There is no God

[stanley123]

AnAtheist:

Virtual particles.
You may of course argue, virtual particles occur in the vacuum and vacuum is far from nothing.
But do virtual particles occur because vacuum is “something” or is vaccuum “something” instead of nothing because of the virtual particles? The vacuum impedance, which is the main property of the vacuum, is what it is due to those particles.

According to quantum theory there is uncertainty as to the amount of energy in the vacuum. So it is not true that virtual particles come from absolutely nothing. The uncertainty in the energy allows a nonzero energy to exist for a short amount of time, and because of these small energy fluctuations pairs of particles can be produced.
I am sorry but you are wrong here when you say that it is something produced from nothing. Now if you are wrong here, then consider the possibility that your other arguments are wrong also.

 

[AnAtheist]

stanley123:

The uncertainty in the energy allows a nonzero energy to exist for a short amount of time,

Yes, and it allows for very much energy in a very short amount of time, like when the universe was very very young.

Anyway, even if nothing can come from nothing, I see absolutely no reason why that something the universe must then come from, should be (in that order)

1. mystical
2. a person
3. a person with a plan including an afterlife and other unobservable stuff
4. a person who undergoes some wierd sort of self sacrifice in order to get the above said plan working

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Yes, and it allows for very much energy in a very short amount of time, like when the universe was very very young.

Anyway, even if nothing can come from nothing, I see absolutely no reason why that something the universe must then come from, should be (in that order)

1. mystical
2. a person
3. a person with a plan including an afterlife and other unobservable stuff
4. a person who undergoes some wierd sort of self sacrifice in order to get the above said plan working

well, to be fair, you and i have taken a couple of runs at this, and i think i at least got you to see that it was reasonable to understand the putative first cause as having something like free choice, which implies personality of some sort.

but at any rate, natural theology only gets you to a more or less abstract sort of god. the god that christians worship isn’t simply the god of the philosophers, but the god of revelation…

 

[stanley123]

AnAtheist:

Second, quantum physics allows for something coming from nothing. .

I wouldn’t depend on quantum physics to support a theological argument. For example, in December 1926, Einstein wrote:“Quantum mechanics calls for a great deal of respect. But some inner voice tells me that this is not the true Jacob. The theory offers a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the Old Man’s secret.”

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

well, to be fair, you and i have taken a couple of runs at this, and i think i at least got you to see that it was reasonable to understand the putative first cause as having something like free choice, which implies personality of some sort.

Yes you did. It is reasonable but not finally convincing.

but at any rate, natural theology only gets you to a more or less abstract sort of god. the god that christians worship isn’t simply the god of the philosophers, but the god of revelation…

Absolutely.

 

[hurst]

AnAtheist:

There are two options: either “infinity” always existed, or “nothing” ever existed. From infinity, one can conclude that pockets of space can be created and filled with all sorts of goodies. From nothing, we would remain with nothing, since nothing comes from nothing, and would not be here to talk about it. So therefore, infinite existence is the substrate in which everything exists.

I seriously doubt that becuas eof two reasons.

This is not about doubting. This is about recognizing and understanding the logic for accepting the existence of “a God”. Perhaps you meant you don’t understand?

I am addressing the logic aspect, which Alois has declared to be his concern. (You have a different concern, and I have yet to follow up on the “complexity” issue when I get to it.)

AnAtheist:

First, logically, then whatever created the universe must coming from something.

Yes, something higher and beyond the visible universe.

Logically, “infinity” always existed, because the converse cannot be true. If we start with nothing, then it will remain nothing. If we start with everything, then it can produce the manifested system of the universe in which we find ourselves. There is nothing to doubt. It is simple logic.

AnAtheist:

Second, quantum physics allows for something coming from nothing.

Well, I don’t accept the “authority” of quantum physics. Is this the basis of your belief?

Quantum physics is a theoretical system that is trying to explain observed phenomenon in a way that makes sense mathematically, to allow mankind to harness and control nature to our benefit. Whether it is totally “true” is not their concern, as long as the results allow for better control of our environment.

That it “allows” (“asserts”) for something to come from nothing seems to be a form of the “God of the gaps” argument that atheists ridicule so often, except “nothing” is plugged in.

If we start with “nothing”, truly nothing, then there is no logic that would even exist, much less one that would conclude something could come from it. But logic does exist. Did it ever not exist? I would say logic has existed forever, and before time. And logically, yes, the universe came from something: its creator, yet it was created out of nothing in that it wasn’t manifested before.

