If God is infinite, then he is everything.... right?

[Ooberman]

If he is infinite, then no theistic opinion about God is wrong, even this statement.

It is likely that this deity doesn't exist, and since an infinite God is contradictory, it is probably less likely to be true. (Assuming basic laws of logic, our common presupposition).

Since, according to these laws of logic to be "True",the statement "God obtains" cannot be true, is true, and is also, possibly a quantum state (some "other").

Therefore, God does not exist.

The point of this line of inquiry, I suppose a purpose of this idea is to mull over the technicalities of how we arrive at basic assumptions about the world.

After all, we can't FIRST assume a God in order to prove a God exists. If we are trying to prove a God exists, we have to tip the balance in minds when they hear the actual logical argument.

The logical leap, to me, begins with both the Materialist and Supernaturalist. We don't REALLY know what things are made of, but if we go from what has been shown to be effective according to a large consensus of people that gravity works, and the natural laws appear to be consistent. The drama of nature, or the narrative of our lives appears to be a fact of our nature, and that's about all we know.

1. We are physical beings in this universe.
2. We can imagine real and unreal things.
3. We create narrative to ourselves and others to explain natural events, yet, the laws of nature cannot be translated accurately in the language of Man, but in the language of basic math.

We don't need to presume a God for any of them, and the Theist has to answer the question: "why is god a better answer for each of them, without presuming naturalism?"

Meanwhile, I don't think anything in the data shows any problem with the laws of nature being inviolable, and the dramas of our lives are the unique state of our Nature: we produce thoughts, narratives, and believe many things in metaphor, colloquialisms, and other tropes.

Tropes, and other games of words, twists of logic and other quirks as Man attempts to reflect Nature. We have at our disposal all the arts, and another quirk to our nature, the ability to imagine supernatural beings as if they are real.

Religion is a "greatest hits from mythology" in that religion (the process of creating a religion - a process unique to man, and neanderthals, apparently, and a few other Great Apes... And a few birds... And maybe elephants...) tries to capture a link to the conscience and codify it.

There are good reasons to do this, if you have some idea of your subjective position on "The Good" and how that fits into the larger scope of society's idea of "The Good". If you want to do Good, you find a reason to do it if it's not considered "Good" by society, increasingly to a point to being a psychopath. (There are ranges of experience that make morality, ultimately, an impossible task to normalize.)


Morality, like sight, is valuable to you, because it's valuable to you. We argue for that value by making our argument appear to have more weight than the converse.

The Theist comes up woefully short when they explain the basis of their provenance of their ideas: tradition.

In other words, the theist must presuppose the very characteristics of their God, in order to prove their God. Whereas, the naturalist only starts with the things we have a pretty good idea is true, through verification.

That cellphones work proves what Aristotle couldn't. Likewise, I doubt many people are going to challenge our model of the Solar System. And, genetics will never be overturned. These are really true things, it appears.

We are the awesomest of Apes, but Apes nonetheless. And that's OK.

[Ooberman]

Is a person a thing?

I would say no. A corpse without a soul might be.
What do you think?

I'm trying to understand you. Don't worry about what I think. (I think things are not solely relegated to the material world. I have no problem calling a thought, or a person a "thing".).

So, to you a person has nothing to do with a body? A person is a body's soul?

[YahDough]

Is a person a thing?

I would say no. A corpse without a soul might be.
What do you think?

I'm trying to understand you. Don't worry about what I think. (I think things are not solely relegated to the material world. I have no problem calling a thought, or a person a "thing".).

So, to you a person has nothing to do with a body? A person is a body's soul?

Not exactly. A person is a body with a soul but that soul can exist without the body. I could call the empty body a "thing", but a soul with consciousness and perception I would probably not call a thing.

[Ooberman]

Is a person a thing?

I would say no. A corpse without a soul might be.
What do you think?

I'm trying to understand you. Don't worry about what I think. (I think things are not solely relegated to the material world. I have no problem calling a thought, or a person a "thing".).

