On Infinity

Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
On Infinity

God is an entity possessing one or more infinite attributes - omnipotence, omniscience, omni-benevolence, etc.  Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that these infinite attributes are composed of discrete units, each unit being enough of God to produce and sustain one human-like creation.

God: 1  2  3  4  5  -> ∞

 

God "spends" one unit to create one person.

God: 2  3  4  5 -> ∞

Dudes: 1

 

This does not diminish God at all.  God still has an infinite number of these units to spend.  It doesn't matter how many people God creates, there's still an infinite number of units left over.

God: 193 -> ∞

Dudes: 192

 

This is true even if God spends an infinite number of units to create another entity possessing one or more infinite attributes or to create an infinite number of human-like persons. Infinity never runs out.  This leads us to one of three conclusions:

1) God is not infinite.  In which case, why worship something as God that is merely more powerful than we currently are?  Someday, our power may very well rival or outstrip a God of this type.

2) God chose, for whatever reason, not to create peers who could interact with God on God's level.  Why should we worship a God who deliberately creates, inflicts suffering and punishment on, and demands worship from, people who are literally infinitely weaker and helpless in the face of God's will?  I, for one, choose not to worship a divine psychopathic narcissist.

3) God does not exist. The universe is limited, and so are we, because of the boundary conditions of existence.  There's only so much to work with because of the nature of the universe. 


Alexicov
Alexicov's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2010-11-04
User is offlineOffline
I don't follow 1) could you

I don't follow 1) could you please elaborate?


Thanks! 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Alexicov wrote:I don't

Alexicov wrote:

I don't follow 1) could you please elaborate?


Thanks! 

Actually they're all non sequiturs, I see the general idea of what he's trying to get through but they don't follow logically.  Basing definitions on ambiguous terms such as infinite, or my favorite, limitless Eye-wink (see Mr. Metaphysical's ML OA) leads to ridiculous conclusions.  Any omni-x attribute leads to logical inconsistencies, but claiming infinity is a whole other level of inconsistency.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
 Basicly it seems by the

 Basicly it seems by the laws we understand god does not exist. But I think most theists are going to say he does not follow our laws or probably any law you can come up with.

Santa delivers toys to every child in the world. Kid asks "How does he carry so many toys" adult answers after a moment of thought "He has a magic sleigh it can carry all the toys" kid asks how does he deliver them to all the children in one night?" adult says after a moments thought "Santa can be in many places at one time." Kid asks why can't we see where Santa lives?" Adult answers "because Santa and his workshop are invisible." etc etc

Santa follows the same laws, the law of magic and fantasy where anything can happen and you can make up shit as you go to MAKE it work.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:  Basing

Ktulu wrote:

  Basing definitions on ambiguous terms such as infinite, or my favorite, limitless Eye-wink (see Mr. Metaphysical's ML OA) leads to ridiculous conclusions. 

The 'limitless' canard is actually self refuting, as well as incredibly problematic. The 'limitless' meme can only work if one's mind is incredibly limited in capacity to model and think rationally and logically.

It's not an 'attribute'. It's actually an 'anti attribute'.

It only 'sounds' impressive. It's actually 'useless' to say something is 'unlimited'. It means it's 'nothing', and 'useless'.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Why 'worship' anything,

Why 'worship' anything, infinite or not?

Only entities worthy of such adoration, whose actions and attitude warrant such an attitude, should be 'worshipped', if you feel inclined to do such a thing (I don't).

It has nothing to do with 'magnitude' of power or capabilities.

Many cultures have worshipped entities that were not imagined to be 'infinite' in any sense, and not always 'greater' than us in every sense.

EDIT: Why propose that a God exists, anyway? It only complicates any attempt to understand, to make sense of everything, if you study things at more than a superficial level.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Kavis wrote:God is an entity

Kavis wrote:

God is an entity possessing one or more infinite attributes - omnipotence, omniscience, omni-benevolence, etc.

 

Are you sure?


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote: Actually

Ktulu wrote:

Actually they're all non sequiturs, I see the general idea of what he's trying to get through but they don't follow logically.  Basing definitions on ambiguous terms such as infinite, or my favorite, limitless Eye-wink (see Mr. Metaphysical's ML OA) leads to ridiculous conclusions.  Any omni-x attribute leads to logical inconsistencies, but claiming infinity is a whole other level of inconsistency.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Why 'worship' anything, infinite or not?

Only entities worthy of such adoration, whose actions and attitude warrant such an attitude, should be 'worshipped', if you feel inclined to do such a thing (I don't).

It has nothing to do with 'magnitude' of power or capabilities.

Many cultures have worshipped entities that were not imagined to be 'infinite' in any sense, and not always 'greater' than us in every sense.

EDIT: Why propose that a God exists, anyway? It only complicates any attempt to understand, to make sense of everything, if you study things at more than a superficial level.

 

Sorry, apparently I didn't make myself clear.  My point was to point out some of the problems with assigning infinite attributes to God.

Ciarin wrote:

 Are you sure?

Since that was the definition I intended to use, yes.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
What about gods that don't

What about gods that don't have those attributes?


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
They weren't being

They weren't being discussed, then, were they?  I understand you're not a monotheist possessed of an almighty God, Ciarin.  What's the point of constantly bringing that up? Do you feel left out?

Please understand that I don't mean to sound accusatory or aggressive.  I'm genuinely curious.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
I don't constantly bring it

I don't constantly bring it up.

 

you make a thread talking about an omni-god and refer to it as God, as if it were the only one and that's his name(i.e. confirming the christian/jewish/muslim bias). You then assign values to it and arbitrary rules. Then talk about why those values cause problems. So what the difference between than and saying "god is an inkjet printer, and  ink is so expensive, why should you worship this god?"


