• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Why I do not believe in God

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
:shock:

I'm a little dismayed from some of the reasoning's put forth in this thread.

There are some interesting definitions of 'infinite', and even the 'omni---", going around here. But they do not jive with the Bible's descriptions, though supposedly that is what you are basing your argument on. I would really like to see your references as to how you feel the Bible text supports your argument, since it seems to me the Bible is the real victim of the attack.

For instance, where in the Bible is the though conveyed that God is infinite as meaning he must be everything.



A confused view? Granted, I can see how someone might agree with this, but without the specific references your argument is as hollow as God is supposedly 'infinitely' everything.


If God is not infinite he cannot be omnipotent. We are not even at the point where we ought to cite biblical referrence for the explicit claims concerning God's infinity.
 

Ojian

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
74
MBTI Type
INTP
I think its evident that for God to create the stars after the earth, he would need to be omnipotent . in order to be omnipotent, he needs the ability to overcome anything. What allows anything to overcome anything? energy. He needs infinite energy because otherwise he might come upon a situation where he lacks the energy to be all powerful. So God has infinite energy. All the energy God has, is of God because otherwise it would be infinite in its own right and therefore be something "of more power" that separately exists from God. Further, it would be something that God depends on that is seperate from himself and therefore would make God not the highest thing worthy of worship.

I think the problem I have here is again with your definition of "infinite".

As far as I understand it and normally see it defined, Infinite is a term of measure to describe something in its particular context that is unmeasurable. Pulled from an online dictionary -
1: extending indefinitely : endless <infinite space>
2: immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : inexhaustible <infinite patience>
3: subject to no limitation or external determination
4 a: extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large.

Something finite can be measured, has a limit. Something infinite cannot be measured or limited. Yet that doesnt mean that the something that is finite is part of, connected, related necessarily to the same something that is infinite.

"Infinite" is not equal to "All"

Therefore God must himself BE infinite energy. everything in our universe is a form of energy. If there is an infinite set of energy out there, how can we really be "separate" from that set if we are all energy?

I wouldn't agree with that because it seems to be saying that God must be all energy, and anything else that is also considered "energy" must be part of God. Rather, I would say God has an unlimited energy source available to him, and using that energy he was able to create a separate, but finite something that you could probably refer to as "energy" if you wanted. Yes it would be from God, but not necessarily part of him.

If God is not infinite he cannot be omnipotent. We are not even at the point where we ought to cite biblical referrence for the explicit claims concerning God's infinity.

According to YOUR definition of 'infinite/infinity' and 'omnipotent' maybe. My definition is different.

But your argument originally stated:
"I have argued that the existence of a Judeo-Christian God is not possible on the grounds of the impossibility of an infinite and an omnipotent creature, as well as the impossibility of a being who is the creator of the universe."
The Bible is typically the source that is used to define who/what the "Judeo-Christian God" is, so any reference to him being 'infinite/infinity' and 'omnipotent' has to agree with the Bibles description. (Incidentally, I would point out those specific terms are not found in the Bible, at least in respect to the context of the discussion). And I would submit that the Bible's description of God's 'omnipotence' is merely referring to his having unlimited power/force/ability/etc to overcome any obstacles to the fulfillment of his purpose. It does NOT mean that he is everything, or even can do or does everything.

So ya, with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, you do need to cite the Biblical references to support your definitions, otherwise they don't apply.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
If God is not infinite he cannot be omnipotent. We are not even at the point where we ought to cite biblical referrence for the explicit claims concerning God's infinity.

Because Reason is your foundational criteria, and any scriptural authority has to submit to it. (sorry, just stating the obvious, for clarity for others here.)

(It was a big "aha" for me when I realized that this was the reason I had such issues with people relying on scripture in the face of external evidence -- the book is not my ultimate authority, it's "reason" and "life experience," and if a book or whatever else is inconsistent with what truth I can observe in life, it's at best irrelevant and at worst just wrong. But others seem quite capable of judging life experience and reason in light of their holy writs.)
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I think the problem I have here is again with your definition of "infinite".

