Why I do not believe in God

[redacted]

all things != infinite

(they are not the same)

 

[SolitaryWalker]

all things != infinite

(they are not the same)

Yes they are. You can have all things on the table for example, or any closed context, thus all things would be finite in that regard. However, in light of the bigger scene, the items we are dealing with would not be all things, as some things can and do exist outside of our current scene (the table). The only way it is possible for no thing to exist outside of the given scene is if the scene covers all territory. Only an infinite entity can do so.

 

[redacted]

Sorry but no.

There is a constant amount of matter + energy in the universe. Constant implies finite.

Have you ever taken an astronomy class? Physics?

 

[Eric B]

Here is the "not equal" sign, all (It's unicode is U+2260)

≠

 

[Sniffles]

I don't believe in God because the shit mentioned in Exodus and Revelations is too cool to be real.

Ever heard Tertullian's famous remark, "I believe because it's absurd"?

 

[Nocapszy]

My dear friend!

I humbly acquiesce. Thy honor has slayed the wicked dragon.

Oh I get it! You're subtly calling me an F! What a clever ruse.

My way of condescending is by use of sarcasm and pretense conceding too. We're like brothers!

Hmm... I may have lost my character there for a moment. Hang on while I go check what I did before.

...Minutes later following deep reflection...

You need to develop your inferior Introverted Sensing in order to ensure that you do not skid over words that you have read. The working definition of infinity with respect to this thread has been posted.

But sir, look what I posted nary a hay-hour ago:

Hang on while I go check what I did before.

See? I have great Si. It's true because I said it. It's a proof.

The universe must be all things or infinite, otherwise the principle of existence could not be justified.

You're wrong on several levels, dag.
I know your game fella. It's become a bore.

 

[redacted]

^Aw, but I expected more...

 

[Nocapszy]

Its too bad BW and I can't discuss this civilly over a beer at the meetup since he's not coming anymore.

Hey why did you bail Bluedawg?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Sorry but no.

There is a constant amount of matter + energy in the universe. Constant implies finite.

Have you ever taken an astronomy class? Physics?

This indeed shows that the universe as we experience is not all there is. All things of this world are finite. Check the noumena/phenomena distinction one more time, its in the article I've offered to Eric B.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

You're wrong on several levels, dag.
I know your game fella. It's become a bore.

The only way a finite entity could create itself is if it is possible for something to come from nothing. Do you believe in such miracles?

 

[Jack Flak]

This thread seems like an attempt to justify one side of a conflict within oneself, so one may become comfortable. INTJ-like, even.

 

[redacted]

This indeed shows that the universe as we experience is not all there is. All things of this world are finite. Check the noumena/phenomena distinction one more time, its in the article I've offered to Eric B.

Wait, what? How does this at all disprove the finite-ness of the universe?

I have a question, have you heard of entropy?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Wait, what? How does this at all disprove the finite-ness of the universe?

I have a question, have you heard of entropy?

You're totally lost now. The world as we know it is finite. However, it is intimately intertwined with the infinite realm which we are incapable of experiencing or understanding.

What entropy has to do with any of this is completely beyond me!

 

[Nocapszy]

The only way a finite entity could create itself is if it is possible for something to come from nothing. Do you believe in such miracles?

I bet if you actually read my posts you'd find the answer to this question.

 

[redacted]

You're totally lost now. The world as we know it is finite. However, it is intimately intertwined with the infinite realm which we are incapable of experiencing or understanding.

What entropy has to do with any of this is completely beyond me!

Are you just asserting the first bolded statement? What reason do you have for believing this?

(I have a reason for the whole entropy thing, but it's probably over your head lol.)

Completely beyond you seems more acurate than "you're totally lost now". You said it yourself -- underdeveloped Ne...

 

[Nocapszy]

I think BW is ISTJ. He discourages Ne, and encourages Si.

ISTJ. Proof.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I bet if you actually read my posts you'd find the answer to this question.

I did read your post. I will be very impressed if you will be able to explain how it is possible for a finite entity to create itself. Try again.

Are you just asserting the first bolded statement? What reason do you have for believing this?...

I have explained this very thoroughly in the OP.

1)Finite entity by definition means not all things. 2)Anything that is infinite by definition covers all things. 3) No one particular entity of this world covers all things. 4) Finite entity cannot create itself, therefore an infinite entity must underlie it. 5) Principle of existence is incontrovertible Descartes' Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Conclusion: We know that something exists rather than nothing, the only way this is possible is if the infinite entity underlies the finite entity the existence of which is a truism.

