Expanding universe?

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Dear Master_Ghost_Knight,

I'm not sure what definitions of "infinite" and "personal" you would accept. If infinite doesn't mean without limits, what does infinite possibly mean? If personal doesn't mean possesses a personality, what does personal possibly mean?

Let me clarify. In what aspect is it infinite? It can be infinite in lenght or infinite in area, it can be infinite in speed, what kind of infinite is it, is it infinite like the natural numbers?, like the real numbers? or it just mean impratically big in some aspect or another?

 

[CplFerro]

Dear Master_Ghost_Knight,

I'm not sure what definitions of "infinite" and "personal" you would accept. If infinite doesn't mean without limits, what does infinite possibly mean? If personal doesn't mean possesses a personality, what does personal possibly mean?

Let me clarify. In what aspect is it infinite? It can be infinite in lenght or infinite in area, it can be infinite in speed, what kind of infinite is it, is it infinite like the natural numbers?, like the real numbers? or it just mean impratically big in some aspect or another?

Dear Master_Ghost_Knight,

I'm not talking about imaginary infinities, I'm talking about something that is actually infinite. An imaginary infinity is a mathematical or mental construct, which may be useful for certain thought experiments. But a real infinity would be something that is non-finite, that lacks any boundaries. That is what God in the Christian and other religious traditions is defined as, unbounded, unlimited. If we're not using that adjective to describe God, we're not talking about God as Christianity describes him. So that is what I mean: an infinite thing cannot be infinite in one respect but not in another, for that betrays the idea of infinitude. An unlimited thing is unlimited, not limited, and therefore cannot be personal.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Thomas Doubting]

Why do you limit your definition of God to the Christian one? (if that is what you are doing, it's pretty late here, i might have misunderstood you)
It is among the most ridiculous depictions of a supreme being, the concept of God(s) however is much older than Christianity or Judaism, i am not quite sure why you only picked the douchebag called Yahweh.. tradition? I live in an islamic country, does that mean i have to focus on Allah?
When i think about a halfway plausible version of God, i use my own definition, some being that might or might not stilll be alive if it is considered alive at all to our understanding.. something that might have created the universe(s) (or at least set the things in motion) and be able to change some things about it, (if it is still around and does anything. Maybe it moved along and "plays" somewhere else.)

However that is some version that i might take into consideration, if any.

Gods who can't do basic math and pick ignorant ancient morons to spread the word about their existence using really stupid books full of lies and contradictive concepts, threaten people into blind submission, send people to fight THEIR wars and out of all their creations they choose to send hornets to help his "slaves" in those wars. plague their own people with bowel diseases (among other lovely things) and commands them to commit genocides and infanticides, who tell them to bury their excrements because he is walking around their encampments, who show primitive characteristics like jealousy and anger, who enjoy blood and burnt sacrifices and the smell of blood, etc etc etc, i can only laugh about and call highly illogical and next to impossible to have any basis in reality.

Oh but just by the way, what tells you that most humans are not insane? Insanity is contagious.. through the religious viruses.

 

[valerytozer]

Thomas Doubting Thank you i got it,

That helped.

Thank you for your time and understanding

 

[australopithecus]

That is what God in the Christian and other religious traditions is defined as, unbounded, unlimited. If we're not using that adjective to describe God, we're not talking about God as Christianity describes him.

God as described in Christianity is self contradictory and vastly implausible, if not impossible. That's why it's better not to pay attention to it.

 

[CplFerro]

Dear Thomas Doubting,

I reference Yahweh because he is the dominant religious entity on the planet. But as I said, this critique applies to any infinite, personal God.

I have found that critiques of such an entity other than the critique I have given are unpersuasive to me. The logical truth that the infinite and the finite cannot define the same entity is persuasive.

Yes, I'm sure most people are infected by social pathologies, religious and otherwise. Faith in logic is one good way of drying up the mental gangrene.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Dear Thomas Doubting,

I reference Yahweh because he is the dominant religious entity on the planet. But as I said, this critique applies to any infinite, personal God.

I have found that critiques of such an entity other than the critique I have given are unpersuasive to me. The logical truth that the infinite and the finite cannot define the same entity is persuasive.

Yes, I'm sure most people are infected by social pathologies, religious and otherwise. Faith in logic is one good way of drying up the mental gangrene.

Cpl Ferro

You stilld didn't get the problem, you claim it to be infinite. What property exactly that God holds that is infinite? Because even in a exclusively logical context to simply claim infinity is nonsensical when not atribute to a poperty. I think you should take the time to think about exacly what do you mean.

 

[CplFerro]

Dear Thomas Doubting,

I reference Yahweh because he is the dominant religious entity on the planet. But as I said, this critique applies to any infinite, personal God.

