Why I do not believe in God

[SolitaryWalker]

What he's referring to is that since "points" are themselves infinitely small, there are an infinite number of them between any two points. If you start out with a millimeter, you can keep dividing it down to smaller and smaller units. So what he's saying is that any movement; even a millimeter, crosses an infinite number of points, which otherwise sounds like an impossible feat.

They are not infinitely small. We can try reducing them ad infinitum to no end, which in itself evinces the finitude of our universe. Noone has ever reached the smallest possible point, yet the smallest we have reached could be recorded in finite numbers, therefore it is not infinite.

 

[Giggly]

Best song evar.

[youtube=D5-TpSm1HDE]YouTube - Jesus Is My Friend[/youtube]

 

[Nocapszy]

What on earth are you talking about? How is this relevant to anything I said?

It's relevant because you obviously don't know what the fuck you're doing when it comes to mathematics. Your use of it here is another example.

Numbers are never manipulated. The "=" is the fulcrum of a balance. Both sides remain the same. Just because they look the different...

From the little of your post that I do understand,



Huh...????

Where do the infinite number of points happen in our experience? Mathematics is fallible. Okay sure thing, all of human reasoning has been proven worthless. ( I doubt the identity of mathematics and logic, this is the famous doctrine of Frege called logicism).

The universe can only suredly be divided into infinitely small parts. You can't know that it's infinite just because you think there was no beginning.

I'll address your original post in a more direct reference.

You say that no God created the universe because we would have an ad infinitum string of gods creating the next god down.
So instead, you suggest that the universe created itself.

But if the universe created itself, why couldn't a God have done the same thing? Thereby making himself capable of creating the universe, thereby giving it a starting point, thereby making the universe finite thereby tossing your entire thesis out the metaphysical window.

Either you're trying to get a rise out of everyone on the forum, or you're dumber than I thought.

 

[Mole]

The universe can only suredly be divided into infinitely small parts. You can't know that it's infinite just because you think there was no beginning.

You say that no God created the universe because we would have an ad infinitum string of gods creating the next god down.
So instead, you suggest that the universe created itself.

But if the universe created itself, why couldn't a God have done the same thing? Thereby making himself capable of creating the universe, thereby giving it a starting point, thereby making the universe finite....

We used to believe that the Earth rested on the back of a turtle. But the clever asked, on what does the turtle rest? And the mystic replied, it is turtles all the way down.

And this may well be true as below the quantum level the world may rest on two dimensional fractals - and on two dimensional fractals resting on two dimensional fractals ad infinitum.

And of course each two dimensional fractal is the same as the two dimensional fractal that supports it.

So it's turtles all the way down.

 

[Nocapszy]

Does Victor propound that it is turtles all the way up as well?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

It's relevant because you obviously don't know what the fuck you're doing when it comes to mathematics. Your use of it here is another example.....

Still don't see the relevance.

Numbers are never manipulated. The "=" is the fulcrum of a balance. Both sides remain the same. Just because they look the different....

5 +4=9, and 5x+2y=100z

and so on. All of our interaction with mathematical symbols are defined as 'manipulation' in this context. The same could be said with respect to all of our other interaction with ideas through symbols which are non-mathematical. Accordingly, all interaction with ideas is to be considered 'manipulation' because it is not possible to entertain ideas without symbols.

The universe can only suredly be divided into infinitely small parts. You can't know that it's infinite just because you think there was no beginning.....

:yim_rolling_on_the_

But if the universe created itself, why couldn't a God have done the same thing? Thereby making himself capable of creating the universe, thereby giving it a starting point, thereby making the universe finite thereby tossing your entire thesis out the metaphysical window.

Either you're trying to get a rise out of everyone on the forum, or you're dumber than I thought.

No, no the universe did not create itself. Creating oneself is not possible, (the famous nothing comes from nothing principle). It always existed.

Whoever claims that something is infinitely reducible is talking stark non-sense, as to say something is reducible to something (in this case infinitely) means to assign a finite value to such an entity.

