# 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:** 3
**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, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/41 "2008-10-21T06:27:56Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > 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. I agree. That just seemed like If A Tree Falls In The Forest And No One Is Around To Hear it Does It Make A Sound logic to me. Likewise, I put forward the concept that if gonzomax is correct, then nothing has length, breadth or height, since we assign measurements to such objects. If that is the case, then nothing truly exists since it would be infinitely small. If life does not exist, neither does the universe. ---
**Author:** ![nivlac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/3bc359/32.png) [@nivlac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nivlac)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/42 "2008-10-21T06:35:44Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > … 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 … So a finite age for the universe implies that there is a God? Sure sounds like the logical fallacy of non-sequitur. As point of fact, scientists believe that the universe is just under 14 billion years old. What that has to do with God’s existence escapes me unless one associates God with the Big Bang. ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Lichtman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeff_lichtman/32/1531_2.png) [@Jeff\_Lichtman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Lichtman)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/43 "2008-10-21T07:01:36Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > 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. This is simply a non-sequitur. What it claims is that since an infinite amount of time from now never comes, it’s impossible for there to be an infinite amount of time before now. One does not follow from the other. The argument seems to conflate something that has no end (infinity) with a known point in time (now). Indeed, the argument seems to claim that if time extends to infinity, then no particular point in time can exist. This is absurd - it’s like saying that since the integers extend to infinity in both directions, that the number seven doesn’t exist because we would never reach it if we started counting from negative infinity. The argument also has nothing to do with atheism, which is simply the belief that there is no God. It is not necessary to believe in any particular theory of the origin of the universe to disbelieve in God. ---
**Author:** ![Alive\_At\_Both\_Ends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/73ab20/32.png) [@Alive\_At\_Both\_Ends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alive_At_Both_Ends)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/44 "2008-10-21T12:04:29Z")
> [@Jeff\_Lichtman](#): > > This is absurd - it’s like saying that since the integers extend to infinity in both directions, that the number seven doesn’t exist because we would never reach it **if we started counting from negative infinity.** And that is where your analogy fails - we DON’T start counting from negative infinity. Numbers don’t pass as time does. If I ask “what time is it?” you can give me an answer. If I ask “what number is it?” that has no sensible answer. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/45 "2008-10-21T14:05:44Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > 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. [Olber’s Paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers_paradox) is the name. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/46 "2008-10-21T14:50:33Z")
> [@Hero\_From\_Sector\_7G](#): > > Rules be rules, counted or not. The way this universe formed put some rules in place that aren’t going to change. There could be other universes with different rules (different bubbles in the swiss). > > 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. Eventually there will be no more concentration gradients for particles to move down. Perhaps at that point the arrow reverses and the universe shrinks back until it looks like the conditions present for the big bang and pow, we start over again, new rules, new debates on internet chat boards. To extend what **Chronos** said, by open or closed, I’m talking about the overall curvature of space. See Wikipedia entries [Shape of the universe](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe). Current evidence points to an open universe and thus an infinite amount of matter/energy. You may be conflating the [observable universe](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe) with the entire universe. The observable universe _is_ finite. We cannot directly measure the size of the entire universe, but through measurements of the matter-energy density and curvature. ---
**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, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/47 "2008-10-21T15:21:42Z")
> [@Rhubarb](#): > > 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. Only by mans definition. We defined it into existence. ---
**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, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/48 "2008-10-21T15:25:06Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > 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. Did you say meaning.? What pray tell is required for something to have meaning? I will help you. A definer and an observer. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/49 "2008-10-21T15:32:01Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Righto, so it seems atheists are happy to accept that the universe/time/space/matter began a finite amount of time ago? Hey, I’m willing to believe in a God who created the Universe as we know it about 6,000 years ago, and he made it 4 billion years old, and planted all the evidence of evolution or adaptation or whatever they’re calling it these days. I loves me a God with a sense of humor. ---
**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, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/50 "2008-10-21T15:34:17Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. That’s the equivalent of arguing that the Earth can’t be a million years old because my house would never have lasted a million years. The universe might be infinite and have always existed. That doesn’t mean that the individual stars in the universe have always existed. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/51 "2008-10-21T15:40:16Z")
The main error in this type of thinking is that “God must exist” is an alternative explanation if there is something we don’t understand (more specifically, on average, something science does not currently explain). All you have concluded is that there are some things for which we have no current explanation. But labeling a putative alternative “God” doesn’t God’s existence–that is to say, it doesn’t prove any sort of Supernatural anything. You have simply given the new label of “God” to the concept “We Don’t Know.” Given the track record of things attributed in the past to the supernatural that are now explained, it doesn’t seem like a very robust “proof.” ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/52 "2008-10-21T15:51:53Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s the equivalent of arguing that the Earth can’t be a million years old because my house would never have lasted a million years. > > The universe might be infinite and have always existed. That doesn’t mean that the individual stars in the universe have always existed. I must disagree. Even given that individual stars have a finite lifespan, if there have been stars burning in the observable universe for an infinite amount of time up to this point, then there must be an metric buttload of photons flying about from all those previous stars. Therefore, no matter what direction an observer could look in from Earth, there would be sufficient numbers of photons reaching the observer to make the sky appear as solid light, excepting the shadows of a few close dust clouds. ---
