refutation of the argument from Divine Hiddenness, I will refer you to an article done by thinkinghristian.net which demonstrates that this argument submitted by the atheist serves as evidence for the Christian God.
This is not my argument, therefore I cannot take the credit: http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2011/02/a-divine-hiddenness-argument-for-christianity/
Atheist Austin Dacey stated in a debate: "If this world were the creation of a supreme being who seeks a loving relationship with us, we would expect that He ensure everyone believes in Him (or at least everyone who's capable of reciprocating this love relationship). One would expect Him to provide evidence that would convince all such people. In fact, what we find is that there is no such evidence that is persuasive to all such people. Countless billions have lived and died without ever believing in God. And they cannot be blamed for their lack of belief since many deliberately and ernestly sought, but could not find satisfactory reasons to believe."
The logic is that if God exists, He would make himself known through ways that are repeatable to natural science (as an example). They say, since we do not see such properties, one is justified in concluding that God is altogether not there. I will attempt to expose the hidden assumptions and lack of validity behind such an argument.
In a deductive format this argument looks like:
1. If God exists we would expect to see a universe that looks like X
2. We do not see a universe that looks like X
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
1. There is convincing evidence for God's existence
The absence of evidence for God would count against Him only if one expects to see more evidence than what already exists. So if the atheist were to submit that there is not enough evidence for God's existence, I would simply disagree. I believe that there are very good reasons to believe in God (allow me to list some of the arguments)
1. There exists a contingent Universe (Argument from contingency)
2. The Universe emerged out of nothing (Kalam Cosmological Argument)
3. The precise fine-tuning of the Universe for intelligent life (Teleological Argument)
4. The existence of objective Moral values and duties (Moral Argument)
5. The Ressurection and radical claims of Jesus Christ of Nazareth (Prophetic and Archaeological)
6. The personal experience of God through the Holy Spirit
Each of these sound and airtight logical evidences give very good grounds for God's existence. One then has no reason to require more evidence from God. From this list we see proofs for the existence of a Necessary, Timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial, Incredibly Powerful, Unbelievably Intelligent, Moral, and Personal God that has revealed Himself through Jesus of Nazareth and His Word, that is the Holy Bible.
Not only is there exterior evidence for God's existence, but also interior evidence that is found from an intimate and self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit. Anyone with an open mind and an open heart should come to knowledge and saving/love relationship with God.
2. One has no way of knowing if God's giving more evidence results in more people loving Him
God's primary reason for creating us is to draw His creation into a saving/love relationship with Himself, not just to make His existence known to us. If that were all He wanted, then of course He could make booming voices from Heaven or write letters across the sky to show that He exists. But there is no reason to believe that such actions would actually bring people into a saving/love relationship with Himself (it may even have an opposite effect). God is not obligated to give a clearer revelation of Himself if He knew that wasn't an effective way of revealing Himself and His nature to His creation. What the atheist would have to prove is that a clearer revelation from God would mean that more people, not just believe in His existence, but actually come into a loving relationship with Him. And that is just sheer speculation.
3. This type of argument is extremely presumptuous
Firstly, I don't believe that we are in a very good position to be dictating the type of universe that "we think" God should create. Who are we to talk back to God and critique his way of creation. What this person is saying is, "The way that God created the universe does not fit my standards, so He must not exist". I don't even need to go into detail about how sophomoric the logic is in this assertion. Secondly, the argument that this person is submitting is invalid. If God created a universe without order and consistent laws, then there would be no way to study the universe! Just think, how could we learn about creation if the universe is in chaos? If there is no structure in which we are able to build observations on, and God was performing random miracles all over the place, how would we even be able to distinguish what is God's divine miracle? The very fact that there is order, structure, and law in the universe points to a divine Creator who desires us to search for Him through the pathways of this order. God is actually the best explanation of why there is order in the universe at all. After all, chaos doesn't turn itself into order, without intelligent guidance. To deny this truth would be to deny a always-varified and never-falsified empirical observation. Where ever there is design, there is a designer. God is actually the most logical explanation for such obvious design that we see in virtually every aspect of creation.
4. God's miracles wouldn't be miracles if they occured frequently
Think about it... What if God were to do a miracle every single day? Every single morning, you walk outside and see writing across the sky written by a magical floating hand. There is absolutely no doubt that, at first, this miracle would catch peoples' attention. Such an act would be of monumental proportions! But after a while, the "miracle" wouldn't be a miracle anymore. The very fact that miracles rarely happen is why they are miracles! Firstly, if they happened frequently, they wouldn't be special. By definition, a miracle is a very very rare occurrence. Secondly, we would be less able to spot a miracle if they happened frequently. If miracles were happening on a consistent basis, then how would we distinguish what they are? The reason why miracles are so rare is so that we have the ability to spot them, and when we do spot them, we know they are from God because they are unexplainable without the supernatural. There are evidences of this description in Point 1.