If I were to say, I am going to go infinitely left, I would never know where I have ended up as my journey obviously would never end. Hence, I cannot say my journey is infinitely prolongable, because 'journey' is the definition of the entity I am dealing with. The same goes with any entity we wish to 'infinitely reduce', if we somehow were able to infinitely reduce this, we would keep reducing forever. This has never been done. Therefore, because we loose sight of the entity itself upon performance of any infinite procedure with respect to such an entity, it is not possible to perform.

In other words, I could say, for example that this line, or this set of numbers go ad infinitum, but I cannot quite imagine what exactly it means to have this equation as an infinite enty. Accordingly, numbers and mathematical figures represent this world and laws by which it is governed. Because the sign of infinity is unimaginable as aforementioned, it does not represent any entity of this world. Therefore it is a void concept. All we know about it is that it exists, but we cannot assign any particular properties to it. In terms of modern philosophy, it is a universal, not a particular.

Nominalism in Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Sniffles]

Discussions like these remind me of Kierkegaard's statement that debating the existence of God makes for great comedy. And he was a theist!

No, no the universe did not create itself. Creating oneself is not possible, (the famous nothing comes from nothing principle). It always existed.

Come again? What about the Big Bang theory?

 

[Mole]

Does Victor propound that it is turtles all the way up as well?

Naturellement!

My name, as you know, is Victor Shortus. And I was known in primary school as Shortus the tortoise because I was a bit slow.

How cruel little children are!

So you can imagine how delighted I was to discover that it is turtles all the way down.

Of course I would prefer tortoises, but I will settle for turtles.

 

[Jack Flak]

Magnifique.

 

[Sniffles]

Naturellement!

My name, as you know, is Victor Shortus. And I was known in primary school as Shortus the tortoise because I was a bit slow.

How cruel little children are!

So you can imagine how delighted I was to discover that it is turtles all the way down.

Of course I would prefer tortoises, but I will settle for turtles.

 

[Nocapszy]

Still don't see the relevance.

Because you're a [delicate desert bloom].

5 +4=9, and 5x+2y=100z

and so on. All of our interaction with mathematical symbols are defined as 'manipulation' in this context. The same could be said with respect to all of our other interaction with ideas through symbols which are non-mathematical. Accordingly, all interaction with ideas is to be considered 'manipulation' because it is not possible to entertain ideas without symbols.

It's not manipulation. It really isn't...

No, no the universe did not create itself. Creating oneself is not possible, (the famous nothing comes from nothing principle). It always existed.

Wow... that changes nothing.

The point I was making, the one you seemed to miss, even despite your self-diagnoses as being intuitive, was that whatever you say about the boundlessness of the universe could, as justly be said about God, who could in turn create the universe, and make it finite if he so chose.

Unfortunately m'friend, your thesis isn't conclusive.

 

[Eric B]

They are not infinitely small. We can try reducing them ad infinitum to no end, which in itself evinces the finitude of our universe. Noone has ever reached the smallest possible point, yet the smallest we have reached could be recorded in finite numbers, therefore it is not infinite.

Of course, there is no smallest point. That is the point! A point is defined as having zero length/area/volume. So an infinite number of them can exist in the same exact place; let alone any finite length. This now gets into multiplication of zero by infinity, which is really shaky ground, but suffice it to say, if n/0 is generally seen as ∞, then 0 × ∞ = n (any finite number).

I explain this more in detail in my essay on math
BDMNQR Essays (the section "How many sides does a circle have")

 

[Mole]

Rabbits and Pancakes

So you can let your mind run free - free of meaning - it's like driving your car down the hill without steering or brakes - or like kneeling in Mass at the moment of Transubstantiation.

Or its like that moment when your girlfriend tells you she is pregnant.

In fact when your mind is running free - free of meaning - your mind is truly pregnant.

And most of all you don't know what you will give birth to. Will it be a girl or a boy; will it be healthy or not; will it be yours or someone else's.

This is precisely the moment of Transubstantiation where you lose yourself, for a moment, in the ineffable.

Just as Colmena loses himself in his ineffable politeness as he waits for the world to breathe.

In fact at the moment of Transubstantiation, the whole of Creation holds its breath.

And rabbits wear pancakes on their heads.

 

[Totenkindly]

??!