AnAtheist:

Granted, that depends on interpretation, but it raises enough doubts to dismiss the postulate nihil ex nihilo.

I was not promoting any kind of nihilsm or philosophy. I was making a logical statement: nothing comes from nothing. If you have nothing, you are stuck with nothing. Is that hard to understand? You need money to invest money. If you have no money, you can’t invest it. If there are no bacteria, they certainly can’t multiply. Simple logic.

A theory allowing something to come from nothing would have to answer the obvious question of where the theory itself came from. (Just like you ask regarding God). Did it also come from nothing? But how could it, if the theory allowing things to come from nothing didn’t exist yet? In fact, the theory of quantum physics itself did not come from nothing, for it was developed on the basis of observations and mathematics. So, it did not come from nothing, nor did it always exist, so the best you can say is that it allows certain particles to suddenly appear and then disappear. But this cannot be used as the basis for logically concluding that anything can appear from nothing. Nor could it deny that God, or something beyond the visible universe caused it. If anything, it is tacitly admitting that there is something beyond the visible universe.

AnAtheist:

I would rather say I focused the meaning of God to that of existence. For that is what God is. “I am that I am”. He exists and cannot not exist. Anything else that exists derives its existence from that which exists in its fullness.

Yep, that sounds ok to me. Pantheism with some blurry vocabulary like “he” in essence.

It is neither pantheistic nor materialistic. Just because we share in the existence of God does not make us God. We are nothing in and of ourselves. We do not keep ourselves in existence, neither body nor soul. We did not always exist, and our bodies change over time. And yet in Him we live and move and have our being.

hurst

 

[hurst]

AnAtheist:

Here my nominalistic atheism (i.e. a subform of weak atheism) kicks in. In doesn’t matter, if we call the universe “God” or call existence itself “God”, that does not change the reality or even the meaning of those things.

I do not call the universe God. God is greater than the universe. Even if you do not recognize God, you should be able to clearly recognize that there is a bigger existence than the visible universe, for the universe does not hold all possible conceptualizable objects. Nor can it, by the very nature of things.

God is the fullness of existence, and not merely the existence of visible objects.

AnAtheist:

And further, it is more logical that an existence greater than the universe created the universe, for the visible universe is not sufficiently infinite. In fact, it doesn’t even take into account our thoughts, and the set of possible concepts that our minds can think.

I’d say, a concept does not exist unless it is coded in some way. The the number of codable concepts is in fact limited by the size of the universe, and it is still the “greatest” existing thing.

You’d say? I would say otherwise, but for the sake of argument, let’s go by your statement as a hypothesis.

The first thing I’d point out is that rubik’s cube is said to have more combinations than the number of atoms in the known universe. But just in case it doesn’t, let’s create a larger cube: 4x4x4 or 5x5x5. Actually, there are java-based cubes of arbitrary size. It follows then that it is easy to come up with a codable concept that is not at all limited by the size of the universe.

The second thing I’d point to is the set of Integers. You can go arbitrarily high. Thus, the number codable is greater than the number physically able to be manifested, which supports the notion that the visible universe is not infinite enough, and thus is not the totality of existence.

The only way out of this logic, is to deny the reality, the existence, of concepts and thoughts. But there is no basis for such denial in truth, for we do in fact experience and act upon such concepts and thoughts.

hurst

 

[hurst]

john doran:

but at any rate, natural theology only gets you to a more or less abstract sort of god. the god that christians worship isn’t simply the god of the philosophers, but the god of revelation…

I think what you mean is that the natural light of reason only leads us to a limited knowledge of God. This is very true. But it may be known with certainty, even though it is not self-evident.

The existence of God is not an article of faith. It is a prerequisite to faith.

The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

Summa Theologica
Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?
(Reply to Objection 1)
catholicprimer.org/summa/FP/FP002.html#FPQ2A2THEP1

So it is useful to assist others to reason their way to this certainty even before they exercise the obedience of faith towards this God.

hurst

 

[Alois]

hurst:

By your definition, “God” is something man invented (“defined by man”) and has nothing to do with this world (“exists out of the natural realm”).

It is tantamount to an imaginary number. No wonder you don’t find it compelling to believe.

Defining something has nothing to do with inventing it. If I define a monkey, did I create it?

What is your definition of “a Christian God”?

God as described in the Bible.

In fact, it is part of a solemnly made definition by a major council of the Catholic Church.

I’ve shown that your analogy is false, yet you continue to use the results of it?

Let’s stick with your initial point, namely, that you are here to
“debate about whether it is logical to believe in a god”.

