God is Impossible

We refer you back to your post number 274, page 14, on this thread.
oh yes you did.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What are you trying to say, that anything written with an expectation to be understood thus pretends to be an asbsolute truth, except for an evident disclaimer?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My assertion was that of a belief as opposed to a fact in terms of proof, the very point being the impossiblity of truth without proof, by definition.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

sauna; if you cant see your obvious error, there is no point in anybody pointing it out to you.
be happy in your ignorance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sauna, I reviewed the posts and swivel's criticism of your comments seems accurate to me.

 

Hmmm. Are you guys saying I should give up?

 

Or she should.

 

Since this thread is already derailed, I wanted to return to One Raven's hypothetical now that I have thought about it for a few days. My conclusion: Time exists inside of the box.

It ends up being related to one of my initial problems with the example: gravity. Even if gravity waves do not exist, and the graviton is a figment, there is still a universe outside of the box that has a distribution of mass which is constantly shifting. You have the box in your lap and you start jiggling your foot. Even though there is no matter inside of the box, we could still calculate the change in gravitational potential within the box caused by your jiggling foot. Or the moon's revolutions. Using these changes in potential, we can know that there is different states within the box, even without matter in there to demonstrate these changes in state. Therefore time exists inside of the box.

The only way around this is to put the observer inside of the box so that no information from the outside can be recorded. But that ruins the emptiness of the box, and why not give any hypothetically "massless" observer a "massless" gravity detector? In order to work around this problem, you have to cheat in one way or the other.


Oh... and IceAge... have you figured out a way to disprove my disproof of god yet? Good luck!

 

I want to congratulate you on a very well thought out argument. If I had not myself spent many hours meditating on the subject, I might have been convinced by it, or at the least, shaken by it. As it is, I see a few flaws in your argument, and disagree with your conclusion. Don't get me wrong, your logic is solid. Given that all those premises which you used in your argument are true, then your conclusion does appear to flow naturally. Yet, I disagree with your conclusion. The reason for this is that I believe you have left certain critical terms left undefined, or vaguely defined. Moreover, I find your treatment of infinities lacking, and this is a very important part of your argument.

Therefore, I will explain where I think you went wrong, and hopefully by the end of this post you will understand why I cannot accept your conclusion that what you have presented is truly a disproof of God.

Infinities

I would like to begin this discussion by delving into a deeper understanding of the infinite. You touched upon some treatments of infinites as being larger or smaller than others, but said that this was not relevant to the argument. It seems you are correct, but there are other aspects of the infinite which you did not talk about or even touch on which are vitally important to this discussion.

The aspects to which I refer belong to a division of infinity types. This division is between potential infinities and actual infinities, as talked about by Aristotle.

Potential Infinite

Understanding potential infinites should come easy to anyone who has studied any calculus. It has to do with the limit function. That is, a function may approach a limit infinitely without ever reaching the limit. For example, you might have (and I believe you have used this example) a number approaching zero. Let us say we are moving from 1 to 0 so that for each interval in the approach we divide the current number in half. We start at 1 and move to 0.5. We move from 0.5 to 0.25. We move from 0.25 to 0.125. And so on. The thing about this progression into smaller quantities toward zero is that the function is infinite. No matter how small the number gets, it will never be equal to zero. This is a potential infinite. While the existing sequence may progress toward zero infinitely, it only does this potentially. It is an incomplete set, ever moving toward an unreachable limit. I hope this is clear, but it may not be fully clear until it is contrasted with the meaning of an actual infinite.

Actual Infinite

An actual infinite, unlike the potential infinite, is a complete set. If we are to take the same example, an actual infinite encompasses the full infinite set of divided numbers between 1 and 0. Moreover, it includes 1 and 0 in the set, otherwise it could be said that the infinite sequence of decimals stretches toward zero without actually reaching it, which is no different than the potential infinite. Moreover, if that is the case, then there will always be one number closer to zero than the current. The thing about actual infinities is that they cannot be made, they can only exist if they have always existed. That is, no potential infinite can ever become an actual infinite. Likewise, an actual infinite can never be reduced to a potential infinite.

