# 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:** 5
**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, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/81 "2008-10-21T20:25:30Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > The typical refutation of this line of attack is to point out that any argument you use to “prove” that the universe must have a creator can be applied to God himself. > > So if the universe cannot have existed for an infinite amount of time, then neither can God. If God came into existence at some point was that event caused or uncaused? And so on. Not quite. Only things limited by time require a beginning. If God exists in a timeless state, then at no point did he “come in to existence”. He would exist eternally. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/82 "2008-10-21T20:26:19Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > An event can not happen after an infinite amount of time has lapsed … . Then how did God ever create the universe? If God is has existed for all eternity then an infinite amount of time would have to elapse before he got around to bringing the Universe into existence. So either the Universe doesn’t exist, or God is not eternal. If God is not eternal then there must have been a moment when God was created. Is it really plausible to believe that a being as complicated as God could spring into existence spontaneously? No! It would be like a whirlwind sweeping through a warehouse of airplane parts and spontaneously assembling a 747. So the only logical conclusion is that God must have a creator! See … that’s how the typical argument goes. ---
**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, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/83 "2008-10-21T20:26:33Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > Do you understand that there is a distinction between “Time stretches on infinitely into the past, with no first point” and “There is a moment in the past after which an infinite amount of time has currently elapsed”? You are arguing against the latter, but this does not disprove the former. Consider, as always, the integers, with 0 modelling the present… Sorry.. can’t make sense of this.. ---
**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, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/84 "2008-10-21T20:28:48Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > Then how did God ever create the universe? If God is has existed for all eternity then an infinite amount of time would have to elapse before he got around to bringing the Universe into existence. So either the Universe doesn’t exist, or God is not eternal. If God is not eternal then there must have been a moment when God was created. Is it really plausible to believe that a being as complicated as God could spring into existence spontaneously? No! It would be like a whirlwind sweeping through a warehouse of airplane parts and spontaneously assembling a 747. So the only logical conclusion is that God must have a creator! > > See … that’s how the typical argument goes. You keep referring to God “coming in to existence”. The argument I have been referring to since my OP assumes an eternal God. Also, the argument suggests God exists in a timeless state, so your reference to God existing for an infinite amount of time is also irrelevant (in this scenario). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/85 "2008-10-21T20:30:35Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Not quite. > > Only things limited by time require a beginning. If God exists in a timeless state, then at no point did he “come in to existence”. He would exist eternally. How do you know the universe has never existed in a timeless state? We certainly experience time now. But we have no evidence that time existed before the Big Bang. ---
**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, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/86 "2008-10-21T20:34:40Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > How do you know the universe has never existed in a timeless state? Because it’s illogical. How can matter exist in a timeless state? It would have to completely stop moving. What would then cause it to start moving again? ---
**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, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/87 "2008-10-21T20:36:02Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > But we have no evidence that time existed before the Big Bang. I’m with you. I don’t believe time existed before the big bang. Time as we know it certainly didn’t exist before the universe itself existed. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/88 "2008-10-21T20:41:01Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Because it’s illogical. > > How can matter exist in a timeless state? It would have to completely stop moving. What would then cause it to start moving again? How can God exist in a timeless state? He would be incapable of action. Creating the universe is a big action. Any entity capable of doing that clearly can’t exist in an eternal timeless state. ---
**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, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/89 "2008-10-21T20:44:22Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Because it’s illogical. > > How can matter exist in a timeless state? It would have to completely stop moving. What would then cause it to start moving again? Motion is the change of position over time, and thus requires time. If the universe existed in a timeless state, it would not be moving, by definition. But as soon as time starts, then motion becomes possible. Since you have argued, with me, that time did indeed start, I don’t see the problem. ---
**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, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/90 "2008-10-21T21:23:35Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > How can God exist in a timeless state? Well, if we are forced to conclude that God exists, a decision has to be made about the state he exists in. If God exists in a state of time, then he requires a beginning, which is illogical. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/91 "2008-10-21T21:30:16Z")
> [@Alive\_At\_Both\_Ends](#): > > Motion is the change of position over time, and thus requires time. If the universe existed in a timeless state, it would not be moving, by definition. But as soon as time starts, then motion becomes possible. Since you have argued, with me, that time did indeed start, I don’t see the problem. But as far as any sort of laws or practical observations go, space is just the matrix through which forces propigate through time. So if there was no information transfer because there was no time, any empirical observations _could not tell the difference between space existing and not existing_, so from an epistemological perspective, we might as well assume that space doesn’t exist either if time doesn’t! ---
**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, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/92 "2008-10-21T21:32:16Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Sorry.. can’t make sense of this.. Consider a theoretical universe where time is indexed by integers, with the present moment being indexed by 0, and the ordering of integers corresponding to the chronological ordering. [Indeed, I would venture that most people start off assuming that time does in fact follow this very model (well, where each integer denotes a particular second in time).] Is it true that “Time stretches on infinitely into the past, with no first point”? Yes, as there are infinitely many integers below 0, with no least integer. Is it true that “There is a moment in the past after which an infinite amount of time has currently elapsed”? No, as there is no integer below 0 whose difference from 0 is infinite. Thus, there is a distinction between the two. Do you see? The problem with your argument is that it takes the answer to the second question being “No” as grounds for concluding that the answer to the first question must also be “No”, but as we see above, this is a flawed inference. ---
**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, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/93 "2008-10-21T21:35:31Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > Consider a theoretical universe where time is indexed by integers, with the present moment being indexed by 0. [Indeed, I would venture that most people start off assuming that time does in fact follow this very model (well, where each integer denotes a particular second in time).] > > Is it true that “Time stretches on infinitely into the past, with no first point”? Yes, as there are infinitely many integers below 0, with no least integer. > > Is it true that “There is a moment in the past after which an infinite amount of time has currently elapsed”? No, as there is no integer below 0 whose difference from 0 is infinite. > > Thus, there is a distinction between the two. Do you see? The problem with your argument is that it takes the answer to the second question being “No” as grounds for concluding that the answer to the first question must also be “No”, but as we see above, this is a flawed inference. But your scenario of placing an infinite number line across the universe to represent time assumes the universe to be infinite. If the universe had a beginning, then the answer to question 1 is ‘No’. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2008, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/94 "2008-10-21T21:38:50Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > Well, if we are forced to conclude that God exists, a decision has to be made about the state he exists in. If God exists in a state of time, then he requires a beginning, which is illogical. But if God exists in a timeless state, then he never could have taken the action required to create the universe. The universe exists. Therefore God, if he exists, must exist in a state of time. But if (as you state) it’s logically impossible for him to exist in a state of time then we’re forced to conclude that **he must not exist at all**. Your “proof of God’s existence” is actually a very handy “proof of God’s non-existence”! Note that it doesn’t disprove the existence of all possible gods. Only timeless, eternal ones. The standard Christian God is obviously an impossibility, but we can’t rule out Zeus or Odin. ---
**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, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/95 "2008-10-21T21:39:24Z")
> [@CalD](#): > > But your scenario of placing an infinite number line across the universe to represent time assumes the universe to be infinite. > > If the universe had a beginning, then the answer to question 1 is ‘No’. Yes, but your argument purports to be one which _establishes_ that time has a beginning point. You can’t use that assumption as part of your argument; that would be circular reasoning. To put it another way: suppose I don’t already believe that time has a beginning point. Can your argument convince me? Not if it starts off by saying “Well, because we already know that time has a beginning point, we can rule out scenario so-and-so…”. If you begin by assuming the very conclusion you set out to prove, you don’t even need to bother making an argument. ---
**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, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/96 "2008-10-21T21:48:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, if we are forced to conclude that God exists, a decision has to be made about the state he exists in. If God exists in a state of time, then he requires a beginning, which is illogical. And the concept of something existing in a “timeless state” is meaningless. Nothing exists outside of time. So logically, God does not exist inside or outside of time. Being as these are the only two possibilities, then we’ve proven that God does not exist. Was this the direction you planned on going? The problem with this whole line of argument is that you want to use certain rules to prove various points. But once those rules cause a conclusion you don’t like, you assert (without evidence) that something lies outside of the rules. ---
**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, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/97 "2008-10-21T21:51:46Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > And the concept of something existing in a “timeless state” is meaningless. _ **Nothing exists outside of time** _. What’s your proof on that? ---
**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, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/98 "2008-10-21T21:53:40Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > Yes, but your argument purports to be one which _establishes_ that time has a beginning point. You can’t use that assumption as part of your argument; that would be circular reasoning. > > To put it another way: suppose I don’t already believe that time has a beginning point. Can your argument convince me? Not if it starts off by saying “Well, because we already know that time has a beginning point, we can rule out scenario so-and-so…”. If you begin by assuming the very conclusion you set out to prove, you don’t even need to bother making an argument. Hmmm.. but as far as I can tell, my scenario is not making any assumptions. It begins by asking a question. “If I promise to give you this dollar after an infinite amount of time, when will you get it?”. What assumptions have I made about the universe? None that I can see. The next point then goes.. “Hence, is it possible that an infinite amount of time has passed up until right now?”. Again… what assumptions have I made here? ---
**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, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/99 "2008-10-21T21:56:53Z")
Like I said, you make an unsupportable leap from “There is no point in the past such that an infinite amount of time has currently elapsed since it” (which is what your reflection upon the dollar-offer would establish) to “Time does not extend infinitely into the past, and in fact has a beginning point” (which you purport to be able to conclude via this argument). I demonstrated that the two are not equivalent, and that in fact this inference is not valid, by pointing out that it is possible for the former to be true without the latter being true (via the number-line model). If you use the assumption “Well, that alleged counterexample has no beginning point” to rule out the number-line model, then you are incorporating the assumption of a beginning point and thus arguing circularly. If you do not do so, then you are left to explain the unsupported inference above. ---
**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, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773/100 "2008-10-21T22:20:19Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > Like I said, you make an unsupportable leap from “There is no point in the past such that an infinite amount of time has currently elapsed since it” (which is what your reflection upon the dollar-offer would establish) to “Time does not extend infinitely into the past, and in fact has a beginning point” (which you purport to be able to conclude via this argument). I demonstrated that the two are not equivalent, and that in fact this inference is not valid, by pointing out that it is possible for the former to be true without the latter being true (via the number-line model). > > If you use the assumption “Well, that alleged counterexample has no beginning point” to rule out the number-line model, then you are incorporating the assumption of a beginning point and thus arguing circularly. If you do not do so, then you are left to explain the unsupported inference above. I still think you’re over complicating it. Can something happen after an infinite amount of time? No. Are things happening right now? Yes. Then time had a beginning. Also, I am not “incorporating the assumption of a beginning point” in your number line model -\> the point is to make no assumptions either way. Your model forces an assumption of an infinite number line, which forces an assumption of infinite time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-standard-atheist-response-to-this-proof-of-gods-existence/468773.md?page=6)