I am positing the approach that it is logical to believe in “a God” that can be known, from created things, by the light of natural human reason. You don’t need a Bible. You don’t need a church. You don’t need faith.

God is defined by man. Man has always defined God as being all powerful, all knowing, and supernatural. The God you’ve proposed does not contain these traits, but does contain the traits of existence. God is not existence.

Do you believe the INS ‘thinks’? Do you believe the INS has any power over the numbers within it?

Your question assumes that nothingness came first… [snip]

Of course, your idea ignores the possibilites that nothing can come from nothing. AnAtheist is debating that with you at this moment, so I’ll chime in with a different post to the arguments you’ve already posted.

It is more logical for the universe to be created because it represents a particular manifestation of a much larger potential.

Universe wasn’t such a grand term to use here, existence would fit better. I apologise.

Ijnfinite existence would contain all possible possibilites. In other words, all potential.

• One hears that every snowflake is unique. Where then are all the possible designs held in store? If the universe were truly infinite, then all possible snowflakes would already be manifested in it somewhere.

No, if existence were infinite, the amount of possibilities would be infinite. With a set of infinite numbers, the possible variations in the set of infinite numbers would be infinite.

English contains 26 letters and thousands of words. But the number of possible unique stories that could be written easily exceeds the number of physical particles with which they could be written.

This has nothing to do with infiniteness. 26! is a finite number. Existence is infinite, so the amount of possibilites is also infinite.

The physical universe, even if unlimited in mass, is still much much smaller than the number of stories waiting to be manifested in it.

The stories that have occured are a part of existence, and the stories that haven’t are likewise, part of existence. However, existence doesn’t need to “store” those possibilities, much like a computer doesn’t need to store all possible results of an equation. They are a part of existence as it is.

I hope you see it is a rather simple exercise to show that the physical universe is too small to contain all possible existence such that it should not be considered a manifestation of a greater existence.

This is akin to stating that mathmatical formulas aren’t logical because the number of results you can produce from them far exceed the number of numbers plugged into them. Existence contains all possible results of its properties, just as formulas do. Likewise, all those possible results make up the infinity of existence.

I would rather say I focused the meaning of God to that of existence. For that is what God is. “I am that I am”. He exists and cannot not exist.

Maybe I’m blind, but I read that as him saying “I am me”. How are you getting “I am all that is” from it?

Anything else that exists derives its existence from that which exists in its fullness.

Yes, which would be existence.

We only share in it, and all that we see changes and fades away, for though all visible objects share in that existence, it is separate from it, like the moon reflecting light and sharing the brightness of the sun, in changing phases, without any light of its own.

We don’t share in existence, we are part of it. We can’t share in existence because two things can’t both be one thing at their base form.

In fact, it doesn’t even take into account our thoughts, and the set of possible concepts that our minds can think.

What do you base this claim off of?

 

[Alois]

Filius Prodigus:

Self-refutation. Good. End of story. But let me remember my atheist days and be just obnoxious with the rest of your post.

Self-refutation? How did you even come to think that? Did you read what I wrote?

He used the Christian faith to push a Nazi agenda. Show me the self-refutation in this statement.

And there you are: denying your purpose and then fulfilling it. And on the same paragraph too. Your anti-Christian hatred just seeps through, you just can’t avoid it.

You certainly have a chip on your shoulder. In any case, for your future reference when browing internet forums, a wink smily - - generally means that someone is joking in a sarcastic way. Now notice which smily I had in that quote. Does it make sense now?

I have no hate of Christians; stop playing computer-chair psychologist.

Refuting your assertions again. The issue is you know the truth, but it cannot keep you from charging against Christianity with statements you know are false.

You’ve misinterpreted three easily interpretable quotes in a row. Your paranoia of atheists just seeps through, you just can’t avoid it.

–

I stated that the Nazi regime took those churches over and used them as propaganda centers. The Nazis distributed this propaganda, not the Christians. However, the Christian religon was still used to push Hitler’s agenda to get into power, and his “final solution”.

I don’t need to. You don’t need to. Just read what you yourself wrote on the post I’m answering and then you’ll get it. “Gee, I was wrong” is tough, I know.

So after doing nothing to refute my statements, you tell me to admit I was wrong? Don’t be silly now.

And about Stalin, he wasn’t a false atheist.

Atheism doesn’t propose moral guidelines, it is simply disbelief in gods. It is not a religon, or a basis for a society. Stalin didn’t use it as the basis for society, he used Marxism. (aka, communism) It is impossible to be a false atheist.

