Why God most certainly does not exist

[Mycroft]

There is no problem if God is not required to be all-encompassing in every way.

I'd like to know what dictionary you are using. I am quite familiar with the concept of infinity and have never heard infinite used in the way you are using it. Infinite is an adjective that describes something quantitatively. It is not qualitative in nature.

Well I haven't read Kant, so I don't know in what capacity your post relates to what he wrote. However based on what you've written it appears to me that you've unintentionally created a straw man. Your original post says that the Judeo-Christian God is believed to be a certain way. After hearing your definition of "infinity" I don't know of anyone who holds that God is the way you are describing Him.

While I'm glad to see that SW is elaborating upon this concept in other manners, he is approaching the concept from an angle other than from that which I did at the outset of this thread. My point was a simple one: any finite object must adhere within reality. A finite object would end. What would be beyond its borders? Non-reality? This is by definition impossible. The only solution is that reality is infinite.

An important note is that I use the term "borders" metaphorically; an object finite in any respect will end in some respect. We are not only discussing spatial or temporal finiteness, a point which several respondents have failed to grasp. And yes, while the definition of the infinite I must use for the purposes of this discussion may not be one of the more common definitions, it's still a valid one, and I've gone to pains to make it as clear as possible what I mean in my use of the term.

As for your final point, I'm unaware of any major branch of Christianity that would be content with what you pose: that God is finite, meaning that He merely adheres within reality, meaning that while He may appear godlike from our perspective, He is not the creator of Reality, merely one of its inhabitants.

Liquid, if you are genuinely interested in approaching my thesis, as it is, in this thread, I'll happily do what I can to try to further elucidate. As it stands, you'll pardon me if I can only believe that you're grasping for grounds, semantic or otherwise, to dismiss it.

 

[Mycroft]

No, that would fall under the "already-existing things" side that I already denied. In the case of creation ex nihilo he doesn't use the material that was not created by him, he creates from nothing (or, in latin, ex nihilo). I have to assume we're having some problem in communication here, but I can't for the life of my figure out what it is...

Regardless of how He creates, if there is a place for his creations, he is not infinite. See my previous analogy about the room. So long as He is all that exists, we can imagine him as a single being sitting alone in an empty room. However, if He's to create other objects separate and distinct from Himself, they will begin to fill the room. They adhere within the room, here a stand-in for reality. The question then becomes, what created the room? This is the problem of infinite regress.

Before responding to the specific terms above, bear in mind that, as I've stressed numerous times, I use these terms allegorically.

 

[stellar renegade]

Regardless of how He creates, if there is a place for his creations, he is not infinite. See my previous analogy about the room. So long as He is all that exists, we can imagine him as a single being sitting alone in an empty room. However, if he's to create other objects separate and distinct from Himself, they will begin to fill the room. They adhere within the room, here a stand-in for reality. The question then becomes, what created the room? This is the problem of infinite regress.

Wouldn't the question be who created the room anyway? I don't get why that question would only come up after other beings pop into existence as well.

 

[Mycroft]

Wouldn't the question be who created the room anyway? I don't get why that question would only come up after other beings pop into existence as well.

You're absolutely correct.

 

[Scott]

Regardless of how He creates, if there is a place for his creations, he is not infinite. See my previous analogy about the room. So long as He is all that exists, we can imagine him as a single being sitting alone in an empty room. However, if he's to create other objects separate and distinct from Himself, they will begin to fill the room. They adhere within the room, here a stand-in for reality. The question then becomes, what created the room? This is the problem of infinite regress.

Before responding to the specific terms above, bear in mind that, as I've stressed numerous times, I use these terms allegorically.

Yeah, maybe it's just that I'm not very inclined to accept the limitations of the analogy when it comes to drawing conclusions of what can't be. Again, I deny the need for the room, and think that the way you're using the notion of an infinite God is drastically different from the way the unbelievably vast numbers of theists use it.

