Does God exist? (12 Viewers)

[Not-That-Bright]

Georg Cantor seemed to do a pretty good job of reeling in the infinite. I have read some replications of his arguments about different levels of infinity. Do you reject his results or do you think he might have succeeded in thinking and coming to conclusions about the infinite?

Yea I was fairly confident that the concept of infinity is a mathematically proven truth? I don't have the knowledge in that area to make such a claim, but do you understand that to be true also?

 

[KFunk]

Theres no 'truth' that cannot be recognised by the mind. Otherwise it doesnt exist.
...
All we can perceive is thus limited, finite.

The second assertion implies that we cannot perceive that which is infinite and it should follow from this that we cannot percieve/recognise truths which concern the infinite. Considered in conjunction with the first assertion the statement seems to suggest that truths about infinite objects do not exist. Are you sure you want to stick with both of those assertions? More importantly, could you try to be more precise with your use of words?

Also, I still wish to put forth my view that we seem to be able to deal with infinite mathematical entities. Does this not suggest that we might be able to percieve the infinite?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The arguments people use to say that God does not exist assume duality and finiteness. Which are flawed. You cannot apply duality or finiteness to 'The Creator of all that exists' - God.

Are you speaking of dualism or duality? If duality, what exactly do you mean by that term? I don't know of too many arguments that assume finiteness, perhaps you could give an example?

You cannot apply duality or finiteness to 'The Creator of all that exists' - God.

Oh I agree, nothing can be applied to 'The creator god of all that exists that can do whatever he wants and we have no way of understanding how he does such things', my argument is merely that the same can be argued for any supernatural concoction I wish to dream up.

For instance, the periodic table. Did it come about by chance? Then all life on this planet is by chance? And all matter came from energy that came from nothing?

By chance? Chance is a factor in it all, but certainly no one claims chance is the only factor. If such a thing was being claimed by scientists there would be no more need for astronomy, astrophysics... etc

Use the 5 senses - which ever one you wish to bring up - to explain the origin of this energy. Or easier how the energy became matter. Or when all the matter that was the same (ie Hydrogen) decided to pool together and form helium. You cant use the senses.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. While these things are for the most part theorised and imagined in the mind, without the use of our senses to collect the data to support such theories, they would merely be hot air. Observations underly everything in science.

Theres no 'truth' that cannot be recognised by the mind. Otherwise it doesnt exist. Its an unknown truth - therefore not truth.

I don't know what your actual point is here, but the sentence seems to be mistaken if taken on its own. Just because something cannot be recognised by the mind doesn't mean it isn't true, it merely means we do not yet know whether it is true.

Clearly, the term "limited" needs further explanation. It is a description of essence. in other words it is an attribute or characteristic of an object. In the following discussion the word 'limited' is used in an all-encompassing and a very general meaning. 'limited' therefore includes dependence (suggesting a 'need'), a meaure of size, a slot in time, etc.

I have no problem with your use of 'limited'.

We can see that man is born and dies, and man cannot grow beyond a certain size in height and weight. All of life is simlarly limited, and the earth, moon and stars likewise have a starting and end point. The life of a star or galaxy may be a very long period of time, but they are definitely limited in that they all have a starting and ending.

Yes.

The universe is a very large place yet it too is not unlimited or infinite.

Our known universe - A very important point. There are many world theories, also others which believe our universe is cyclical... It's not certain whether our universe is limited, merely that those things which we operatively call our 'universe' are.

All we can perceive is thus limited, finite. Now can we all agree?

I'm not sure but my understanding is that we can percieve mathematics, infinity is a proven mathematical concept - therefore we can percieve infinity.

--------

Can you please try to start tying this all together? I see alot of convoluted language that I don't think actually adds to your points, while you continue to delay in revealing how you get to the conclusion that God exists. I don't want to be taken along a wild goose chase where you'll just give us snippets of argument to hide from any attack. You've already failed on a few occasions to re-inforce your argument, am I to believe you conceed that you were wrong? You believe God exists, I imagine with some conviction - Please explain why you think so.

I don't want to seem too aggressive/combative, but I participate in another forum where we get alot of posts of this nature, almost all of which continue ad-infinitum without even ONE point of argument being properly established. You're making headway by keeping to the 'we cannot percieve the infinite', but I really hope you can extend this a little further.

