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

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Ooberman
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4262
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:02 pm
Location: Philadelphia

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

Post #1

Post by 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.
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees

User avatar
Ooberman
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4262
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:02 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Post #81

Post by Ooberman »

mgb wrote: Let me choose Bigfoot. This is a sighting, there is no 'forensic' evidence, just a testimony. I would ask them what they saw and try to ascertain their sincerity. I would try to discern if they have ulterior motives and I would try to estimate their sanity or lack of sanity. If I came to the conclusion that they were sane and sincere I would then talk to other people who made the same claims. In this way I might be able to build up a picture of what is likely to be true.
OK, you kinda picked the low hanging fruit, there. ;-)

but, let's roll with it.

1. They claim to be sincere, and you find no evidence of trying to be dishonest.
2. They claim to have forensic evidence: it is a collection of anomalies in the natural record: aka, Gaps.
3. They claim to have "personally witnessed Bigfoot".
4. They appear to be otherwise sane, if not, perhaps a bit simple.
5. Asking other people with similar claims only makes you realize there are different beliefs. There are different "denominations" or "sects" of bigfoot believers and you can't judge one against the other.

Now what?
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees

mgb
Guru
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
Location: Europe
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Post #82

Post by mgb »

Ooberman wrote:
mgb wrote: Let me choose Bigfoot. This is a sighting, there is no 'forensic' evidence, just a testimony. I would ask them what they saw and try to ascertain their sincerity. I would try to discern if they have ulterior motives and I would try to estimate their sanity or lack of sanity. If I came to the conclusion that they were sane and sincere I would then talk to other people who made the same claims. In this way I might be able to build up a picture of what is likely to be true.
OK, you kinda picked the low hanging fruit, there. ;-)

but, let's roll with it.

1. They claim to be sincere, and you find no evidence of trying to be dishonest.
2. They claim to have forensic evidence: it is a collection of anomalies in the natural record: aka, Gaps.
3. They claim to have "personally witnessed Bigfoot".
4. They appear to be otherwise sane, if not, perhaps a bit simple.
5. Asking other people with similar claims only makes you realize there are different beliefs. There are different "denominations" or "sects" of bigfoot believers and you can't judge one against the other.

Now what?
Select what is common to all the stories and entertain the idea that these common points build a statistical picture of something real. Ask, could all these people, who don't know each other, be having the same illusion or is there reality behind these common, mutually supporting reports?

User avatar
Ooberman
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4262
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:02 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Post #83

Post by Ooberman »

mgb wrote:
Ooberman wrote:
mgb wrote: Let me choose Bigfoot. This is a sighting, there is no 'forensic' evidence, just a testimony. I would ask them what they saw and try to ascertain their sincerity. I would try to discern if they have ulterior motives and I would try to estimate their sanity or lack of sanity. If I came to the conclusion that they were sane and sincere I would then talk to other people who made the same claims. In this way I might be able to build up a picture of what is likely to be true.
OK, you kinda picked the low hanging fruit, there. ;-)

but, let's roll with it.

1. They claim to be sincere, and you find no evidence of trying to be dishonest.
2. They claim to have forensic evidence: it is a collection of anomalies in the natural record: aka, Gaps.
3. They claim to have "personally witnessed Bigfoot".
4. They appear to be otherwise sane, if not, perhaps a bit simple.
5. Asking other people with similar claims only makes you realize there are different beliefs. There are different "denominations" or "sects" of bigfoot believers and you can't judge one against the other.

Now what?
Select what is common to all the stories and entertain the idea that these common points build a statistical picture of something real. Ask, could all these people, who don't know each other, be having the same illusion or is there reality behind these common, mutually supporting reports?

But, wait, you picked something you don't believe is true, and now you are going from skepticism to "well, if all that checks out (which it does, btw), then we move to a position of more belief."

That is how I'm reading your response. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Meanwhile, my impulse is that ALL of those examples are simply, a priori, unreliable.

There was no EVIDENCE (to my mind) offered! There were claims and gaps. That's it.

Are we really ready to believe in Bigfoot based on the sincere beliefs of other people?


Perhaps this is your mirror neurons kicking in: you think "I, too, believe in something like Bigfoot, so I'd want those people taken seriously."?


I don't mean to say you ARE doing this, but I am thinking aloud. I may do the same thing, but with a sympathy to all those poor people who have been duped by charlatans, con artists, or just really wrong-headed ideas.

