Since we have established now the fact that zero and infinity are each other inverses let's take up the discussion what this means for God. Suppose that god represents the infinite in time and space and all other properties that he has. Next to the fact that we don't exist for him also the entire universe doesn't exist for him if it is finite. If god created the universe it is finite by definition because it has a definite beginning, also since (according to the bible) there is something like judgement day the universe has an end. But since any finite number reduces to zero in comparison with infinite the universe itself doesn't exist for god. So if god is to be the creator then the universe itself must be infinite. This however is a contradiction because something infinite has no beginning nor end so can not be created. This means that an infinite god has no connection with us finite beings and is certainly not the creator of the universe, in short has nothing to do with the universe at all. In comes Occam's Razor and slishes the infinite god away ! Is god finite then ? If he is then he has boundaries, he doesn't know everything, he can make mistakes and he is not perfect ! He is powerfull, of course if he created the universe, but not all powerfull. What is more : there is a point in time where god himself came into being and, last but not least god will die ! You see that a finite god doesn't deserve the name, let alone our praise and worship. So if god is not finite nor infinite there is only one thing left : zero ! This means that god as an all knowing intelligence is NOT EXISTING ! Be careful if you want to disagree, if you say I'm wrong don't just say this because you can't go on living in a world where this is true but try and look for the flaws in my explanation. ------------------ "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Isaac Newton
If god is the creator of the universe, as you postulate, then how can it BE infinite? In order for something to be infinite, it would have to have always been, or else it has a beginning and then, according to your theory, face an inevitable end. If the universe is finite, it had a beginning which would lead to the question of "what was the catalyst for that beginning?" If the universe is infinite, then who needs a 'creator' to begin with?
Plato, As much as I hate to do this (in view of my anti-religious stance) -- I do believe that I have glimpsed a flaw in your logic. For examle, cosider the set of all real numbers. That set is infinite, of course. Now, cut out of it a finite subset; the now-depleted set of real numbers is still infinite -- however, it no longer contains the subset we cut out. The subset we have just created indeed exists, and even has relevance to the larger infinite set, because it contains things that the infinite set does not contain. Yet, the subset is infinitely small compared to the infinite set that remains. So now, we have a situation where a finite quantity actually has relevance to an infinite quantity. One could argue, for examle, that even though God is infinite and the universe is finite, the universe and its inhabitants can still matter to God. After all, since God is so infinite, perhaps he/she/it can focus in on infinitesimal moments in time or space with infinite precision, and thus discern the entirety of our reality. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Boris, You sweet-talker. Ooh la la. Plato, If I understand your premise correctly, I think that the flaw may lie in an assumption, that the universe is God, or God is the universe. For that matter, I don't really think that we can quantify the universe as of yet, can we? Is there anything outside of a universe? Duh, I dunno. Seriously. I think it's difficult to understand dimensions which we are unaware of as of yet. And just to note that the Bible just doesn't help where this is concerned...Alpha, Omega, Beginning, and End. That's it. You figure it out. LOL! But He is a "being" that is not defined by the universe necessarily. And beginning and end in relation to what? I think that it's safe to assume that the Bible tells us what we NEED to know, but not all there is to know. Also, the souls that are saved in Jesus Christ will live eternally. That means infinately. So that means that one day I'll get to figure out all of this first hand. : ) ------------------ God loves you and so do I!
