Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Dragohunter

Problem of Infinite existence of God

27 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Dragohunter

Here is a debate I had with my Athiest friend.

My friend: So far, you classify God as an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient invisible being that controls the series of events that takes place in our universe. I fairly agree somewhat must exist since thing in nature to control our timeline can not spring up as our universe in a random change in atoms. So far, these definitions defy all laws of science although I agree with your arguement that our view of the nature of science is very narrow minded and such things outside the nature of the universe must most likely exist. But as you said that this being somehow created everything of existence, how did God himself come out existence?

Me: God did not just spring out existence. You agree if such being exists, he is not bond to this universal nature and is not matter?

My friend: Yes, as he is undoubtfully, if he exists, a seperate entity from our universe.

Me: And you are also aware the that the definition of matter is any dimensional property that takes up space, has cosmological features, and can not be created or destroyed. This does not correlate the fact that God could have created matter although he is all powerful since matter truly can't be created or destroyed so their either is a special circumstance. You do now why it can't be created of destroyed?

My friend: Yes, you can not destroy matter. If I take a flamethrower and destroy this building right now, I am not destroying the matter itself. I just took this solid, and seperated the atoms into a different structure or changing the energy from the mass. The same number of atoms are still there, just in different form. And since such things in nature has opposites such as happiness and suffering, matter can't be created either. For an example, a concept of happiness can not be in existence if there is no concept of suffering. The concept of the existence of an object can not exist without a concept of an abscence of an object. A concept of hot can not exist without a concept of cold.

Me: So, according to the Big Bang Theory, there was a small concentrated matter that exploded, where did that matter come from? It can not be created. Some people say, "well, .... maybe it was always there." That's impossible, that defies the other definition of matter, it has cosmological features. Time is part of matter and time indicates that there has to be something preceding from it, matter is not infinite. So I have revised the definition of matter as a dimensional substance that takes up space, has cosmological features, and can't be created or destroyed by OTHER matter. Every single example, "If you kill someone and burn their body, your not destroying the matter within them, you're just seperating the atoms which will eventually go into the dirt to decay and then form into something else, the matter isn't being destroyed, only changed." is presentable because it's being effected by OTHER matter. So if you acknowledge the fact that matter might not be the only thing in existence, it totally destroys the definition. So it's possible that something else created the universe, as long as it isn't matter.

My friend: Yes, that makes sense.

Me: Then since we did agree that God isn't matter since he's not bound by space, since space is the same paradigm as time, time doesn't exist within God either. Or in other words, God does not have a beginning or an end. Rather in other words, since God created everything in existence, God is the inventor of time itself, a hard concept to grasp being that we are trapped within its paradigm. There is no beginning or end only a constructed time line that we recognises and work within it structure until we ourselves are removed from it. A basic understanding of God is that he exists outside of time.We know that, without time, there can be no change. Time cannot 'exist' on its own - it is an essential property of space - so we must conclude for something to be here there must always have been something. Time is not a property of 'nothing' (how could it be?) so 'something' must have existed (including space) for the universe to have been 'created' from. It would seem infinite regression indeed exists as somethinig finite can NOT exist without something infinite already correspondingly existing. That's why God doesn't have to be created to exist because he's the base of existence in time itself.

My friend: I understand, that seems pratically reasonable to understand as it makes sense something can't exist finitely without a corresponding infinite in existence. But can something exist finitely within infinitely itself?

Me: What do you mean?

My friend: Now, time is not just a concept. I would agree that our measurement of time, the way we divide it into segments, is arbitrary and based purely on our subjective experience of it. But time itself is, as I said before, an essential property of 'something'. If anything exists then time must exist with it. Now, as for an infinite consciousness (God) then I question whether that can exist? If consciousness has no 'beginning' then it can never be 'here as in the term as space'. We only have a present because we have a beginning - a past - and a future. We are finite in the extent of our consciousness and so are conscious in just this moment of the present. God would be conscious in ALL moments at once and so can not necessarily be identified separately present, past or future. Is that true?

Me: Yes, I know that.

My friend: To those who say God exists outside time, then if that is so God can never have any influence on anything 'inside' time, because God cannot change. God might be eternal in that sense but would not be able to 'create' because the act of creation requires time in order to take place. Time can not have a beginning as since time is the concept of beginning itself which also goes against the fact that matter can not create other matter. As you logically stated that finite can not exist without infinite but it seems it can't be created as something finite either. So either one of us is wrong with new cicrumstances or we have been wrong all along and this universe might not be finite as it seems.

Me: (Unexpected)

My friend: Yet, do you still logically sure there is still the existence of infinite regression?

Me: Yes, as I believe in the existence of God for many reasons and this theory was created to match logically of how it is most likely possible for how he can exist.

My friend: Yes, your those other arguements were understandable (this is from before)

Me: Although you have pointed out a major flaw in my theory on the creation of our universe, you did not dissprove that infinite regression can exist. We agree with things in nature have opposites right?

My friend: Of course.

