Interesting argument against God

[Asimov]

If God is infinite and boundless, then the statement God has no meaning, because God permeates everything due to His boundless nature.

 

I think that's how it was put, I might have to look it up again....

 

 

 

5 minutes later....

 

1. God is infinite.

2. If God is infinite, then God has no boundaries.

3. If God has no boundaries, then there can be nothing that is not God.

4. If there is nothing that is not God, it means nothing to say that something is God.

C. Therefore God cannot meaningfully exist.

 

 

1. God is outside of time.

2. Time is the context in which events and actions are meaningful.

3. Therefore God cannot be meaningfully said to act.

C. Therefore God did not create anything and is utterly irrelevant to us.

 

I got this at cf.com.

[scotter]

Thanks for the quotation, Asimov.

 

4. If there is nothing that is not God, it means nothing to say that something is God.

C. Therefore God cannot meaningfully exist.

 

For this group, pardon me for not getting it:

Within point 4. I don't get "it means nothing to say that" something is God, after "if there is nothing that is not God". Why does it mean nothing?

 

And I don't get that 4. jumps to C. (Conclusion).

 

 

1. God is outside of time.

2. Time is the context in which events and actions are meaningful.

3. Therefore God cannot be meaningfully said to act.

C. Therefore God did not create anything and is utterly irrelevant to us.

 

Things are meaningful within time, doesn't mean things are not meaningful outside of time. I don't get from 2. to 3., thus from 3. to C.

 

Members please help to enlighten.

[Asimov]

Thanks for the quotation, Asimov.

For this group, pardon me for not getting it:

Within point 4. I don't get "it means nothing to say that" something is God, after "if there is nothing that is not God". Why does it mean nothing?

And I don't get that 4. jumps to C. (Conclusion).

 

Because when you say God, you really mean everything.

 

 

Things are meaningful within time, doesn't mean things are not meaningful outside of time. I don't get from 2. to 3., thus from 3. to C.

 

Outside of time is a meaningless statement.

[Mike D]

How is god any different than absolute nothing? Infinite, immaterial, boundless, timeless etc., etc. Sounds like a whole lot of nothing to me.

[Dio]

Didn't Spinoza say something along these lines?

[thomas]

1. God is infinite.

2. If God is infinite, then God has no boundaries.

3. If God has no boundaries, then there can be nothing that is not God.

4. If there is nothing that is not God, it means nothing to say that something is God.

C. Therefore God cannot meaningfully exist.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is very much in line with my own thinking, but I think it only works with a pantheistic concept of god.

 

Since we cannot see god directly, the only way to show that there is a god, is if we somehow can trace the consequences of that god being present. But if god literally is everywhere (as in pantheism), then we will never be able to tell the difference he makes, since we cannot make observations where he isn’t present. Everywhere present becomes the same as nowhere present, and the god concept becomes meaningless.

 

But mainstream Christians, although they also claim that god is everywhere present, do also believe that their god is a distinct entity, that sits on an thrown in heaven. They also believe that god is in heart of Christians, while he is not in the heart of the sinners. Don’t ask me how this is compatible with being everywhere present, but nevertheless, I don’t think the argument works, if we are talking mainstream theism.

[♦ ficino ♦]

In the synthesis of Plato as reported by Aristotle (later Plotinus), the thought pattern is just the opposite. The supreme God is identified with The One. The One is the principle of good because it is purely itself. The infinite is the principle of evil because it is never any distinct thing. The ancient Greeks in general thought of good-order-boundary-unity as a loose group, and evil-disorder-multiplicity-boundlessness as a group. But they held to both together as a dialectic that explains the nature of reality. The job of any good dialectic is to account for the opposites without self-contradiction.

 

The Jewish philosopher Philo tried to Platonize Judaism along these lines. Much of this thought went into Christian theology during the centuries of christological controversies. I don't know how good the christian dialectic is, though, when it comes up with stuff like God is One and Three, or Jesus is God and Man, holding those attributes literally.

 

I do think Christian theologians would deny that God is infinite "simpliciter." Wouldn't they say there are many things God is not: i.e. evil, material, able to create a square triangle, etc.

[scotter]

3. If God has no boundaries, then there can be nothing that is not God.

 

Turn out that Amanda is right!

[Mr. Neil]

1. God is outside of time.

2. Time is the context in which events and actions are meaningful.

3. Therefore God cannot be meaningfully said to act.

C. Therefore God did not create anything and is utterly irrelevant to us.

I've tried to get this point across to Invictus that his God would necessarily require time in order to act. He insists on the rebuttal that God "isn't limited by time", but that's simply his trap door into which he leaps to escape reality. There literally is no meaningful way to interpret that statement, and when pressed to explain his assertion, he simply ran away, as expected.

 

And who could really blame him. I don't think there is one good rebuttal to this point. Theists who try to claim that God creates time or can act independant of time are either revealing how absolutely void they are of rational thought, that they'd sooner dip into lunacy than surrender Biblical literalism. But of course, that last statement is probably a joke waiting for its punchline.

