# Thread: Why I do not believe in God

1. Originally Posted by Grayscale
does existing infinitely into the past and future necessarily equate to complete omnipresence? parallel lines go on forever but never cross
Only the present moment exists. Future represents only possibilities of how the present moment may turn out. Not how the present moment is. Hence, we need to take note of the distinction between what is and what could be.

Past is merely the recollection that we have in the present moment of what has happened before.

Nothing in this world exists infinitely because this world is finite. We know this because an infinite essence is necessarily singular, and this world consists of many attributes. An infinite essence is singular because it must occupy all things.

2. Originally Posted by dissonance
Sorry dude, but no. The set of all even numbers is infinite. Are you implying that there are no odd numbers?
Numbers are not direct properties of our world. They are but symbolic representations of what may exist.

For this reason, this matter is not relevant.

Though to address your point, if we have the following combination of even numbers. 2,4,6,8. Or a combination of odd numbers, 1,3,5,7. Both of these are finite. However if we had a set of all possible numbers, we would have an infinite figure. This has nothing to do with whether there are not odd or no even numbers, nor does this have anything to say about any individual number in its own right.

We should note however, that we never see mathematicians performing the following operations (infinity minus or plus infinity, or infinity divided etc), they leave the infinity concept alone for good reasons. Namely because it is undefinable, we can know nothing about it other than it simply is.

Individual numbers are finite and therefore operable, the whole set of numbers is infinite therefore inoperable. I have never seen a mathematician manipulating ALL numbers in all the works of philosophy of mathematics I've read so far...

3. Originally Posted by BlueWing
Numbers are not direct properties of our world. They are but symbolic representations of what may exist.
You know, one would think so, but a diligent study of information theory diffuses the clarity of this assumption considerably.

4. Bluewing, remember the Iron Man fallacy.

5. Originally Posted by oberon
You know, one would think so, but a diligent study of information theory diffuses the clarity of this assumption considerably.
Explain further.

Originally Posted by reason
Bluewing, remember the Iron Man fallacy.

This too ought to be explained in further detail.

6. Originally Posted by reason
Bluewing, remember the Iron Man fallacy.
Yes. Superman is way cooler than Iron Man.

7. Originally Posted by dissonance
^Ha. But that doesn't really follow the form of BWs argument, since he defined God differently than you defined Bluewing
Maybe that's because Bluewing isn't God?

8. First, let the word 'universe' refer to everything. Second, suppose that the universe was created. What does it mean to create something? The dictionary defines 'create' as to cause to exist, bring into being, give rise to, or produce. However, can anything be created without laws governing creation? The laws of a universe dictate what can occur, and before something can be created, the circumstance must be so that creation is not impossible.

However, the word 'universe' refers to everything, and therefore must include the circumstance in which creation is not impossible. Therefore, the laws which make creation possible could not have been created unless they already existed! So nothing could have been created before them. In other words, the universe could not have been created, though many of its particular characteristics may have been. In consequence, any God defined as being the creator of everything i.e. the universe, cannot exist, by definition.

That is all well and good, but remember the Iron Man fallacy. Even if this definition of God is contradictory, then it doesn't mean all definitions of God are contradictory. Can you improve upon this theory of God? Can you make the idea of God into something more reasonable?

9. Originally Posted by reason
Can you improve upon this theory of God? Can you make the idea of God into something more reasonable?
Certainly. Many thinkers have done so and as a result have come up with a much more plausible concept of God. Spinoza and the Buddhists are the case in point.

However, my working definition of God in this thread is specific to the way he is defined in the Christian book of dogma.

I agree that the Iron Man fallacy is useful because it allows us to explore interesting ideas in a situation where such an outcome seemed unlikely. Or in other words, when somebody makes an implausible utterance, we can alter their statement and make it into something more plausible.

However, there is a good reason why such a practice is called a fallacy or an error in reasoning. Simply because it misinterprets the original author's message. What we should do is the following: state explicitly what the author's message was, and not what it ought to have been. Than make another statement which is to be regarded not as an interpretation of the author's view but a critique thereof. An attempt to emend it.

Thus, when I say I do not believe in God, I mean that I only disbelieve in the Judeo-Christian God. I do not mean that I disbelieve in all entities that have been or could be denoted under this term.

10. @reason: I mean, where else can you go after that? If God is defined as the creator of the universe, it leads to a contradiction, because the universe could not have been created (according to the above definition).

So you can come up with some other definition of God, I guess, but that really wasn't BWs point. I personally like to say God = the governing laws of the universe. But if I said I believed in God, it would mean something different than if a Christian said they believe in God.

There was one thing that stuck out at me about BWs argument. Why would someone call the universe infinite? What about the law of conservation of matter/energy? Is there not a constant amount of matter+energy in the universe? How is that infinite then? I'd say the universe is finite, just extremely large.

We do not have access to enough information to know whether or not there is something outside the universe, because if it affected anything in our universe, it would be a part of it... So there might be other things out there, but I guess it doesn't matter. And if God existed outside our universe, he still could not have created it, because then he wouldn't exist outside our universe...

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO