Re: God Thread, Pt. III

[Cruijf]

Because we are created utterly flawed, and commanded to be well.

Commanded to be good yes, which we are perfectly capable of doing. Commanded to be perfect, no.

[McLewis]

Maybe I missed this, but how exactly is God infinite? What makes him infinite to the point that everything else isn't?

Also, I don't the question of who created God was properly answered.

[Cruijf]

[quote="McLewis"]Maybe I missed this, but how exactly is God infinite? What makes him infinite to the point that everything else isn't?

The infinite nature of God simply means that God exists outside of and is not limited by time or space. Infinite simply means “without limits.” When we refer to God as "infinite," we generally refer to Him with terms like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence.

Pretty much sums it up.

Also, I don't the question of who created God was properly answered.

How so?

[Lupi]

.

[rwo power]

Also, I don't the question of who created God was properly answered.

How so?

Well, you claim God was always there, but there is no logical reasoning how it may have come to pass that there always was some omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being. For me it is highly unsatisfactory to be told "well, God was always there". My first reaction to this is "So? And where diod God come from in the first place?"

If you call God omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent this means God is supposed to permeate even the tiniest particle and have "his" conscience within. So what does God consist of to be omnipresent (and conscient!) even in, say, an electron-neutrino?

And if that omnipresent God ("omni" means "all", just to make this clear) is present in each object and person, that would mean God is also present in the most evil persons, thus either "he" actually commits the deeds together with said evil person. In that case we are back with that "he" sees atrocities committed first hand and doesn't lift the same to do anything against it. But of course one can then consider that God actually commits atrocities against "him"self, which makes him both a sadist and masochist. ^^

[VivaStPauli]

Isn't it a bit lazy to just say "we don't need to explain god because the laws that govern everything else don't effect god"?

I mean, what do you really explain by that, if anything?
And how is that a logical, or, to come back to occams razor, simple explanation for anything?

[Potential]

The Quran isn't particularly nice either http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

bullshit Propaganda filled website we decided not to use back in the 2nd part of this thread.

If it's against USA it's terrorism -> If it's against Islam it's propaganda and islamophobia.

For someone who truly hates the first concept you seem to adore the second.

[Potential]

Also: What is this talk of the "before" the Big Bang?

I know theists like to argue that the universe is finite, and thus must have a cause, which has to be god, whose existence does not need to be explained because he is infinite.

But the Big Bang also created time, as such the concept of "before" did not exist "before" the Big Bang - so theoretically the universe has "always" existed in the sense that before it existed, there was no before.
You cannot go back in time to a point before the Big Bang, since time did not exist prior of that occurence.

That is as much infinite, as a supposed creator would be. So the quesiton of who created the creator must be as valid.

We went through this, it doesn't need a god since the only argument is about god being infinite, which is easily canceled by the fact that dimensions are also infinite, meaning a dimension could have created this universe.

I'd like to quote something:

It's not that we can't disprove god, but you just will not accept the proof anyway.

[RealGunner]

The Quran isn't particularly nice either http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

bullshit Propaganda filled website we decided not to use back in the 2nd part of this thread.

If it's against USA it's terrorism -> If it's against Islam it's propaganda and islamophobia.

For someone who truly hates the first concept you seem to adore the second.

I adore terrorism ?

[Cruijf]

Isn't it a bit lazy to just say "we don't need to explain god because the laws that govern everything else don't effect god"?

I mean, what do you really explain by that, if anything?
And how is that a logical, or, to come back to occams razor, simple explanation for anything?

The only thing that could exist outside the universe is something infinite and ungoverned by the laws of this universe. I know it may seem like a lazy explanation, but logically, if a God did exist, He would have to be infinite.

[Cruijf]

Also, I don't the question of who created God was properly answered.

How so?

Well, you claim God was always there, but there is no logical reasoning how it may have come to pass that there always was some omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being. For me it is highly unsatisfactory to be told "well, God was always there". My first reaction to this is "So? And where diod God come from in the first place?"

If you follow the argument that everything needs a cause, the end of that chain must be a deity that is the ultimate and first cause. Since nothing in this universe is infinite, it makes since that the only thing that could be this would be found outside this universe and would be infinite i.e God.