Actual infinites are more difficult to grasp than potential infinites, and I'm sure my meager example hasn't done it justice. If it hasn't sunk in, try to think of this: there can be an infinite number of progressive divisions between 1 and 0. To begin the set, we start with 1. Next we divide and get 0.5. Our set is now {1, 0.5}. We divide again and get 0.25. Our set is now {1, 0.5, 0.25}. The set may grow to an infinite size. If the set does not include zero, then it is a limited set (ie, there is a limit it progresses toward but never reaches). If the set includes 0, then the set also contains the infinite series of decimal places. It might look something like this {1, 0.5, 0.25, ... ad infinitum, 0}. It is difficult to grasp, but that is because everything we know of is limited, and only potentially infinite.

Concepts may be actually infinite, except that we can only speak of them in conceptual terms. The number line, for example. It is not an actually existing thing, but a concept, a principle which we may draw upon and make use of in limited fashion to illustrate the working mechanisms of the world about us, but it is a complete set, that is also infinite. It is an actual infinite.

This important things to note about these two infinity types is that one is an aspect of the finite, it progresses, it is incomplete, it is sequenced. The other is truly infinite, it does not progress, but simply is at once, it is complete, it is not sequenced, but simultaneous (though, since it does have internal order and consistency, it can be spoken of in terms of sequence, but only when speaking of a segment of it, rather than the whole). Grasp this, if you need to reread again, grasp this. You may do some exploration online for these concepts if you need a better explanation, just google search the terms. However, let us continue.

Terms

There are a couple of terms which I think you didn't have well defined, that deserve a better understanding. Plus, I would also like to alter your definition of time ever so slightly.

The first is Thought. One of the attributes of God is that He is a thinking being. Of course, this is important since in order to willfully create a universe, He would have had to think about it first. So, let us attempt to understand thought a little better. Thought processes, though having many divisions, can be talked about in two types, as primarily divided between the two hemispheres of the brain. These two types are logic and intuition. The difference between these two types can be broken down ultimately as sequenced thought as opposed to holistic thought. Both types consider the known premises, and produce a conclusion, except that intuition does this process near simultaneously, and is therefore much faster than logic. Logic considers each known premise in progressive sequence before computing a conclusion. The advantage of logic over intuition is that logic is more precise and more likely to produce a more accurate conclusion. However, it is understandably much slower. It takes more time.

The second term I would like to talk about is Eternal. Speaking in terms of historical theology (rather than common use), there has always been a distinction between temporality and eternality. Temporality is whatever is relegated to time. Eternality, therefore, is whatever is not relegated to time. How can we understand this? Since we know that time is an aspect of change (or at least comes part and parcel with change), then we can understand that whatever is not relegated to time is therefore unchanging, and is either non-existent or existing as a single point, where no other points of reference exist. Whatever is eternal, then, is either non-existent, or exists as a single point, where no other points of reference exist. Since eternality is applied to existing things, let us say that the eternal is that which exists at a single point, where no other points of reference exist. Before I apply this to God, there are other things which need to be talked about.

Finally, I would like to alter your definition of time to, "a measure of the change in state of a progressive system."

So, how does all of this provide a different conclusion than that God cannot exist? Let's get to that.

Historical theology asserts that the primary nature of God is intelligence, that He is a thinking being. His Free Will necessarily proceeds from His Intelligence, just as our free will proceeds from our intelligence (as opposed to non-free will proceeding from non-intelligence). It is therefore pertinent to consider whether God's thought-form is a logical proceeding, or an intuitive understanding. Since most descriptions of God talk about a complete, holistic being (ie, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc), it seems coherent to say that God's thought-type is an intuitive understanding. However, though this might be said to be true, it may also be said that His thoughts are entirely coherent and segments of that thought can be broken down into logical proceeding.