Hitler, he was a false Christian.

One true Scotsman fallacy. What’s a true Christian?

Stalin followed Marx, but Hitler by no means showed any behavioral allegiance with Christ.

Marx proposed communism, not atheism. Marx is not looked to as the definitive symbol of atheism. Stalin used Marx’s writings to set up a society based on communism. Your attempt at an analogy is drawing a blank.

You know it. Leave hatred aside. It does not serve you well.

Yes he did. A very good front. He knew the beliefs of the German people, he knew they were Christian, and he lied to them. He capitalized on their nationalistic hatred. When he obtained what he wanted he answered the bishops’ and pope’s requests for compassion towards the Jews with increased cruelty towards them.
When he got to power he followed his own beliefs about the Jewish-origin servile religion that poisoned the will of the German people (See: bede.org.uk/hitler.htm ). He sent many religious opponents to concentration camps and substituted crosses on many cathedrals with swastikas. I know an atheist website that publishes only Nazi-propaganda photos ( nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm ) with the intention of beguiling viewers into thinking Hitler loved Christianity and Christianity loved Hitler. Sly and typical.

It’s interesting that Bede’s Library backed up my standpoint more than the photo page. Hilter may or may not have used Christianity as his basis for societal belief, but Christianity was used by the Nazis to gain the popular support for the Nazi party, and later to rally support behind wide-spread anti-Semitism. This is what I’ve been saying all along. Your argument is a strawman.

My objective was to disprove the remarks claiming that atheism leads to the results of regimes like Stalin’s by showing that countries with a Christian faith can end with the same results. It was stated that Hitler and Nazi Germany were atheistic, I responded by pointing out that they were anything but atheistic and in fact showed Christian tendencies. I am not here to demonize Christians, and I haven’t. I cannot say the same for the advocates of your religon regarding atheism though, and I say that with full conviction. You have failed to prove me otherwise with your most recent post.

You know the truth and you wrote it on the post I am answering.

Only the insane claim to be the lone holders of the truth. Do you make this claim?

I insist: Yes, they have lied to you. I stand dehind this assertion with evidence.

I have shown you that my beliefs are not lies. Your own evidence has backed my claims up, after all.

 

[Alois]

john doran:

i’m afraid you’re still not getting the point… [snip]

So just why do none of us believe that we’re in a vat, yet many of us assume that a God exists? I think we’ve circled the argument and come back to one of my original points that you’ve only slightly changed: in a realm where we can gather no evidence of the existence of anything, it is unreasonable to assume the likelyhood of one thing existing over another, or anything existing at all. In this case, God over an infinite set of other posibilities, including that of nothingness. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to believe we are in a vat, or that our senses are incorrect and God is standing right before us, or any of the endless possibilities, even if it may be rational to believe it. We do not consider these infinite possibilities as reason because they have not shown themselves to have an impact on us. For all purposes, they are irrelevant unless you propose they can have an impact on us, which would invalidate them as something within the “vat”. The vat will forever be an unreasonable assumption.

Keep in mind that what you’ve created (through solipsism) is indeed just another realm that can contain anything. It’s only slightly more reasonable then throwing God out into a supernatural existence. You have thought up a world that could be beyond ours, but have not proven a reasonable God within it. It is still both irrational and unreasonable to assume that God exists in this realm because anything else has an equal chance of existing within it, including nothing existing there at all.

but i’m not saying this. i’m saying that the fact it’s always possible that our evidence can be wrong entails that we do not need certainty that our evidence must be right in order to have rational beliefs.

and the objection that i consistently hear levelled against theistic arguments is that we can’t be certain about the evidence marshalled in support of them…

Evidence? What evidence? The objection most consistently leveled againsts theists is that they have no evidence to begin with.

Why are you discussing evidence anyway? Do you not subscribe to the vat theory? If you do, then you cannot believe that any real evidence exists to even support a God. If you don’t, then you have no reason to assume the existence of a God is possible because we lack evidence of it. Which is it?

exactly: they’re indirectly observable - observable through their effects. god is observable in the same way.

How so? What observations of God have you made that all of science has somehow managed to pass over?

well, i don’t state this; i state that one doesn’t require unassailable evidence in order to believe in god. one doesn’t even need to be able to formulate arguments any more than one needs to be able to formulate arguments to support her belief in the real world or the reliability of her senses. such arguments may, in fact, be available, but they’re not needed.