Me: So since there is a concept of nature being finite, shouldn't there be a concept of infinite to exist to correspond to it's opposite nature? Since the universe is time and space itself. Anything outside it's paradigm must exist of something that's the oppposite nature of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fullywired

No wonder you like debating with your friend he agrees with everything you say LOL

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

We think in oppositions. We can imagine opposites of real things, but the opposites need not have any reality. The square circle, for instance. Even to assert that the term fails to refer, we must entertain the possibility that it does.

Nothing follows from this. That is how we think. The Universe is under no compulsion to furnish an instance of every furrball our cognitive machinery coughs up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Are you debating with yourself? If so then you are a master debater!

Kidding - but this does read alot like Plato's Phaedo. Not that I mind - I love philosophy. Interesting post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ai_guardian

Maybe my brain is too tired (past 4:30 am here), but I find the OP very confusing :( For some reason I cannot follow what you're trying to say, your friend and you.

I agree with eight bits though.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dragohunter
We think in oppositions. We can imagine opposites of real things, but the opposites need not have any reality. The square circle, for instance. Even to assert that the term fails to refer, we must entertain the possibility that it does.

Nothing follows from this. That is how we think. The Universe is under no compulsion to furnish an instance of every furrball our cognitive machinery coughs up.

Oppositions don't exist? But concepts must have opposites in order to exist in itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wombat

Why are people so eager to discuss the nature of god when not even god's existance has been established?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dragohunter

It actually has been established, but it's illegal to share the evidence since it contradicts other religion and beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fullywired
It actually has been established, but it's illegal to share the evidence since it contradicts other religion and beliefs.

That's very convenient don't you think

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
Oppositions don't exist? But concepts must have opposites in order to exist in itself.

Some oppositions exist. Others don't. Non-existence doesn't matter much to conception.

We can imagine cognition that is free of oppositions. Alas, that imagining is an opposition of cognition as we know it, and we don't know whether it really exists. It is the sort of cognition that it sometimes attributed to eternal beings, gods, angels, and so on. Maybe Homer Simpson, too.

I am of the "what is, is" school. While we rely heavily on oppositions to understand what is, and how things relate to other things, I doubt that the existence of the things in the first place depends on us, and so, I imagine, does not depend on our oppositions. Other views are possible, of course.

it's illegal to share the evidence

Huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dragohunter

No I don't think it's convinient. People are not believing in God because of reasons, but simply because they don't want to believe in him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
People are not believing in God because of reasons, but simply because they don't want to believe in him

Which people did you have in mind?

(After you explain why it is illegal to share evidence on point, please.)

Edited by eight bits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
It actually has been established, but it's illegal to share the evidence since it contradicts other religion and beliefs.

BIG PILE OF NONSENSE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dragohunter

It's true, in the US, the teachers are not even allowed to talk about God in school. You're not allowed to talk about God in the newspaper.

Edited by Dragohunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
It's true, in the US, the teachers are not even allowed to talk about God in school. You're not allowed to talk about God in the newspaper.

You are allowed to talk about God in the newspaper. The school point is the first amendment of the US constitution, the separation of church and state (something consistently flouted by US politicians) and there is nothing wrong with not involving religion in education, that would be indoctrination.

Guess what though, the US is not everywhere else. There is the majority which would be the rest of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
Oppositions don't exist? But concepts must have opposites in order to exist in itself.

You are making a virtually unprovable assumption. You are assuming that there are opposites for everything, but unless you have examined EVERYTHING, you can't prove this is so.

Edited by IamsSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dragohunter

You do NOT live in the US MattShark.. I've gotten trouble in school for talking about God and in some states, they banned the pledge of allegiance to be said in school because it says God once in it. In an interview in a newspaper, one person stated, "I owe it all to God." and the editor changed it to "I owe it all to the people." because you were not allowed to talk about religion in the newspaper. How would you know anything?

Edited by Dragohunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark
You do NOT live in the US. I've gotten trouble in school for talking about God and in some states, they banned the pledge of allegiance to be said in school because it says God once in it. In an interview in a newspaper, one person stated, "I owe it all to God." and the editor changed it to "I owe it all to the people." because you were not allowed to talk about religion in the newspaper. How would you know anything?

You are assuming I have never lived in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
You do NOT live in the US MattShark.. I've gotten trouble in school for talking about God and in some states, they banned the pledge of allegiance to be said in school because it says God once in it. In an interview in a newspaper, one person stated, "I owe it all to God." and the editor changed it to "I owe it all to the people." because you were not allowed to talk about religion in the newspaper. How would you know anything?

Matt may not be living in the Us, but I am, and you are exaggerating things quite a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thisisnotmyname
.....

My friend: To those who say God exists outside time, then if that is so God can never have any influence on anything 'inside' time, because God cannot change. God might be eternal in that sense but would not be able to 'create' because the act of creation requires time in order to take place. Time can not have a beginning as since time is the concept of beginning itself which also goes against the fact that matter can not create other matter. As you logically stated that finite can not exist without infinite but it seems it can't be created as something finite either. So either one of us is wrong with new circumstances or we have been wrong all along and this universe might not be finite as it seems.