Lori, Don't fall in love with me yet... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Just as you can assume an eternal and infinite God with no beginning or end, you can do the same for the "thing" that preceded the Big Bang, and will follow the visible universe's death. Every single argument you can make for a creator, has a parallel in an argument against a creator. Neither can win, because nothing exists to judge the winner. On that note, you must agree that an infinity of "explanations" can be concocted for the reality outside of our reality -- Judaic God being only one of an infinity. Because all of these explanations are equally groundless, they have an equal probability of being correct. And, being an infinite set, their individual probabilities of correctness are 0. This means that the Christian God explanation has no chance of being correct. This is what I mean when I say, "we don't know, and we can't know." This is why I say that abandoning blind faith and declaring ignorance until further notice is the only intellectually honest, consistent, and the only right thing to do. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Boris, I'm glad you pointed that out, this however has no real consequence for my argument, it merly refines it a little. What I was trying for is to disprove the existence of an infinitly large intelligence. A set has no intelligence, it simply is, it doesn't need to have a representation of it's constituents, we do that for it. It is only in our (finite) mind that the subset has any meaning for the infinite set, the set itself couldn't care less Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! . This is where we disagree, there is no "perhaps". Let's look at it from a turinger machine viewpoint with an infinite memory. Suppose it contains everything there is to know and it must search for a specific finite thing. It will never find it ! Why ? Because (even considering infinite calculation speed) each sampling of the memory takes still a finite amount of time and there are an infinite amount of samples to be taken. Of couse you can argue but the machine has an infinite amount of time to look but still this gives you no guaranty that it will find what it is looking for : One can take away an infinite subset of numbers from an inifite set and still have an infinite subset left. Take again the example from the real numbers, remove all natural numbers and you still have an infinite set left ! Lori, Well you see Lori, I don't think that is the flaw but rather the consequence of my theory! This view is called Pantheism, it is an old herecy that has been convicted by the church more then 1600 years ago. What I am arguing really is to let go of the concept of a divine intelligence, god can be like tiassa said About if there is something outside the univese just depends on what your definition of universe is. If you regard the universe to be everything there is, was and ever shall be including our own (and other intelligent beings) imaginiations of how the universe could look like then there is nothing outside it because there isn't such a thing as outside, it is simply everything! If you an the other hand think of the universe as what we can see for the moment when we look at the stars or when we look at the elementary particles in our particle colliders then I think yes because everything we think we know is always a finite piece of the possible infinity that everything can be. ------------------ "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Isaac Newton
Plato, I must admit it is kinda fun playing Devil's advocate for once. But I must once again question your conclusions. First of all, a Turing machine is inherently the most simplistic computational mechanism imaginable, with a very obvious bottleneck built in. However, God doesn't have to be easily describable by a Turing machine. What if God's intelligence is equivalent to an infinite number of Turing machines working in parallel? For example, for every cubic Planck volume of spacetime at every Planck time segment from the birth of the universe to its death, God could have a separate storage and retrieval "machine". (By the way, note that even such a complete database of the Universe's entire world-surface still contains a finite number of elements.) Just put a set of parallel Turing machines into a one-to-one correspondence with the memory space compartments, and you've got instant retrieval capability even over an infinite storage volume. I mean, once we assume one infinity in connection to God, why not go all the way and make <u>everything</u> about God infinite? More importantly, if God is to be the source of everything including its own existence, we cannot think of God in terms of any kind of machine. A machine would imply that God follows some laws not of its own making. And furthermore, since God exists outside of time, he is acausal and cannot therefore be described in terms of classical machines (or in terms of anything that we know, for that matter.) <hr> I think there is no clean mathematical way to show impossibility of God. However, I think there are plenty of mathematical ways to demonstrate God's *improbability*. For example, why should we only have 1 God, instead of 2, or 3, or 100, or 10^100, or infinitely many? Or maybe, we have no God at all. Or maybe, there is a God, but not in an absolute sense, and creation alternates with chance evolution? It is the limitless possibilities that ultimately spell doom for any theology. At least that's what I think... ------------------ I am; therefore I think. [This message has been edited by Boris (edited September 28, 1999).]