As for omnipresence, you're misunderstanding a crucial concept. When we say God is omnipresent we do not mean to say that he is physically present everywhere. God merely knows everything there is to know, making it seem as if He is there.

As an example, the Quran says, "And He is closer to you than your jugular vein."

This verse does not mean God is actually physically within us and is closer than our jugular vein (See Tafsir Ibn Kathir). It means that God knows so much about our wants, needs, thoughts, desires, doubts, and fears (explained in the verse before it) that He is 'closer' to us than anything else.

All in all, omnipresence is a bad word to use because it has connotations that are specifically refuted in the Quran and Hadith.

[VivaStPauli]

The only thing that could exist outside the universe is something infinite and ungoverned by the laws of this universe. I know it may seem like a lazy explanation, but logically, if a God did exist, He would have to be infinite.

Well that, or he could exist in the universe.
And while what you just wrote is an entirely logical statement, what I don't think is logical, is to assume that this is the most reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe

[bazinga]

How so?

Well, you claim God was always there, but there is no logical reasoning how it may have come to pass that there always was some omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being. For me it is highly unsatisfactory to be told "well, God was always there". My first reaction to this is "So? And where diod God come from in the first place?"

If you follow the argument that everything needs a cause, the end of that chain must be a deity that is the ultimate and first cause. Since nothing in this universe is infinite, it makes since that the only thing that could be this would be found outside this universe and would be infinite i.e God.

As for omnipresence, you're misunderstanding a crucial concept. When we say God is omnipresent we do not mean to say that he is physically present everywhere. God merely knows everything there is to know, making it seem as if He is there.

As an example, the Quran says, "And He is closer to you than your jugular vein."

This verse does not mean God is actually physically within us and is closer than our jugular vein (See Tafsir Ibn Kathir). It means that God knows so much about our wants, needs, thoughts, desires, doubts, and fears (explained in the verse before it) that He is 'closer' to us than anything else.

All in all, omnipresence is a bad word to use because it has connotations that are specifically refuted in the Quran and Hadith.

Then wouldn't the deity need the cause? This is a very thin leg to stand on, sorry.

[stevieg8]

As Bazinga said, the beginning of that chain would inevitably have to not exist. If there is a beginning to the chain, then the logical principle on which the chain is originally based is disproven. If there's one beginning to the chain, than causes are not necessary, and the beginning could be anything, or there could be several starting points that cause different things. If you assert that a cause is necessary, then there can't be a beginning. What you're asserting is not logically consistent.

[Cruijf]

As Bazinga said, the beginning of that chain would inevitably have to not exist. If there is a beginning to the chain, then the logical principle on which the chain is originally based is disproven. If there's one beginning to the chain, than causes are not necessary, and the beginning could be anything, or there could be several starting points that cause different things.

I get what you're saying, but you're not taking everything into account here. Every thing governed by the laws of this universe needs a cause. So what could possibly be the single first cause that began the chain? Something outside this universe and unrestricted by its laws i.e God.

EDIT: This applies to your argument as well Viva. This is why logically, what makes the most sense and has the last amount of assumption and illogical jumps, is that an infinite deity outside this universe began the chain.

[Cruijf]

We went through this, it doesn't need a god since the only argument is about god being infinite, which is easily canceled by the fact that dimensions are also infinite, meaning a dimension could have created this universe.

That would work, except dimensions exist within our universe.

As for your quote, I really don't see the point, seeing as how even 'hardcore' (for lack of a better term) atheists admit you can't actually disprove God. And for all the evidence you've provided, I could throw the same statement right back at you, just about flying donkeys who live on a big turtle's back in a distant galaxy. I could prove it, you just wouldn't believe me

[bazinga]

As Bazinga said, the beginning of that chain would inevitably have to not exist. If there is a beginning to the chain, then the logical principle on which the chain is originally based is disproven. If there's one beginning to the chain, than causes are not necessary, and the beginning could be anything, or there could be several starting points that cause different things.

I get what you're saying, but you're not taking everything into account here. Every thing governed by the laws of this universe needs a cause. So what could possibly be the single first cause that began the chain? Something outside this universe and unrestricted by its laws i.e God.