As far as I understand it and normally see it defined, Infinite is a term of measure to describe something in its particular context that is unmeasurable. Pulled from an online dictionary -
1: extending indefinitely : endless <infinite space>
2: immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : inexhaustible <infinite patience>
3: subject to no limitation or external determination
4 a: extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large.

Something finite can be measured, has a limit. Something infinite cannot be measured or limited. Yet that doesnt mean that the something that is finite is part of, connected, related necessarily to the same something that is infinite.

"Infinite" is not equal to "All"



I wouldn't agree with that because it seems to be saying that God must be all energy, and anything else that is also considered "energy" must be part of God. Rather, I would say God has an unlimited energy source available to him, and using that energy he was able to create a separate, but finite something that you could probably refer to as "energy" if you wanted. Yes it would be from God, but not necessarily part of him.



According to YOUR definition of 'infinite/infinity' and 'omnipotent' maybe. My definition is different.

But your argument originally stated:
"I have argued that the existence of a Judeo-Christian God is not possible on the grounds of the impossibility of an infinite and an omnipotent creature, as well as the impossibility of a being who is the creator of the universe."
The Bible is typically the source that is used to define who/what the "Judeo-Christian God" is, so any reference to him being 'infinite/infinity' and 'omnipotent' has to agree with the Bibles description. (Incidentally, I would point out those specific terms are not found in the Bible, at least in respect to the context of the discussion). And I would submit that the Bible's description of God's 'omnipotence' is merely referring to his having unlimited power/force/ability/etc to overcome any obstacles to the fulfillment of his purpose. It does NOT mean that he is everything, or even can do or does everything.

So ya, with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, you do need to cite the Biblical references to support your definitions, otherwise they don't apply.

Infinite is used in the strictly mathematical sense. Which does mean without a beginning and without an end. It is not possible to be without a beginning and without an end and at the same time be finite. Whatever is without a beginning and without an end is all things. If A has no end, it is not possible for B to exist because in order for B to exist independently of A, A must end somewhere. Or B must exist before A started to exist, but that is also impossible because A never had that point where it started to exist.

Here we equate infinite with ubiqutious or all things.

Nothing in this world is infinite because we see the world in many attributes. Remember, if we have both A and B, then neither one can be infinite, as whatever is infinite does not allow for anything else besides itself to exist.



And I would submit that the Bible's description of God's 'omnipotence' is merely referring to his having unlimited power/force/ability/etc to overcome any obstacles to the fulfillment of his purpose. It does NOT mean that he is everything, or even can do or does everything..

1) In order for this to be possible, God must be outside of the universe directing it, like I can direct a robot with a remote control. This is not possible because the universe is all things. Hence, this is an argument against the omnipotence of God.

Having established that the universe is infinite itself, and the Bible explicitly regards God as omnipresent, he is required to be infinite.

If Bible is to regard God is infinite (will need to cite scripture for this), he cannot be a person. As a person is necessarily a finite entity. Therefore God cannot have human qualities (the Bible insists that we pray to him much like we are having a conversation with another person, or that he smiles or laughs, or that he created Adam out of clay like a human potter). If God is finite, he cannot be omnipotent or omnipresent.

Again, with regard to your definition of omnipotence, it is not any different from the one I had. A finite entity cannot be omnipotent because it is within the closed system of causation, it therefore obeys the laws of nature it is environed in.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Infinite is used in the strictly mathematical sense. Which does mean without a beginning and without an end. It is not possible to be without a beginning and without an end and at the same time be finite. Whatever is without a beginning and without an end is all things. If A has no end, it is not possible for B to exist because in order for B to exist independently of A, A must end somewhere. Or B must exist before A started to exist, but that is also impossible because A never had that point where it started to exist.

No. A line does not have a beginning or end, and does not contain anything outside it's one-dimensional scope.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
No. A line does not have a beginning or end, and does not contain anything outside it's one-dimensional scope.

I assume that's the case if you're talking about "beginning and end" in regards to time, or some other singular dimension.

What if you generalize "beginning and end" to encompass the concept of being unbounded in any dimension, not just time or length?
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Well sure, if you have no beginning or end in any dimension, then you encompass all things. But that wasn't the claim.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
No. A line does not have a beginning or end, and does not contain anything outside it's one-dimensional scope.