 

[Mycroft]

Yeah, maybe it's just that I'm not very inclined to accept the limitations of the analogy when it comes to drawing conclusions of what can't be.

Given that you responded within five minutes of my post, I can't help but believe that perhaps you've not given the concept underlying the analogy adequate contemplation.

 

[Scott]

Given that you responded within five minutes of my post, I can't help but believe that perhaps you've not given the concept underlying the analogy adequate contemplation.

But... it's the same analogy you've been using for days.

 

[BlackCat]

Eventually it comes down to the fact that God is indefinable. And therefor discussion about the definition of God is futile.

Exactly. My reasoning exactly for being agnostic.

 

[Mycroft]

But... it's the same analogy you've been using for days.

Yes, and in every case you've clearly responded almost immediately upon reading the post and then, content that you've found some grounds upon which to dismiss the idea (one of the greatest and most lasting philosophical tenants, incidentally), given it no further thought until it came time to read the latest post and respond in the same manner again.

Either that or you have indeed been contemplating it for days and have still failed to grasp it. You seem more intelligent than that.

 

[Athenian200]

Eventually it comes down to the fact that God is indefinable. And therefor discussion about the definition of God is futile.

Yeah. Seriously, it strikes me as somewhat arrogant on both sides, that one side is so certain there IS a specific God, and the other side is so certain there is NO God. Personally, I think they're both jumping to conclusions, because this concept is supposed to represent something beyond our comprehension. If it weren't, then it wouldn't be worthy of being called a God.

It seems that reason is very rarely effective once a particular worldview has lodged itself in someone's mind, so whatever shapes ones views on religion, it certainly isn't logic. Probably emotional predispositions and experience/upbringing.

 

[BlackCat]

Yeah. Seriously, it strikes me as somewhat arrogant on both sides, that one side is so certain there IS a specific God, and the other side is so certain there is NO God. Personally, I think they're both jumping to conclusions, because this concept is supposed to represent something beyond our comprehension. If it weren't, then it wouldn't be worthy of being called a God.

Wow.

For once I absolutely and wholly agree with you.

 

[stellar renegade]

You're absolutely correct.

But let's say the question doesn't pertain to reality anyway. What if God is, as some traditions claim, self-existent? Creates his own space and doesn't need a room? Therefore anything he would create would just extent outward from him and create its own space as well, ie Big Bang.

As for being infinite, I have a problem with the modern idea that, for instance, a line extends without end in either direction. How is that even possible? Have you ever heard of Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel? There's a reason the ancient idea of infinity was a loop.

The sanest definitions of omnipotence is that God has all the power that there ever could be, and can do anything that could be logically done (without the arbitrary boundaries of our own self-imposed thought, of course) and omniscience as knowing all there is to know.

For instance, if you asked God how many hours are in a mile or whether yellow is square or round, not even He could answer anything so absurd.

 

[redacted]

Could you elaborate upon this? If the universe came from nothing then why couldn't God be the cause of it?

premise 1: the universe came from nothing
premise 2: the universe came from God

hm....

 

[Scott]

Yes, and in every case you've clearly responded almost immediately upon reading the post and then, content that you've found some grounds upon which to dismiss the idea (one of the greatest and most lasting philosophical tenants, incidentally), given it no further thought until it came time to read the latest post and respond in the same manner again.

Either that or you have indeed been contemplating it for days and have still failed to grasp it. You seem more intelligent than that.

I'm probably somewhere in the middle. Incidentally, the Christian conception of God's been around a bit too from what I hear... More importantly - there's also the possibility that I've thought about it, grasped it, and still don't find it very compelling. With the caveat that I likely wouldn't know if I haven't grasped it, I really think this possibility is the case.

 

[stellar renegade]

The Bible seems to allude to the thought, if not outright say, that creation came from God's very being.

It seems that reason is very rarely effective once a particular worldview has lodged itself in someone's mind, so whatever shapes ones views on religion, it certainly isn't logic. Probably emotional predispositions and experience/upbringing.