The problem I have with this line of thought is that the “real world” is tangible. We have what we know with our senses, even if they may be wrong. When you consider that they may be wrong, you’re left with the real world and the vat world. In either one you still have no reason to believe in a God.

no. i state that what you’re calling “observable” evidence isn’t needed.

What other evidence is there besides evidence that is observable? If we have non-observable evidence, then it is irrelevant to us until we observe it.

not really. is “detectable” synonymous with “empirical”?

Yes.

if, on the other hand, you’re simply giving a colloquial version of something like the principle of verification (a proposition is meaningful if and only if it is in principle capable of empirical verification or if it is analytical), then i disagree, since propositions of that kind are self-defeating.

I would say so, yes. I believe, however, that human thought is capable of verification. Humans can only use imput from our senes to put together ideas, thoughts, and conjectures. (can you imagine a color not in the spectrum?) Therefore, all human thought can have an impact, even if it is not factual.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001659292

Why are atheists so much “smarter” than the rest of us?

This is a bit of a stretch, but I remember my dad once defended me using bad manners by saying, “he has so many manners, he has some he hasn’t even used yet.”

Maybe brains are a bit like manners in that sense.

Just kidding.

Alan

 

[hurst]

Alois:

Analogy of Numbers

… the analogy isn’t used properly. A set of infinite integers is not the source of those integers, it is those integers.

Let me explain. When we count apples, we have to select a number from the set of Integers. So the set is the source for that activity. Same for when we solve equations.

Alois:

All numbers from the smallest to the largest make up the infinite number set (referred to as INS), not vice versa. The INS is created from the numbers within it.

No infinite set is made that way, if you think about it. Usually there is a pattern or formula which is used to “create” the definition of the “INS”. We could never populate it otherwise.

Alois:

Essentially, you’ve given us an analogy for existence with a few other factors added on to it. These other factors are flawed.

I agree that the similitude is not perfect.

Alois:

Numbers can not provide an infinite number of possibilities, they are a concept attached on to those possibilities.

I don’t follow you here.

Alois:

Numbers are not able to distinguish individual elements of themselves, we distinguish them.

The set has already distinguished them in that they are separated by commas

Alois:

The INS is not able to choose anything, we do that.

Agreed; I didn’t formulate a perfect comparison.

Alois:

And the INS is not complete or perfect, it is infinite, without end. You could say it’s all-encompassing though.

The set of Integers is complete in that it is not missing any integers. Perfect is another word for complete.

Perfect : \Per"fect, a. [OE. parfit, OF. parfit, parfet, parfait, F. parfait, L. perfectus, p. p. of perficere to carry to the end, to perform, finish, perfect; per (see Per-) _ facere to make, do. See Fact.] 1. Brought to consummation or completeness; completed; not defective nor redundant; having all the properties or qualities requisite to its nature and kind; without flaw, fault, or blemish; without error; mature; whole; pure; sound; right; correct.

(continued)

 

[hurst]

(continued)

Alois:

The problem of a source still arises.

Why does there have to be a source? You are assuming it didn’t exist at some point. How could you prove that? I am talking about it existing as a concept, not as a visible entity (which cannot be done anyway).

Alois:

It is entriely logical to believe in an infinite existence, something that contains all that can be.

Yes, we agree.

Alois:

However, existence is not the source of existence. It is existence.

This is a bit confusing. Let us distinguish between visible existence and invisible existence. Sometimes an existing object is the source of another existing object, perhaps by composition, perhaps by imitation, etc. An invisible design can be the source of a visible sculpture. A block of stone can be the source of the sculpted bust. Its existence subsists in the other.

Alois:

Every part of the whole is contained in the whole, but that does not mean the whole is the source of the parts.

You seem to be saying that in a number set, the set is not its own source of members. This may or may not be true, but is beside the point.

I was saying that the set is the source of numbers for use outside of the set. For it is clear that the visible universe does not contain all possible members, and yet we can cause new ones to be manifested in the universe. Thus, there is a larger existence than the visible universe from which we draw. This is logical even before one admits to there being a God.

Alois:

Every part of being is contained by existence, this does not mean that existence (or God changed to mean existence) created those parts.

At a minimum it means those parts subsist in that existence. Since you view an INS as a basket full of eggs instead of a reflection of infinity, let me refer to the sculpture, which hopefully more obviously subsists in the stone of which it is made. That is, the existence of the invisible design is manifested in the existence of the stone. This analogy implies we are carved from the infinite and eternal existence. And there are many more people yet to be born, which do not yet exist in the visible universe. Thus, it is clear that there is more to existence than the visible universe.

