If You're a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong (1 Viewer)

[MoonlightSonata]

Why can't the universe be infinite?

Infinite regression of time.

And this is a problem how? I don't understand how you have a problem with the universe being infinite but not God being infinite.

Your argument begs the question. You say that everything except God has a cause. You rely on that premise in support of your conclusion ("there is a God"). Circular reasoning.

That's not a premise - that's god's attribute. The premises are: "something" exists, and "something can't come from nothing". If I'm trying to prove that 'meat' exists to you, first we have to agree on the attributes of 'meat' - right? I can't prove something to you with abstract attributes; this is exactly the case here. An attribute of god is that it is 'infinite'. If you disagree with this then that is another topic.

I believe you're quite mistaken there - I submit that it is a premise, just a suppressed one. The problem with your meat analogy is that we can prove what the attributes of meat are, so using the premise "meat has the attribute of being taken from animals" is not a problem. But when you try and use the premise "God has the attribute of being a creator" then you're relying on the fact that God exists in your premises.

Which begs the question, do you disagree that god's attribute is infinite?

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that there is a God?

In theory, if you're going to claim that God is infinite, I see no reason why the universe can't be infinite (see my first point above).

In relation to your comments, I would point out that when we talk about the universe we talk of everything that exists. Everything. If God exists, then God is part of the Universe. Why does the first cause have to be a supreme being? Why can't it be a natural cause?

I don't include god under the 'universe' because everything in the universe should be observable and nothing can be 'infinite' within a 'finite' universe, therefore god has to exist outside the folds of the 'universe', which is a collection of everything that we can observe.

Well by "universe" I mean everything that exists. If you want to divide the universe up into "observable" and "unobservable", that's fine by me. But when I say universe I mean everything.

The whole first cause argument is a classic God of the gaps. Saying that "God caused it" does not explain anything at all. As I said, you can substitute "God" for "all-powerful pink elephant" -- it is replacing one unknown (how the universe is what it is) with another unknown (some sort of deity). (Since you speak of logic, I assume you’re doing first year philosophy right? Are you aware of Occam’s razor? You’re increasing assumptions unnecessarily.)

I don't take philosophy courses because I think they are rather useless.

Well that's a shame. I've found philosophy to be very helpful in enhancing critical thinking. But in terms of concrete, observable employment qualifications I understand what you mean.

And yes sure you can substitute god for 'invisible elephant' but like I've said it's the attributes that matter, not the label. The (primary) attribute of god is 'eternal being' - what you use to refer to said attribute is entirely up to you. Historically it's been 'god', if you want to use 'pink elephant', that's fine.

I didn't just propose a new label. I proposed an invisible flying pink elephant. The point is that you replace something unknown with something further unknown.

And I'm not replacing any unknown variables with 'god'; I'm saying something (i.e. finite) cannot logically come from nothing therefore god, a being that is eternal, necessarily exists (extremely condensed argument).

Yes I understand but you are still replacing the unknown with the unknown. As to the first cause argument, see above/below.

-----

People believe in god's attributes, not in an old bearded man - most people anyway. If god's attribute is 'to create' then the creation is an evidence of said attribute.

Begging the question.

1. It is an attribute of God that he is a creator.
2. Created matter is all around.
3. Therefore God exists.

Premise 1 assumes premise 3.

With respect, those counters show little understanding of the arguments put forth. Also, what's your counter to Spinoza's argument?

I addressed your criticism of my response to the argument, above.

Spinoza's argument is far more credible but you do realise that it proposes that God has no free will?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Which begs the question, do you disagree that god's attribute is infinite?

Incorrect use of 'begs the question'.

Spinoza's argument is far more credible but you do realise that it proposes that God has no free will?

Not only that... it is that 'God' is the natural world. I honestly don't see how this conflicts with the logic of most atheists/agnostics, however it does conflict with the logic of most theists.

 

[loquasagacious]

Sepulchres be warned that Moonlight will still be beating you more than 100 pages down the track.