 

Point 2 says it best. Time is the context in which events and actions are meaningful. This actually makes the point much more clearly than what even I was saying, as it reveals the immediate absurdity of Invictus' position. Saying that God can act without dependancy on time is like saying that breaths can be taken without dependancy on some kind of atmosphere.

[Clergicide]

3. If God has no boundaries, then there can be nothing that is not God.

Turn out that Amanda is right!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But this precept renders such statements as "God is good." to be meaningless. If God is everything he must be both good and evil and all shades between. In this sense, the God the Christians desire to exist fails to fill their needs. The job desired of God is that of an entitiy external to the physical universe, an overseer and lawgiver. If God is everything, then he is as much a slave to the physical laws as we are. And if God is simply everything, then there is no higher force tending the light at the end of the tunnel. If God is everything, then God will also die millions of years from now as the second law of thermodynamics takes it's final toll on the universe.

[Mike D]

But this precept renders such statements as "God is good." to be meaningless.  If God is everything he must be both good and evil and all shades between.  In this sense, the God the Christians desire to exist fails to fill their needs.  The job desired of God is that of an entitiy external to the physical universe, an overseer and lawgiver.  If God is everything, then he is as much a slave to the physical laws as we are.  And if God is simply everything, then there is no higher force tending the light at the end of the tunnel.  If God is everything, then God will also die millions of years from now as the second law of thermodynamics takes it's final toll on the universe.

I've heard some Christians try to get around this by saying everything is "of" God but God himself isn't everything. I guess meaning that god is a non-physical spirit being so everything that exists physically is not him, but of him. Which seems compatible with his attribute of omniscience but contradictory to his attribute of omnipresence.

 

It seems to me omnipresence requires physical existence to occupy all space at all times. And something that occupies all space at all times is the totality of everything that physically exists. So if god is a non-physical spirit being, how can god be physically omnipresent? And then not be everything?

[Clergicide]

So if god is a non-physical spirit being, how can god be physically omnipresent?  And then not be everything? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He is a very special boy.

 

Even maintaining that all things are OF God, that immediately includes the bad.

 

If we entertain the outlandish notion that the devil was an angel made pure and then fell from the grace of God and subsequently created the evil in the world. We must then ask if the negative emotion that Lucifer experienced and directed at God, was an emotion that Lucifer himself had to invent, or if it already existed and Lucifer simply tapped into it. If it was on tap, the answer is obvious, God created the evil in the world. If, however, Lucifer invented it and God is Omniscient, and Omnipresent, then God not only knew that Lucifer would create evil, but God was also there when he did it. Knowing this, and being present for it, God did nothing to stop it, if God is Omnipotent then he surely had the power to stop it. Therefore it takes little to say, Lucifer did that which he was created to do, and by proxy God remains the source of all evil.

[Mike D]

Therefore it takes little to say, Lucifer did that which he was created to do, and by proxy God remains the source of all evil.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7

 

Yep you are right there and the Bible even agrees with you...

[quicksand]

It seems to me that the theist supposes a god outside of our universe and outside of our context of what this existance actually is. But no matter what they say and how they imagine this extra-special-universe where this god hangs out, the conclusion about it is always drawn from our own existance to make their analogy.

 

Occam's Razor cuts once again to a naturalistic explanation making god nothing more than a super geek scientist and not some divine power.

[Amanda]

4. If there is nothing that is not God, it means nothing to say that something is God.

C. Therefore God cannot meaningfully exist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Asimov, IMO, if God is everything... then everything is a wonderful unique expression of him/her/it. What you have stated is to equally say that every person all over the world are all human beings, so therefore human beings can not meaningfully exist.

 

Perhaps if everyone saw everything as being part of God, we would give it the honor each living thing deserves? THIS ...seems to me... to make ALL things MORE meaningful! If we believed that 'everything' is all part of the same 'organism', wouldn't we take better care of each living thing, as perceiving each of these aspects as just parts of ourselves?

 

1. God is outside of time.

2. Time is the context in which events and actions are meaningful.

3. Therefore God cannot be meaningfully said to act.

C. Therefore God did not create anything and is utterly irrelevant to us.

 

I got this at cf.com.[/b]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Asimov, time does not exist... It is a trick on our imagination. Even Einstien said something like... reality is an illusion, a persistent one. Carl Sagan said something like... perhaps we are part of the cosmos trying to know itself.

 

Time may be very meaningful to us since we are so closely attached to that illusion, yet transcending these illusions... they might not be so important? If you ask an eagle or a deer what time it is, do you think they care? Because they don't care, does that mean they can not act in a meaningful way?

[Mike D]

What you have stated is to equally say that every person all over the world are all human beings, so therefore human beings can not meaningfully exist. 

Hmm, is that really what Asimov said? My take on what he was saying is that if God is everything then he cannot be identified. Humans can be identified, so we can validate their existence. It sounds like what you are saying is that god can be identified as something that is already identified as something that god isn't.