 

[lengy]

You may have to wait a while Chadd, he's obviously retreated for a counter-attack. At least we can be thankful it's not the same old 'lol god exists because he made the world and you can't disprove that lol' faggotry.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I just worry he's just going to be the sort of person that likes to write pages and pages of rhetoric, always hiding their claims and never revealing all their cards. To them this argument is all about who has the biggest intellectual wang, I really don't care about that and I'd just prefer people to be a bit more upfront.

He can of course post whatever he likes (on topic), I'm not expressing my opinions as a Moderator but as a poster who is really interested in engaged debate on this topic.

 

[KFunk]

Yea I was fairly confident that the concept of infinity is a mathematically proven truth? I don't have the knowledge in that area to make such a claim, but do you understand that to be true also?

Just a curious sidenote: where Cantor and Sufyan collide.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

From what I read there, that's only one I guess you could say 'version' of infinity. I guess 'proved' is the wrong language, but more one of the common assumptions of mathematics?

 

[HotShot]

All we can perceive is thus limited, finite. Now can we all agree?

We can perceive a lot of things, that meaningless. You believe that the universe is limited - I dont think this is true. the universe will continue to exist forever and ever - this is my perception.

GOp and Perceive!

 

[sufyan]

Man is only limited by his imagination. Man's physical form only limited by our ability to alter it's genetic attributes, of which is hindered by morality, ethics and religion. Free of these constraints and with greater financial backing it, eventually we will be able to alter humanity.

True. Youll alter the genetic make-up of humans. Youll do that to plants. Youll alter on the atomic and molecular levels. Youll alter the universe. Wow.

That doesnt alter the fact that man will still be limited. The universe will still be limited in nature. Man only grows to a certain height. Can science cause him to continually grow. Can advancement in technology disprove the limited nature of the universe. The trees, animals, etc. What about them? Reckon we could remove the 'limited' label from them too?

Look at how far weve come with technology. Particle accelerators for God's sake!! [Lol..God'd sake]... And yet none of the able thinkers of the past until this day have proved that the universe is unlimited.

Good day to you, sir. :wave:

 

[lengy]

I still don't see your point. So again, fail.

 

[sufyan]

I just worry he's just going to be the sort of person that likes to write pages and pages of rhetoric.

Dont worry, Im not that type.

 

[sufyan]

I still don't see your point. So again, fail.

My point is that all that we preceive is definitely limited. The complications are coming from your side of the argument. Your twisting and turning that one statement I made.

Free of these constraints and with greater financial backing it, eventually we will be able to alter humanity.

I find this more confusing than anything else. We'll be able to alter humanity? Yeah, so what?

 

[sufyan]

I just worry he's just going to be the sort of person that likes to write pages and pages of rhetoric, always hiding their claims and never revealing all their cards... I'd just prefer people to be a bit more upfront.

Dude, the only reason I didnt continue the second part of what I believe does prove the existence of a God is because the first part is so damn controvertial. And after all those replies to the 'limited' argument, im sure you'd agree. Theres no point continuing my argument if who im talking to doesnt understand the fundamental concept.

But if you really want me to.

Here goes.

Previous posts discussed the limited attribute of the three distinct forms of exstence. A second attribute of man, life and the universe is that all of these are needy and dependent. Needy in that to exist, they must have assistance from something external to themselves, they are not self-sustaining. Man needs food and water to survive. Plants and animals similarly are dependant on a water cycle which in turn is dependant upon the sun, which is dependant upon the relationship with the galaxies, and burning mass. Nothing that we can perceive can survive independent of other things . There is nothing in our perception that is self-subsistent. So things exist but do not have the power of existence.

The fact that is inextricably interwoven with these facts of being limited, finite, dependant, and needy is that ultimately there has to be a Creator or initiator for it all. The sum of all finite and dependent things is something that is finite and dependant. Dependant on what? Dependent upon something to start and sustain life, and something to plan and develop the complex interrelationship between all living things.

There can only be one solution to the question of Creation that an 'unlimited' Creator has accounted for all we see and preceive. Anything that is finite must have a dynamic force to create it; otherwise it cannot come into existence . All limited things depend upon something for their sustenance. There can be no doubt over these points. Challenge yourself to bring any example. All limited and dependent things are created.

A second way of looking at this argument shows that if we contemplate about all that we perceive as being limited and dependant we can only explain it in two ways; either:

(1) All we perceive depends for its existence on something else, which in turn depends on still another thing, ad infinitum or
(2) All we perceive derives its existence from something else that exists by its own nature and that is accordingly eternal, unlimited.