 

[Sepulchres]

Okay, last reply before I sleep. Promise.

And this is a problem how? I don't understand how you have a problem with the universe being infinite but not God being infinite.

Infinite regression of time means that there is no flow of time and we are time-bound creatures (although Godel argued that time is an illusion, I don't agree with him). Also, a tangible object has to have a start because it is 'something' and it is finite. I don't think 'god' is ‘made’ of ‘matter’ we can conceive, but that does not mean we can’t verify its existence. Basically, the ‘god’ being infinite has no logical contradiction as long as it is outside the bounds of the universe (I’m using my definition here). However, the universe being infinite does because it’s observable and as such, the concept of eternity is at direct conflict with what is observed.

I believe you're quite mistaken there - I submit that it is a premise, just a suppressed one. The problem with your meat analogy is that we can prove what the attributes of meat are, so using the premise "meat has the attribute of being taken from animals" is not a problem. But when you try and use the premise "God has the attribute of being a creator" then you're relying on the fact that God exists in your premises.

It is not a suppressed premise. The argument is not assuming god necessarily exists in its premise. Also, I think you have the attributes mixed up – god as a creator was only to counter your ‘where is your evidence of god?’ argument; god’s attribute as a creator is secondary (I don’t think it’s even mentioned) in the first cause argument – it’s attribute of infinite and eternal existence is the primary attributes and what the first cause is trying to prove. Therefore the premises are: ‘something exists’, and ‘something can’t come from nothing’, and it’s proving that ‘there exists an entity which is infinite and eternal from which must emanate all finite’.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that there is a God?

I’m not saying you have to say god exists, I’m saying *if* god existed do you believe it would be infinite and eternal or the contrary?

Well by "universe" I mean everything that exists. If you want to divide the universe up into "observable" and "unobservable", that's fine by me. But when I say universe I mean everything.

Okay, I’ll use my definition because I think it’s more concise and saves typing time since I don’t have to type “unobservable universe’ each time.

Well that's a shame. I've found philosophy to be very helpful in enhancing critical thinking. But in terms of concrete, observable employment qualifications I understand what you mean.

Well, I don’t think you need to take philosophy courses to enhance critical thinking ability. All you need is a solid understanding of inductive and deductive thinking and you should be set. =)

I didn't just propose a new label. I proposed an invisible flying pink elephant. The point is that you replace something unknown with something further unknown.

1. What are the attributes of said invisible flying pink elephant?
2. One does not need to know object X in its entirety to verify its existence.

Begging the question.

1. It is an attribute of God that he is a creator.
2. Created matter is all around.
3. Therefore God exists.

Premise 1 assumes premise 3.

Again, that was only to counter your “there is no evidence for god” argument because I was trying to show that the ‘evidence’ of god depends on the attributes you prescribe to god. I do not subscribe to the above as an argument for the existence for god because it’s sorely lacking.

Spinoza's argument is far more credible but you do realise that it proposes that God has no free will?

Sort of; care to explain? Free will is a farce anyway.

Sepulchres be warned that Moonlight will still be beating you more than 100 pages down the track.

Is fellatio your profession or just a hobby?

 

[Sepulchres]

How is it necessarily a part of god?

if: E is the collection of all possible numbers

and if: N is the collection of natural numbers

then: N is necessarily a part of E.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

if: E is the collection of all possible numbers

and if: N is the collection of natural numbers

then: N is necessarily a part of E.

Explain that again? You seem to be making the assumption that God = Collection of all numbers, so if there is a number, it is a part of god?

It seems like circular reasoning, you are assuming that God = Everything not in the universe, so if it's not in the universe, then it's a part of God. But what I am saying is why is god the only thing that can exist outside the universe?

Personally I feel that when we start to consider things such as beings that are not a part of our 'universe' we run into alot of problems. For example, I could say that you are mearly a brain lying in some university lab, being fed data to believe that you exist, and it is impossible for you to prove it wrong. That is why I choose to draw the line somewhere around there.

