# Abusing infinity and a dis-proof of some people's god's attributes.

inspectormustard
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
Offline
Abusing infinity and a dis-proof of some people's god's attributes.

First and foremost, infinity is a concept more akin to an operator than anything else. It has more in common with the symbol "+" than, say, "π." In most cases when someone says something is infinite, what they actually mean is transfinite. The difference can be represented in Pascal's classic example of greater and greater amounts of uncountable sets. (An uncountable set is a set for which every member's existence implies another member, such as the number of digits in π or the enumeration of the primes.)

1. Create an ideal circle by integrating progressively more sides into a polygon.
2. Between every side of a polygon is a vertice through which a ray may be extended from the center of the shape.
3. An ideal circle is merely a shape with an uncountably large number of vertices.
4. If we could extend rays from the center of the ideal circle to every vertice joining the sides, the inside of the circle would seem to be solid.
5. Any two rays projected from the center of a shape through its vertices diverge proportionately to the distance at any point from the exterior of the shape.
6. Thus there are not enough rays extending from the interior of the shape to fill the outside area.
7. A larger ideal circle created around the original will require more rays for every vertice than the inner circle.

As a side note, we can once again loosely disprove some attributes of gods by extending this reasoning just a bit.

8. If the overall information representing a given diety is ennumerated by a set of vertices then the vertices may be arranged in a circle.
9. A similar figure may be constructed as a sphere, with corresponding ennumerated values of information.
10. Even though the number of vertices in this circle is uncountable there will never be enough rays to attach the spherical projection to the circular projection.
11. By certain definitions, "god is infinite."
12. By certain definitions, "god is unchanging"
13. The god described by the sphere must then be the true god.
14. There are still more dimensions in which to produce figures with an uncountable number of sides.
15. A sphere produced in the next dimension would be called a hyper-sphere.
16. Again, we must infer that this new figure must be the actual god.
17. The set of propositions which could continue this way is uncountably large.
18. Thus, god cannot be both unchanging and infinite, as infinity itself implies change.

Perhaps the way infinity actually works is a little more clear. As I mentioned, when we say the number of prime numbers is infinite it is taken to mean uncountable. This is because every prime number's existence implies that there is another prime after it. Filip Saidak's proof shows this relatively simply:

1. Let n > 1 be a positive integer.
2. Since n and n+1 are consecutive integers, they must be coprime, and hence the number N2 = n(n + 1) must have at least two different prime factors.
3. Since the integers n(n+1) and n(n+1)+1 are consecutive, and therefore coprime, the number N3 = n(n + 1)[n(n + 1) + 1] must have at least 3 different prime factors.
4. This can be continued indefinitely.

Now we can address the notion that a real number "divided by infinity" equates to zero. What is usually meant by this notation is that the limit of a real number divided by another number approaches infinity as the divisor increases. Zeno's paradox of movement presents a problem with this. If something attempts to move from any point to another it must, in an ideal universe, traverse an infinite amount of distance. That is, the distance moved divided by the distance remaining. Not matter how it is arranged, the result will always require more movement. We now know that there is a basic "pixel" for reality which forms the basis of quantum mechanics. This is known as the Planck unit, defined in terms of the five physical constants. It forms the basic unit of measurement for everything, being composed purely of observation of physical laws. So it is that we could not even move without some simple, self-evident axioms.

To claim an "infinite" god exists is to undermine the very observations we make that allow us to function, as well as the existence of the god itself. Such a thing is contradictory to the existence of our universe. Logic and god cannot co-exist, the universe cannot exist without logic, and God cannot co-exist with the universe. Logic is more than simply a contrived human notion. It is integral to reality, as it is a formalization of the way reality works regardless of how we think and feel about it.

Strafio
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
Offline
I think that people

I think that people over-complicate infinite.
As far as I see, saying a set is infinite is merely a way of saying "there's no last number."
Saying that the yellow brick road is infinite is merely to say "no matter how far you travel down this road, there will not be an end to it"

When you say that God is infinite, I imagine that you mean that God has existed for an infinite amount of time? (Surely infinite can only be applied to a quantifiable characteristic?)
In which case I think you'd be right that this would contradict the characteristic of unchanging.

To be honest, I'm not sure what theologians even mean when they say God is infinite. If they are using a coherent concept of infinite, I don't think it's the same one that mathematicians use!

deludedgod
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
Quote: To be honest, I'm

Quote:

To be honest, I'm not sure what theologians even mean when they say God is infinite. If they are using a coherent concept of infinite, I don't think it's the same one that mathematicians use!

That was what I said. It's unhelpful to speak of God as "infinite" and such because these characteristics are antithetical to what we might call "discrete qualities", and discrete qualities are necessary to describe some sort of conscious being. It's very confusing and meaningless to start talking of "infinite" in conjunction with qualities which we know full well are discretely applicable. My principle thesis was that the theistic God is really just a description of a bigger version of us, and calling it some sort of "infinite being" is playing pick-and-mix between metaphysics and empercisim. That's what I pointed out here:

On the other hand, the "argument from infinity" is a  preexisting argument against God. I wrote about it like this:

If God is an infinite being, then the idea of “God” “creating” entities, or speaking of God as a discernable entity separate from the entities which ”God” created is a logical absurdity. For if God was infinite, then the entity would already be the created entities in question as well. This is why an infinite God can only make sense in the form of Spinoza’s pantheism, which says quite literally that God is “all” or “all-encompassing”. Yet classical theists also claim God to be infinite, and yet at the same time they speak as though God was an ontologically distinct and separate entity from the entities which God creates, that God, being an eternal being, preceded such creations. Yet this is absurd, for it implies, rather than God being an infinite being, is a tangible being. Yet then it is equally absurd to claim God is an uncaused entity, being that the only way theists defend this ridiculous proposition of God being an uncaused entity is by the assertion that God is beyond nature, transcendent, infinite etc. Once we decide to call God a discrete, tangible and ontologically distinct entity, the stolen concept fallacy of asserting God’s infinitude becomes even plainer than it already is. If God is an infinite being then to talk of the dichotomous nature of “God” and “God’s creations” is utter nonsense. An infinite being cannot create more, for what can be more than infinite? The infinite God would BE the entities in question, but then it is an equal absurdity to claim that God could be the creator of those entities. In short, God, as a postulation, is nonsensical.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
Offline
I really enjoyed your

I really enjoyed your post mustard. Seems to be quite right on the money. The only thing that I have to suggest is that perhaps in the traditional definitions of God's attributes, unchanging is possibly meant to mean 'unchanging is his beliefs or principles'. However, I have heard many people refer to him as literally (physically and principly I'm assuming) unchanging. How does this possibility sit with you in relation to your argument? I'm no mathematician.

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat

inspectormustard
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
Offline