Me: (Unexpected)

.....

I can see where as a monotheist you would have no response to this. It is difficult to insist there is only one god and can only ever be one god, when a concept such as this is brought up.

From my own (polytheistic) perspective, it is different. Many polytheists believe there is one being that sparked all creation, who resides in Eternity and/or Nothingness. Such a being would have many incarnations/"faces"/personas/lesser gods/whatever you would like to call them, which would instead exist within time. These gods that exist within time would naturally be the vehicle for the Creator's work in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dragohunter
I can see where as a monotheist you would have no response to this. It is difficult to insist there is only one god and can only ever be one god, when a concept such as this is brought up.

From my own (polytheistic) perspective, it is different. Many polytheists believe there is one being that sparked all creation, who resides in Eternity and/or Nothingness. Such a being would have many incarnations/"faces"/personas/lesser gods/whatever you would like to call them, which would instead exist within time. These gods that exist within time would naturally be the vehicle for the Creator's work in time.

I don't think so, People say that all the logical proof that there is a Intellegent Infinite Creator doesn't prove that there is only one. Well I was thinking, space (in the human abstraction) is the paradigm that there is space between two different objects creating the conception of there is quantity for things to be seperated by location. Since God is said to be infinite with not existing within the conception of spacetime, how can there be more than one God when quantity doesn't exist as the Gods do not exist in matter? There must be only one God. Other than that, I see no point in more than one God. Because if the Gods were infinitely intellegent and wise, they'd all agree with the same thing because all of them would know what is absolutely right, yes? They'd all act the same, think the same, and have the same nature. So ultimately, it would be the same as if there was only one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nik Xues

Infinite=everything=nothing

1st law of physics

and the definition of god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thisisnotmyname
I don't think so, People say that all the logical proof that there is a Intellegent Infinite Creator doesn't prove that there is only one. Well I was thinking, space (in the human abstraction) is the paradigm that there is space between two different objects creating the conception of there is quantity for things to be seperated by location. Since God is said to be infinite with not existing within the conception of spacetime, how can there be more than one God when quantity doesn't exist as the Gods do not exist in matter? There must be only one God. Other than that, I see no point in more than one God. Because if the Gods were infinitely intellegent and wise, they'd all agree with the same thing because all of them would know what is absolutely right, yes? They'd all act the same, think the same, and have the same nature. So ultimately, it would be the same as if there was only one of them.

That's not really what I was getting at.

The sides of the creator seen as "existing" is not to mean so much that they take form on the physical plane. My own views take into account the concepts of several higher and lower spiritual planes of existence, as is common in theosophical thought, as well as many ancient religions (and alot of the ones that are still around). I guess I just neglected to mention this.

Also, it seems you didn't really understand my conception of the 'sides' of the creator. I am looking at it not so much as the creator spawning literal "children" or anything like that. It is more just to think of gods of different things as different "sides" of the creator. In my opinion, a being composed of every side of the Eternal would not be remotely capable of existing in full form on any plane lower than the Eternity/Nothingness. It is somewhat akin to when monotheists speak of the "voice of god" being so incredible and utterly unfathomable to mortals that it would cause any human who heard it to die instantly, and thus the god of Abraham is thought to have sent a..."representative" to speak to Mary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShaunZero
No I don't think it's convinient. People are not believing in God because of reasons, but simply because they don't want to believe in him.

You mean, because we have no reason to. Which is absolutely reasonable, and actually the most logical conclusion at the time.

It's true, in the US, the teachers are not even allowed to talk about God in school. You're not allowed to talk about God in the newspaper.

There are so many claimed Gods that it would be unfair to choose just a hand few to teach about. It would also be confusing and impossible to speak of all of them. And besides, school is a place for learning facts, not beliefs.

Edited by ShaunZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thisisnotmyname
You mean, because we have no reason to. Which is absolutely reasonable, and actually the most logical conclusion at the time.

There are so many claimed Gods that it would be unfair to choose just a hand few to teach about. It would also be confusing and impossible to speak of all of them. And besides, school is a place for learning facts, not beliefs.

I am (obviously) a relatively religious person, and I totally agree with you. Spirituality is not and never will be something that can be taught in a school, and the last thing anyone needs at any age is to have beliefs DICTATED to them as supposedly the only truth, when there is no real proof one way or another. What's worse is (and I hate to say this because I run the risk of inadvertently attracting everyone who constantly debates evolution and creationism) when there is something that has massive amounts of scientific proof for it and there are religious folk who don't like that fact, so they try to inject their own belief system into the curriculum. It is madness. Things of a spiritual or religious nature should never be in a science classroom; in my opinion they are unrelated. The only classrooms spirituality has a place in are philosophy, theology, and maybe English (or whatever language one speaks). In all cases the focus should never be on just one belief system. I'd love to see the look on the fundies' faces if every other religious group in a given state started pining for their creation theory to be taught in science classes along with evolution and Christian Intelligent Design. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.