A guy sent me this graphic the other night.
I thought I was special -- that he created this just for me.
But apparently not.

This is why I no longer believe in God.

Because you're a [delicate desert bloom].

A rose by any other name...

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Because you're a [delicate desert bloom].


It's not manipulation. It really isn't....

manipulation definition |Dictionary.com

See definition 3.

Any kind of handling is 'manipulation' under this definition. We manipulate our kitchen utencils and our automobile in the similar fashion.

Wow... that changes nothing. ....

The point was that traditional Judeo-Christian theism regards God as separate from the universe. Because we know that this universe is infinite, it follows that it is impossible to be separate from the universe.

The point I was making, the one you seemed to miss, even despite your self-diagnoses as being intuitive, was that whatever you say about the boundlessness of the universe could, ....

There are theologies which regard God as the universe itself. However, such a definition of God is incompatible with the Judeo-Christian theology which is the subject of our present scrutiny.

as justly be said about God, who could in turn create the universe, and make it finite if he so chose.....

It is not possible for the universe to be created as outlined above. Obviously there was a time when our minds have managed to successfully translate the infinite realm into the finite, because the universe our minds were dealing with is infinite, God could not have been responsible for such an occurence.

 

[Clownmaster]

I don't believe in God because the shit mentioned in Exodus and Revelations is too cool to be real. Magic doesn't exist. Neither does God.

 

[Take Five]

we don't know the universe is infinite, or even if this is the only "universe"

 

[Nocapszy]

manipulation definition |Dictionary.com

See definition 3.

Any kind of handling is 'manipulation' under this definition. We manipulate our kitchen utencils and our automobile in the similar fashion.

LOL! OMG! I MAY AS WELL POST IN ALL CAPS AND END EVERY SENTENCE WITH EXCLAMATION MARKS BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE NOT GOING TO NOTICE! I KNOW BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT READING MY POSTS!

Dude... I know what manipulation means. Do you know what math involves? Obviously not. You've fooled yourself. An INTP ought to be willing to alter his course once he's been shown evidence contrary of his findings.

But I suppose I was right in the first place... you haven't been reading my posts, ergo you missed the evidence.

Next time, do what I do. Check the definitions of your own shit and make sure you didn't fuck up, and check your opponents sources.

Stop quoting definitions to me. I assure you, I'm thoroughly versed in vocabulary.



It's NOT manipulation. You're manipulating squiggles on a page, not values or quantities.

Jennifer said it right -- "a rose by any other name..."

We call it something different, doesn't mean that it is different. You said it yourself in all those Feelers-are-idiots threads you preened yourself with.

The point was that traditional Judeo-Christian theism regards God as separate from the universe. Because we know that this universe is infinite, it follows that it is impossible to be separate from the universe.



There are theologies which regard God as the universe itself. However, such a definition of God is incompatible with the Judeo-Christian theology which is the subject of our present scrutiny.



It is not possible for the universe to be created as outlined above. Obviously there was a time when our minds have managed to successfully translate the infinite realm into the finite, because the universe our minds were dealing with is infinite, God could not have been responsible for such an occurence.

I agree that the Judeo-Christian god has to fit an impossible bill, but I don't say so because he couldn't have created the universe. In fact, he could have, if he always existed rather than the universe always having been so.

You don't know that the universe is infinite, because you can't know the universe is infinite, because you can't know that an everpresent God didn't build it himself. Perhaps God exists only in the dimension of Time, and got bored with just the one, and later created spatial ones, and filled it with stuff what we call the universe today.

If the universe doesn't have to be created, then God doesn't have to be created.


If you could just get past your ridiculous, insipid, self-importance and recognize that the world is not created by your perceptions, and therefore does not bend to the whim as you want to see it. You are awarded the illusion of consciousness by the myriad of synaptic events manifest in intellectualizing, which can fail, given the poor reliability of those synapses. You really need to give yourself a once over. Not soul-searching, I'm suggesting you learn just a hint about neurophysics.

I say this with utmost sincerity, because you appear not to be joking, and have instead gone off the deep end with these self important and subsequently narrow and simultaneously unsubstantiated proofs.

Put simply, get over yourself. You're only smarter than most people. Not the whole universe.

