# What is the standard atheist response to this "proof" of God's existence? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 20, 2008, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773 "2008-10-20T19:25:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/21 "2008-10-20T22:46:02Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Righto, so it seems atheists are happy to accept that the universe/time/space/matter began a finite amount of time ago? Yes, and no and maybe. It’s quite possible that the problem (it sounds like) you perceive with time being finite is not a problem at all. Until you (or anyone else) understands what time is exactly, it’s premature to worry about it being finite or infinite. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/22 "2008-10-20T22:55:15Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Righto, so it seems atheists are happy to accept that the universe/time/space/matter began a finite amount of time ago? The vast majority of believers also consider this to be true, since the vast majority of believers have no quarrel with using scientific evidence to explain the physical world. It is a false dichotomy to make it appear that atheists have a different slant on this from everybody else. There is no argument on this issue except for a comparatively tiny minority of fundamentalists. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/23 "2008-10-20T22:55:25Z")
I just don’t see how this is an argument for or against the existence or non-existence of God. If it’s impossible for the universe to have existed since eternity past, then it’s also impossible for God to have done so, for the same reasons, whatever they may be. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/24 "2008-10-20T23:17:35Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean about an open universe. There is a finite amount of matter in our universe. A finite amount of energy. No, there’s a finite _density_ of matter and energy. We can’t rule out the possibility that they Universe is finite in extent, but the simplest interpretation is that it’s infinite, in which case the total matter and energy content is likewise infinite. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2008, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/25 "2008-10-20T23:30:42Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Righto, so it seems atheists are happy to accept that the universe/time/space/matter began a finite amount of time ago? The bigger issue is, How does the existence of a deity solve the problem that is raised in the OP? There’s already enough magic involved in the creation of everything without adding some old dude with a beard to the equation. That makes there be _two_ (potentially) unsolvable mysteries, where there was only _one_. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/26 "2008-10-21T00:11:08Z")
> [@](#): > > If said I will give you a dollar after an infinite amount of times passes, when would I give you the dollar? Never. Hence, it’s impossible that an infinite amount of time has passed up until right now, or else, the events currently taking place would never have been reached. :dubious: I don’t see how this argument proves anything. Here, I’ll give you a dollar one minute after I post this reply. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/27 "2008-10-21T00:15:46Z")
So did you get a dollar? Does that say _anything_ about whether a minute has passed? ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/28 "2008-10-21T00:33:27Z")
You’re being disingenuous, **ZenBeam**. The argument presupposes a non-lying dollar-offerer (i.e., “If you come back to me after an infinite amount of time has passed from now, I will give you a dollar” and he really means it). We use our commonsense intuition that at no point in time will we (even in an idealized sense) ever be able to legitimately claim that dollar to conclude that no point in actual time is infinitely far from now (this seems to me a kind of begging the question, but like any deductive argument, perhaps this is an unfair accusation, and it is more charitably spun as bringing our attention to an aspect of our commonsense intuition which was not manifest to us before. It all turns on just how much useful work one thinks this move from enthymematic premises to conclusions carries out.). So far, so good. No two points in time are infinitely far apart. We can live with that; I imagine most people _do_ feel pretty strongly that this is true (indeed, I have informally polled people on this assumption before). But, like I said, this does not suffice to establish that the span of time is finite, nor even that the span of time preceding (or following) any point within it is finite. Like I said, consider the real number line. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/29 "2008-10-21T01:17:47Z")
On the other hand, I could always promise to give someone two dollars after double the period of time Zenbeam, or anyone else offered one dollar after. I could even offer two dollars after twice that (doubled) period of time. and i could keep promising that, and carrying through on it, regardless of how long the first period was, or how many times I had doubled my original offer, without end. That’s a pretty good argument for the infinite nature of the number line (and, for that matter, time–inasmuch as it means anything after heat death/big crunch/FSM covering the world with marinara) ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/30 "2008-10-21T01:34:17Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > If anything, the OP is an argument \*\*\*against \*\*\*the existence of God. Isn’t God supposed to be eternal, i.e. he always existed and always will? No, since as the creator of the universe, God is supposed to exist outside this selfsame universe. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/31 "2008-10-21T02:30:33Z")
> [@](#): > > One argument that I often see for the existence of God rests on an idea that states it’s impossible that an infinite amount of time has passed up until now based on the following proof: > > If said I will give you a dollar after an infinite amount of times passes, when would I give you the dollar? Never. Hence, it’s impossible that an infinite amount of time has passed up until right now, or else, the events currently taking place would never have been reached. > > I have seen variations of this “argument” presented around the place, I am just wondering if there is a common refutation to it? This is a very weak argument. I assume the unspoken assumption is that a non-infinite universe would have required God to have created it. The weakness of this argument is that any argument that logically contradicts the idea of the universe also contradicts the idea of God. If the universe logically can’t have existed forever, then God logically can’t have existed forever. If the universe logically couldn’t come into existance without a creator, then God logically couldn’t exist come into existance without a creator. Or vice versa: if God could exist forever or not require a creator, then the universe could exist forever or not require a creator. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/32 "2008-10-21T02:33:31Z")