Yep, I totally agree. No matter how much you try to argue with people, they always seem to be looking over your shoulder at some mammoth institution of thought that's irrelevant to your discussion with them.

It's really frustrating.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

premise 1: the universe came from nothing
premise 2: the universe came from God

hm....

Ok, now I see the point that he was trying to make. However those are not the only two possible premises. Restate like this:

Premise 1: the universe came from nothing
Premise 2: God created the universe

Conclusion: God created the universe from nothing.

While I'm glad to see that SW is elaborating upon this concept in other manners, he is approaching the concept from an angle other than from that which I did at the outset of this thread. My point was a simple one: any finite object must adhere within reality. A finite object would end. What would be beyond its borders? Non-reality? This is by definition impossible. The only solution is that reality is infinite.

An important note is that I use the term "borders" metaphorically; an object finite in any respect will end in some respect. We are not only discussing spatial or temporal finiteness, a point which several respondents have failed to grasp. And yes, while the definition of the infinite I must use for the purposes of this discussion may not be one of the more common definitions, it's still a valid one, and I've gone to pains to make it as clear as possible what I mean in my use of the term.

As for your final point, I'm unaware of any major branch of Christianity that would be content with what you pose: that God is finite, meaning that He merely adheres within reality, meaning that while He may appear godlike from our perspective, He is not the creator of Reality, merely one of its inhabitants.

Liquid, if you are genuinely interested in approaching my thesis, as it is, in this thread, I'll happily do what I can to try to further elucidate. As it stands, you'll pardon me if I can only believe that you're grasping for grounds, semantic or otherwise, to dismiss it.

I have been genuinely interested in what you are saying, but your argument from the beginning has appeared to be a straw man. I don't think you are doing this intentionally, but several posters have said you misrepresent the common perception of the Judeo-Christian God. This means the argument is a straw man whether intentional or not.

From what I understand of your definition of infinity, your argument seems to be "If God is already everything that could possibly exist, then He can't create something else." I would agree this statement is true, but I don't think that anyone believes this.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

No, that would fall under the "already-existing things" side that I already denied. In the case of creation ex nihilo he doesn't use the material that was not created by him, he creates from nothing (or, in latin, ex nihilo). I have to assume we're having some problem in communication here, but I can't for the life of my figure out what it is...

My claim is that it is impossible to make something from nothing. (For example, I made an airplane out of nothing, just thin air. That is, exactly how a magician produced a box of chocolate without any material to work with. He just 'magically' made it appear on the table somehow).

My argument is that the ex nihilo principle is a mere 'trick', just like magic. It is not an argument. If it is otherwise, the theist must be able to show what laws of nature make it possible for God (or anyone) to create things out of nothing. Thus far, I have not been able to think of any.

 

[Mycroft]

From what I understand of your definition of infinity, your argument seems to be "If God is already everything that could possibly exist, then He can't create something else." I would agree this statement is true, but I don't think that anyone believes this.

This misses the point of what I've been saying so completely that I have to wonder if you're being sincere.

 

[Mycroft]

With the caveat that I likely wouldn't know if I haven't grasped it, I really think this possibility is the case.

This is the fundamental problem, yes. One must understand a concept himself to know what constitutes understanding.

I speak in plain terms, with no intention to insult: the questions you've asked and points you've raised indicate that you've not properly understood the concept. I'm not being facetious or sarcastic when I apologize that I've been unable to elucidate the concept any more clearly. Again, perhaps in the future, a better illustration or allegory will occur to me.

 

[Totenkindly]

My argument is that the ex nihilo principle is a mere 'trick', just like magic. It is not an argument. If it is otherwise, the theist must be able to show what laws of nature make it possible for God (or anyone) to create things out of nothing. Thus far, I have not been able to think of any.

I honestly don't even know how we could quantify that. And how are laws defined? Does "God" override natural law by a display of supernatural power, or does it only appear supernatural and the potential Divine is simply able to make use of laws that human beings are not capable of perceiving and manipulating?

Don't ask me how to even answer that question.