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Kavis wrote:They weren't

Kavis wrote:

They weren't being discussed, then, were they?  I understand you're not a monotheist possessed of an almighty God, Ciarin.  What's the point of constantly bringing that up? Do you feel left out?

Please understand that I don't mean to sound accusatory or aggressive.  I'm genuinely curious.

I'm just guessing, but, not everyone 'worships' something (sic) because it's expected/demanded of them. The salient point being that the 'reasons' are different, for different religious/spiritual 'disciplines (sic).

So, it is a legitimate inquiry, because it seems the whole basis of your OP is that why 'worship' a 'God' if that 'God' is not uber infinite awesome/uber infinite powerful, or whatever...

 

You OP is multi layered, and I'm not quite sure what the main point is.

The first part sounds like Hilbert's Paradox.

The part about concluding somehow that you have proved that the Abrahamic God would not be infinite, instead of infinite......I don't see where you example illustrates any such thing, or how it correlates to the limitations of the universe.

I'm assuming that because the universe is supposed to be a closed system that there is a 'finite' amount of energy and particles.

He's (supposedly) magically making stuff appear.

IOW, no resources were consumed, so he does not diminish in any way.

So 'adding' more energy or particles is not a problem.

So there's no 'correlation' to the 'infiniteness' of a creator of the universe.

 

Crap, now I'm defending the definition of God myths...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:I don't

Ciarin wrote:

I don't constantly bring it up.

 

you make a thread talking about an omni-god and refer to it as God, as if it were the only one and that's his name(i.e. confirming the christian/jewish/muslim bias). You then assign values to it and arbitrary rules. Then talk about why those values cause problems. So what the difference between than and saying "god is an inkjet printer, and  ink is so expensive, why should you worship this god?"

When I create a thread discussing a specific kind of God, it will discuss that kind of God to the exclusion of others.  That's how topics work.  Note that I defined what God was under discussion in the very first sentence.  The values and attributes assigned to the monogod were not assigned by me, though I will happily concede that the attributes of gods are arbitrary. 

Perhaps it's sampling bias, but I can't remember the last thread I created where you didn't post "but what about me?"

edit:  I don't really see how defining your gods to be more limited in scope than the monogod rescues them from the problems with supernatural entities, at any rate. 

edit edit: Failhtml is fail

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Kavis

redneF wrote:

Kavis wrote:

They weren't being discussed, then, were they?  I understand you're not a monotheist possessed of an almighty God, Ciarin.  What's the point of constantly bringing that up? Do you feel left out?

Please understand that I don't mean to sound accusatory or aggressive.  I'm genuinely curious.

I'm just guessing, but, not everyone 'worships' something (sic) because it's expected/demanded of them. The salient point being that the 'reasons' are different, for different religious/spiritual 'disciplines (sic).

So, it is a legitimate inquiry, because it seems the whole basis of your OP is that why 'worship' a 'God' if that 'God' is not uber infinite awesome/uber infinite powerful, or whatever...

 

You OP is multi layered, and I'm not quite sure what the main point is.

The first part sounds like Hilbert's Paradox.

The part about concluding somehow that you have proved that the Abrahamic God would not be infinite, instead of infinite......I don't see where you example illustrates any such thing, or how it correlates to the limitations of the universe.

I'm assuming that because the universe is supposed to be a closed system that there is a 'finite' amount of energy and particles.

He's (supposedly) magically making stuff appear.

IOW, no resources were consumed, so he does not diminish in any way.

So 'adding' more energy or particles is not a problem.

So there's no 'correlation' to the 'infiniteness' of a creator of the universe.

 

Crap, now I'm defending the definition of God myths...

Yeah, I didn't make the point as clearly as I should have.  Arguments just seem better at three in the morning.  To restate: the unlimited attribute, or infinite, God comes loaded down with contradictions.  In the interest of not stepping in it further, I'll leave it at that.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 I think that I see where

 

I think that I see where you are going Kavis.

 

Let me try a variation on Hilbert's hotel paradox:

 

A man dies and wakes up in hell. OK so far. However, there is a rule that has never been covered by any earthly theologian. Specifically, the devil has to provide a truthful answer to the first question that anyone asks. For a great many people, a fair question could be “How do I get out of here?”

 

Here is where it gets weird. The answer is that you only have to ask to be let out but with the following catch: You can only ask once and for every day that you don't ask, the probability of being let out increases by 50%.

 

So for each day that you wait to ask, the series of probabilities is as such: ½ + ¾ + 7/8 + 15/16 + 31/32 and so on. It is also trivial to show that this infinite set of fractions sums to 1/1 or 100% probability that the devil has to let you out.

 

The first problem that comes to mind is that in order to get to that 100% figure, you first need to spend an infinite amount of time in hell. That would be total suck. On the other hand, any infinite series of rational numbers can be put into 1:1 correspondence with any other, so that strategy also wins you an infinite amount of time outside of hell. Special note is that there was never a stipulation that you would get into heaven. Whatever. That is just the obvious one.

 

The real problem is this: Just how many days is infinity? That is the rub. Infinity is not a number in the rational sense. There is no infinitieth day on which you may ask the question and be at the 100% probability mark.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
There are an infinite number

There are an infinite number of 'infinite', or 'transfinite' numbers, starting with the number of integers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...), followed by the number of real numbers (those with no limit on the number of decimal places).

Look up the works of Georg Cantor, on 'transfinite numbers' if you aren't already familiar with his theories. It is essential if you wish to seriously discuss infinity.

He used the word 'transfinite' to avoid the theological implications of 'infinite' - he was devout, I gather.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3663
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:I don't

Ciarin wrote:

I don't constantly bring it up.

 

     Indeed.