So, to you a person has nothing to do with a body? A person is a body's soul?

Not exactly. A person is a body with a soul but that soul can exist without the body. I could call the empty body a "thing", but a soul with consciousness and perception I would probably not call a thing.

So "thing" to you means "material object"? For example, you would never say "Yeah, it's kinda my thing.." (referring to a behavior and not your willie)

[YahDough]

Is a person a thing?

I would say no. A corpse without a soul might be.
What do you think?

I'm trying to understand you. Don't worry about what I think. (I think things are not solely relegated to the material world. I have no problem calling a thought, or a person a "thing".).

So, to you a person has nothing to do with a body? A person is a body's soul?

Not exactly. A person is a body with a soul but that soul can exist without the body. I could call the empty body a "thing", but a soul with consciousness and perception I would probably not call a thing.

So "thing" to you means "material object"? For example, you would never say "Yeah, it's kinda my thing.." (referring to a behavior and not your willie)

That's the English language for you. Bad means good in the right neighborhood!

[Ooberman]

Is a person a thing?

I would say no. A corpse without a soul might be.
What do you think?

I'm trying to understand you. Don't worry about what I think. (I think things are not solely relegated to the material world. I have no problem calling a thought, or a person a "thing".).

So, to you a person has nothing to do with a body? A person is a body's soul?

Not exactly. A person is a body with a soul but that soul can exist without the body. I could call the empty body a "thing", but a soul with consciousness and perception I would probably not call a thing.

So "thing" to you means "material object"? For example, you would never say "Yeah, it's kinda my thing.." (referring to a behavior and not your willie)

That's the English language for you. Bad means good in the right neighborhood!

So you aren't really trying to say anything substantive, I take it?

[YahDough]

Is a person a thing?

I would say no. A corpse without a soul might be.
What do you think?

I'm trying to understand you. Don't worry about what I think. (I think things are not solely relegated to the material world. I have no problem calling a thought, or a person a "thing".).

So, to you a person has nothing to do with a body? A person is a body's soul?

Not exactly. A person is a body with a soul but that soul can exist without the body. I could call the empty body a "thing", but a soul with consciousness and perception I would probably not call a thing.

So "thing" to you means "material object"? For example, you would never say "Yeah, it's kinda my thing.." (referring to a behavior and not your willie)

That's the English language for you. Bad means good in the right neighborhood!

So you aren't really trying to say anything substantive, I take it?

I challenged and refuted your OP in case you forgot. What more do you want?

I say God is the Power of "infinite possibility".

Therefore "He" exists beyond everything.

[Ooberman]

I challenged and refuted your OP in case you forgot. What more do you want?

I say God is the Power of "infinite possibility".

Therefore "He" exists beyond everything.

Yep, people say a lot of things they can't back up. As I said, it's not substantive.

Who even knows what "infinite possibility" is. It's nonsense.

And, if he is everything possible, then he is a pink elephant sinking rock ballads in my pants.

[mgb]

If he is infinite, then no theistic opinion about God is wrong, even this statement.

It is likely that this deity doesn't exist, and since an infinite God is contradictory, it is probably less likely to be true. (Assuming basic laws of logic, our common presupposition).

Infinity does not necessarily include ALL things. For example God does not include evil (which is illusion, as the ego is). An infinite set consisting of even numbers - 2, 4, 6, 8,... does not contain, for example, the number 21, yet it is infinite.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 1 by Ooberman]

Infinite does not mean everything. There is an infinite amount of real numbers between 1 and 2.

[Jacob Simonsky]

[quote="Ooberman"]
If he is infinite, then no theistic opinion about God is wrong, even this statement.


Yup! The big mistake that we humans can make is to consider God as though "he" were a personality something like us only bigger and better. God is in no way even remotely like a human being. It is more correct to consider God as a source. But God does have a body and that body is comprised of everything in existence. A single person on earth is less than an atom in the body of the creator. Re-read scripture with this in mind and see a big difference in understanding.