 

[Armani]

There are lots of dimensions people! Aliens are everywhere! They are watching us! *cue eerie X-Files music

 

[zahid]

Explain that again? You seem to be making the assumption that God = Collection of all numbers, so if there is a number, it is a part of god?

It seems like circular reasoning, you are assuming that God = Everything not in the universe, so if it's not in the universe, then it's a part of God. But what I am saying is why is god the only thing that can exist outside the universe?

Personally I feel that when we start to consider things such as beings that are not a part of our 'universe' we run into alot of problems. For example, I could say that you are mearly a brain lying in some university lab, being fed data to believe that you exist, and it is impossible for you to prove it wrong. That is why I choose to draw the line somewhere around there.

ok...sep offered a mathematical understanding...let me go further a physics one:

Albert Einstein’s equation states that Energy = Mass x C2. The law of physics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Which means the energy that created the universe cannot have a beginning nor an end. Also, there must be something that existed before the universe and that will continue to exist after the universe. That is the definition of God.
By applying Albert Einstein’s formula, the universe must have a creator because the universe has mass (M). God does not need a creator because God does not have mass (M).
Thus when people ask the question, “If God created mankind, who created God?”, they mistakenly imagine God as having a form or mass. Only mass needs a creator, not energy.
The creator of mass is of course, energy. The theory of God’s existence is in line with mathematical theory.

We first assume the following axiom:
Axiom 1: It is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel defines a positive property rather vaguely: “Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)… It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation).” (Gödel 1995)
We then assume that the following three conditions hold for all positive properties (which can be summarized by saying “the positive properties form an ultrafilter”):
Axiom 2: If P is positive and P entails Q, then Q is positive.
Axiom 3: If P1, P2, P3, …, Pn are positive properties, then the property (P1 AND P2 AND P3 … AND Pn) is positive as well.
Axiom 4: If P is a property, then either P or its negation is positive, but not both.
Finally, we assume:
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property (Pos(NE)). This mirrors the key assumption in Anselm’s argument.
Now we define a new property G: if x is an object in some possible world, then G(x) is true if and only if P(x) is true in that same world for all positive properties P. G is called the “God-like” property. An object x that has the God-like property is called God.

 

[Sepulchres]

Explain that again? You seem to be making the assumption that God = Collection of all numbers, so if there is a number, it is a part of god?

It seems like circular reasoning, you are assuming that God = Everything not in the universe, so if it's not in the universe, then it's a part of God. But what I am saying is why is god the only thing that can exist outside the universe?

Lol, no. I'm using an example to show that when you're 'infinite' in a certain something (in this case, set of all numbers), then everything within that certain-something is a part of you. It's an analogy.

Think of it like this: assuming that since god exists and is eternal/infinite, there is also other substance that exists which is eternal/infinite ("If 'god' can be eternal, than certainly other substances also can."); but this is absurd, because how can there be two infinities of the same kind? If that was true that would imply that neither are infinite/eternal.

Personally I feel that when we start to consider things such as beings that are not a part of our 'universe' we run into alot of problems. For example, I could say that you are mearly a brain lying in some university lab, being fed data to believe that you exist, and it is impossible for you to prove it wrong. That is why I choose to draw the line somewhere around there.

Unless you consider the fact that a being outside of the universe is necessary. Your example is not a necessity whereas the arguments for god show that it is a necessity (before you counter, realise that this is what the topic is about so there's no point in saying 'but god is not necessary!'.).

 

[Not-That-Bright]

ok...sep offered a mathematical understanding...let me go further a physics one:

Albert Einstein’s equation states that Energy = Mass x C2. The law of physics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Which means the energy that created the universe cannot have a beginning nor an end. Also, there must be something that existed before the universe and that will continue to exist after the universe. That is the definition of God.
By applying Albert Einstein’s formula, the universe must have a creator because the universe has mass (M). God does not need a creator because God does not have mass (M).
Thus when people ask the question, “If God created mankind, who created God?”, they mistakenly imagine God as having a form or mass. Only mass needs a creator, not energy.
The creator of mass is of course, energy. The theory of God’s existence is in line with mathematical theory.