Alois:

To say that God is the source of existence would still require a jump not backed by logic.

Given that I have now addressed your points (sorry for the delay),
I hope it is clearer that if all existence in the visible universe subsists in the eternal existence, then it is simple logic to call that eternal (invisible) existence the “source” of such (manifested) existence.

Alois:

It would still require one to assume many different traits before it becomes a God in any sense, much less one in the Christian sense.

Not quite true. The eternal qualities of God I am covering are certainly of the Christian God.

If you are talking about the personal, loving, caring God, then you would be correct. Such a God cannot be known by natural reason alone - it requires faith to know God in that way.

But I am not pursuing that. I am only reasoning with you about what is possible for one without faith to know: that God exists as omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect, will, and in every perfection.

Alois:

It is totally logical to be grateful to the very God from which we take our existence.

This is the only part of your arguments that I still have a problem with, as you can probably see already. We don’t take our existence from existence. We make up existence.

We make up the set of manifested existences, but we subsist in the eternal existence, analogous to a sculpture subsisting in the rock. Also, computers subsist in clocked signals and pictures subsist in tiny colored dots.

Alois:

For instance, 23 is part of the INS, the INS did not create that number. God, if applied in the scenario you’re suggesting, is simply another word for existence.

Yes, but it is more. It is eternal existence, one which has always existed. I see that the comparison to the INS fails with you in that you see it as a composition of parts instead of an eternally existing infinite substance of distinguishables. But I have submitted some additional comparisons for your consideration.

Alois:

And even our personality is made from it.

Not made from it, but rather a part of it as a whole.

Not quite. I am not proposing a pantheistic model. It is as if we were nothingness surrounded by existence in such a manner that we exist in the eternal existence while not being it itself. We are like the “hole current” in a solid-state substrate, if you know what I mean.

hurst

 

[AnAtheist]

hurst:

This is not about doubting. This is about recognizing and understanding the logic for accepting the existence of “a God”. Perhaps you meant you don’t understand?

I think, I see now where the problem lies.
Nitpicking mode: We are not talking of logic of here, but of reasonable prepositions. Using logic we can derive conclusions from those prepositions.

When I say “I doubt”, then that means, I do not totally accept the validity of a reasonable preposition. (I hope I do translate “reasonable” correctly in this context. In my language “reasonable” means “not absurd” and not “factually true”.) That may have several reasons like there is no evidence for that preposition or there is evidence, that may be interpreteted against that preposition.

You say, it is more or less obvious that God exists. I disagree. Esp. when it comes down to a Creator, to me that is one of many theories or explanations, how the world came into existence, and I test that theory like the others.

 

[AnAtheist]

hurst:

You’d say? I would say otherwise, but for the sake of argument, let’s go by your statement as a hypothesis.

I am just a bit cautious with my wording, esp. when discussing stuff that may get others very upset.

The first thing I’d point out is that rubik’s cube is said to have more combinations than the number of atoms in the known universe. But just in case it doesn’t, let’s create a larger cube: 4x4x4 or 5x5x5. Actually, there are java-based cubes of arbitrary size. It follows then that it is easy to come up with a codable concept that is not at all limited by the size of the universe.

The second thing I’d point to is the set of Integers. You can go arbitrarily high. Thus, the number codable is greater than the number physically able to be manifested, which supports the notion that the visible universe is not infinite enough, and thus is not the totality of existence.

Ah, I understand what you mean. And I agree, that an integer number of “10^200” exists in a different way than “5” apples. The five apples exist in realiter, the “10^200” exist as a concept, as does the “5”. But there is no way, that 10^200 apples could exist.
In that sense God of course exists as a concept. I’d follow Anselm of Canterbury’s definition of God here. He is just not real.

Btw, with roughly 10^80 particles the universe is able to code a great many thing. The information that can be stored in the universe is surely “greater” than the universe itself. Now, that’s an interesteting aspect to reason a pantheistic diety into reality.

 

[hurst]

Alois:

Defining something has nothing to do with inventing it. If I define a monkey, did I create it?

Your logic does not follow. To define something that is observed (such as a monkey) is different from defining something that is not yet manifest (such as a new widget). The very nature of invention is to specify something new (e.g. patent). So in that sense, it does have something to do with inventing it. But we digress.

Alois:

What is your definition of “a Christian God”?

God as described in the Bible.

There are certain aspects of God that can be known by using the natural light of reason.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: …

Colossians 1:16 For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him. 17 And he is before all, and by him all things consist.