The first alternative is false because it does not provide an explanation of how anything came into existence to begin with. It simply puts off giving a reason. it does not provide a reason why finite and limited things exist, or from whence they came, it is therefore illogical, incomplete and without an answer for us. Therefore we deduce that all limited and dependant things depend upon something that exists by its own nature.

Necessarily and as a corollary of the above discussion this Being should be above any prescribed limits (either of time, size, power, knowledge, etc) Therefore He cannot be a creation of anybody else. The possiblity that He is self-created is to be ruled out because it implies a contradiction. He should not depend on anything for His sustenance. For if He does, he becomes limited and therefore he is not the 'infinte' that we are talking about. Hence only infinte and eternal can be the requirements of independence. Now since we already exist, then His existence becomes an inevitable necessity.

Therefore what was just described were the conditions of the creator, who created all that exists in the universe. It is God, the Supreme, the Lord of the universe. :uhhuh:

 

[webby234]

Previous posts discussed the limited attribute of the three distinct forms of exstence. A second attribute of man, life and the universe is that all of these are needy and dependent. Needy in that to exist, they must have assistance from something external to themselves, they are not self-sustaining. Man needs food and water to survive. Plants and animals similarly are dependant on a water cycle which in turn is dependant upon the sun, which is dependant upon the relationship with the galaxies, and burning mass. Nothing that we can perceive can survive independent of other things . There is nothing in our perception that is self-subsistent. So things exist but do not have the power of existence.

I know I always use this example (it's the best one), but explain what quantum fluctuations are dependent on. They exist naturally in the empty vacuum of space and happen without cause. Virtual particles come in and out of existence all the time. Yes, everything in our normal lives seems to have causes, but much of modern physics deals with what is outside our usual perception. You're also making the assumption that the universe began to exist at some point - which appears to be true of our observable universe, but not necessarily of the universe (or multiverse) as a whole.

The fact that is inextricably interwoven with these facts of being limited, finite, dependant, and needy is that ultimately there has to be a Creator or initiator for it all. The sum of all finite and dependent things is something that is finite and dependant. Dependant on what? Dependent upon something to start and sustain life, and something to plan and develop the complex interrelationship between all living things.

Why couldn't that something be natural? If you look at the early universe, it is incredibly disordered and there are likely massive sections of the universe in which life could never arise, where stars could never arise. Inflation tells us that what we can observe is a very small portion of the universe.

There can only be one solution to the question of Creation that an 'unlimited' Creator has accounted for all we see and preceive. Anything that is finite must have a dynamic force to create it; otherwise it cannot come into existence . All limited things depend upon something for their sustenance. There can be no doubt over these points. Challenge yourself to bring any example. All limited and dependent things are created.

Depends what you mean by created. Not everything that's created has a cause.

A second way of looking at this argument shows that if we contemplate about all that we perceive as being limited and dependant we can only explain it in two ways; either:

(1) All we perceive depends for its existence on something else, which in turn depends on still another thing, ad infinitum or
(2) All we perceive derives its existence from something else that exists by its own nature and that is accordingly eternal, unlimited.

The first alternative is false because it does not provide an explanation of how anything came into existence to begin with. It simply puts off giving a reason. it does not provide a reason why finite and limited things exist, or from whence they came, it is therefore illogical, incomplete and without an answer for us. Therefore we deduce that all limited and dependant things depend upon something that exists by its own nature.

Yeah that restates your argument - see my points above.

 

[sufyan]

I know I always use this example (it's the best one), but explain what quantum fluctuations are dependent on. They exist naturally in the empty vacuum of space and happen without cause. Virtual particles come in and out of existence all the time.

Dude, dude. This is sorta outta my league type thing...quantam fluctuations?? I havent done cosmology so i wouldnt know

 

[KFunk]

Sorry about the number of questions below, but most of them need answering in order to clarify your position.

I feel I should first point out that I have issues with your statements about the infinite. You claim that "all that we can perceive is limited" and it seems to follow from this that we can only understand that which is limited (correct me if you disagree with this). If this is the case, that we cannot understand that which is unlimited, then how are you able to make statements about that which you do not understand? E.g. you claim that we cannot understand infinity, and that the infinite exists (be it in the form of a creator or otherwise). In part my challenge rests on how you answer the following question:

Would you class propositions of the following form 'The infinite has property X' as infinite or finite in nature?