I have found that critiques of such an entity other than the critique I have given are unpersuasive to me. The logical truth that the infinite and the finite cannot define the same entity is persuasive.

Yes, I'm sure most people are infected by social pathologies, religious and otherwise. Faith in logic is one good way of drying up the mental gangrene.

Cpl Ferro

You stilld didn't get the problem, you claim it to be infinite. What property exactly that God holds that is infinite? Because even in a exclusively logical context to simply claim infinity is nonsensical when not atribute to a poperty. I think you should take the time to think about exacly what do you mean.

Dear Master_Ghost_Knight,

I was referring to unboundedness in general, which accords with the Abrahamic definitions of God, but if you want to see what happens when a finite God is given a specific quality that is infinite, consider his eternity (infinite duration).

Can an otherwise finite thing be eternal? If it is eternal, it would be changeless, which means either it is outside the universe and unconnected to it--something impossible by definition--or else the rest of the universe is unchanging as well. That is, a thing is always part of cause and effect, and for it to be unchanging would result in a freeze of the entire cause and effect system. Therefore, changeless things don't exist.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I was referring to unboundedness in general, which accords with the Abrahamic definitions of God,

"Unboundedness in general" doesn't make any sense, and you assume that there is an Abrahamic definition of infinite there is no such thing either, the abrahamic definition of infinite is fluf, nobody knows what it actualy means.

but if you want to see what happens when a finite God is given a specific quality that is infinite, consider his eternity (infinite duration).

Ok lets assume that a infinite God means spans indefinitly in time (eternal).

Can an otherwise finite thing be eternal?

Yes! take a mathematical example, you can define an infinite line with zero area and a point with a lenght.

If it is eternal, it would be changeless,

That is question begging nonsense. Why would an eternal thing be changeless? Take another mathematical example, I can define function infinite in domain yet allways difrent while you move across it.

That is, a thing is always part of cause and effect, and for it to be unchanging would result in a freeze of the entire cause and effect system. Therefore, changeless things don't exist.

The notion of causality comes from our intraction with the real world, and it has nothing to do with what you seem to imply. A absolutly static universe realy would not violate the principle of causality in any way shape or form nor is causality a requierment for things to exist, I can even do one better, I can design for you a version of reality that is not causal or is static and yet look exactly the same as the world we do see.

We have gone trough this for several posts and you haven't really got any close to an argument that vaguely makes sense much less prove or disprove the existance of something trough philosophical reasoning alone.
Partially this is due because such a tasks is impossible by design, but now I have come to realise that you don't really have an answer. As of now none of your conclusions follows from your premessises, to make matters worst you don't have any working definition for anything.
What you do have are vague ideas and a gut feeling connecting them to what you guess the answer is.

Can you see now where has your assumption that you have proven the non-existance of God on philosophical grounds gone wrong?

 

[CplFerro]

Dear Master_Ghost_Knight,

You are missing the point. Don't worry, most people have big mental blocks about everything, so you're not alone. (Consider this not a personal attack, but an observation culled from years of observation online.)

The Abrahamic definition of God is the one we're concerned with, and that tradition defines God as unbounded in all respects. He is not part of the finite world, he is eternal, unlimited in mind and power.

Calling in fantasy gods that are not infinite is irrelevant; I don't care about finite gods. That leaves infinite God, as every monotheistic faith understands him, and I have already demonstrated that such cannot be.

Calling in mathematics will not save your critique. Math is not real. Mathematical objects are fantasies. You might as well call in "square circle!" to your defense.

Calling in fantasies about static universes will not save your critique. There is no "absolutely static universe" there is only THE universe, and THE universe changes.

An eternal thing that is not changeless is hardly eternal, for what part of a totally changing thing could we point to as being "eternal"? No, there is always an irreducible core of any "eternal" thing that is the true eternal part; anything that changes will immediately lose its identity, just as an ice cube that melts ceases to be an ice cube.

Cpl Ferro

 

[australopithecus]

You are missing the point. Don't worry, most people have big mental blocks about everything, so you're not alone.

Patronising, much?

 

[CplFerro]

You are missing the point. Don't worry, most people have big mental blocks about everything, so you're not alone.

Patronising, much?

Dear australopithecus,

I've encountered so much mental blocking online when it comes to things it wouldn't surprise me if I meet someone who asserts that truth doesn't exist--oh, wait, I have encountered people like that.

Cpl Ferro

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

CplFerro, I do not take this an desrespectfull we are just 2 guys having a conversation, but with all due respect you haven't showed anything so far. You have claimed that there can not be an infinite God, and even though I happen to agree for difrent reasons you have so far to demonstrate this because as I have pointed out the conclusions you are forwarding does not follow from any of the statments you have made so far. You have tried to make an argument by replacing one of the properties you tried to tackle by another more simple implication of it (i.e. the static universe thing), and not only I do not grant you this switch (because one got nothing to do with the other) but also your conclusion can not follow from this statment either. The only mindset where your argument seams to work is if you already implicitly assumed the conclusion embued in this properties.
And you have no basis to disregard matheatical examples that contradict your assertions, because math is a self consistent logical construct that is absolutly true (altough not necessarily real), you are basicaly saying that it is ilogical to use logic.