Other aspects require faith in divine revelation. But the naturally knowable aspects are in the same God, and I do expect you to be able to at least accept that much as being logical, if you will follow reason.

Alois:

We define God as: omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will and in every perfection.

Is that the kind of God you say is not logical?

This isn’t the Christian God, however.

In fact, it is part of a solemnly made definition by a major council of the Catholic Church.

The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.

First Vatican Council 1870
vaxxine.com/pjm/vaticanI.htm

I’ve shown that your analogy is false, yet you continue to use the results of it?

I think you lost track of that line of thought.

I am not using an analogy or its results when I tell you what the Christian God is, which you deny as being the Christian God. I countered with an actual definition made by the Church of what the Christian God is.

(Note: I have now addressed your response to that analogy in a separate post)

Alois:

… Man has always defined God as being all powerful, all knowing, and supernatural.

This is simply not true, based on my understanding of history. For example, the pagans certainly did not always define God as such, nor even today do all men define God as such.

Also, what is your definition of “supernatural”?

Alois:

The God you’ve proposed does not contain these traits, but does contain the traits of existence.

The similitude I made some posts back was focused mainly on the aspect of infinite existence. It fails in regards to some other aspects, even though I put some references to them. But I never intended to be limited to that analogy for the definition of God.

We are now mixing two separate points: 1) existence considered in itself, and 2) differences in definition of “a God”

Alois:

God is not existence.

Yes, He is, and must be. He is His own existence, and everything exists in Him. “In Him we live and move and have our being”. But this existence is more than the recognizable universe.

It is reasonable and logical to conclude that we are made from the eternally existing existence, even though we are nothing of ourselves. Just as an atom is mostly empty space.

Alois:

Do you believe the INS ‘thinks’? … has any power over the numbers within it?

No.

Alois:

Of course, your idea ignores the possibilites that nothing can come from nothing. …

I already agree that nothing can come from nothing. It is logical.
But I think you misquoted yourself. Do you mean “the possibilities that something can come from nothing”? If so, then I would think we’d both agree that such a notion is not logical.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

Originally Posted by Alois
Why is a universe created by an infinite God more logical than a universe that is infinite?

It is more logical for the universe to be created because it represents a particular manifestation of a much larger potential.

Universe wasn’t such a grand term to use here, existence would fit better. I apologise.

So you meant to say “Why is an existence created by an infinite God more logical than an existence that is infinite?” ?

I don’t see how that makes better sense. Please clarify.

Alois:

Ijnfinite existence would contain all possible possibilites. In other words, all potential.

By definition, existence is actual, not potential. The visible universe is filled with potential existence, as well as a lot of actual existence. (e.g. people). But it is all nothingness wrapped with active existence from the infinite ever-existing source.

(I think of a hydrogen atom with one proton and one electron being analogous to a person. The electron is actively encasing it in a shell, with mostly empty space. The proton itself is made of 3 quarks (last I read). So the electron shell is like our body, and the proton shell is like our interior soul with the three powers of memory, intellect, and will.)

Alois:

If the universe were truly infinite, then all possible snowflakes would already be manifested in it somewhere.

No, if existence were infinite, the amount of possibilities would be infinite. With a set of infinite numbers, the possible variations in the set of infinite numbers would be infinite.

You substituted the word “universe”. Are you now saying that you agree there is more to existence than the visible universe? I am not sure I understand you here.

You bring up a new question regarding the relative sizes of different infinities, and this only further enhances my point that infinite existence cannot be represented by the visible universe, but is only manifested in part therein.

Alois:

This has nothing to do with infiniteness. 26! is a finite number. Existence is infinite, so the amount of possibilites is also infinite.

My point is that those possibilities have to be kept in existence somewhere, and it can’t be the visible universe. I do not dispute that existence is infinite properly so-called. But the “existence” of the visible universe is only a composition.

Alois:

The stories that have occured are a part of existence, and the stories that haven’t are likewise, part of existence.

Agreed.

Alois:

However, existence doesn’t need to “store” those possibilities, much like a computer doesn’t need to store all possible results of an equation. They are a part of existence as it is.

I don’t follow this comparison. Just because a computer doesn’t need to store all possible results, those results still exist.

Existence does in fact need to store all possibilities, somehow, or else they do not exist. It is as simple as that. For example, the 23452353125th prime number exists, but it has not been discovered yet. We know it exists logically, but not because we found it and proved it to everyone. And we can know with certainty that even larger primes exist, though they can not ever be expressed or proven in a manifest way in this universe. But they surely exist.