With this in mind, we can now discuss the meaning of God's existence with respect to time, and the universe. The main disproof you offer is that God could not have existed an infinite amount of time prior to creation else He could not have created. The reason has to do with the meaning of the creation as a limit which an infinite progression can never reach. This makes sense when we think about the infinite progression as just that, a progression. This is a quality, you remember, of a potential infinite. This suggests that the temporal sequence is an incomplete set. This is perfectly valid, since a temporal sequence is by default incomplete, as being a sequence and progression of moments, as being a potential infinite.

So, if we are to assume that God created the universe, and that God never had a beginning, then we must conclude that God is not temporal, but eternal (in the sense that I defined). This makes sense, since one of the qualities of God as defined in your disproof is that God is eternal. This suggests that God exists at a single point, with no other points of reference. This seems to confuse things further, so let's try to put some sense into this.

Temporality implies change, as has been said, and eternality therefore implies immutability. There exists only two possibilities when we're talking about the unchanging. These are: 1.) A non-existing thing (for all existing things undergo constant and unfailing change), or 2.) an infinitely fast thing. Since 1.) clearly doesn't say alot, 2. seems more correct if we're talking about an existing immutable thing.

So what do I mean by an infinitely fast thing? Here I am referring to motion, which in Aristotle's discussions is the initiator of change (hence his argument for an unmoved mover). Change is the movement from potentiality to actuality. Thus, when we're talking about infinite change, we're talking about infinite progressions from potentialities to actualities. Yet, change is change, and time is a measurement of change. So, even if we're talking about infinite change, we're still talking about a progressive sequence, a potential infinite. So, if we're talking about an infinitely fast thing, do we understand it in terms of a potential infinite of infinite change, an extremely fast progressive sequence? Or, can we understand it in terms of actual infinity?

We know an actual infinite is a complete set. If we're going to talk about infinite speed in such terms, then we can speak about it as a simultaneous, immediate event. So, if we're attempting to reduce the, say, processing time of a computer to 0, we could progressively make it slower and slower infinitely, but there would always be time-elapse, it would never take t=0 to process something, no matter how fast the processing speed. However, an actual infinite is a complete set, and as such includes the limit in the set. It is literally a simultaneous event. If a being is actually infinite in speed, then it would literally traverse all time instantaneously. It would undergo all change at once, and thus be perfectly and completely actualized (since change is the move from potentiality to actuality) and this makes sense since God is said to be pure Act (actuality), and in fact, this was Aristotle's conception of God, that He is pure actuality. Such a being, infinitely fast, is also immutable.

An actually infinite being is immutable, it extends across all points of space, and all points of time, immediately, thus 'omnipresent' (present in every place, present in every time). An actually infinite being performs all its thoughts and all its actions simultaneously, thus being omniscient and omnipotent (omnipotent also because such a being is also fully and perfectly actualized, and being fully actualized can actualize any potential, which is what a power is, the capacity to actualize a potential).

Thus, we can say that such a being could have existed an infinitely prior to creation, and infinitely after creation, without change. Moreover, that such a being could interact with all created things, but in a simultaneous way, across all time, and across all space, at once, both initially and reactionary, since such reaction is nothing more than part of the full actualization that is part of the simultaneous nature of an actual infinite.

The problem of your argument doesn't lie in your logic. Your logic is fine. It is merely that you were missing premises. The premises you were missing concerned the nature of infinities. I am aware that I may not be the most clear in this post. I try, but it is always so difficult to talk about the infinite.

I hope, however, that you understand that your disproof is actually not a disproof, as there lies in the realm of possibility an explanation for those issues you raised.





As a side note, Aristotle also conceived a 'pure potentiality' which he called primordial matter. Interestingly enough, it might be conceived that pure potentiality is also unmoving and unchanging unto itself. So, while it is non-existent, it is a possible actuality. Energy seems to be an actualizing force, and energy moves faster than matter. This seems to correlate with the idea that primordial matter is completely unmoving, and pure actuality is infinitely fast..... perhaps primordial matter isn't unmoving, but rather infinitely slow... a thought.

 

How is this possibly relevant?