EDIT: This applies to your argument as well Viva. This is why logically, what makes the most sense and has the last amount of assumption and illogical jumps, is that an infinite deity outside this universe began the chain.

But, and this is seriously the last time I say this because it's getting tiring, where did that deity come from?

[VivaStPauli]

As for your quote, I really don't see the point, seeing as how even 'hardcore' (for lack of a better term) atheists admit you can't actually disprove God. And for all the evidence you've provided, I could throw the same statement right back at you, just about flying donkeys who live on a big turtle's back in a distant galaxy. I could prove it, you just wouldn't believe me

Yeah why don't you believe in flying donkeys who live on a big turtle's back in a distant galaxy anyway? Seems about as likely as god TBH.

[bazinga]

We went through this, it doesn't need a god since the only argument is about god being infinite, which is easily canceled by the fact that dimensions are also infinite, meaning a dimension could have created this universe.

That would work, except dimensions exist within our universe.

As for your quote, I really don't see the point, seeing as how even 'hardcore' (for lack of a better term) atheists admit you can't actually disprove God. And for all the evidence you've provided, I could throw the same statement right back at you, just about flying donkeys who live on a big turtle's back in a distant galaxy. I could prove it, you just wouldn't believe me

If you believe something exists, you must be able to prove that it does. Until then, it doesn't. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

[VivaStPauli]

EDIT: This applies to your argument as well Viva. This is why logically, what makes the most sense and has the last amount of assumption and illogical jumps, is that an infinite deity outside this universe began the chain.

No it's not.
It makes a few silly huge leaps in logic.
1) For everything believed to be supernatural we have eventually discovered a natural cause, yet you claim god is the one exception.
2) Everything we have ever observed follows the laws of the universe, yet you claim there's one exception
3) Since the big bang created space and time, there is really no need for anything to have existed before it, so why would there be one exception to the limits of infinite (!) dimensions?
4) If god can exist inifinitely without a beginning, why can't the "nothingness", that, split into stuff we can observe, and dark energy/antimatter, makes up the universe, have existed infinitely "before" the big bang?
5) There's still the matter of omnipotent omniscience against most of the world's suffering, which is much easier explained through the world being as it is, than supernatural, metaphysical trials.

(Also that's not how observations, and science, and logic works - you don't prove a negative. You either provide evidence, or it is assumed you are wrong.)

[Cruijf]

We went through this, it doesn't need a god since the only argument is about god being infinite, which is easily canceled by the fact that dimensions are also infinite, meaning a dimension could have created this universe.

That would work, except dimensions exist within our universe.

As for your quote, I really don't see the point, seeing as how even 'hardcore' (for lack of a better term) atheists admit you can't actually disprove God. And for all the evidence you've provided, I could throw the same statement right back at you, just about flying donkeys who live on a big turtle's back in a distant galaxy. I could prove it, you just wouldn't believe me

If you believe something exists, you must be able to prove that it does. Until then, it doesn't. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

I'm confused, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Because I believe that's what I just said.

[Cruijf]

As for your quote, I really don't see the point, seeing as how even 'hardcore' (for lack of a better term) atheists admit you can't actually disprove God. And for all the evidence you've provided, I could throw the same statement right back at you, just about flying donkeys who live on a big turtle's back in a distant galaxy. I could prove it, you just wouldn't believe me

Yeah why don't you believe in flying donkeys who live on a big turtle's back in a distant galaxy anyway? Seems about as likely as god TBH.

Really? Please share the evidence you have for flying donkeys who live on a big turtle's back in a distant galaxy.

I'm intrigued

[Cruijf]

where did that deity come from?

Please reread my post.

[Cruijf]

Viva, I'm not even gonna quote you, because that's too much space to take up for a one line post.

The difference between God and every other fairytale in this universe is that logic suggests the necessity of God. Logic does not however, suggest the necessity or prove the existence of unicorns.

[Cruijf]

And about this,

3) Since the big bang created space and time, there is really no need for anything to have existed before it, so why would there be one exception to the limits of infinite (!) dimensions?

If nothing existed 'before' the Big Bang, what disrupted the equilibrium that is Nothing?

[RedOranje]

Logic neither suggests nor "prove" the existence of any deity, though.

[Sponsored content]