Calling in fantasies about static universes will not save your critique. There is no "absolutely static universe" there is only THE universe, and THE universe changes.

Imagine this prospect, the universe exist just now in this moment and only in this moment, it has just been poped into existance as it is. It has allways been like this and it will allways remain like this. You have allways been doing what you are doing right now, you have always been thinking what you are thinking right now, you are eternaly stuck on that state. The only reason it seams to you that you are not stuck in the same state is because you have no memory of the time past, in fact since your mind never changes it allways seams that the time you are in is brand new. Futher more every taught you have about your past is an ilusion it never happened, all your taughts have just been created exactly as it is, you even have the ilusion that time has passed since you have seen this argument and that you have taught about it or even had an interchange or think you have a great reply, but thrust me it is all an ilusion, it never happen, you just happen to be stuck in the moment you are conteplating this prospect while holding those false memories.
Now prove to me that this ain't so.

For those of you more familiar, this is similar to last thursdayism but applyed to the right now allways!

 

[valerytozer]

"CplFerro wrote:
Dear Thomas Doubting,

I reference Yahweh because he is the dominant religious entity on the planet. But as I said, this critique applies to any infinite, personal God."

REALLY?? I have always wounded about that?? Anyone know where i can find out for shore, what religion or god is the most dominant is?

you know i have heard the same from the Pagans and Muslims, FYI

 

[Deleted member 619]

If it is eternal, it would be changeless,

I see this one, or variations thereof, a lot, but I've never come across anybody who could remotely justify it. Why would something be changeless if it were eternal?

 

[Deleted member 619]

I'm not talking about imaginary infinities, I'm talking about something that is actually infinite. An imaginary infinity is a mathematical or mental construct, which may be useful for certain thought experiments. But a real infinity would be something that is non-finite, that lacks any boundaries. That is what God in the Christian and other religious traditions is defined as, unbounded, unlimited. If we're not using that adjective to describe God, we're not talking about God as Christianity describes him. So that is what I mean: an infinite thing cannot be infinite in one respect but not in another, for that betrays the idea of infinitude. An unlimited thing is unlimited, not limited, and therefore cannot be personal.

Cpl Ferro

That's not what infinite means. Properly, it simply means 'unquantifiable'.

 

[Squawk]

I think it could refer to one of two things.

If we define eternal as being exempt from time (which is one possible interpretation), then there can be no before and after state, no possibility of change. Any change would mean that such a thing was not exempt from time. It's an argument I use against people who say "God is outside of time", since it renders their god impotent (no before and after state, ergo can't think, move, or act, completely impotent).

The other alternative is if you define something as being eternal, while subject to time, as having no change in state. It's just a definition issue, you're not defining the thing itself as eternal, but it's attributes. It's semantics I think, defining eternal as unchanging through time.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

How about everlasting? (time proof is another translation from Bosnian for what i mean >_>)
Something which can be changing through time yet exist forever?
Also if we take into account that our understanding of time is limited to our spacetime, we might not find it that surprising if outside our spacetime there is/are (an)other dimension/s of time which is/are allowing change outside of our understanding of time.. Meaning that some entities might exist which can affect our spacetime and others, while residing on other plane/s of existence.
Just saying, don't shoot :?

 

[CplFerro]

Dear Master_Ghost_Knight,

If the universe were truly changeless, as you propose in your "rightnowism," then why would there be a notion of change?

Mathematical infinities are not true infinities. They hold in mathematics land, not in reality. The God we are considering is a genuinely unbounded entity, and such a thing could not have a personality.

Cpl Ferro

 

[CplFerro]

How about everlasting? (time proof is another translation from Bosnian for what i mean >_>)
Something which can be changing through time yet exist forever?
Also if we take into account that our understanding of time is limited to our spacetime, we might not find it that surprising if outside our spacetime there is/are (an)other dimension/s of time which is/are allowing change outside of our understanding of time.. Meaning that some entities might exist which can affect our spacetime and others, while residing on other plane/s of existence.
Just saying, don't shoot :?

Dear Thomas Doubting,

For a thing to be everlasting, it would have to have some part of itself which is unchanging, like the core of a comet that survives the excess being sublimed off of itself over successive passes by the Sun. If there were no unchanging core, then in what sense is what we're dealing with "everlasting"? What part is everlasting if there are no parts that do not cease to exist and be replaced by other parts? If the ice cube melts, in what sense is the ice cube still there?

Cpl Ferro