The infinity in question, that since the beginning of time and toward the end of time is clearly enough the potential infinity, not the actual infinity.

 

Precisely.

Whatever infinity is temporal, relegated to time, toward its beginning and end, is clearly the potential infinity. Swivel's argument mainly concerned before the universe. You say, "beginning of time," and this is understood as pertaining to creation. Before the creation then was not time, but eternity, an 'at-once-ment,' I suppose you could call it. That is the relevance.

 

So, in short, your argument is therefore that God created time.

What then did she do before that?

 

Yes, since time is merely a measurement of change, and before the creation, there was no change.

Contemplated Himself.

 

What a lot of fun that must have been then, to contemplate that which never changed.

Is that what heaven is like?

 

Did you even read my post? Everything is at once for the actually infinite being. Contemplation of Himself is simultaneous with His creation, with His union with created things, etc. Moreover, it isn't the contemplation of that which never changed, it is the contemplation of that whose infinite change is simultaneous, infinitely fast.

 

This only works assuming that a BBT took place, however since I follow the school of BBT never happened, time is infinite to the past, as it will be to the future of the universe. The big bang theory is not a proven theory, and it's breaking apart at the seems. Time therefore never had a begining, it just has always been, our galaxy perhaps had a begining, our sun formed in some time, but the universe is lot older than predicted by BBT theoriest!.

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19025493.200-study-proves-big-bang-never-happened.html

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=knb8hx39

God can't posses free will, for this would contradict omniscient, an all knowing being can't change his mind the minute he does this, would contradict omniscient atribute.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/god_has_no_free_will.html

This is just simple logic, if a being is all knowing it can't posses free will, for what it knows will happen, must happen, and he knows that it will happen, there's nothing he can do to change what happens. This makes this entity non-omnipotent, cause he can't change an event, and makes him contradict omniscient to free will. For free will is a choice to make, if one knows the choice to be made, there is no free will!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't hold to BBT either. I don't know how the universe was created. Positing that God created the universe doesn't mean that one holds to the BBT. Centuries of people who believed in God as Creator lived before the BBT was even conceived.

I merely hold to Aristotle's unmoved mover argument, since it makes most sense in my estimation. It makes more sense than an infinitely old, finite universe.

I'm not talking about precognition, which is what you're talking about. God's knowledge isn't precognitive, it's experiential. It arises from personal experience, as all knowledge does. It arises from His nature of simultaneity. The past, present and future all exist at once, as a single point of the eternal present. So, God's knowledge of the future exists now because God is experiencing the future now. It isn't precognition. Thus, it isn't like saying "God knows this, so He can't change it." It's more like, "God knows this because it's what He experienced. God knows He will (from our perspective) choose it because He is choosing it (from His perspective)." Thus, His Free Will remains intact.

Moreover, simple logic dictates that God must have free will if He has intellect, for free will proceeds from intellect. If God didn't have free will, then we could say definitively that God does not have intellect. As such, God would be nothing more than a natural force, but also as such, would not produce reason, but unreason, as an unreasoning being only produces unreason. Reason comes from reason. Reason does not come from unreason.

 

infinity

Whos to say that an infinite amount of time existed before creation? "God is eternal" only means that god will exist for an infinite amount of time from the present, not before.

 

Any universe capable of creating a god is also capable of existing without one. The question of a god "coming into existence" implies that something must have created it. If not, it was always here. If possible for a god to always be present then it is certainly possible for a universe or universes to always be present.

The who created the god question gives rise to an infinite chain of creator-gods. We should be bumping into them everywhere we go.

Instead, the superstitious and credulous stick to their "I can conceive of it, therefore it must be true" and "how can there be a universe without a god" mumbo jumbo and therefore make up whatever qualities this alleged god should have and call them "facts."

Complete and utter nonsense. And an argument from incredulity to boot.

 

however what you don't get with mere eternal material elements bereft of consicousness is variety

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And your evidence for
(a) that there is anything other than material elements is.... ?
(b) that "mere material elements bereft of consciousness" can not produce variety is.... ?

Stop spouting and support your claims.