God is Impossible

Okay - this is the point I missed - that there must be an infinite number of states prior to the creation event - and thus the creation event could never be reached.
Okay - I understand.
Thanks for the explaining.
I shall go and have a mull.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Scared of God's existence? Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm not scared of his existence, I just happen to know that he doesn't exist. I'm not terribly moved by this fact.

If I had my druthers, I would wish that a higher deity DID exist. I would want that deity to make sure that life was fair. I would want something that I could talk to when I was alone, and get answers. Especially on the inner-workings of its creation. I would LOVE to know that all my cherished friends, that are now deceased, are still in existence and happy as ever. It is hard for me to fathom existing for eternity, but I would love to live longer than 78 years, so it would be nice for a god to exist for that reason as well.

These things would make me happy if they were true, but they aren't. And observational evidence positively screams that I am right, and you are wrong. Even though the emotional pull is great in both of us. The difference is that I am more concerned with knowing the truth, and reality, and you are more focused on being deluded.

If your delusion had no ill-consequences, I wouldn't mind so much. I might even join you. But your ilk are fanatical to the point of immorality. I have yet to see a religion that does not cause harm. So I have decided to embrace reality, find my joy and awe with discovering hidden truths, and keep myself blissfully happy enjoying what little time I have been allotted.

So you see, I am not scared of god's existence, I would love the big guy to show himself. It is you, and your kind, that are scared to death of god's NON-existence. You don't have the intellect to buttress you if your fantasy is pulled away. And to be honest, I think most of you are lying. I think very few people actually, honestly, truly believe that there is a god. You are just playing along because you believe in the rightness of believing in god. I'll believe you guys are sincere when more of you start smiling at funerals.



Sarkus, I couldn't tell from your last post if you were serious or poking fun.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Blame it on me not knowing what a "mull" is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To mull something over is to contemplate and examine it mentally.
You gave him something to think about.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Was being serious.
You'll know when I'm poking fun.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This posting already relates to that:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1226614#post1226614

If God may access the Universe by way of our own perception, there is no need then for an onmniscience of her own; she is onmniscient by proxy.

It may rather make sense to suppose that a blind God created us in order to see, vicariously.

 

Just a simple question… …for time to be infinite in the negative direction don’t you only have to say that for every instant there must have been a previous instant? This would not seem to require anything or anyone to “do” any infinite tasks. But I don't know!

 

The trouble is that it is not fair for infinity to go in one direction only. For every previous instant there would have been a following instant, which means that to be infinite there would always be another instant to follow.
It is not therefore possible to envisage an infinite period before something happens, because it would never actually get around to happening.

Ignore the red herring. An infinite number of creations is a casual conjecture on the understanding that God would have been fed up with waiting for the infinite period to expire, so would have found something to get on with in the mean time.

 

As I've pointed out before, you are making the mistake of counting backwards. It takes the present as a given, and assumes that all previous states will be traveled through.

Read my previous posts and tell me how you ever envisage god taking a leak.

 

Seti,

I guess, but the limitation with such ideas is that they all try to relate to now.

Instead we should think of infinite time as a line with no end points. Direction then becomes irrelevant.

 

Well-said. I've always had a problem with helping people not make the mistake of counting from the "Now" backwards. I never thought about the fact that if you take the "Now" out, then the direction becomes irrelevant. I've always just shown that counting forward from the "Now" leads to problems that can be applied to the past.

I'm going to go have a mull, as a wise man once said.

 

Now who's poking fun!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm surprised that this thread has had so few active posters. I was expecting a ton of theists to launch down my throat with the standard attempts to refute my logical disproof of god.

Perhaps this thread stayed on-topic for too many pages, throwing most of our members off.

 

inadequacy

They to faith because they were already well enough aware of the inadequacy of logic.

I am here because of the misfortune of being too well aware of the indadequacy of both, faith and logic.

 

Are they both equally inadequate in your view, or does one do a better job of discovering truth than the other?

 

Which truth?

Yours?

Mine?

His?

 

Objective truth exists. The question should be, whose personal sense of truth is closest to the objective truth, Yours, Mine, or His?

So I'm asking, does religion or science more closely approximate the objective truth? For instance, regarding the structure of our solar system. Or whether floods covered the entire Earth, or were local. Was it all created in 6 days? Was Mary a Virgin? Were women created from a man's rib? Does evolution occur by natural selection? These all have answers, and both sides have made stabs. Who is doing a better job at more closely aligning their own truth with the objective one?

 

The question is absurd because the very notion of objective truth is a belief, not a fact in terms of proof, and a remarkably absurd one when examined logically, it being impossible to suppose the knowledge of an absolute, eternally universal object without an appropriately omniscient being to know it, ergo a God.

Which objective one?

Mine?

Yours?

His?

To judge from the small selection of rotten cherries you pick to feed me with, yours is anything but objective.

 

pi is impossible.

god is 3 in 1
3 in 1 is 3.1
3+1 is 4

god = 3.14

 

You say that the notion of an objective truth is a belief <--- this is stated as an objective truth.

I assert that the Earth moves around the sun while both go around the center of our galaxy. Your claim would be that this is a bit of "faith" on my part? Then you and I disagree. Part of our disagreement is that I KNOW that there is objective truth, and that science more closely approximates it. You BELIEVE that there is no objective truth and hold that with FAITH. Since my system uses logic, and your system uses faith, you do not get to rationally assert with logic that my beliefs are faith.

You can believe that all day long, if you want. But that hypocritical trick of philosophy will never work with me. It isn't even internally consistent.

I would love to discuss this from the ground up. If you would as well, start a thread.

 

Where?

How?

Why?

Because you say so?

I say it does not exist, so what then?

Objective truth is an abstract concept, the same as God, an alternative version of the same for as far as I am concerned, every bit as impossible to prove and to deal with.

If you think you know how to deal with the objective truth tell us how to solve the divided infinity problem outlined above.

Can't can you?

Thought not.

Why?

Because you think I am God, omniscient enough to speak for infinity?

Because you think I've an answer to give, better than you'd give for yourself?

I do not think so.

I smell mischief.

And there's the rub, answers, plural not answer, single.

Thanks for confirming so.

I am simply not going to take a side on that sort of sport because of the inevitability of the result, or the lack of it, the perpetual stalemate.

There is a value to scientific proof and a value to the allegory and no hard and fast divison between the two, for science is an allegory all of its own, a story still in progress while life itself is an allegory, science, poetry and all, and in that I find my truth.