Time is a construct of man. Fish, dogs, cats and other animals have no concept of it. It is we who came up with it for measuring purposes. Time requires an observer and a creator. That is man. We created it . If we die off ,time dies with us. ---
**Author:** ![Rhubarb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/59ef9b/32.png) [@Rhubarb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhubarb)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/33 "2008-10-21T02:54:22Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Time is a construct of man. Fish, dogs, cats and other animals have no concept of it. It is we who came up with it for measuring purposes. Time requires an observer and a creator. That is man. We created it . If we die off ,time dies with us. So before the existence of humanity, everything happened all at once, instead of in roughly 6 or 7 days? The only artificial aspect of time is the arbitrary divisions we assign to it. The seconds ticked by long before we invented them and will continue to do so even if no one is around wearing a digital watch. ---
**Author:** ![D18](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@D18](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D18)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/34 "2008-10-21T03:10:27Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > Could it be that there was no big bang? It is only a theory after all. A pretty darned good theory though. Hate to criticize a fellow long-suffering fan of the underperforming Leafs but, a theory in the scientific sense ain’t the opposite of a fact. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) > [@](#): > > In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, “theory” is not in any way an antonym of “fact”. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton’s theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/35 "2008-10-21T03:23:47Z")
Premise #1: Time began at the Big Bang. Conclusion #1: Therefore, God does/doesn’t exist. Premise #2: Time has always been there. Conclusion #2: Therefore, God does/doesn’t exist. What’s the problem? We can’t prove either premise or conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/36 "2008-10-21T03:52:00Z")
> [@Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](#): > > The second law of thermodynamics talks … > > If someone else cares to elaborate that’d be cool. Heh. Pun. Liked it. CalD, the problem with your “proof”, to rephrase what others have said, is that it doesn’t even work in itself. It’s like saying that since you can’t count to infinity, there must be no negative infinity. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/37 "2008-10-21T04:02:16Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > So, my theory is that the universe has always existed and that it’s infinite in size. This one has been thought of and dismissed centuries ago. The idea is that if the universe has always existed, and is infinite in extent, then light from every star has had enough time to reach Earth. If the universe is reasonably similar in all directions (an assumption you didn’t make, but there is no reason to think otherwise if you’re throwing out all the evidence for the Big Bang anyway), then the night or even day sky should be entirely, blindingly white with the light of all the (infinite) stars in the sky, considering that no matter where in the sky a star is, its light has had plenty of time to reach us. Needless to say, this blinding inferno has not been observed, so your little theory needs some work. ---
**Author:** ![Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8491ac/32.png) [@Fake\_Tales\_of\_San\_Francisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fake_Tales_of_San_Francisco)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/38 "2008-10-21T04:06:19Z")
> [@Lobsang](#): > > This sounds a bit like that tortoise and Hare paradox. > > If every time the Hare moves, the tortoise moves half as much _away_ from it, the Hare will never _pass_ the tortoise. > > (I’m sure I’ve got that wrong. It’s something like that) What you’re thinking about is a Zeno Paradox, Achilles and the Tortoise. It’s found in Aristotles ‘Physics’. Modern mathematics has dealt with Zeno’s so called paradoxes, but I believe they did trouble folks hundreds of years ago. As has been said, and as is the same with most arguments regarding ‘proof’ of God, it does not actually prove anything. Arguments like this are normally simple affirmations of ones own faith. Also, I think time being infinite and time being finite are both bizarre concepts and I cannot fully get my head round either. Time being finite seems more plausible if I don’t think about it too hard. ---
**Author:** ![Bootis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e8c25b/32.png) [@Bootis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bootis)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/39 "2008-10-21T04:27:25Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Time is a construct of man. Fish, dogs, cats and other animals have no concept of it. It is we who came up with it for measuring purposes. Time requires an observer and a creator. That is man. We created it . If we die off ,time dies with us. My dog knows when it is 9pm sharp every night. If I don’t know it, he lets me know. he has more of a concept of time than I do. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/40 "2008-10-21T05:50:58Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Time is a construct of man. Fish, dogs, cats and other animals have no concept of it. It is we who came up with it for measuring purposes. Time requires an observer and a creator. That is man. We created it . If we die off ,time dies with us. Wrong, but thanks for playing. Just because a dog cannot discern the decay of radioactive isotopes does not mean that half-lives cease to have meaning. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773.md?page=3)