5. The Bible says that someone's denial is an emotional issue, not an intellectual issue.
Psalm 14:1 "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'"
For a detailed final refutation of the argument from Divine Hiddenness, I will refer you to an article done by thinkinghristian.net which demonstrates that this argument submitted by the atheist serves as evidence for the Christian God.
This is not my argument, therefore I cannot take the credit: http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2011/02/a-divine-hiddenness-argument-for-christianity/
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Dismantling the claim that "God is a crutch for the weak-minded"
"God is a crutch for the weak-minded"
Atheists have used this lethal assertion in order to explain why a majority of humans on the earth believe in some sort of God/gods. The logic is that since, according to atheists, God is imaginary, there has to be a reason why so many people seem to have (what they call) a blind faith.
They insist that the concept of God is no more than an invisible friend that we have made up to save ourselves from the meaninglessness of life. I see numerous issues with this fallacious reasoning and will attempt to expose them in this article.1. This argument is a logical fallacy within itself
This argument commits the logical fallacy known as an Ad Hominem. The fallacy of "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person" and is made when a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this involves two steps. First, an attack is made against the character, circumstances, motives, or actions of the person making the claim. Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument that the person is making.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a logical fallacy is because the character, circumstances, motives, or actions of a person have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Relating this to the assertion that "God is a crutch for the weak-minded": The motives behind why people may believe in a God/gods has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the God/gods actually exist. For someone to assume they are justified in asserting "therefore, God does not exist" to the end clause of this claim, would be to commit the fallacy of Ad Hominem. This fact alone is sufficient to absolutely dismantle the inept reasoning made by anyone who feels justified in such a claim.
2. Jesus isn't my crutch, He is my entire hospital
What does it mean to be a true Christian? How does one get to the point, even more important, what causes one to fall to their knees and profess Christ as Lord and Savior? This process can be summed up in one word: repent. Repentance is the process of changing one's mind and coming to the realization that we are in need of a Savior! We all need saving so much so, that apart from this Savior, there is no hope. We need saving from our mistakes and sins, our physical pains and illnesses, our fears, our regrets, our hopelessness and despair, our selfishness, this messed up and twisted world, our lack of fulfillment and insecurities, ourselves, the emtipness of life, we even need saving from such asinine comments as "God is a crutch". I have come to the realization that relying on Christ isn't like leaning on a crutch, it's more like picking up the phone, calling 911, and getting yourself to the ER, because you are otherwise going to die. I submit that people who belief in the Christian God (due to the convincing evidence) are not weak-minded people walking around with a crutch. But instead, redeemed people (who were once completely dead) who have been made new by the blood of Christ. I find it ironic that the atheist might call me weak-minded. The irony lies in the fact that, as a Christian, I have come to the conclusion that this is very much true; that is what relying on Christ means. It means accepting your own helplessness. It means accepting that you're a sinner and that you need help. And getting the much-needed surgery that you need, by humbling yourself and coming to Christ on your knees.
3. You just want God to exist so you convince yourself He does
Atheist Professor/Philosophper Thomas Nagel at New York University admitted the following:
"I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and naturally hope that there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."
It seems to me that the sword cuts both ways on this issue. For as one atheist may inquire that the only reason believers actually believe is because they have a supposed wish-fulfillment as their motivation for such a belief. Thus they disregard reality and the inability for one to verify such a belief. It may very well be that the sole reason people believe in God is because they are without the ability to cope with the truth of his nonexistence. But it may very well be the other way around! It could be that the non-believing skeptic does not believe in God because he cannot bear the idea of His actual existence. Perhaps, their persistent denials of God's existence is just the outworkings of wish-fulfillment thinking. Perhaps, they do not want to face the Truth that there is a real Holy God and a real judgement and a real eternal Hell. After all, turning from our sins is not an attractive lifestyle (at first). Subsequently, they refuse to turn from their sin, and instead, deny its' existence. And in God's Word we see the reality that people naturally do everything in their power to surpess the truth about God:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools. (Romans 1:18-22)
4. The Bible writes of man's rejection of God and His Lordship over His creation
The claim that God is a crutch and an illusion is most definitely a serious claim. With New Atheism growing in much of the US (especially in Academia) this assertion is growing louder and louder as the decades pass. Atheism is taught in much of the secular universities and so our students are being indoctrinated by the teachers whom were indoctrinated with this philosophical presupposition to materialism (and so the cycle continues). But nonetheless, what does the Bible have to say about this subject? I find it absolutely priceless that even while the voices of secularists scream with fury at the delusions of the Almighty. The Bible actually predicts the rebellion and lack of belief that is to come! And so the Bible screams with a force that is just as loud as those coming from the supposed freethinkers of our day. As if people turning away from the faith is evidence against God? It actually turns out to be evidence for God, because this very fact is prophesied in God's Word!