A second way of looking at this argument shows that if we contemplate about all that we perceive as being limited and dependant we can only explain it in two ways; either:

(1) All we perceive depends for its existence on something else, which in turn depends on still another thing, ad infinitum or
(2) All we perceive derives its existence from something else that exists by its own nature and that is accordingly eternal, unlimited.

The first alternative is false because it does not provide an explanation of how anything came into existence to begin with. It simply puts off giving a reason. it does not provide a reason why finite and limited things exist, or from whence they came, it is therefore illogical, incomplete and without an answer for us. Therefore we deduce that all limited and dependant things depend upon something that exists by its own nature.

Necessarily and as a corollary of the above discussion this Being should be above any prescribed limits (either of time, size, power, knowledge, etc) Therefore He cannot be a creation of anybody else. The possiblity that He is self-created is to be ruled out because it implies a contradiction. He should not depend on anything for His sustenance. For if He does, he becomes limited and therefore he is not the 'infinte' that we are talking about. Hence only infinte and eternal can be the requirements of independence. Now since we already exist, then His existence becomes an inevitable necessity.

Therefore what was just described were the conditions of the creator, who created all that exists in the universe. It is God, the Supreme, the Lord of the universe. :uhhuh:

(1) What do you mean by 'dependance' and why do you think that all which we perceive can be classed as 'dependant'?

(2) Why must that which is unlimited/infinite be a 'being'? Could it not be some kind of universal force/energy/law? (to speak in vague terms).

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Dude, the only reason I didnt continue the second part of what I believe does prove the existence of a God is because the first part is so damn controvertial.

Which first part? If you'd like you can just tell us that they are axiom's you're going to assume. First we'll see whether if we accept those truths your logic follows, then if it passes that test I'll probably attack your axioms.

And after all those replies to the 'limited' argument, im sure you'd agree.

The reason for all the replies is really because you've yet to put your understanding of 'limited' into context, you've also been rather vague. For instance, you asked me to accept 3 different forms of existance - I put it you that there are two (matter & energy), you don't even bother to respond.

Previous posts discussed the limited attribute of the three distinct forms of exstence.

I don't accept the 'three distinct forms of existence' as being anything more than rhetoric, but I accept you were discussing the limited attributes of existance... something that I probably have some problems with accepting.

A second attribute of man, life and the universe is that all of these are needy and dependent.

Quarks? I can think of a few examples of things in the universe that we can't yet explain as being 'needy and dependent', unless you're saying they're dependent on existance its self... something that seems to be taking those words a little far in my books.

Needy in that to exist, they must have assistance from something external to themselves, they are not self-sustaining.

Matter/energy are a constant, I can't explain where they came from but they appear to be self sustaining. From what I understand this is true even under models of the universes death (as far as we can ascertain),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death

The fact that is inextricably interwoven with these facts of being limited, finite, dependant, and needy is that ultimately there has to be a Creator or initiator for it all.

Oh sure, our known universe definately had to come into existance somehow. I'm not sure exactly how, but if our science is at all predictive it was probably a very simple mechanism. If you want to call this 'initiator' god then you can go ahead and do so, I guess i'm religious too, but to me that seems to be a stretching of words... I'm not intelligent enough to comment much on this topic though. If you want to go beyond claiming merely the universe was 'initiated somehow' to claim a personal god, well then you're going to have to justify that much more rigorously.

Dependent upon something to start and sustain life, and something to plan and develop the complex interrelationship between all living things.

1) And what is the 'thing to start life' dependent on?
2) There's no need for a 'plan' at all as far as I can see, justify that.

There can only be one solution to the question of Creation that an 'unlimited' Creator has accounted for all we see and preceive.

That's not an answer as much as it poses further unanswerable, unfalsifiable questions. I also disagree with the whole unlimited thing, I mean to me it seems possible that our universe is cyclical, or born of a universe with different laws to our own... We don't know.

All limited things depend upon something for their sustenance. There can be no doubt over these points. Challenge yourself to bring any example. All limited and dependent things are created.

Sorry but we don't have any way of knowing that...

A second way of looking at this argument shows that if we contemplate about all that we perceive as being limited and dependant we can only explain it in two ways; either:

No, I've offered other explanations. I.e. while our known universe appears to not be one of 'steady state', it appears possible to me that it could be cyclical.

 

[sufyan]

Which first part? If you'd like you can just tell us that they are axiom's you're going to assume. First we'll see whether if we accept those truths your logic follows, then if it passes that test I'll probably attack your axioms.