I just knew you were going to attack me on the Turinger machine bit. That is why I said 'suppose' but I must admid I kind of got carried away. In fact what you are saying is that we simply don't know how a divine intelligence functions. I agree but again we have come to an other conclusion. God is outside time and space, so my conclusion was right that there is no such thing as an intelligence who exists in infinite timespace. Now we must think about how would you define outside time and space ? How to imagine trancending time, it is one thing to say it but quite a different to try to get a grip on it. About the myriad of possible gods, you are right of course and to a large extend this is already the case. The Chrisitan God doesn't exist, for example. Each christian has his or her own image of him which differs subtly from that of another christian. That is only human because the only thing everyone agrees on is that the true nature of the divine is unknown. So how to tackle the transcendence problem ? What is transcending anyway ? For one, I think not having part of the thing that is transcendented. Transcending also implies some kind of movement in a direction (at least to me it does). This can be in a spiritual way like transcending an idea by having an other (better) one. For example the quantum mechanical description of light transcendented the discussion if light was made up of particles or of waves, it was both ! Transcending could also be in a physical way for example a cube transcendents the two dimensional world of the square. In what way does God transcendent the universe ? ------------------ "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Isaac Newton
Plato, All very good points. Though you must agree that any God (or Gods) in the true sense of the word(s) must exist outside both space and time. To state otherwise is to demote them from God(s) to merely meddler(s). Therefore, it is nonsensical to talk about God "deciding" something, or "performing" a miracle, or "planning" -- because he/she/it would have to do all of those things in one instant so short that it cannot be described as having had elapsed in time. And even then, causality edges in -- if God "does" something, it means he/she/it must first exist, and then "do" whatever it is that is "done". This implies a time-sequence of events, which is a no-no outside time. Which once again brings me to the conclusion that all of the musings about God, its nature, its prerogatives or its goals -- are total baloney. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Boris and Plato, What if we look at things bass-ackwards? Both of you (I think-please forgive me if I misquote) suggest that a god must exist outside both space and time. What if we look at it the other way, simply that space and time small parts of what a god is? I mean given the basic assumption that a god is omniscient and omnipotent, does this premise not follow suit? I see a hole in the logic that you put forth... Assumption 1a. A god is omnipotent and omniscient (and infinite). I make this assumption on the grounds that a limited god is not worth our worship (as Plato points out). Assumption 1b. The universe is finite at least in time, since it seems to have had a beginning and is proposed to have an end. Premise 1. An infinite thing has no means of contact with a finite thing, for reasons put forth previously. Conclusion. If there is a god, he would have no real means of contact with the universe. As stated in the "Logic book" by Bergmann et al., "An arguement is deductively valid if and only if it is not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false." Assuming that 1a and 1b are true, than premise 1 is deductively invalid, on the grounds that something omnipotent is able to do anything. Therefore, since the conclusion given is strongly based on premise 1, it is not a deductively valid argument. This argument would work however, if we remove the assumption that a god is not omnipotent. However, then this is a different god than that is discussed in most modern monodeist religions. Like Boris, it's kinda fun to play devil's advocate now and then. ------------------ Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. -Mark Twain
I would like to come back to the turingermachine comparisons. I agree that a turinger machine is a lame excuse for a god but there must be some processing of information going on if one wants to speak of an intelligence. I also agree that if you have a one to one relationship of parallel processors with spacepoints that you want to retrieve information from, you have instant retrieval. First of all this means that there must be an infinite amount of processors for each dimension that your space (or god) has. This parallel processing however is no good if you have an infinite amount of processors ! These processes can be seen as finite intelligences who work in unison but this unity is an illusion. It would imply there is only information going one way : from the processors to the spacetimepoint, any information going the other way must take an infinite amount of time for all the other processors to know about and act on it. So again, there is no way a god like that could interact with its creation. About existing outside spacetime : fine by me but I have it very difficult to see how anything can exist without a dimension to exist in, unless of course you mean by "outside" just some different dimensions that are orthogonal on our spacetime. An other posibility is that god exists in our spacetime but his constituents simply don't interact with all our forms of matter but if this is the case then again there is a hard time to visualise the casual interactions that do take place in the form of appearences and miracles. In the middle ages one believed that the spiritual beings like Angels were made of a fifth element that doesn't interact with the normal four. However when Maria got her annonciation she saw the angel and heard his voice so they thought that the angels somehow increased their elemental density and thus became visible. They forgot however that if there is no interaction with this element in its low density there can't be any in its higher density form. Pookums, I think the only thing we have to do is redefine the meaning of omnipotence as being able to do everything that is not a logical contradiction. Thus we take the good old example of the stone : he can't make a stone that he can't lift ! Or he can't hold the box in which he himself is present holding the box... If he is not bound to such things then any claim about him has no meaning so we might as well call him the most helpless creature as the most powerfull, he is finite and infinite, he is and isn't. I know some people like to talk in this way but it also means that nobody is wrong about god, not the christians, not the atheists, not the boeddists : there is a hell, there exists a devil, Zeus is out there looking very cross with a lightningbolt on his fingertips ! How do we conseal this multitude (infinite to be precise) of illogicalities with a seemingly logical universe ? ------------------ "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Isaac Newton