This is why we use symbols to represent a line, all our symbols are finite. You never see the pure essence of a line in this world for this reason.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
jennifer said:
What if you generalize "beginning and end" to encompass the concept of being unbounded in any dimension, not just time or length?

This is a violation of the mathematical term of infinity. Nothing in this world exists that one could accurately describe as infinite.

Well sure, if you have no beginning or end in any dimension, then you encompass all things. But that wasn't the claim.

The point was that the infinity of the universe evinces the impossibility of creationism. Creationism requires that God be analogous to the universe like a robot controller to a robot. This is impossible, as in this case the robot controller is inseparable from the robot.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
The point was that the infinity of the universe evinces the impossibility of creationism. Creationism requires that God be analogous to the universe like a robot controller to a robot. This is impossible, as in this case the robot controller is inseparable from the robot.

Agreed.
 

Nocapszy

no clinkz 'til brooklyn
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Messages
4,517
MBTI Type
ENTP
I belch a hearty laugh at Philosophy General Wing.
To know the universe is infinite is to experience all of that infinity.
The only person I've ever met who could do that was God.

That means, Bluewing is God, 'cause he knows that the universe is infinite.

Hail!
 

Ojian

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
74
MBTI Type
INTP
Infinite is used in the strictly mathematical sense. Which does mean without a beginning and without an end. It is not possible to be without a beginning and without an end and at the same time be finite. Whatever is without a beginning and without an end is all things.

Where are you getting your definitions? Infinity in mathematics is not necessarily meaning no beginning or no end. It is often used in mathematics to only refer to something that doesn't begin OR end. And again, even in mathematics "infinite" has to be used in context. Its already been pointed out, but infinite as a line is a perfectly valid description in mathematics, yet it is only in context by 2 dimensions.

Now philosophically speaking, infinite may have the connotation you refer to, but I bet that is not consistently used that way.

Regardless, your "mathematical" description has no relation to the Bibles (or really any other religious scripture that I can think of) as to what God's omnipotence means.

Having established that the universe is infinite itself, and the Bible explicitly regards God as omnipresent, he is required to be infinite.

I dont think its been established that the Universe is infinite (but again it depends on what context you mean. "Infinite" is a contextual term, not meaning "everything"). Be careful of how you define God being omnipresent Biblically speaking, because I would bet it doesnt say what you think it does.

If, as Jennifer pointed out, "... Reason is your foundational criteria, and any scriptural authority has to submit to it.", that is fine if you feel that way. But all I'm saying is that it's not fair to take your A definition of a term, and apply it something else's use of that term when they clearly mean B, and then judge them of that term on the basis of A. Your proposed definition of "infinity" and "omnipotence" is not the Bible's definition. Apple to Oranges.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Where are you getting your definitions? Infinity in mathematics is not necessarily meaning no beginning or no end. It is often used in mathematics to only refer to something that doesn't begin OR end. And again, even in mathematics "infinite" has to be used in context..

It is mathematically impossible to begin and not end or vice versa. There is no such figure.

Check some mathematical dictionaries for this.

Its already been pointed out, but infinite as a line is a perfectly valid description in mathematics, yet it is only in context by 2 dimensions...

????



Regardless, your "mathematical" description has no relation to the Bibles (or really any other religious scripture that I can think of) as to what God's omnipotence means....

What does omnipotence mean in the Biblical context. I assumed it means what the conventional definition maintains it to.



I dont think its been established that the Universe is infinite (but again it depends on what context you mean. "Infinite" is a contextual term, not meaning "everything").....

Okay, suppose infinite does not mean what it means in that mathematical context. Say there is a creator? Who created the creator? We would go ad infinitum. Someone must have been self-created. But this is not possible, as nothign comes from nothing. Therefore something always existed. Its not possible to lack a beginning, yet to also have an end, therefore the universe is infinite.

Be careful of how you define God being omnipresent Biblically speaking, because I would bet it doesnt say what you think it does.").....

Than tell me what omnipresent means in the Biblical context.

If, as Jennifer pointed out, "... Reason is your foundational criteria, and any scriptural authority has to submit to it.", that is fine if you feel that way. But all I'm saying is that it's not fair to take your A definition of a term, and apply it something else's use of that term when they clearly mean B, and then judge them of that term on the basis of A..").....