If only I could have reached the Hale-Bobb people, instead of offer support for their misguided beliefs? Or other poor souls in cults around the world...

But I digress.



So how do you build a statistical picture of all the data, especially us, as laymen who are far removed from the Bigfoot information?

Do we seriously investigate it to a degree that completely rules it out? Do you feel a need to disprove Bigfoot?


Also, how do you build a statistical model of the supernatural? Who do you quantify miracle claims when some people claim there was only one, and others who believe there are millions, or that Life itself is a miracle?

What possible statistical model could we produce?

And, what historical evidence could we explore? Would ancient claims of Bigfoot add to the mystery? What possible Bayes Theorem (what I presume you mean a statistical model) can we make of the evidence when all we are looking for is something that makes Bigfoot possible? (anomaly hunting)

And, what kind of science would we have to understand in order to debunk one quack scientist with a legitimate degree, but at complete odds with the rest of the scientific community?

How deep do we need to dig to PROVE Bigfoot doesn't exist? To ourselves and to others?

Can we really say to the Bigfoot believer, "It's ok to have your belief because I'm not going to care about whether I can prove it or not. Enjoy your belief."

What is that believer now wants taxpayer money to support his cult and wants certain legislation to add the science of bigfoot into the Science curricula?


My point is that once you take a view that is counter to the scientific community, you have a level of proof that is expected. For all the flaws of science, it is transparent: you can always try to repeat the events. You are allowed to question hypotheses, and you accept theories provisionally. Data is either confirmed or denied.

Get enough confirmations and you have a good data set for a possible correlation...etc... The process of science begins.

My question is how does one get so far along in deep beliefs knowing when they obtained those beliefs it was long before they understood much about the world at all?
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees

mgb
Guru
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
Location: Europe
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Post #84

Post by mgb »

Ooberman wrote:
mgb wrote:
Ooberman wrote:
mgb wrote: Let me choose Bigfoot. This is a sighting, there is no 'forensic' evidence, just a testimony. I would ask them what they saw and try to ascertain their sincerity. I would try to discern if they have ulterior motives and I would try to estimate their sanity or lack of sanity. If I came to the conclusion that they were sane and sincere I would then talk to other people who made the same claims. In this way I might be able to build up a picture of what is likely to be true.
OK, you kinda picked the low hanging fruit, there. ;-)

but, let's roll with it.

1. They claim to be sincere, and you find no evidence of trying to be dishonest.
2. They claim to have forensic evidence: it is a collection of anomalies in the natural record: aka, Gaps.
3. They claim to have "personally witnessed Bigfoot".
4. They appear to be otherwise sane, if not, perhaps a bit simple.
5. Asking other people with similar claims only makes you realize there are different beliefs. There are different "denominations" or "sects" of bigfoot believers and you can't judge one against the other.

Now what?
Select what is common to all the stories and entertain the idea that these common points build a statistical picture of something real. Ask, could all these people, who don't know each other, be having the same illusion or is there reality behind these common, mutually supporting reports?

But, wait, you picked something you don't believe is true, and now you are going from skepticism to "well, if all that checks out (which it does, btw), then we move to a position of more belief."

That is how I'm reading your response. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Meanwhile, my impulse is that ALL of those examples are simply, a priori, unreliable.

There was no EVIDENCE (to my mind) offered! There were claims and gaps. That's it.

Are we really ready to believe in Bigfoot based on the sincere beliefs of other people?


Perhaps this is your mirror neurons kicking in: you think "I, too, believe in something like Bigfoot, so I'd want those people taken seriously."?


I don't mean to say you ARE doing this, but I am thinking aloud. I may do the same thing, but with a sympathy to all those poor people who have been duped by charlatans, con artists, or just really wrong-headed ideas.

If only I could have reached the Hale-Bobb people, instead of offer support for their misguided beliefs? Or other poor souls in cults around the world...

But I digress.



So how do you build a statistical picture of all the data, especially us, as laymen who are far removed from the Bigfoot information?

Do we seriously investigate it to a degree that completely rules it out? Do you feel a need to disprove Bigfoot?


Also, how do you build a statistical model of the supernatural? Who do you quantify miracle claims when some people claim there was only one, and others who believe there are millions, or that Life itself is a miracle?

What possible statistical model could we produce?