I hope the universe isn't logical...it would really spoil my day. That would there are most likely logical reasons for the bad stuff that happens to me!! Your point regarding logical contradictions and omnipotence is sound; as we have discussed in the other posts. But, perhaps to something omnipotent, there are no contradictions. I mean, what if our current reality is only the one of many paths that could be followed (like that Star Trek episode!). Under these conditions, an omnipotent being could do something that was a logical contradiction simply by doing each in a different parallel reality. Ooh, it just keeps getter deeper and deeper...(time to put on the boots). I truly think there are no logical ways to prove or disprove a god, as Boris stated earlier, since the basic logical premises are not provable. As you mentioned at the end of your last thread, that it seems as if the choices an individual makes regarding religion are valid, but only within the context of that individual. I guess that's faith by definition... ------------------ Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. -Mark Twain
Plato, Once again, I would like to point out that representation of God as a machine does not make sense. This is because machines are not self-defined, or self-sufficient in their embodyment -- they must consist of "something" which predates them, they must operate under laws which they do not dictate. If you start thinking of God as a machine, then you assume a reality that predates and encompasses God -- making him a finite being in an absolute sense. One of THE fundamental assumptions of Christianity is that soul/mind/whatever is not a machine, and cannot be represented by one. This "solves" all the physical riddles -- since if it is not a machine, it doesn't have to obey any laws we normally assume. Of course, as soon as it is conclusively demonstrated that the human "mind" is essentially merely a description of an internal state of a machine -- Christianity (and most other world religions) will be in real deep doodoo. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
Pookums, Even if all of existence is merely part of God, we still have a problem with God transcending time (as would be required for prophecies, omniscience, etc.) -- actually, in this case God would have to be transcending <u>himself</u>, which just sounds nonsensical! You must agree that if God is to transcend time, he must be able to exist at least temporarily outside of time. But it can't just be temporary, since God is everything. Therefore, God (at least in part) permanently resides outside of time -- or otherwise, is bound by time just as we are, and therefore not all-powerful. ------------------ I am; therefore I think. [This message has been edited by Boris (edited September 30, 1999).]
So what started it all? Before the Big Bang, was there energy & matter? And if there was, what made it? What is the ultimate Cause? Even if your answer is an oscillating universe, did it ever have a beginning? And what started life? If the components are scattered here on earth, should we have entirely new life forms still forming & not just mutations? And why do we have conscisnous(sp)? Is that the end result of all evolution? Are there any self-aware snails? Are there any dog philosphers? Do horses really know math? If GOD doesn't exist what started it all? Are we just a fluke? Is there a spark of life? Is there cause & effect in this matter? Or just being? If all the Anthro classes I took are right, some time after we became modern man, we started leaving evidence that we believed in an afterlife, that there was something bigger than ourselves. To some of us the answer is that GOD said, "Let there be light..". For all the answers we have to await death, either there is an Eternity or there is an eternity of nothing. In either case its too late to argue about the fine points of being!
Kosmologists will tell you that the question "what was there BEFORE the big bang" has no answer because time itself was created by the big bang. If there is no time questions related to time become irrelevent. Perhaps if we go up on some imaginable dimensions and look at the universe from "outside" (?) one can "look" at the big bang as a bystander. Of couse you are looking from outside of time and space so there is nothing to look with, this all is getting very complicated once you begin with these things. Ok, lets suppose that there are in effect an infinite amount of dimensions (this is all purely hypothetical because we have no means of verifying that this is the case). Mathematician call this kind of space a Hilbert space. It is very Euclidian in nature but it has infinite many dimension in stead of 3. Suppose our universe is situated somewhere in this Hilbertspace, there is however enough place for an infinite amount of other universes like ours, all independent from each other. In each of these universes the basic constants (like lightspeed, electron charge, gravitational constant) are a little different, some may have develloped life, others simply don't have the good configuration, other have develloped something we can't even begin to imagine because we lack the words and ideas to think about them. We live in a universe that favours our kind of life and consiousness nothing special, just one out of an infinite amount of possibilities. There is no god needed here because all the universes can come into being without any help, and can evolve each in their own way again without any help. ------------------ "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Isaac Newton
So even if you stand outside of all this, there is no start? What is this, a cosmic continuum; where everything has to be because it is? Or is it a cosmic circle, where if you don't send Kyle, there could be no John Conner? Everything has to have a start, it can't just come out ex nihilo, without a causetive factor. We are, therefor we exist???
If nothing can come out ex nihilo, then you've got a real problem with the concept of God. After all, it doesn't really matter whether a God always existed, or a godless universe always existed -- the end-results are the same. (Though I must say that in the absense of observable divine intervention, a godless universe certainly looks more plausible...) ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
That is very funny Searcher, did you know they asked Descartes something very simular. He once got a court order were it said he was centenced by the court of France to proof that he existed. Next day he fled to the Netherlands.