Alois:

… the physical universe is too small to contain all possible existence …

This is akin to stating that mathmatical formulas aren’t logical because the number of results you can produce from them far exceed the number of numbers plugged into them. Existence contains all possible results of its properties, just as formulas do. Likewise, all those possible results make up the infinity of existence.

I have somewhat lost you. I thought you only believed in the visible universe, and I was trying to show that there must be more than that. You now seem to be making a different point, and I don’t fully understand what you mean when you say “existence”.

(continued)

 

[hurst]

Alois:

Maybe I’m blind, but I read that as him saying “I am me”. How are you getting “I am all that is” from it?

I am that I am = I am that I exist. He is “being-ness”. There can be no other, for all existence is comprised in Himself. Thus for us to exist, who are nothing of ourselves, and did not make ourselves, He must be sharing His existence with us, and that can only have happened if He formed us and all we can recognize (both visible and invisible) from Himself. We are like the empty space inside of an atom, and our souls are like empty space inside the proton, surrounded by the image of God Who is reflected in us. It is just an analogy, but hopefully transmits the notion of our being nothing while subsisting in existence not our own.

Alois:

We don’t share in existence, we are part of it. We can’t share in existence because two things can’t both be one thing at their base form.

We are made of it. We are nothing, and we only exist in the one, eternally existing existence of God. Yet we are participating in His free will, because He Wills it to us.

We can share in it like the cake shares the shape of the pan, or the wax shares the image of the seal, or the plastic shares the shape of the mold. Electron current produces hole current in the opposite direction due to the fact that it subsists in atomic structure, which doesn’t move. These are all analogous to us existing in God, yet having a sort of limited freedom to move within that structure.

The question is whether we let Him have His way with us, or if we foolishly try to compete with Him and exist by ourselves. If we do that, we will tend to nothingness, which is essentially destruction.

Let us be sober and see with certainty by the use of our reason that God exists, even if beyond our full understanding, and that His control is not hindered by our free will, but rather enables it.

Alois:

In fact, it doesn’t even take into account our thoughts, and the set of possible concepts that our minds can think.

What do you base this claim off of?

I am referring again to invisible things that we nonetheless are able to recognize and realize had always existed before we recognized them. But before delving into this, I would like to know your definition of “existence”.

hurst

 

[hurst]

AnAtheist:

When I say “I doubt”, then that means, I do not totally accept the validity of a reasonable preposition. (I hope I do translate “reasonable” correctly in this context. In my language “reasonable” means “not absurd” and not “factually true”.)

I take it you speak German? I would recommend simply saying you “don’t agree” rather than saying you “doubt it”, and it will avoid the negative implications. Thanks.

By reasonable, I mean able to be handled with reasoning.

Reasonable : \Rea"sonable, a. [OE. resonable, F. raisonnable, fr. L. rationabilis. See Reason, n.] 1. Having the faculty of reason; endued with reason; rational; as, a reasonable being.
2. Governed by reason; being under influence of reason; thinking, speaking or acting rationally, or according to the dictates of reason; agreeable to reason; just; rational; as, the measure must satisfy all reasonable men.

Thus, reasonable does not simply mean “doesn’t sound silly”. It means more that it is responsive to answering questions clearly without deliberately evading conclusions.

Also, the proper term is “proposition”, as in something proposed, and not “preposition”.

AnAtheist:

That may have several reasons like there is no evidence for that preposition or there is evidence, that may be interpreteted against that preposition.

To reject a position solely because someone raised a doubt about it, is unstable. I suppose the same thing happens during election time when politicians “sling mud” at each other, hoping to dissuade voters from selecting their rivals. Likewise, one can always come up with a doubt if they don’t want to accept something.

AnAtheist:

You say, it is more or less obvious that God exists. I disagree.

No, it is not obvious. I am not saying that. What I am saying is that it does not require faith. We can know with certainty that God exists, a God with certain naturally knowable attributes, by the use of our human reason. That is all I am saying. There is no reason for anyone to be an atheist. However, this does not mean that one will obey this God, or seek to love this God and hope for love in return. That requires faith. And no one can be forced to give it.

AnAtheist:

Esp. when it comes down to a Creator, to me that is one of many theories or explanations, how the world came into existence, and I test that theory like the others.

It does not take faith to come to the realization that God exists, that He is His own existence, that only He exists, that He always existed, and that His existence is infinite. It is a logical conclusion based on observed reality. It has nothing to do with theories of how everything was created, but on the fact of existence.

hurst