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.

[Goat]

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.

The basis of theism is revelation not tradition. The theist believes that God can make Himself known to man.

Revelation is not the basis of theism. It is not a component in the Jewish faith, even among the very religious. That is a minority Christian concept.

[Ooberman]

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.

The basis of theism is revelation not tradition. The theist believes that God can make Himself known to man.

Besides goat's response, I would also add that based on the false "religious experiences", there is ample evidence the belief in God may be a psychological event - that is, not an actual communion with a god.

It's more likely a person is affected in some way than actually communing with God.

[Dantalion]

Like in so many other topics, the same specific argument is ignored.


(it's the 'how can you possibly make any specific claim about that which supposedly is beyond our ability to grasp' one)

But who is to say that God is beyond our consciousness?

Its a popular apologetic argument.

You have probably misunderstood the argument, an apologist would likely say that our logical faculties and limited knowledge are not sufficient to make judgments on God's reasons and purposes. That leaves the revelations the only possible source for us to find out about God's character and intentions.

but all we have are our logical faculties and knowledge, it's what you use to make sense of the symbols in any book, even revelations. If you only have a book to tell you that what's in said book is true, you don't have anything at all. It's literally just folklore.
What you are asking is for rational people to believe that this almighty being solely relies on a scrap of ancient text to relay it's message ?
And the text itself is just ink on paper, translated, altered and edited.
We're talking about the creator of the universe here, the alpha and omega, and the only thing that being comes up with to inform us of it's existence, how and why everything is, the immortality of souls and it's love and all that, is pieces of text indistinguishable from millions of other written work ?

And it's precisely against questions like that, that aren't red herrings but actual valid questions for people who care about what's true, most theists use the deflection of 'we can't know why God does this'.
And that just proves my point.

[instantc]

Like in so many other topics, the same specific argument is ignored.


(it's the 'how can you possibly make any specific claim about that which supposedly is beyond our ability to grasp' one)

But who is to say that God is beyond our consciousness?

Its a popular apologetic argument.

You have probably misunderstood the argument, an apologist would likely say that our logical faculties and limited knowledge are not sufficient to make judgments on God's reasons and purposes. That leaves the revelations the only possible source for us to find out about God's character and intentions.

but all we have are our logical faculties and knowledge, it's what you use to make sense of the symbols in any book, even revelations. If you only have a book to tell you that what's in said book is true, you don't have anything at all. It's literally just folklore.

Well, you have the folklore, but since God's ways and purposes would be otherwise beyond the reach of our faculties, one would have to take a leap of faith.

What you are asking is for rational people to believe that this almighty being solely relies on a scrap of ancient text to relay it's message ?
And the text itself is just ink on paper, translated, altered and edited.
We're talking about the creator of the universe here, the alpha and omega, and the only thing that being comes up with to inform us of it's existence, how and why everything is, the immortality of souls and it's love and all that, is pieces of text indistinguishable from millions of other written work ?

So the story goes.

[Dantalion]

[Replying to post 54 by instantc]

But doesn't it bother you that that story just doesn't make sense ?

Or, more openly phrased, why would any person genuinely seeking answers hold this particular collection of texts to be more 'meaningful' or 'likely to be true' then 'insert random work of fiction here' ?

I know this antagonizes some theists, but it really is a valid question, why God but not Sauron ? or Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever ?
These types of questions aren't meant to be insulting per se, but they do encourage one to actually think about it, or so I hope.

I mean, let's say a God does exist, you do recognize that the way the story goes as it goes is pretty... illogical/faulty/questionable, right ?

[Ooberman]

... but since God's ways and purposes would be otherwise beyond the reach of our faculties, one would have to take a leap of faith.

Indeed. And, worse, I don't buy that God couldn't communicate perfectly with His Creation.


I think the excuse that "finite beings can't understand God" is a dodge to avoid the reality there is no God.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 54 by instantc]

But doesn't it bother you that that story just doesn't make sense ?

Or, more openly phrased, why would any person genuinely seeking answers hold this particular collection of texts to be more 'meaningful' or 'likely to be true' then 'insert random work of fiction here' ?

I don't actually believe in the said dogma, I find it very unlikely and counterintuitive indeed. I'm just pointing out that your previous objection was essentially a straw man, since Christians do not believe that we cannot know anything about God. They believe that we cannot find out reasons and purposes of God by reason but only through the revelation. I agree with you that there is no good reason to believe that the revelation would be accurate in any way, but if one takes that leap of faith for some reason, he is not contradicting himself in the way you suggested.

[mgb]

[Replying to post 54 by instantc]

But doesn't it bother you that that story just doesn't make sense ?

Or, more openly phrased, why would any person genuinely seeking answers hold this particular collection of texts to be more 'meaningful' or 'likely to be true' then 'insert random work of fiction here' ?

I know this antagonizes some theists, but it really is a valid question, why God but not Sauron ? or Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever ?
These types of questions aren't meant to be insulting per se, but they do encourage one to actually think about it, or so I hope.

I mean, let's say a God does exist, you do recognize that the way the story goes as it goes is pretty... illogical/faulty/questionable, right ?

But there is also much beauty and wisdom in the bible. When I take the bible as a whole thing I am convinced that much of it was inspired by God. The book was largely written in the Bronze Age and it is extraordinary that the Jews had such a refined moral sense while all around them - in the Roman Empire - people were like savages and barbarians. As I said before the bible is only a remnant of what really transpired. We don't really know what the facts are but there is still a great deal of wisdom left in what we have.

[mgb]

... but since God's ways and purposes would be otherwise beyond the reach of our faculties, one would have to take a leap of faith.

Indeed. And, worse, I don't buy that God couldn't communicate perfectly with His Creation.


I think the excuse that "finite beings can't understand God" is a dodge to avoid the reality there is no God.

The question is not whether God can communicate properly. The question is whether people can listen to God properly. Only some do listen correctly. People have always used religion to serve their own will and this distorts it. You can see this happening in the modern world.

[instantc]

The question is not whether God can communicate properly. The question is whether people can listen to God properly. Only some do listen correctly. People have always used religion to serve their own will and this distorts it. You can see this happening in the modern world.

This bothers me, communication is a bilateral transaction and you cannot just blame the receiving party for not doing the job correctly, especially when the other party is omnipotent.

I know people who have really tried to get to know God for years. They have prayed, read the bible, went to the church and yet, years after doing all this they finally come to the conclusion that God either does not exist or is not willing to talk to them. It is very difficult indeed to see why God would not grant these poor guys at least five minutes of audition after all the effort.