**Author:** ![davekhps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@davekhps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davekhps)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/53 "2008-10-21T15:52:43Z")
Pardon me while I stretch further from the OP’s point to argue for consideration of an intriguing thought about cosmology. IF we live in a single “Goldilocks” universe that emerged from the swiss cheese “multiverse,” then we live in an evolutionary universe. Meaning, we (life) exist in a universe that provided all the right physical variables for the formations we see, the formations that allowed life to emerge. Well, if that’s true, than other emergent universes may be slightly “off” from ours, with the physical constants just a little different. Many of them wouldn’t be able to support the formations and structures we have, but even if they did, life itself might be unable to arise. But what’s most interesting to me is that this evolutionary system increases the possiblity of “Matrix”-like scenarios. In a multiverse that spawns a presumed infinite number of universes, than an infinite number of outcomes become likely. Not just those that exist in universes sharing our physical constraints (Nazis win World War II! Leonard Nimoy has a goatee!), but also universes that _don’t_ share our precise physical constraints. Which is a long-winded way towards saying that, in multiverse theory, the likelihood of a God-like supreme being existing within an emergent universe increases to 1. In an infinite evolution, once it’s possible, it’s likely, given enough time. Of course, none of this proves the existence of a God in _our_ universe. Personally, as an atheist, I see no need to invent a higher power to explain what we can already observe. And if life already is like the Matrix, and all of this has been created for us to observe, well then, I just hope the system never crashes ;-). ---
**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, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/54 "2008-10-21T16:10:27Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > That’s the equivalent of arguing that the Earth can’t be a million years old because my house would never have lasted a million years. > > The universe might be infinite and have always existed. That doesn’t mean that the individual stars in the universe have always existed. True. That’s why I added the static-universe assumption. **Der Trihs** ’s link explains the idea better than me, including: > [@Wikipedia](#): > > Finite age of stars > > Stars have a finite age and a finite power, thereby implying that each star has a finite impact on a sky’s light field density. But the finity of the influence from any given star does not imply that our sky will be darker than the circle of the sun in most areas of our sky. Only those stars whose worldlines intersect the light cone of a point would contribute to the luminosity there in any event, so the age of any given star is largely irrelevant. Despite being neither a sufficient nor a necessary explanation of the darkness of the sky, the finite age of stars is considered by some to be a reason for the dark sky, and accordingly, is seen as a solution to Olbers’ paradox. Even if certain individual stars haven’t always existed, as long as stars in general have always existed and have done so at roughly equal densities everywhere in the universe, then every point in the sky should be as bright as the surface of a star. But obviously, you could do away with the static, unchanging universe assumption and an infinite universe would be workable. But that would require the _present incarnation_ of the universe, with stars and light and energy and whatnot, to have a finite age and a beginning, which is exactly what **Leaffan** is arguing against. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/55 "2008-10-21T16:24:17Z")
> [@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. Time is a dimension in space-time. We also measure other dimensions with man-made constructs, but that doesn’t mean that the dimensions are purely conceptual. This is like saying that if we die off, length, width, and height die with us. ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Lichtman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeff_lichtman/32/1531_2.png) [@Jeff\_Lichtman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Lichtman)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/56 "2008-10-21T17:56:08Z")
> [@Alive\_At\_Both\_Ends](#): > > And that is where your analogy fails - we DON’T start counting from negative infinity. Numbers don’t pass as time does. If I ask “what time is it?” you can give me an answer. If I ask “what number is it?” that has no sensible answer. The question “how many have we counted?” does have a sensible answer. That’s what we would normally ask in idiomatic English. Phrasing the question oddly does not invalidate the concept. Of course we don’t start counting from negative infinity. We don’t usually count or measure most things from infinity. This doesn’t mean the analogy is invalid. Nor does the fact that “numbers don’t pass as time does” make it invalid, either, since it’s the act of counting that is similar to time passing. The numbers themselves don’t do anything. Again, to boil down the original argument - it says that nothing could have been infinitely long ago, since no point in time (including now) could have been reached from then. But there is no logical requirement that any point in time be reachable. And to restate what may be a more central point - there is nothing in atheism that requires a belief that the universe is infinitely old. ---
**Author:** ![CalD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7feea3/32.png) [@CalD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalD)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/57 "2008-10-21T18:05:30Z")
> [@Jeff\_Lichtman](#): > > But there is no logical requirement that any point in time be reachable. Why is that not a logical requirement? ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/58 "2008-10-21T18:16:10Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Why is that not a logical requirement? It’s like opening a new checking account, and you need to start the numbering at check 1,000, because nobody’ll take checks below 1,000 for arcanely stupid reasons. You don’t need to have check #200, or check #1, there’s no logical requirement for it. ---
**Author:** ![Alive\_At\_Both\_Ends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/73ab20/32.png) [@Alive\_At\_Both\_Ends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alive_At_Both_Ends)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/59 "2008-10-21T18:18:50Z")
> [@Jeff\_Lichtman](#): > > Nor does the fact that “numbers don’t pass as time does” make it invalid, either, since it’s the act of counting that is similar to time passing. But numbers don’t count by themselves. You have to start the count. And when counting numbers, you can start the count anywhere you please - at zero, one, or -34 if you like. Time is different - it is already flowing, you don’t start it off by yourself. If there is an infinity of past time you have no option but to start the “count” of time at negative infinity. And from there you can never reach the present. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/60 "2008-10-21T18:23:05Z")
> [@Jeff\_Lichtman](#): > > The argument also has nothing to do with atheism, which is simply the belief that there is no God. No. Atheism, as it is most commonly used, is a lack of belief in gods and, by extension, the supernatural. Not believing in something is in no way similar to believing it doesn’t exist. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773.md?page=4)