Omg. The first thing I said when I joined this thread was that I'd be talking it in terms of (what I believe to be) the two qualitites or similarities between all things that exist. Okay, fine. I shouldnt have used '3 distinct forms'...but come on people...is that seriusly something to rave on about. How hard was it to understand that i was using those words to refer to all that exists...

The reason for all the replies is really because you've yet to put your understanding of 'limited' into context, you've also been rather vague.

Are you serious? You said yourself that you had no problem with my use of the term 'limited'. I seriously think your not focusing on the core of the topic (the actual observation that indeed what we perceive is limited and dependant in nature) and your just focusing on little things here and there, telling me that you have no problem with the use of the word then telling me that i havent explained it, its too vague...??

I don't accept the 'three distinct forms of existence' as being anything more than rhetoric.

And im sorry for my use of those words. Lets replace them with "all of xistence". Happy?

Quarks? I can think of a few examples of things in the universe that we can't yet explain as being 'needy and dependent', unless you're saying they're dependent on existance its self... something that seems to be taking those words a little far in my books.

Why is that too far? What if quarks use the environmental conditions that are caused by the presence and interactions of other forms of existence. Are they not still dependant. Can any person just come out and say that substance A or body B is most definitely not dependant on anything else, it is self-sustaining, self-subsistent?? I dont reckon so.

From what I understand this is true even under models of the universes death (as far as we can ascertain)

Models of universes death? Can we just stick to what we know for sure?

Oh sure, our known universe definately had to come into existance somehow. I'm not sure exactly how, but if our science is at all predictive it was probably a very simple mechanism.

Dont you ever think it could be a very simple mechanism placed by a 'Being', considering everything else is dependant on something else...why not the mechanism?

I mean to me it seems possible that our universe is cyclical, or born of a universe with different laws to our own... We don't know

.

Again, why cant those laws be placed by a God?

_______________

And KFunk your gonna have to wait a while...ive answered enough silly questions for one day.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Omg. The first thing I said when I joined this thread was that I'd be talking it in terms of (what I believe to be) the two qualitites or similarities between all things that exist. Okay, fine. I shouldnt have used '3 distinct forms'...but come on people...is that seriusly something to rave on about. How hard was it to understand that i was using those words to refer to all that exists...

I don't know if it was going to be of importance, if it wasn't though why include it? I fear alot of what you have written so far has merely been rhetoric designed to bamboozle people to make your argument seem better thought out.

Are you serious? You said yourself that you had no problem with my use of the term 'limited'. I seriously think your not focusing on the core of the topic (the actual observation that indeed what we perceive is limited and dependant in nature) and your just focusing on little things here and there, telling me that you have no problem with the use of the word then telling me that i havent explained it, its too vague...??

I seriously think your entire argument could have been summed up in a sentence. "All existance is comprised of things which are dependent -- therefore god exists".

Why is that too far?

Well because if you're saying things which exist are dependent on existance you're basically just pointing out a property of all things which exist... so of course they're dependent in such a broad use of the term - Including any magical god you could invent.

What if quarks use the environmental conditions that are caused by the presence and interactions of other forms of existence. Are they not still dependant.

This to me is a restatement of the above principle I just argued against... so basically because they exist in an environment they are dependent. The fact is that their 'environment' is something which will continue forever as far as we can see.

Can any person just come out and say that substance A or body B is most definitely not dependant on anything else, it is self-sustaining, self-subsistent?? I dont reckon so.

By your definition I don't think you can claim a God could either, else you feel God is simply beyond requiring existance to exist... in which case why are you even here arguing?

Models of universes death? Can we just stick to what we know for sure?

As much as we know anything else, one of these models is true -- under all of the models quarks/quantum particles continue their existance.

Dont you ever think it could be a very simple mechanism placed by a 'Being', considering everything else is dependant on something else...why not the mechanism?

It could be, I just think it's the worst solution offered up so far. Why not God? Also, your definition of things being dependant is basically that they are things... It boggles my mind.

Again, why cant those laws be placed by a God?

It's possible, about as possible as magical pixies being the things that make us fall in love, but possible.

And KFunk your gonna have to wait a while...ive answered enough silly questions for one day.

Silly questions?

 

[lengy]

I thought God was limitless? You saying your magical fairy can't do everything? That it is in fact limited as well? If it is that limited, how did it create the universe? What created your magical paedophilic fairy with the hairy beard?