But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.
(2 Timothy 3:1-5 ESV)
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV)
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
(Romans 1:21-25 ESV)
5. I believe that there is sufficient evidence to provide us with a reasonable faith that God exists, and has made Himself known to us through His Son, Jesus Christ.
1. The Cosmological Argument
2. Argument from Contingency
3. Kalam Cosmological Argument
4. Axiological (Moral argument)
5. Teleological Argument
6. Archaeological Evidence
7. Prophetic Evidence
8. And lastly, the lack of evidence for atheism is evidence for God.
Thus, I believe that the claim that "God is a crutch for the weak-minded" is without foundation and is nothing more than a baseless assertion. In contrast, I believe there is actual reasons to believe in God, His revelation to us through Christ, as well as the reliability of the Bible.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
God As the Explanation of the Universe
When one posits God as the Creator for the cosmos, one can only assume that they will get this question: "If God created the universe then what created God?" as if it is some knock-down refutation that leaves the affirmer speechless. I am arguing that this is not the case. In fact, I believe that when one comes to the logical conclusion, the question itself makes no sense.
God is the First Cause. There is nothing that comes prior to the First Cause. To ask "What caused the First Cause?" would be the equivalent of asking "Where is the bachelor's wife?" The question is a tautology; it is a logical fallacy in itself. This is because the question raised is a false combination of words. Just as the bachelor, by definition, does not have a wife (hence the title bachelor), God, by definition, never began to exist, and therefore does not have a cause (Hence the title First Cause)
There is a general principle that leaves us with one of two options:
1) Either everything came from nothing. (impossible)
(or)
2) Something always existed and created everything that is created.
These are one's only two options. So which is it?
Logically speaking, nothing can only make nothing (ex nihilo, nihilo fit) so obviously something must have created everything, and whatever it is that created everything must have always existed.
Imagine an infinite number of dominoes, lined up ready to begin falling. Imagine that this current event , represents the last domino (there are not any actual dominoes ahead of this one, only possible dominoes). If the universe is infinite in the past (eternal) then it logically follows that there are an infinite number of dominoes in the past. Consider we go back an infinite number of dominoes in the past, and watch the dominoes falling. Would the dominoes ever reach this event (the last domino)? The answer is no, because it is impossible to traverse (pass through) an infinite number of dominoes. What this tells us is that it is impossible to have an infinite number of finite things.
Time (measure of changes in matter)- Imagine flicking a light switch once. This is a simple task, obviously. Now, imagine I tell you that I will give you a Hersheys chocolate bar after you flick the light switch an infinite number of times. Would I ever give you the chocolate bar? The answer is NO because it is not possible do flick a light switch an infinite number of times. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5.....) You will always have a finite number of light switch flicks. An easy way to remember this is: One cannot have an infinite number of finite things. Therefore, time must have had a beginning because there could not have been an infinite amount of time before this moment. Time is finite. In the same way: Could there have been an infinite amount of changes between two events? In the chocolate bar example; could I give you something between now and an event in the future if there are an infinite amount of changes (time) between the two events. No, this is not possible either. That means that there could not have been an infinite amount of time before right now because we never would have reached this moment in time. It logically follows that time had a beginning, or in other words, is finite.
Matter- Since it is not possible to have an infinite amount of finite things, the same conclusion applies to matter. Take the closest object to you. Assuming it is a computer mouse; how many times would you need to multiply, subtract, add or divide your mouse against itself, to reach infinity? (One can attempt to add/multiply the mouse however they choose, forever, and never will they reach an infinite amount of computer mouses). Once again, this proves that you cannot have an infinite number of finite things. Therefore, matter is not infinite. It is finite.
Space (measure of distance between matter)- If there is only a finite amount of space between objects, and it is not possible to have an infinite number of objects, it logically follows that space is not infinite. Therefore, space is not infinite. It is finite.
I have demonstrated that matter, time and space cannot be eternal because applying properties of infinity to them is impossible. Thus, matter, time and space need a creator. The cause/creator must be beyond matter, time and space. For it would be impossible for something that is made of matter, time and space to create matter, time and space. It would have to exist before it existed, in order to create itself! Which is nonsense.