Unless clearly stated otherwise, we assume it is the most conventional definition, which is definition A.


Your proposed definition of "infinity" and "omnipotence" is not the Bible's definition. Apple to Oranges.

What is the definition of omnipotence in the Bible, or infinity?
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
About Nothing and Omnipotence.

The idea of nothing can be difficult to define.

An idea is defined by assigning it properties, for example, an owl is a bird, nocturnal, cold-blooded, predator, etc. and by comparing properties, owls can be distinguished from non-owls. Therefore, nothing can also be defined by assigning it properties, right? For example, one property of nothing is that it's a not-owl, but is this paradoxical? When there is nothing, then there is nothing to have properties, so how can nothing be a not-owl?

There is a solution to this problem, and it involves no more than revising the definition to eliminate the inconsistency. Do not define nothing by its absence of properties, because nothing, not even nothing, can have a complete absence of properties. Nothing does have properties, but only those which it must have on pain of contradiction, and nothing more. Therefore, nothing can be distinguished from something, and the paradox eliminated.

The problem with ideas like omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, or other universal-like characteristics of God, is analogous to that of discussing nothing, and solved in the same way. The old question 'can God create a rock which He cannot lift?' is a fine example, its the same kind of paradox but turned on its head--we're no longer trying to remove every property, but instead trying to assign every property. The problem is that we can always define a new property which, by definition, refuses to be assigned, and so to render the idea of omnipotence consistent, limits must be introduced, but only those limits which it must have on pain of contradiction, and nothing more.

When this is done for all of God's characteristics, a more sensible and consistent idea of God can be defined.
 

Didums

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
680
Reason,

Basically what you are saying is that: Nothing cannot be defined because it has no properties, and Everything (concept of infinite *something*) cannot be defined because you can add properties to it that don't fit it, so to make Everything be consistent there must be limits placed on the properties you can assign to it.

How does this affect the concept of God?

The definition of God being: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

If you assign limits to God's abilities/characteristics, wouldn't those limits have to be assigned by another, higher power?
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
How does this affect the concept of God?
In many ways, for one, as already noted, God cannot be the creator of the universe (where the term 'universe' refers to everything), because not everything could have been created.

If you assign limits to God's abilities/characteristics, wouldn't those limits have to be assigned by another, higher power?
In a sense, yes, because God cannot exist, by definition, unless He has these limits. That is, if God does not have these limits, then He doesn't existence, so his existence, if true, presupposes these limits.

These limits, however, are not that important, because God can, potentially, still do most of what theists usually expect.
 

Didums

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
680
These limits, however, are not that important, because God can, potentially, still do most of what theists usually expect.

They are absolutely important imo. Some people assume the necessity of God because they believe the Universe had a beginning, and in this they misinterpret the ramifications of the Big Bang theory. Beginning does not infer Origin, especially not in the case of the Universe. Assuming that our Universe needs a creator to exist because our Universe has a point that you can call the 'beginning' presupposes a horizontal causation timeline (a grand Time background beyond our Universe's), which then infers that God has a cause. Why then the need for him? Especially if it can be shown that there need not a causation, that the Universe simply Is.
 

Brendan

Guerilla Urbanist
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
911
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Axiom: The Universe is Infinite, therefore the existence of God is impossible independent of the existence of the world.
Naturally. But I feel that physical existence is rather irrelevant to God's significance to mankind.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
They are absolutely important imo. Some people assume the necessity of God because they believe the Universe had a beginning, and in this they misinterpret the ramifications of the Big Bang theory. Beginning does not infer Origin, especially not in the case of the Universe. Assuming that our Universe needs a creator to exist because our Universe has a point that you can call the 'beginning' presupposes a horizontal causation timeline (a grand Time background beyond our Universe's), which then infers that God has a cause.
Not necessarily. See this post: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...04-why-i-do-not-believe-god-6.html#post317951
Why then the need for him? Especially if it can be shown that there need not a causation, that the Universe simply Is.
Then, the universe is by definition, "God". All that has been done is to make it material instead of "personal". But again, even science at one time recently, proposed a "primal realm" that does not consist of time.
 
Top