We first assume the following axiom:
Axiom 1: It is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Gödel defines a positive property rather vaguely: “Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)… It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation).” (Gödel 1995)
We then assume that the following three conditions hold for all positive properties (which can be summarized by saying “the positive properties form an ultrafilter”):
Axiom 2: If P is positive and P entails Q, then Q is positive.
Axiom 3: If P1, P2, P3, …, Pn are positive properties, then the property (P1 AND P2 AND P3 … AND Pn) is positive as well.
Axiom 4: If P is a property, then either P or its negation is positive, but not both.
Finally, we assume:
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property (Pos(NE)). This mirrors the key assumption in Anselm’s argument.
Now we define a new property G: if x is an object in some possible world, then G(x) is true if and only if P(x) is true in that same world for all positive properties P. G is called the “God-like” property. An object x that has the God-like property is called God.

Albert Einstein’s equation states that Energy = Mass x C2. The law of physics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Which means the energy that created the universe cannot have a beginning nor an end. Also, there must be something that existed before the universe and that will continue to exist after the universe. That is the definition of God.

Oh I see, but this 'energy' can very likely just be nothing but energy, with no conscious, just a mass of energy?

Unless you consider the fact that a being outside of the universe is necessary.

You are calling it a being, why is it not merely energy with no mind/conscious ?

 

[zahid]

energy cannot be created nor destroyed...hmm, the fact that we are here seems rationally absurd....

But we are...why?? care to explain...i believe its beyond our comprehension.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

But we are...why?? care to explain...i believe its beyond our comprehension.

There is no answer to why. We are here, and we enjoy the reality we exist in, even tho it means nothing.

 

[SashatheMan]

wow brain overload.

on a lighter issue

has anyone seen the documentary

What the bleep do we know
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B0006UEVQ8.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

its one of the best docus ive ever seen and it talks alot about the issues discussed today.

msg me if u wanna see it

 

[Not-That-Bright]

wow brain overload.

on a lighter issue

has anyone seen the documentary

What the bleep do we know
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B0006UEVQ8.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

its one of the best docus ive ever seen and it talks alot about the issues discussed today.

msg me if u wanna see it

Sasha add my email tzxcrg@empyrean3.net
I'm on msn

 

[gerhard]

doco is kind of lame
it didnt do much for me personally

 

[SashatheMan]

doco is kind of lame
it didnt do much for me personally

this docu tries to prove that god doesnt exist by proving alot of facts. sure it does open more questions that havent been answered, but if your a strong believer in god your prob telling yourself the whole time your watching this docu that , its all bullshit and only what i really believe is real.

 

[Armani]

So your publically stating it's the equivalent of Michael Moore's documentaries?

 

[SashatheMan]

So your publically stating it's the equivalent of Michael Moore's documentaries?

michael moores films are bias to the max. this is not.

it doesnt really focus on god, rather talks about time and the universe , but mentions god

 

[MoonlightSonata]

And this is a problem how? I don't understand how you have a problem with the universe being infinite but not God being infinite.

Infinite regression of time means that there is no flow of time and we are time-bound creatures (although Godel argued that time is an illusion, I don't agree with him).

Also, a tangible object has to have a start because it is 'something' and it is finite. I don't think 'god' is ‘made’ of ‘matter’ we can conceive, but that does not mean we can’t verify its existence. Basically, the ‘god’ being infinite has no logical contradiction as long as it is outside the bounds of the universe (I’m using my definition here). However, the universe being infinite does because it’s observable and as such, the concept of eternity is at direct conflict with what is observed.

You make an exception for God being infinite when the simple fact is that there is no evidence or reason to support this contention. The universe includes everything that exists. If God exists, why should there be some random (highly convenient) exception to the rule that everything that is, had a cause?