And if it is demonstrated that matter, time, and space cannot be infinite/eternal, then it logically follows that they must be created by something that is not made of matter, time, and space which would then have the properties of God (Immaterial, timeless, and spaceless).
There are only 2 known concepts that fit into this category:
1. Abstract numbers and symbols
2. An unembodied mind
What are the properties of the cause for the creation of Time, Space, and Matter?
1. Timeless (must be beyond time)
2. Spaceless (must be beyond space)
3. Immaterial (must be beyond space)
4. Very intelligent
5. Very powerful (to create matter, time and space out of nothing)
6. Personal (abstract numbers and symbols don't create things. The cause would have to choose to create)
Therefore, it seems to me that God (an unembodied mind) is the best explanation for the creation of a finite universe.
God is the First Cause. There is nothing that comes prior to the First Cause. To ask "What caused the First Cause?" would be the equivalent of asking "Where is the bachelor's wife?" The question is a tautology; it is a logical fallacy in itself. This is because the question raised is a false combination of words. Just as the bachelor, by definition, does not have a wife (hence the title bachelor), God, by definition, never began to exist, and therefore does not have a cause (Hence the title First Cause)
There is a general principle that leaves us with one of two options:
1) Either everything came from nothing. (impossible)
(or)
2) Something always existed and created everything that is created.
These are one's only two options. So which is it?
Logically speaking, nothing can only make nothing (ex nihilo, nihilo fit) so obviously something must have created everything, and whatever it is that created everything must have always existed.
- The universe has always existed, therefore one does not need to invoke "God" into the equation.
Imagine an infinite number of dominoes, lined up ready to begin falling. Imagine that this current event , represents the last domino (there are not any actual dominoes ahead of this one, only possible dominoes). If the universe is infinite in the past (eternal) then it logically follows that there are an infinite number of dominoes in the past. Consider we go back an infinite number of dominoes in the past, and watch the dominoes falling. Would the dominoes ever reach this event (the last domino)? The answer is no, because it is impossible to traverse (pass through) an infinite number of dominoes. What this tells us is that it is impossible to have an infinite number of finite things.
Time (measure of changes in matter)- Imagine flicking a light switch once. This is a simple task, obviously. Now, imagine I tell you that I will give you a Hersheys chocolate bar after you flick the light switch an infinite number of times. Would I ever give you the chocolate bar? The answer is NO because it is not possible do flick a light switch an infinite number of times. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5.....) You will always have a finite number of light switch flicks. An easy way to remember this is: One cannot have an infinite number of finite things. Therefore, time must have had a beginning because there could not have been an infinite amount of time before this moment. Time is finite. In the same way: Could there have been an infinite amount of changes between two events? In the chocolate bar example; could I give you something between now and an event in the future if there are an infinite amount of changes (time) between the two events. No, this is not possible either. That means that there could not have been an infinite amount of time before right now because we never would have reached this moment in time. It logically follows that time had a beginning, or in other words, is finite.
Matter- Since it is not possible to have an infinite amount of finite things, the same conclusion applies to matter. Take the closest object to you. Assuming it is a computer mouse; how many times would you need to multiply, subtract, add or divide your mouse against itself, to reach infinity? (One can attempt to add/multiply the mouse however they choose, forever, and never will they reach an infinite amount of computer mouses). Once again, this proves that you cannot have an infinite number of finite things. Therefore, matter is not infinite. It is finite.
Space (measure of distance between matter)- If there is only a finite amount of space between objects, and it is not possible to have an infinite number of objects, it logically follows that space is not infinite. Therefore, space is not infinite. It is finite.
I have demonstrated that matter, time and space cannot be eternal because applying properties of infinity to them is impossible. Thus, matter, time and space need a creator. The cause/creator must be beyond matter, time and space. For it would be impossible for something that is made of matter, time and space to create matter, time and space. It would have to exist before it existed, in order to create itself! Which is nonsense.
And if it is demonstrated that matter, time, and space cannot be infinite/eternal, then it logically follows that they must be created by something that is not made of matter, time, and space which would then have the properties of God (Immaterial, timeless, and spaceless).
There are only 2 known concepts that fit into this category:
1. Abstract numbers and symbols
2. An unembodied mind
What are the properties of the cause for the creation of Time, Space, and Matter?
1. Timeless (must be beyond time)
2. Spaceless (must be beyond space)
3. Immaterial (must be beyond space)
4. Very intelligent
5. Very powerful (to create matter, time and space out of nothing)
6. Personal (abstract numbers and symbols don't create things. The cause would have to choose to create)
Therefore, it seems to me that God (an unembodied mind) is the best explanation for the creation of a finite universe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)