Additionally, you routinely show such staunch failure to cooperate in exposing yourself to the ins and outs of a system that whatever internal consistency -- I know how much you love that -- you've developed, which you've unwittingly deluded yourself into believing stands parallel to the truth, and have attempted to circumvent the truth of universe with, will continue to put you at the risk of being blindsided with falsehood and utter failure to efficiently communicate.

As a matter of fact, I'd bet that the social resistance you deliberately bring upon yourself is what pushed you to conjure the notion that you could outsmart the cosmos, but unfortunately for you and your books, you will die, they will burn, and it will be the cosmos who did it to you both, unmoved by your efforts to understand its wrath.

 

[Nocapszy]

we don't know the universe is infinite, or even if this is the only "universe"

Er... if this isn't the only one, then whatever contains this, and the other one would be called the universe.

The definition of universe is defined at a subject, not a specific object. Whatever object matches that template stakes claim on the word, so frankly, yes we do know that this is the only universe.

On the other hand, it is a rather useless term, because we don't know all the implications of its use. So in some odd way you're right.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

LOL! OMG! I MAY AS WELL POST IN ALL CAPS AND END EVERY SENTENCE WITH EXCLAMATION MARKS BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE NOT GOING TO NOTICE! I KNOW BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT READING MY POSTS!

Dude... I know what manipulation means. Do you know what math involves? Obviously not. You've fooled yourself. An INTP ought to be willing to alter his course once he's been shown evidence contrary of his findings.

But I suppose I was right in the first place... you haven't been reading my posts, ergo you missed the evidence.

Next time, do what I do. Check the definitions of your own shit and make sure you didn't fuck up, and check your opponents sources.

Stop quoting definitions to me. I assure you, I'm thoroughly versed in vocabulary.



It's NOT manipulation. You're manipulating squiggles on a page, not values or quantities.

Jennifer said it right -- "a rose by any other name..."

We call it something different, doesn't mean that it is different. You said it yourself in all those Feelers-are-idiots threads you preened yourself with.



I agree that the Judeo-Christian god has to fit an impossible bill, but I don't say so because he couldn't have created the universe. In fact, he could have, if he always existed rather than the universe always having been so.

You don't know that the universe is infinite, because you can't know the universe is infinite, because you can't know that an everpresent God didn't build it himself. Perhaps God exists only in the dimension of Time, and got bored with just the one, and later created spatial ones, and filled it with stuff what we call the universe today.

If the universe doesn't have to be created, then God doesn't have to be created.


If you could just get past your ridiculous, insipid, self-importance and recognize that the world is not created by your perceptions, and therefore does not bend to the whim as you want to see it. You are awarded the illusion of consciousness by the myriad of synaptic events manifest in intellectualizing, which can fail, given the poor reliability of those synapses. You really need to give yourself a once over. Not soul-searching, I'm suggesting you learn just a hint about neurophysics.

I say this with utmost sincerity, because you appear not to be joking, and have instead gone off the deep end with these self important and subsequently narrow and simultaneously unsubstantiated proofs.

Put simply, get over yourself. You're only smarter than most people. Not the whole universe.

Additionally, you routinely show such staunch failure to cooperate in exposing yourself to the ins and outs of a system that whatever internal consistency -- I know how much you love that -- you've developed, which you've unwittingly deluded yourself into believing stands parallel to the truth, and have attempted to circumvent the truth of universe with, will continue to put you at the risk of being blindsided with falsehood and utter failure to efficiently communicate.

As a matter of fact, I'd bet that the social resistance you deliberately bring upon yourself is what pushed you to conjure the notion that you could outsmart the cosmos, but unfortunately for you and your books, you will die, they will burn, and it will be the cosmos who did it to you both, unmoved by your efforts to understand its wrath.

My dear friend!

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

Er... if this isn't the only one, then whatever contains this, and the other one would be called the universe.

The definition of universe is defined at a subject, not a specific object. Whatever object matches that template stakes claim on the word, so frankly, yes we do know that this is the only universe.

On the other hand, it is a rather useless term, because we don't know all the implications of its use. So in some odd way you're right.

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.

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