[Amanda]

Hmm, is that really what Asimov said?    My take on what he was saying is that if God is everything then he cannot be identified.  Humans can be identified, so we can validate their existence.  It sounds like what you are saying is that god can be identified as something that is already identified as something that god isn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mike D, why couldn't 'God' be identified through all things... each a unique expression of him/her/it?

 

Human beings can also be identified as Chinese, Arabs, Asians, etc., each person, as well as culture, has a unique way of expressing the human race. And so because we can identify some as Chinese doesn't mean we can't also include them in a larger category called humans.

 

Now I ask you, hypothetically if one does not believe that the human race exists... then could they conclude that Chinese are not humans because they are already identified as Chinese?

[MQTA]

How is god any different than absolute nothing?  Infinite, immaterial, boundless, timeless etc., etc.  Sounds like a whole lot of nothing to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

and then we have this 3rd rate speck of sand in a 3rd rate solar system in a 3rd rate galaxy that's named after a candy bar off in a corner for which the ENTIRE rest of the universe exists for and because of.

 

I think a big problem is how one looks at their relative position in the world. You either look at yourself/God/Earth outwardly as if nothing would exist if not for this planet; or you look at the universe and then and ant colony and feel pretty small yourself. Some people can't handle that view.

[quicksand]

Mike D, why couldn't 'God' be identified through all things... each a unique expression of him/her/it?

And what about evil? God is necessarily evil by this statement.

[MQTA]

But this precept renders such statements as "God is good." to be meaningless.  If God is everything he must be both good and evil and all shades between.  In this sense, the God the Christians desire to exist fails to fill their needs.  The job desired of God is that of an entitiy external to the physical universe, an overseer and lawgiver.  If God is everything, then he is as much a slave to the physical laws as we are.  And if God is simply everything, then there is no higher force tending the light at the end of the tunnel.  If God is everything, then God will also die millions of years from now as the second law of thermodynamics takes it's final toll on the universe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just millions? When thinking in universal terms, I think the rate is much different. how about in 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999^9999999 or more, years?

 

Scale.. I think we can't comprehend the scale of things. We always tend to put them on our terms.

 

When we hear that the something global or massive will cost 30 billion dollars, to us, that's a LOT of money. But when you realize the trillions of dollars that float around, or higher, we really can't comprehend it. The amount they make us think is a lot, on our scale, would be like 30 billion dollars=200 dollars, and it's not just cash flow, there's blood sweat and tears in there too that can't be part of the equation.

 

All we have is Time... we have to be doing something.. if we're not building, we're cleaning up natural and man made disasters. What ELSE would we have, to do, anyway?

 

 

I like what people say about time, inside and out. Doesn't change reality, but it's funny to hear some people's really, um, different, views, than you have. Doesn't matter who's right anyway, we just wasted that time on it, rather than something else.

 

If you have bumper sticker slogan answers for questions people ask, of course they run away... given enough time, you corner them. Sometimes a chess game is over in 8 moves, sometimes it takes 20, sometimes 90 or more.

 

Nobody can really defend their beliefs. I really don't know WHAT >TO< believe any more, but there's quite a few things I have pretty much dismissed to NOT believe.

 

Every time I think I'm on to something, there's always someone who comes along with contrary ideas. Reality always wins though.

[quicksand]

True

Wait for the special plead... ... ... ... ... ... ...

[MQTA]

He is a very special boy.

 

Even maintaining that all things are OF God, that immediately includes the bad. 

 

If we  entertain the outlandish notion that the devil was an angel made pure and then fell from the grace of God and subsequently created the evil in the world.  We must then ask if the negative emotion that Lucifer experienced and directed at God, was an emotion that Lucifer himself had to invent, or if it already existed and Lucifer simply tapped into it.  If it was on tap, the answer is obvious, God created the evil in the world.  If, however, Lucifer invented it and God is Omniscient, and Omnipresent, then God not only knew that Lucifer would create evil, but God was also there when he did it.  Knowing this, and being present for it, God did nothing to stop it, if God is Omnipotent then he surely had the power to stop it.  Therefore it takes little to say, Lucifer did that which he was created to do, and by proxy God remains the source of all evil.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, how else can they explain it to a gathering of people from birth through near death, once a week, and keep everyone's attention?

 

If there's no drama, who's show up after a while? Paul was a GREAT salesman, wasn't he?

 

Is it a pyramid scheme? ponzi? or maybe just a MMF?

 

Seems to be all repackaged children's stories that they tried to bring up a few grade levels. Works for many, but some think they Graduate. Those who don't, want to get those who do, back into their fold. Some follow and, there goes the neighborhood.

 

I think the internet is probably the biggest impact to personal beliefs to come along in YEARS. George Carlin tried, but people just laughed.. those who got it, got it, those who didn't, just reject what he says or dismiss him.

[MQTA]

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7

 

Yep you are right there and the Bible even agrees with you...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Apologetics people hand wave that away, it doesn't mean what it says, it means something else.

[MQTA]

And what about evil? God is necessarily evil by this statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We'd be pretty bored and boring otherwise.

[Asimov]

We'd be pretty bored and boring otherwise.

 

If we had no concept of it, we wouldn't be. Only from your perspective would this be so.