And, what historical evidence could we explore? Would ancient claims of Bigfoot add to the mystery? What possible Bayes Theorem (what I presume you mean a statistical model) can we make of the evidence when all we are looking for is something that makes Bigfoot possible? (anomaly hunting)

And, what kind of science would we have to understand in order to debunk one quack scientist with a legitimate degree, but at complete odds with the rest of the scientific community?

How deep do we need to dig to PROVE Bigfoot doesn't exist? To ourselves and to others?

Can we really say to the Bigfoot believer, "It's ok to have your belief because I'm not going to care about whether I can prove it or not. Enjoy your belief."

What is that believer now wants taxpayer money to support his cult and wants certain legislation to add the science of bigfoot into the Science curricula?


My point is that once you take a view that is counter to the scientific community, you have a level of proof that is expected. For all the flaws of science, it is transparent: you can always try to repeat the events. You are allowed to question hypotheses, and you accept theories provisionally. Data is either confirmed or denied.

Get enough confirmations and you have a good data set for a possible correlation...etc... The process of science begins.

My question is how does one get so far along in deep beliefs knowing when they obtained those beliefs it was long before they understood much about the world at all?
I am only outlining the METHOD you asked for. We have not established, at this point, if Bigfoot exists. You can also reverse the findings in my example. Suppose everyone says DIFFERENT things about what they saw and you cannot find any correlation. One says it had green fur, another says white. One says it had four toes, another says two and so on. You could then suspect there is an hallucinatory effect going on but even this would not disprove the existence of Bigfoot because you could suspect that there is some real source behind the sightings but for some reason people are getting it wrong. Perhaps these sightings are an elaborate hoax to dumb down people and confuse them?

Think of these things in terms of a court case. Often things cannot be proved scientifically in a courthouse but a statistical weight of evidence can be built up that has such a preponderance that only one conclusion is reasonable. That is the meaning of the expression "Beyond reasonable doubt"

instantc
Guru
Posts: 2251
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:11 am

Post #85

Post by instantc »

mgb wrote: Think of these things in terms of a court case. Often things cannot be proved scientifically in a courthouse but a statistical weight of evidence can be built up that has such a preponderance that only one conclusion is reasonable. That is the meaning of the expression "Beyond reasonable doubt"
What exactly are you suggesting is being proven beyond reasonable doubt in this analogy?

mgb
Guru
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
Location: Europe
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Post #86

Post by mgb »

instantc wrote:
mgb wrote: Think of these things in terms of a court case. Often things cannot be proved scientifically in a courthouse but a statistical weight of evidence can be built up that has such a preponderance that only one conclusion is reasonable. That is the meaning of the expression "Beyond reasonable doubt"
What exactly are you suggesting is being proven beyond reasonable doubt in this analogy?
Your original question was about how I would go about finding the truth of a claim. This is how it is done in court cases. You build up a statistical picture and see where the evidence is pointing.

User avatar
Boltzmann Brain
Student
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:34 pm

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

Post #87

Post by Boltzmann Brain »

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

The set of integers { ... -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ... } is infinite.

The set of real numbers is also infinite.

But this doesn't mean that pi is an integer.

So even though there are infinitely many numbers in the set of integers, it doesn't mean that every number is an integer.

So even if God can be described by infinitely many statements, it doesn't mean that every statement applies to him.
For stardust thou art, and unto stardust shalt thou return.

User avatar
Ooberman
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4262
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:02 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Post #88

Post by Ooberman »

mgb wrote:
I am only outlining the METHOD you asked for.
I notice, BTW< your method only requires that we ask Bigfoot beleivers. What about people who aren't, or people in the appropriate scientific area?
We have not established, at this point, if Bigfoot exists. You can also reverse the findings in my example. Suppose everyone says DIFFERENT things about what they saw and you cannot find any correlation. One says it had green fur, another says white. One says it had four toes, another says two and so on. You could then suspect there is an hallucinatory effect going on but even this would not disprove the existence of Bigfoot because you could suspect that there is some real source behind the sightings but for some reason people are getting it wrong. Perhaps these sightings are an elaborate hoax to dumb down people and confuse them?

Think of these things in terms of a court case. Often things cannot be proved scientifically in a courthouse but a statistical weight of evidence can be built up that has such a preponderance that only one conclusion is reasonable. That is the meaning of the expression "Beyond reasonable doubt"

As I said, all your examples so far are of taking bigfoot people at their word (which is fine) and says nothing about testing, asking experts, etc.


I think I now see why you are a God Believer - you never ask the people who disagree, only the people who already believe and claim to have evidence.
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees

Post Reply