(I have a reason for the whole entropy thing, but it's probably over your head lol.)

Completely beyond you seems more acurate than "you're totally lost now". You said it yourself -- underdeveloped Ne...

I am sure that you do.

 

[redacted]

1)Finite entity by definition means not all things.

I completely disagree with your assertion. I bet many people here would too (not that you care). But it's impossible to make an argument when we don't agree on the premises.

I think that "all things" can be finite. Why do you think that's impossible?

2)Anything that is infinite by definition covers all things.

I also disagree with this. Odd numbers does not cover all numbers. Natural numbers does not cover all numbers. Two infinities can be completely different.

Take a math class?

3) No one particular entity of this world covers all things. 4) Finite entity cannot create itself, therefore an infinite entity must underlie it. 5) Principle of existence is incontrovertible Descartes' Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Conclusion: We know that something exists rather than nothing, the only way this is possible is if the infinite entity underlies the finite entity the existence of which is a truism.

That line of reasoning doesn't work for me. Think of another?

I am sure that you do.

Infinity minus any constant is infinity. Infinity divided by any constant is infinity. Entropy is a decrease. If it was a decrease in infinity, it would still be infinity. Therefore, entropy doesn't do anything. We know this is not true, therefore the premise must be incorrect.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

.assertion. I bet many people here would too (not that you care). But it's impossible to make an argument when we don't agree on the premises.

I think that "all things" can be finite. Why do you think that's impossible?
.

Finite by definition means 'limited'. When something has a limit, it means that something exists outside of it. There is no reason to say something is limited if nothing exists outside of it. Would there be any reason at all to talk of city limits, state limits, or nation limits if the territory we have in consideration occupies all things?

I also disagree with this. Odd numbers does not cover all numbers. Natural numbers does not cover all numbers. Two infinities can be completely different..

How could there be TWO infinites if an infinite by definition is not countable.

You seem to be thinking about the aforementioned symbol of infinity. For instance, a set of natural numbers may be infinite. However, it would not be possible for us to write this whole set out. Because infinite by definition means non-countable.

Infinity minus any constant is infinity. Infinity divided by any constant is infinity. Entropy is a decrease. If it was a decrease in infinity, it would still be infinity. Therefore, entropy doesn't do anything. We know this is not true, therefore the premise must be incorrect.

You could manipulate the symbol of an infinity, but good luck getting a real world figure where infinity is present.

One may say for example, that a certain number is to be extended to an infinite degree, yet in the equation it will be said onto the infinity, there will not be a mathematical value for infinity. (E.G, like x=5) because all mathematical values are finite.

That is the definition of finitude, capable of being counted. Decrease in infinity? No seriously, ....

finite definition |Dictionary.com

I better take my trip to the Ni world. I sure hope there I find out it is possible to decrease what is not measurable. As after all, if I had more of a Feel, it would all work out, as its all qualitative not quantitive, matter of feel aint it Evan?

Such picturesque sight!

Yeah keep it real though, you're my only true hero! I heartily agree with you that all things could indeed be finite. You know, they just all came out of nowhere, like a hickory oak just appears in my backyard completely uncaused. You made a believer out of me, maybe black magic is not such a bad idea, perhaps it shall teleport me to the Ni world where I see it all, my sacred longings will be fulfilled at last.

Goodness, physics, math, astrophysics? What about common-sense!?

 

[Owl]

1)Finite entity by definition means not all things. 2)Anything that is infinite by definition covers all things. 3) No one particular entity of this world covers all things. 4) Finite entity cannot create itself, therefore an infinite entity must underlie it. 5) Principle of existence is incontrovertible Descartes' Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Conclusion: We know that something exists rather than nothing, the only way this is possible is if the infinite entity underlies the finite entity the existence of which is a truism.

Obviously, I don't agree with your conclusion.

I've no problem with premises 3-5. I agree that a finite entity is not all things, but I don't think this is true by definition; however, I don't think this distinction is important at the moment.

Premise 2 is the most problematic. In the OP you gave a definitin of infinity, but I failed to find an argument for why infinity ought to be so defined, and the definition is, for me, far from self evident. It certainly seems possible to conceive of an infinite quality that does not cover all things. Dissonance makes a good point with his appeal to mathematical infinity. Or why not conceive of a piece of eternal matter that is finite in extension, but uncreated and therefore extends infinitly backward in time? (E.g., the big bang oscillating theory of the universe?) And I see no reason to reject the concept of creation ex nihilo as logically inconsistent.

???