I believe you're quite mistaken there - I submit that it is a premise, just a suppressed one. The problem with your meat analogy is that we can prove what the attributes of meat are, so using the premise "meat has the attribute of being taken from animals" is not a problem. But when you try and use the premise "God has the attribute of being a creator" then you're relying on the fact that God exists in your premises.

It is not a suppressed premise. The argument is not assuming god necessarily exists in its premise. Also, I think you have the attributes mixed up – god as a creator was only to counter your ‘where is your evidence of god?’ argument; god’s attribute as a creator is secondary (I don’t think it’s even mentioned) in the first cause argument – it’s attribute of infinite and eternal existence is the primary attributes and what the first cause is trying to prove. Therefore the premises are: ‘something exists’, and ‘something can’t come from nothing’, and it’s proving that ‘there exists an entity which is infinite and eternal from which must emanate all finite’.

Your argument then is this:

1. Something exists.
2. Something cannot come from nothing.
3. There exists an entity (infinite and eternal) which caused everything.

Firstly (and this relates to Zahid's posts about conservation of energy), premise 2 isn't necessarily true. The universe need not have a cause. There are things in the natural world without causes (radioactive decay, particles produced by vacuum fluctuation) --

... quantum electrodynamics reveals that an electron, positron, and photon occasionally emerge spontaneously in a perfect vacuum. When this happens, the three particles exist for a brief time, and then annihilate each other, leaving no trace behind. (Energy conservation is violated, but only for a particle lifetime Dt permitted by the uncertainty DtDE~h where DE is the net energy of the particles and h is Planck's constant.) The spontaneous, temporary emergence of particles from a vacuum is called a vacuum fluctuation, and is utterly commonplace in quantum field theory.

Secondly, there is no reason to suppose that the universe is not infinite. You provide no reason or evidence for this contention. Would you admit that the universe can exist infinitely into the future? If so, then why not the past?

Finally, even if we accept premises 1 and 2, premise 3 does not necessarily follow. What if the cause of the universe was the Big Bang? Why does it have to be an "entity". Even if it is an "entity", it of course does not follow that this "entity" is in anyway a personal one. Even if we completely accept your argument as valid, it in no way demonstrates the existence of a God as the most of the world believes.

Well by "universe" I mean everything that exists. If you want to divide the universe up into "observable" and "unobservable", that's fine by me. But when I say universe I mean everything.

Okay, I’ll use my definition because I think it’s more concise and saves typing time since I don’t have to type “unobservable universe’ each time.

Well for the purposes of your argument I would have to invent some sort of "supercontainer universe" label. I think it is better to use "universe" to mean everything that exists. (Considering the onus is on the theist to show that God does exist, it is only fair we use universe in this entire sense of the word.)

I didn't just propose a new label. I proposed an invisible flying pink elephant. The point is that you replace something unknown with something further unknown.

1. What are the attributes of said invisible flying pink elephant?

That it is flying, that it is invisible and that it is pink.

2. One does not need to know object X in its entirety to verify its existence.

True, but the only properties you ascribe to God is that it is infinite. Since the universe may also be infinite, there is no point in adhering to this God explanation. It is replacing one unknown with another.

This is a convenient summary of my God of the gaps point:

Creationists cannot explain origins at all. Saying "God did it" is not an explanation, because it is not tied to any objective evidence. It does not rule out any possibility or even any impossibility. It does not address questions of "how" and "why," and it raises questions such as "which God?" and "how did God originate?" In the explaining game, cosmologists are far out in front.

[Zahid: In addition to what I posted above:

Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero (Guth 1997, 9-12,271-276; Tryon 1973).

Also, I don't know if you know what you posted but in the final part of your post there it is actually a modal argument similar to the one I posted a while ago in favour of God's existence. The problem is when you start associating certain attributes with God, like necessary existence.]

 

[rink]

u athiests are always on about how god has to have been created and what not.....u need to understand that god is the CREATOR of relative physics, he created time, matter and space......therefore, he cannot be bound by something he created